• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

What's the best ski? (for me...)

teejaywhy

Retired Eccentric
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Posts
1,288
Location
AZ
“What’s the best ski?” Hoping this hasn't turned into a TLDR missive, but trying to provide the info suggested by the posts on ski fitting from Phil and Tricia.

INTRO: Returning to skiing after a short ~28 year hiatus. :D Five days last season and three so far this year, all on rentals. Sufficiently re-sparked the urge and now I’m ready to purchase new gear.

I had some struggles with the rental boots, so the first order of business was new boots. I was fit into the Salomon X-PRO X90. Check. Now with a well-fitting and consistent base, I’m ready to try some demo skis. Looking for some suggestions as to what to target.

GOAL: A single pair of skis for mostly on piste, but versatile enough for the powder days and other conditions. Will ski maybe 8-12 days per season.

PHYSICAL: 64 years old; 6’0”; 180 lbs. Slightly built, moderately athletic. Over the last two years have rededicated myself to achieving better fitness levels with workouts, yoga, bicycling, hiking, walking golf, etc. I was encouraged by my recent ski days, other than the boot issues, good stamina and no altitude problems.

SKILL LEVEL: My previous ski experience was so long ago I’m not sure it’s worth mentioning. At best, I would have considered myself an advanced intermediate. Now, after 8 days of skiing, I can say I’ve pretty much returned to form although a bit more cautious perhaps as I regain confidence, and… with age comes wisdom as they say.

Going by the typical level 1-9 ability chart, I would put myself solidly a 6, with one foot into 7.

As an added bit of info, I took my first ever lesson this season. I just wanted an instructor to evaluate and improve my basic technique. My style was a very upright, feet-together parallel style learned a long time ago on much different equipment. My lesson encouraged me to adopt a bit more of an “athletic” stance, quiet my upper body and use the lower body to edge the skis into the turn. I guess I never developed this skill but within an hour, I was comfortably making wide and short radius carved turns and by the afternoon, I was really able to feel and smoothly transition between turns. I was encouraged to realize how economical in terms of energy use this technique uses. Easy to see that improving this skill will lead to greater stamina and less fatigue.

WHERE & WHAT DO I SKI: Live in Arizona and ski the mountain west. The local slopes in AZ and four-corners (Purgatory/Telluride) for long weekends. Exploring destination resorts for longer trips (Utah, Colorado, etc.)

Most comfortable on the corduroy, and confident on any groomed run including black level. I skied Regulator at Snowbird last year on the 5th day of my return. I can ski powder covered and cut-up groomers. I don’t much like bumps, never learned the technique. Small bumps like what appear end of the day on blue runs, no problem, but black mogul runs are avoided.

I hope to improve, but at this age, I don’t see myself ever dropping into chutes or diving into the trees. Just want to have a ski I can enjoy mostly groomers but versatile to be effective in changing conditions and the occasional off-piste foray.

Research leads me to consider the “all mountain” ski, ~175cm length, perhaps 90-95 mm waist. (?)

Oh yeah, the two skis I’ve tried so far, 2017 Atomic Vantage 90 @169cm (last year Park City/Brighton/Solitude/Snowbird) and this year 2016 Nordica eNRGY 80 @ 169cm (Purgatory). No problems with either.

Thanks in advance!
Tom
 

Mendieta

Master of Snowplow
SkiTalk Tester
Contributor
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Posts
4,940
Location
SF Bay Area, CA, USA
Since you love groomed terrain, you might want to look into "cheaters". Skis that kind of work like racing skis but with more versatility. They will hold their own if you bump into a bump run (pun intended), they will be ok in crud, but they will be a hoot on groomers. A lot more, perhaps, than a typical "all mountain" ski. Those typically "ski shorter", so you need a shorter size than in a carving ski with a side cut extend to almost the full length.

All mountain skis sacrifize groomer ability in order to provide off-piste abilities, but you are not looking for the latter. My 2cts.

Examples in this "cheater" category would be the Head SuperShape series (I own and love the Rally in 170cm) and The Salomon SMax (I tried the SMax Blast in .... 185? and it was beautiful - but longer radius turns). Volker, Rossi, Atomic, they all have skis in this category. As an added bonus, some of these have a very pronounced shape and they will adapt you to this "new" type of ski probably faster :) Btw, we are similar sizes.

Just a thought . Hope this helps!
 
Last edited:

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,628
Location
Reno
Welcome TJY, glad you found your way back to skiing.
It looks like you're doing a lot of things right.
  • Rented skis to get back into it
  • Bought boots from a fitter
  • Took a lesson to acclimate to new equipment and new way of skiing
  • Demo'd a few pair of skis to get a good feel of what you're looking for
  • Signed on to Pugski to get solid advice from fellow enthusiasts
From the description of what you're skiing and the skis you demoed I'm not sure you need to go as wide as something in the mid 90's range, although it won't hurt you, you could easily broaden your horizons on skis that will work for you based on this description.

Most comfortable on the corduroy, and confident on any groomed run including black level. I skied Regulator at Snowbird last year on the 5th day of my return. I can ski powder covered and cut-up groomers. I don’t much like bumps, never learned the technique. Small bumps like what appear end of the day on blue runs, no problem, but black mogul runs are avoided.

I hope to improve, but at this age, I don’t see myself ever dropping into chutes or diving into the trees. Just want to have a ski I can enjoy mostly groomers but versatile to be effective in changing conditions and the occasional off-piste foray.

Between the Atomic Vantage and the NRGY that you tried, which one did you like the most?
Knowing that the NRGY is no longer in the line up, the Nordica Navigator 85 or 90 is the replacement which is a very nice ski.

If you liked the Atomic Vantage, you could probably find a deal on a pair.

Other skis that you may like in that category:
DPS Cassiar 87 or 94 Foundation
Fischer ProMTN 85 or 95
Head Monster 88
K2 iconic 84 ti
Rossignol Experience 94Ti

Have I confused you yet?
I linked the Pugski reviews in all of those so you can take a look at what our reviewers have to say.
I suggest you post a question to any reviewer or call them out with an @ mention like this @Philpug if there is a tester you relate to.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,937
Location
Reno, eNVy
I think @Tricia gave you some very good options and for what you are lookign for them and another dozen will suffice for whet you want to do. Don't get hung up on the ski being a "175cm".. skis like the DPS Cassiars that Tricia mentioned run short, they you will want in a 184cm...because of their enlongated tip and early rise. But in actuality, there are more right skis for you than there are wrong skis. Example of wrong skis for you (in this upper 80mm-low 90mm range), Blizzard Brahma, Kastle MX89 and the Volkl Kendo. These skis are much stiffer and will want more skier input than you are aluding to wanting to give.
 
Thread Starter
TS
teejaywhy

teejaywhy

Retired Eccentric
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Posts
1,288
Location
AZ
Thanks everyone for the suggestions. Some follow-up:

As to the question about what I liked or disliked about the skis I tried - truthfully, with so few days and so many variables, it is hard for me to separate how the skis were performing vs. the variety of terrain and snow conditions encountered, vs. the fact that I was basically re-learning to ski and was having problems with boot fit. Both skis seemed to perform and I didn't notice any huge difference or obvious negatives. Fact is I have not tried many different skis in my lifetime and only these two in recent history and those being a year separated.

Now that I have my own boots and a lesson under my belt, I hopefully will be more able to focus on the ski itself.

I'm not able to take away meaningful data from reviews. The engineer in me has me doing months of research into "specifications." Most of the online retailers have "ski finder" features where you enter your data and some ski models are suggested. I don't rely on a single source but try to find some consistency in results from several sources. Most of the sites have the skis categorized by width, flex, skill level, rocker profile and best use (frontside/all mountain/freestyle etc...). I gradually have collected a handful of possibilities that seem to fit the "advanced intermediate to advanced" profile.

Of course, specs are specs, and how they translate to real world use is unknown at this point.

The problem now, in a small market like Phoenix, the selection of demos is limited. I'm headed to Sunrise next weekend and I was thinking maybe I could try a ski Saturday and then something different on Sunday. I called around the shops in Pinetop but was unable to find anything remotely interesting. A shop in town has a handful that seem meet my target but unless I want to rent and take two skis, I will be able to test only one of them.
Rossi Exp 88HD 172cm
Salomon QST 92 177cm
Line Sick Day 88 & 94 179cm

I'm really curious to try the fatter skis, leading me to want to try the 94mm Sick Day, Not sure if the length will be a problem?

Ultimately, this search will probably extend to next season where I can do a week long trip to a destination that will have better choices. Or maybe I'm totally overthinking this, LOL. I'm not an equipment guy that likes to buy something new every year. Hoping to find something that could take me into my golden years haha.

Thanks again!
Tom
 
Thread Starter
TS
teejaywhy

teejaywhy

Retired Eccentric
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Posts
1,288
Location
AZ
BTW, here is a list of skis I'm considering based on my nerdist research. Feedback welcome.

Not in any particular order
Blizzard Bushwacker, Rustler 9
K2 Pinnacle 88
Nordica Navigator 85, 90
Atomic Vantage 90 CTI, 95C, 97C
Dynastar Legend X 96
Elan Ripstick 86, 96
Head Kore 93
Salomon QST
Armada Invictus 95
Rossignol Experience 94

And perhaps there is something to be said for "buy American?"
Icelantic Pioneer 96

THANKS!!!
 

PinnacleJim

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Aug 21, 2017
Posts
1,130
Location
Killington/Pico, VT
Welcome back to skiing!

Since you will be skiing in the southern and central Rockies, you really don't need to prioritize hard snow grip like us eastern skiers do. For a single ski that will work for you in a variety of snow conditions, I would look for an all mountain ski with a width from the mid-80s to maybe the low 90s. Length of about 175 sounds about right given your skill level. I would look for a versatile, not too demanding ski. Being a big fan of Head and Fischer skis, I would put the Head V10 and the Fischer Rangers on the list, skipping the Head Supershapes and Monsters or Fischer ProMtns. I will leave others to recommend similar skis from other brands.
 
Thread Starter
TS
teejaywhy

teejaywhy

Retired Eccentric
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Posts
1,288
Location
AZ
I have reserved the Salomon QST 92 177cm for this weekend's visit to Sunrise!
 
Thread Starter
TS
teejaywhy

teejaywhy

Retired Eccentric
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Posts
1,288
Location
AZ
Tried the Salomon QST 92 177cm this weekend.

They did not agree with me at all. Trying to find words to best describe my experience, but they felt squirrelly. I never had any confidence or comfort, it seemed I was always needing a lot of attention and energy to stay in control. I could not get them to react in any way similar to the previously tried skis and the recently learned carving exercise was quite difficult to perform. It seemed they would just slide and I could never get the edge set to where the ski naturally turns.

Conditions were firm, packed snow. A little crusty in the am but softening nicely by afternoon. Even then, I was never comfortable with these skis

Trying to understand what about this ski was different:
- Maybe I went too long too soon (177cm vs 169 previous)?
- Maybe too wide?
- Too soft? Too stiff? No TI in this ski, do I need TI?
- Too much ski for me? Not enough ski for me?


Just pondering and trying to help my engineering mind reconcile the experience with the goal to find something right for me. Appreciate your previous comments and hoping you could have some feedback @Tricia @Philpug
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,937
Location
Reno, eNVy
Tried the Salomon QST 92 177cm this weekend.

They did not agree with me at all. Trying to find words to best describe my experience, but they felt squirrelly. I never had any confidence or comfort, it seemed I was always needing a lot of attention and energy to stay in control. I could not get them to react in any way similar to the previously tried skis and the recently learned carving exercise was quite difficult to perform. It seemed they would just slide and I could never get the edge set to where the ski naturally turns.

Conditions were firm, packed snow. A little crusty in the am but softening nicely by afternoon. Even then, I was never comfortable with these skis

Trying to understand what about this ski was different:
- Maybe I went too long too soon (177cm vs 169 previous)?
- Maybe too wide?
- Too soft? Too stiff? No TI in this ski, do I need TI?
- Too much ski for me? Not enough ski for me?


Just pondering and trying to help my engineering mind reconcile the experience with the goal to find something right for me. Appreciate your previous comments and hoping you could have some feedback @Tricia @Philpug
Did you try the current QST..or was it at a demo and you got on next years? There is a big difference with next years because what you are discrbing sounds like this year's ski. As with @Tricia originally suggested, staying the 80mm range should be ideal
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,628
Location
Reno
The QST line from last year and before was a little too damp for my liking. The new one is still damp but with a nice balance of energy.
 
Thread Starter
TS
teejaywhy

teejaywhy

Retired Eccentric
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Posts
1,288
Location
AZ
Looking at pics, it appears to be the 2018 model. Gray color with yellowish-green logo/accents.

I see now the 2019 has orange accents, and the 2020 completely different. Great. I just demoed a ski no longer available. :doh: Like I said, not a great selection of demo skis here in Phoenix.

Thinking I will just need to go up to a major resort area next season to have a better sample and a multi-day span for testing! :yahoo:

THANKS AGAIN!
 

trailtrimmer

Stuck in the Flatlands
Skier
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Posts
1,138
Location
Michigan
If you prefer groomers and are looking to build skill, take a look the following:

Volkl RTM81
Head Titan
Head V8/V10
Atomic Vantage 83 CTI

Its far easier to build skills on a 70mm to 80mm wide ski and the 76 to 85mm skis do western groomers and side stashes better than the industry wants you to think.
 

thebonafortuna

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Posts
25
Location
New York
Tried the Salomon QST 92 177cm this weekend.

They did not agree with me at all. Trying to find words to best describe my experience, but they felt squirrelly. I never had any confidence or comfort, it seemed I was always needing a lot of attention and energy to stay in control. I could not get them to react in any way similar to the previously tried skis and the recently learned carving exercise was quite difficult to perform. It seemed they would just slide and I could never get the edge set to where the ski naturally turns.

Conditions were firm, packed snow. A little crusty in the am but softening nicely by afternoon. Even then, I was never comfortable with these skis

Trying to understand what about this ski was different:
- Maybe I went too long too soon (177cm vs 169 previous)?
- Maybe too wide?
- Too soft? Too stiff? No TI in this ski, do I need TI?
- Too much ski for me? Not enough ski for me?


Just pondering and trying to help my engineering mind reconcile the experience with the goal to find something right for me. Appreciate your previous comments and hoping you could have some feedback @Tricia @Philpug
I had a similar experience about ten years back. I didn't know anything about skis at the time, except my skis back home worked fine for me. The "really nice" skis I rented at Whistler/Blackcomb were disastrous: I'll never forget just falling over randomly as I skied across flat terrain. After a couple days, I decided it was the skis, not me, and turned them in for "whatever the opposite of these is" (as I described to the confused people in the shop). After that, things went much better.

All these years later, I really wish I knew what skis were such a bad fit for me. If asked, I'd describe them as "squirrelly" and I think the problem was they were way too energetic for my tastes.

If this is still an active search, you might consider looking for skis with more dampness. Others on these boards know way more than I do, but I'm chiming in since I've had a similar experience. I've read the Nordica Enforcer line straddles a really nice line between dampness and energy. The Enforcer has a bunch of options in various underfoot sizes. If you find you like the style of the ski, you could try dialing in more dampness (or less).

Good luck!
 

Seldomski

All words are made up
Skier
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Posts
3,064
Location
'mericuh
Atomic Vantage 83 CTI

I think this would be a good ski for the OP. I skied this recently on hardpack, softer groomers, and spring slush and they felt a little on the soft side to me. But I have 30 lbs on the @teejaywhy - so these are probably just right for him. Very easy to edge and carve and able to do a variety of turn shapes. I just like skis to 'talk' to me more (which these did not).

I'm really curious to try the fatter skis, leading me to want to try the 94mm Sick Day, Not sure if the length will be a problem?

There is generally a lot of hype about fat skis in US. They are worth trying and have a different feel on groomers that some prefer. If you ski with a narrow stance, they are a bit of an adjustment. If you plan to stay on groomers primarily, something in the 70-85 range is better. Personally, I don't like skis over 90 wide unless snow conditions are phenomenal (i.e. 8" or more powder and still soft). On those days, wider skis are a dream. But buy your first ski so that it is good for the conditions you usually ski, not what you dream to ski.
 

oldschoolskier

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Posts
4,288
Location
Ontario Canada
I agree wide skis while great in softer conditions add issues that are seldom discussed or mentioned.

Beyond a certain width the wider skis increase loads on joints when skiing in harder snow conditions, while this may not seem important it is. Narrow skis offer a quickness edge to edge that a wide ski can not match.

For what ever reason shops tend to push wider skis far wider than required for most groomed conditions.

My preference is narrower, stay in that 70 to 80 range, just enough width for float, just enough narrowness for edge. Going wider is only considered if you are skiing at least 50% soft stuff.

My skis are race GS and SL so they are on the extreme end of narrow, than again I skied 205’s in deep powder back in the day (and my modern race skis are wider overall).
 

AngryAnalyst

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
May 31, 2018
Posts
716
I agree wide skis while great in softer conditions add issues that are seldom discussed or mentioned.

Beyond a certain width the wider skis increase loads on joints when skiing in harder snow conditions, while this may not seem important it is. Narrow skis offer a quickness edge to edge that a wide ski can not match.

For what ever reason shops tend to push wider skis far wider than required for most groomed conditions.

My preference is narrower, stay in that 70 to 80 range, just enough width for float, just enough narrowness for edge. Going wider is only considered if you are skiing at least 50% soft stuff.

My skis are race GS and SL so they are on the extreme end of narrow, than again I skied 205’s in deep powder back in the day (and my modern race skis are wider overall).

Alternatively, you could think that skiing groomers is boring and an activity done only for navigation around the mountain or social reasons. If that describes your intended use, you may very well prefer a wider ski for all mountain applications.

Incidentally, I feel like too many intermediates end up on skis that are too stiff (because they expect to grow into them) than too soft and too heavily rockered.
 

oldschoolskier

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 6, 2015
Posts
4,288
Location
Ontario Canada
Alternatively, you could think that skiing groomers is boring and an activity done only for navigation around the mountain or social reasons. If that describes your intended use, you may very well prefer a wider ski for all mountain applications.

Incidentally, I feel like too many intermediates end up on skis that are too stiff (because they expect to grow into them) than too soft and too heavily rockered.
I agree that a lot of skiers are on mismatched skis for their ability and intent. If we are going down that route, then seriously consider the whole ski, boot binding package matched to skier size, wt ability and intent.

Too soft skis, no difference from too stiff skis, hinder development and cause bad habits. Same goes for boots (aside from fit) suffer from the same issues. The issue is compounded when boots and skis are at opposite extremes.

Ability plays into this beginner at one end (general softer and more forgiving setup) to advanced (stiffer and more responsive setup). We’ll leave the rocker chamber out to keep it simple.

Intent swings this a little to match responsiveness/forgiveness required.

Question comes down to width and loading it causes on joints (also ease at which turns are initiated) vs float and ease of smeared turns.

That little extra width modern cruisers meets most conditions. The wider skis are more for experienced skiers as they are geared for a specific purpose like race skis are at the opposite end. Yet both can be skied in all conditions extremely well by experienced skiers.

So what is the best ski for someone as an intermediate, a moderate ski with matching boot setup which encourages development while allowing for growth. Swing to hard in any direction you hinder long term ability. Specialize a little later once you decide what you want to achieve.

In the areas I ski, most are on too wide skis and suffer hinder progress by this in the conditions skied. Backcountry is non existent in said areas.

So........
 

AngryAnalyst

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
May 31, 2018
Posts
716
That’s mostly fair. My intuition was Telluride/purgatory/Whatever local AZ mountains means would be softer snow. To me, that argues for a the wider end of modern all mountain skis (~85-95) instead of the narrower.

I can also tell you a friend who is a solid, though lower level advanced skier is worlds better on a pair of 100 underfoot skis with rocker than he is on 88 underfoot full camber skis even on hard snow.

I get what you’re saying about joints too. Even at 30 my knees do get worked by really wide skis (115+) on very hard snow, but if I were older I might get the same problem at 108 underfoot even if I can comfortably use that as an all mountain ski now. Could definitely see wanting a narrower ski, especially if I lost muscle mass as I aged.
 

Sponsor

Top