Most Overlooked Skis of the 2015/2016 Season

[blikkem]

I read that the center mounting point on the 16/17 Monsters were moved up .5 compared to the 15/16 version. Anyone know this is true? If so, would that mean mounting a 15/16 version +.5 would be wise?

 

[markojp]

Yes, this is true. I have a 15-16 (184) mounted +2. You can safely go +1.

 

[blikkem]

Yes, this is true. I have a 15-16 (184) mounted +2. You can safely go +1.

Hey Markojp,
Does the +1 or +2 scale down on shorter ski's? Like a 170 would have the same affect at +.5? Not sure if these things work like that.

 

[markojp]

That's why I mentioned the ski length. BSL can also play a part.

 

[Marty McSly]

Convince me

I am a beginner, 6 days total, but expect to ski 18-20 next year (already have 10 days booked for December) and I am figuring that with those numbers it is better to buy skis then rent. I am 6'3" and 190 lbs. Currently ONLY a Green run skier but hope to comfortably venture onto the Blue runs by the end of this coming season.

My thinking is skiing is expensive enough, so why not save money on buying skis.

I am looking at the Atomic Nomad Smoke Ti @171 with XTO 12 bindings. I think these should suit me for a couple of years and at under $300 it is a good deal. The bindings as not installed, so IF I bought these skis, are these bindings ok, or should I opt for a better binding option? When transitioning from one ski to another (selling/buying) do you keep the bindings?

Thoughts on this idea? Should I pull the trigger?

Pretty much what the others are saying. Rental skis will get you onto blue groomers. Not sure if this applies in North America, but in Australia you tend to get a better class of rental ski if you have your own boots. I did however notice when I was at Sun Peaks in Canada, that rental skis included K2 iKonics and Head Monster 88's. Not familiar with the former, but I do know the latter are easily more than $300 with bindings on close out.

 

[Started at 53]

Marty, That is the thing, some of these skis are at really good prices. We will be in Utah for 9 days (December), and the rental will be just south of $500 for just that time. It seems a wiser choice to buy the beginner/intermediate skis for under $300 and ski them for a year or until I out grow them. The Rental in Italy, we think we are going back there again next March too for a week (5 days skiing)again, is not as expensive as in Utah. But still it seems like a wise choice to get skis, but......

I am new and the veterans seem to say just rent

 

[Stephen Witkop]

Jay I'll take the other side on this. For the amount of skiing you're already committed to I say buy. You've done the math and having your own equipment and not having to do the rental thing is worth it on its own.

18 - 20 days isn't chopped liver so as has already been said get boots done first by someone good, find a decent cheap setup for skis and take a couple of lessons you'll be well on your way!

 

[Started at 53]

Jay I'll take the other side on this. For the amount of skiing you're already committed to I say buy. You've done the math and having your own equipment and not having to do the rental thing is worth it on its own.

18 - 20 days isn't chopped liver so as has already been said get boots done first by someone good, find a decent cheap setup for skis and take a couple of lessons you'll be well on your way!

Cool, that is what I wanted to hear

I am getting the boots from Brent at Park City Ski Boot, he is highly recommended so the boots will not hold me back. When the skis start to hold me back I will sell/abandon them for something more appropriate

 

[blikkem]

Cool, that is what I wanted to hear

I am getting the boots from Brent at Park City Ski Boot, he is highly recommended so the boots will not hold me back. When the skis start to hold me back I will sell/abandon them for something more appropriate

I think the familiarity and consistency you get from using your own skis over time will allow you to concentrate on your technique. You should learn much faster. Saving money is great too.

 

[trailtrimmer]

The most overlooked seem to be the 78 to 84mm front side and skinny all mountain skis that the majority of skiers would be fine on. Aside from the sierras and the silly amounts of snow, most resorts and ski days don't require 100mm underfoot to float and have fun.

 

[Philpug]

The most overlooked seem to be the 78 to 84mm front side and skinny all mountain skis that the majority of skiers would be fine on. Aside from the sierras and the silly amounts of snow, most resorts and ski days don't require 100mm underfoot to float and have fun.

Quoted for truth. This is a chicken/egg scenario. Is it because shops don't stock them because people don't buy them or is it because people don't buy them because shops don't stock them? Seeing what people drive (SUV's) it is more the former than the latter, it is a shame. PEople buy skis according to the conditions they want to ski, not the conditions they actually ski.

 

[blikkem]

Quoted for truth. This is a chicken/egg scenario. Is it because shops don't stock them because people don't buy them or is it because people don't buy them because shops don't stock them? Seeing what people drive (SUV's) it is more the former than the latter, it is a shame. PEople buy skis according to the conditions they want to ski, not the conditions they actually ski.

From reading reviews, many people are reporting how wider skis are "good enough" on hard pack. The search for a OQS has gone into the 100mm realm, probably because technology/marketing has made that size seemingly passable in conditions where "skinny" skis were believed to only be good for. So why need a narrower ski, ever? I also think there's a stigma over skis that have the word race (not the skin color kind of race) anywhere in it's description, people see them as 1 dimensional. The snowball affect of companies selling more wider skis and then hyping up next years is pushing people in that direction. Besides, on average there tends to be cooler graphics on widers ski's because you know how important that is.

 

[Philpug]

From reading reviews, many people are reporting how wider skis are "good enough" on hard pack. The search for a OQS has gone into the 100mm realm, probably because technology/marketing has made that size seemingly passable in conditions where "skinny" skis were believed to only be good for. So why need a narrower ski, ever? I also think there's a stigma over skis that have the word race (not the skin color kind of race) anywhere in it's description, people see them as 1 dimensional. The snowball affect of companies selling more wider skis and then hyping up next years is pushing people in that direction. Besides, on average there tends to be cooler graphics on widers ski's because you know how important that is.

How oftern do you hear, "This (Whatever One-Oh-Something) skis like a wide race ski" ? Rarely do you hear "This 78mm wide skis like a narrow powder ski" when actully it does. It was only a generation ago that 78 WAS a powder ski. Remember the first Volkl SnowRanger? Thats how wide that ski was.

 

[Marty McSly]

The week before this year's Gathering, I took some lessons at Sun Peaks. My instructor was on a pair of Fischer Curv DTX all week, including the day we had powder a foot and a half deep. Those skis are 72mm underfoot and she ripped in the pow.

 

[markojp]

The most overlooked seem to be the 78 to 84mm front side and skinny all mountain skis that the majority of skiers would be fine on. Aside from the sierras and the silly amounts of snow, most resorts and ski days don't require 100mm underfoot to float and have fun.

And we should recall that aside from this year, Tahoe's had a bunch of seasons that certainly didn't need a wide ski beyond a day or two here or there. FWIW, I'd say there's also a general trend down in daily driver width in the ski instruction crowd. There are a bunch of really great skis in the width range you mention that would serve the majority of skiers very very well.

 

[Lauren]

The most overlooked seem to be the 78 to 84mm front side and skinny all mountain skis that the majority of skiers would be fine on. Aside from the sierras and the silly amounts of snow, most resorts and ski days don't require 100mm underfoot to float and have fun.

Speaking on very general terms (and of course there will be many exceptions to this), I think the skis in this range (especially in the all-mountain category) are often constructed with the intermediate skier in mind. They're generally price-point friendly for the skier that skis 1-10 days a year and therefore constructed in a way that a 40+ days-a-year-skier will wear them out or poke some core shots in them much quicker. Being familiar with a shop that's not located in a ski town, they stock A LOT of these types of skis...and sell them.

For instance, compare the construction of a Volkl RTM 86 vs. the 78...the 86 has a better core, better base material and Volkl's UVO technology. Or with Atomic, the Vantage 85 vs. the 95...not as big of a difference as the RTM series, but the 95 features a carbon mesh that the 85 lacks.

So maybe this category is overlooked by reviewers, websites, magazines and the people that generally hype a ski up...I can see why this area is normally passed by.

 

[markojp]

There's a ski for everyone in this category... a number of them.

RTM 84, Code, E-84, Pursuit, Quartro, Monster 83, Rally, Titan, >89 MX's, Laser series, and we haven't even touched non-FIS 'race' skis yet.

 

[SkiSpeed]

As mentioned in my comments from my own demo, I think many of the reviews out there are doing these skis a disservice. Here are just a few excerpts I found from 3-4 different online reviews of the Monster (primarily 88 model)

• Ripe for a strong skier; Not for the faint of heart
• Experts only
• Has to be forced into short swing turns
• Felt heavy
• Heavier, commanding guys will likely prefer the freight-train experience more
• Like a five-ton truck, it’s solid and able to bash and blast through the craziest gibbery terrain
• The ski feels heavy in trees and bumps, but powerful through the crud

Your review for the 88 is pretty much what I would write for the 98 as well.

 

[DanoT]

What I have noticed at the demo centre at Sun Peaks is that Europeans want narrow carving skis vs N. Americans and Aussies who go for fatter skis.

 

[Uncle-A]

What I have noticed at the demo centre at Sun Peaks is that Europeans want narrow carving skis vs N. Americans and Aussies who go for fatter skis.

Because skiing in Europe is more like skiing in the Northeast not like skiing out West.