AMA: this year's skis (and some from next year)

[SnowHot]

@Verve (and anyone else) wanna spitball recommendations for my husband? I told him to stop asking AI and go ask SkiTalk, but he is not a social creature at heart. LOL.

LOL. I get it.
Forums aren't for everyone.
I'm wiped out from a long day at the moment but I'll check in on this in the morning.

 

[elemmac]

Anything else anyone would add to the list?

AI actually came up with a pretty solid list, IMO. The Enforcer might be a stretch, but I’m always amazed at the wide range of people that enjoy that ski…so would be worth a demo.

But here’s a couple more to consider:
The Nordica Steadfast 80 would be worth checking out, it’s a fun ripper of a ski, but really doesn’t have to be driven at 100% all the time. Size up for a stiffer, more aggressive ride, or size down for something a bit more manageable at lower speeds.

The Armada Declivity (probably 82, but he could try the 92 which is still a great carver even in that width). A little stiffer and a bit more of a go-getter than the Steadfast, but has that Armada DNA that keeps it lively rather than punishing.

I also think you’ve got a good idea to get him on the Ranger 90 as well.

 

[Knitjenious]

FWIW, we find that every skier who can discern the attributes of a ski and put it in words is a valued ski reviewer because there are so many who can relate to you ...

What if a woman of your size tested skis and wrote about it? There are plenty of other women out there who may be feeling lost because they don't know others and then they find you!!

So, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the skis you've demo'd. Keep it up.

Just want to echo this sentiment and gratitude, @Verve . I am a larger skier (though a bit less tall and also heavier than you) and so much of the time testers are just really unrelatable to me. I am always delighted to see your reviews of skis!

 

[Verve]

It's a great point, @SnowHot and thanks, @Knitjenious ! Will do.

 

[Verve]

@Knitjenious love the list of like/didn't like for your SO - fascinating array of reactions and I think really interesting that he enjoyed the Bent. Given that, I'd be curious if he would like the Mirus Cor (soft, but more groomer oriented than the Bent with a very short turn radius - they don't chatter for me except at very high speeds but he should go long).

If he's open to a wider ski, I think the Salomon QST 94 would be a good one to try. These are both "oomph" skis in the sense that they're lively - lots off fiberglass laminate layers but enough torsional stiffness to have some edge hold. The Mirus Cor, in addition to looking like a traffic cone with a swallow tail, has a fairly progressive mount - the Bents do too.

If we're optimizing for railing on groomers, I am always surprised how crowd-pleasing the Volkl Peregrine 82 is. I'm not a skinny ski person generally but I *love* them - they make me feel like the best version of my ski style on groomers and I can push them around fine in the bumps, though it's not their strongest suit.

 

[onetruepanda]

Hi! I am getting my first pair of skis after a few seasons renting - would love some tips on my decision.

I’m 5’9”, around 160, and ski exclusively on the east coast (Hunter Mountain, Okemo, Gore, etc). I’m very casual - ski 3-5 days a season on family trips, etc (my husband and in-laws all snowboard) - and looking for something that will save me the hassle/expensive of renting every time. Ability-wise I think I have the skill to handle blues (turning parallel, controlling speed, etc) but I get nervous when speed picks up/things get steep and fear I’ll get out of control. My goal is to be able to stay comfortable on blues so I can hang out with my family, and maybe check out some glades.

Last couple times I rented the Rossignol experience 82 CA and felt it helped me progress, though I was on 150 which I know is a bit short. For buying I’m considering:

-prior season Rossignol Experience 80 or 82
-the new Rossignol Arcades in 80 or 82
-Blizzard Black Pearls

I’m having trouble assessing:
-what’s the real difference between the experience and the arcades? Why would I go with one or the other?
-is the 80 more of a “beginner ski” or good for my level?
-should I stick with what I know I liked (Rossignol) or check out the black pearls?
-length-wise I know I need to go up, am thinking 160 but maybe that’s still too short

Any thoughts you have would be much appreciated!

 

[Jilly]

The Arcade is the new Experience. They are Rossi's all mountain ski. I would look at Arcade 84 in a 160 length. Demo if you can. As discussed in another thread the W is colour and sizes.

 

[onetruepanda]

Thanks! I don’t think I’m going to be able to demo unfortunately - it’s looking like we’re past good weather in the New York area and I don’t have any travel days off work available - so trying to make the call with the info I have.

I know the Arcade is the new Experience but I’m curious if it skis differently - like if I liked the Experience can I assume I’ll like the Arcades? Or is that not guaranteed?

 

[Jilly]

It is different than the Experience. That's all I know about it. There is a review over on Ski Talk.

 

[Lorraine_]

Hi, fellow East Coast skier here. I mostly ski in Vermont when I’m skiing in the east. I’m curious what you would recommend for a ski that performs well in moguls (and on ice).

Right now I have the 4FRNT MSP CC as my one-ski quiver. I used to live and ski in Colorado, and after spending three years on the East Coast, I’ve come to accept that I’ll probably be here for at least another year. I love the MSP CC for its stability at speed and how easily it handles crud.

That said, I’d love to find a dedicated ski for days when I want to focus on practicing moguls. I’m 5'1" and about 95–100 lb. Ideally, I’d like something lighter that’s easier to maneuver in bumps.

I’m somewhat confident on steeps. I can ski Colorado blacks (and sometimes double blacks) if there aren’t moguls. I can ski blue moguls in Colorado and black moguls here on the East Coast, but definitely not gracefully, and I’d really like to improve my bump technique.

Thanks in advance for any recommendations!

 

[TiffAlt]

Hi! I am getting my first pair of skis after a few seasons renting - would love some tips on my decision.

I’m 5’9”, around 160, and ski exclusively on the east coast (Hunter Mountain, Okemo, Gore, etc). I’m very casual - ski 3-5 days a season on family trips, etc (my husband and in-laws all snowboard) - and looking for something that will save me the hassle/expensive of renting every time. Ability-wise I think I have the skill to handle blues (turning parallel, controlling speed, etc) but I get nervous when speed picks up/things get steep and fear I’ll get out of control. My goal is to be able to stay comfortable on blues so I can hang out with my family, and maybe check out some glades.

Last couple times I rented the Rossignol experience 82 CA and felt it helped me progress, though I was on 150 which I know is a bit short. For buying I’m considering:

-prior season Rossignol Experience 80 or 82
-the new Rossignol Arcades in 80 or 82
-Blizzard Black Pearls

I’m having trouble assessing:
-what’s the real difference between the experience and the arcades? Why would I go with one or the other?
-is the 80 more of a “beginner ski” or good for my level?
-should I stick with what I know I liked (Rossignol) or check out the black pearls?
-length-wise I know I need to go up, am thinking 160 but maybe that’s still too short

Any thoughts you have would be much appreciated!

- what’s the real difference between the experience and the arcades? Why would I go with one or the other?
I've demoed the 160cm Arcade 84 in 160cm. I learned on an Experience 78 and have skied other skis with carbon. The Arcade 84s have some metal in them and that makes them a bit stiffer and heavier than a carbon only ski like the Rossignol Experience 82 CA. For what it's worth, I am three seasons in to skiing and really liked them. My reviews of the demos I have tried this year (including the Arcade 84) are here

-is the 80 more of a “beginner ski” or good for my level?
The waist width has nothing to do with the level of ski - it is more important in where you want to use the ski. Most skis in that width are what the industry calls "frontside" or an on piste ski meant for mostly resort skiing on groomed runs. Given that you are on the east coast, you should also consider ice, since it tends towards more ice and hardpack there. Something quicker edge to edge - read something narrower, will benefit you.

-should I stick with what I know I liked (Rossignol) or check out the black pearls?
People have a love/hate relationship with the Black Pearls. I personally hated them, but everyone is different and some hear love them. Only you can know what you really like, though we can give you suggestions based on what you say you are looking for.

-length-wise I know I need to go up, am thinking 160 but maybe that’s still too short
At 5'9, I would say yes, you should go up. My husband is 5'9 and he started at 172. When my son started, he was 5'6 and got put on 164. I know Jilly advised 160 and she definitely has more experience than me, but if you had asked me personally, I would have said mid 160s at least. I skied the Arcades in 160cm and I'm 5'2 and a half, so quite a bit shorter than you and I didn't find issues with the length.

 

[Verve]

Hi! I am getting my first pair of skis after a few seasons renting - would love some tips on my decision.

I’m 5’9”, around 160, and ski exclusively on the east coast (Hunter Mountain, Okemo, Gore, etc). I’m very casual - ski 3-5 days a season on family trips, etc (my husband and in-laws all snowboard) - and looking for something that will save me the hassle/expensive of renting every time. Ability-wise I think I have the skill to handle blues (turning parallel, controlling speed, etc) but I get nervous when speed picks up/things get steep and fear I’ll get out of control. My goal is to be able to stay comfortable on blues so I can hang out with my family, and maybe check out some glades.

Last couple times I rented the Rossignol experience 82 CA and felt it helped me progress, though I was on 150 which I know is a bit short. For buying I’m considering:

-prior season Rossignol Experience 80 or 82
-the new Rossignol Arcades in 80 or 82
-Blizzard Black Pearls

I’m having trouble assessing:
-what’s the real difference between the experience and the arcades? Why would I go with one or the other?
-is the 80 more of a “beginner ski” or good for my level?
-should I stick with what I know I liked (Rossignol) or check out the black pearls?
-length-wise I know I need to go up, am thinking 160 but maybe that’s still too short

Any thoughts you have would be much appreciated!

@onetruepanda I have to plead ignorance about Rossignol and I know their rental skis are distinct from their retail skis but don't have the details. I would definitely encourage you to demo if you have the opportunity. It sounds like you haven't had the opportunity to try out a more "all mountain" style ski like the Black Pearl and you might find they give you more confidence as you're progressing but it's very personal.

 

[Verve]

Hi, fellow East Coast skier here. I mostly ski in Vermont when I’m skiing in the east. I’m curious what you would recommend for a ski that performs well in moguls (and on ice).

Right now I have the 4FRNT MSP CC as my one-ski quiver. I used to live and ski in Colorado, and after spending three years on the East Coast, I’ve come to accept that I’ll probably be here for at least another year. I love the MSP CC for its stability at speed and how easily it handles crud.

That said, I’d love to find a dedicated ski for days when I want to focus on practicing moguls. I’m 5'1" and about 95–100 lb. Ideally, I’d like something lighter that’s easier to maneuver in bumps.

I’m somewhat confident on steeps. I can ski Colorado blacks (and sometimes double blacks) if there aren’t moguls. I can ski blue moguls in Colorado and black moguls here on the East Coast, but definitely not gracefully, and I’d really like to improve my bump technique.

Thanks in advance for any recommendations!

Hi @Lorraine_ ! I agree that the MSP might be challenging you in our icy bump scenarios here in the East - it has a fair amount of camber which can make you feel "stuck" if you're not able to get the ski to properly flex in the bumps.

I've personally been very enamored of the Sheeva 9 for bumps - or another ski with a little more tip and tail rocker and relatively low camber (Salomon QST 94 for example). You're quite a bit lighter and might also enjoy the Volkl Blaze 94, which is lighter than the Sheeva (and your MSP) and easy to throw around. Sticking with something in the 90s waist width will give you versatility for your Colorado trips!

 

[Lorraine_]

Hi @Lorraine_ ! I agree that the MSP might be challenging you in our icy bump scenarios here in the East - it has a fair amount of camber which can make you feel "stuck" if you're not able to get the ski to properly flex in the bumps.

I've personally been very enamored of the Sheeva 9 for bumps - or another ski with a little more tip and tail rocker and relatively low camber (Salomon QST 94 for example). You're quite a bit lighter and might also enjoy the Volkl Blaze 94, which is lighter than the Sheeva (and your MSP) and easy to throw around. Sticking with something in the 90s waist width will give you versatility for your Colorado trips!

Thank you—I’ll look into those skis.

I’m also curious whether you’ve heard of the Renoun Earhart or other Renoun skis. I searched the forum and noticed that many divas seem to like them. I’d also love to hear about your experience with them, if you have any.

 

[Verve]

@Lorraine_ thanks for the question. I don’t have personal experience with Renoun as they rarely offer demos, even here in VT. Our customers that have them have varying reports on how much they live up to their antivibration claims. I had a friend who was looking into the Earharts but ultimately decided she couldn’t justify the price, which is where I tend in my personal opinion as well.

 

[Jilly]

@Verve - if you get to the shop this week, grab the catalogue that the shop orders from. In the back are all the rental skis.

Tremblant uses Rossi as their rental skis this year. And they say Experience. I have a feeling looking at them they are a deck ski. It's not the old Experience. It's most likely a "special make up", so it has a budget price.

 

[MrsPlow]

@beane good one! I canNOT get a woman to pick the Maven 94cti no matter how I try and I can't quite pin down why - all signs point toward it being a cool option. I think it's in an odd position in my market because it really shines on groomers but is pretty wide under foot for an East Coast ski so the people who are going for that are focusing on narrower options and it's sort on an intimidating underfoot width for folks coming off of rentals. Also the top sheet is a bit love it or hate it. I've skied the mens version, the Maverick 96cti - it is a good balance of damp but light and it is easy to initiate turns on (that "hrzn tip" that all the Atomic's have definitely does something). Yet somehow I felt "meh" - which is a thing that happens for me a lot when a ski is trying to be an everything ski - good on bumps, good on groomers, good in soft snow - it's capable but uninspiring (for me).

The QST on the other hand definitely have a point of view and a lot of "pop" from the fiberglass and end to end metal stringers. I've skied both the 94 and 100 in lots of bumps at Mad River Glen and they shine there. I've gotten a lot of positive feedback from shorter, intermediate to advanced women on the 94 for a mix of groomers, trees and bumps. The 100 appeals more to people who will sacrifice the groomer performance for off piste lines as it has a much more upturned tail which makes pivoting on the flat of the ski in tight terrain so easy but doesn't give you the same support arcing turns on groomed terrain. In cases where the same woman has taken out both back to back, the 94 has typically came out on top but that's probably more about our conditions here than anything.

I got to try the Maven 94 CTi today, had a couple of hours on them. The conditions were unpleasant - very firm groomers that had been rained on. It was about as solid as it gets here in Revelstoke. The edge hold was phenomenal, and I found it easy and intuitive to ski. I wasn't inspired to buy a pair - i don't think it'd be as much fun as the Rustler/Sheeva - but it made some of my least favourite conditions almost enjoyable so credit where credit's due.

 

[beane]

I got to try the Maven 94 CTi today, had a couple of hours on them. The conditions were unpleasant - very firm groomers that had been rained on. It was about as solid as it gets here in Revelstoke. The edge hold was phenomenal, and I found it easy and intuitive to ski. I wasn't inspired to buy a pair - i don't think it'd be as much fun as the Rustler/Sheeva - but it made some of my least favourite conditions almost enjoyable so credit where credit's due.

Did you encounter any crud? I kinda want something to plow through heavy piles later in the day

 

[MrsPlow]

Did you encounter any crud? I kinda want something to plow through heavy piles later in the day

No, we stuck to the groomers partly because everything was frozen solid and partly because I wanted to avoid rocks etc as it was a free 'you break it you bought it' demo.

They did ok when I finally got down as far as the choppy slush level but it wasn't heavy chop and they were manoeuvrable in it rather than ploughing through it. I'd be curious to try them on the sort of terrain I would actually want them for - ie trees, bumps etc. It's a pretty light ski, think it might chatter at speed and get bounced around. The groomers were pretty rough in places so I kept my speed moderate and appreciated how easy they were at lower speeds.

 

[beane]

No, we stuck to the groomers partly because everything was frozen solid and partly because I wanted to avoid rocks etc as it was a free 'you break it you bought it' demo.

They did ok when I finally got down as far as the choppy slush level but it wasn't heavy chop and they were manoeuvrable in it rather than ploughing through it. I'd be curious to try them on the sort of terrain I would actually want them for - ie trees, bumps etc. It's a pretty light ski, think it might chatter at speed and get bounced around. The groomers were pretty rough in places so I kept my speed moderate and appreciated how easy they were at lower speeds.

Ok, thanks!