Hi! Have been reading a lot of reviews/comments here and wanted to join to ask about a more specific comparison. I'm interested in Blizzard Dakotas and seeing both 2013 and 2014 models for pretty cheap online. I know they changed some things between years, so I'm wondering if anyone who has skied both has some thoughts on specific differences.
I grew up skiing the east coast on volkl sc racing skis, I'm now skiing mostly squaw and making some trips to other big western mountains. When I was first demoing skis out here the transition from 64 to 100mm+ skis felt crazy, and I wasn't sure how much big mountain vs east coast skiing I'd ultimately be doing. I went with a deal on the 161cm atomic vantage 90 cti w, which doesn't feel like enough ski now - I should have gone longer, and whether from the length or the lightness or both it makes me nervous at high speeds. I'm looking for a wider, stiff, super stable at high speed, can bust through a variety of conditions ski. I don't mind heavier skis, I actually think I really prefer them, and ski pretty aggressively with the goal of getting even more aggressive on the more varied terrain available out here. 26yo, 5'5", 135. Stiffer, stabler ski searches led me to the Dakotas, which there are luckily some cheap deals for online for both the 2013 and 2014 models. I'd love to hear more about the differences between those two - in general it seems like the 2014 changes were liked (saw trekchick's reviews of both too, where it seems like 2014 was preferred), though with my main concern being stiffness and stability and not liking lighter skis, was wondering if the removal of metal sacrificed anything.
Last question was on lengths if anyone has skied both 170 and 177? I absolutely want to go up from the 161 and other mid-160 skis that I've been on, so at least 170 sounds great, just don't want to also be wishing I went longer in another year, especially if doing a lot off-piste. Tried to see if I could demo a Cochise in 171 and 178 recently but they unfortunately only had 185.
I grew up skiing the east coast on volkl sc racing skis, I'm now skiing mostly squaw and making some trips to other big western mountains. When I was first demoing skis out here the transition from 64 to 100mm+ skis felt crazy, and I wasn't sure how much big mountain vs east coast skiing I'd ultimately be doing. I went with a deal on the 161cm atomic vantage 90 cti w, which doesn't feel like enough ski now - I should have gone longer, and whether from the length or the lightness or both it makes me nervous at high speeds. I'm looking for a wider, stiff, super stable at high speed, can bust through a variety of conditions ski. I don't mind heavier skis, I actually think I really prefer them, and ski pretty aggressively with the goal of getting even more aggressive on the more varied terrain available out here. 26yo, 5'5", 135. Stiffer, stabler ski searches led me to the Dakotas, which there are luckily some cheap deals for online for both the 2013 and 2014 models. I'd love to hear more about the differences between those two - in general it seems like the 2014 changes were liked (saw trekchick's reviews of both too, where it seems like 2014 was preferred), though with my main concern being stiffness and stability and not liking lighter skis, was wondering if the removal of metal sacrificed anything.
Last question was on lengths if anyone has skied both 170 and 177? I absolutely want to go up from the 161 and other mid-160 skis that I've been on, so at least 170 sounds great, just don't want to also be wishing I went longer in another year, especially if doing a lot off-piste. Tried to see if I could demo a Cochise in 171 and 178 recently but they unfortunately only had 185.
