wanted WTB or Recommendations: Skis to get a friend back on the hill (

[Cannonballer 660]

Just throwing this out there in case any of you gear junkies have something worthwhile collecting dust in the basement.

I'm trying to help a buddy get back into the sport.  It's the same old story: formerly an avid skier and snowboarder, then life (kids, jobs, homes, etc) got in the way for a couple decades. Now he's looking to get back into it.  He's been out the hill a few times in the past few years but it's always been on old or borrowed or crappy gear. Although gear isn't everything it certainly can make a huge difference in terms of comfort and enjoyment when you're trying to rekindle the passion. I've

My advice to him has been to focus money and time on getting good boots, then worry about skis.  So he's headed to a bootfitter next week.  In the meantime I'm helping him hunt for a decent affordable ski. I want to put him in something where the fun and confidence factors are high and the frustration factor is low.  A good all-mountain ski that is forgiving and confidence boosting in most conditions. 

So with all that in mind, looking for some like in this ballpark (although open to other recommendations):

• ~88-100 waist
• ~172-176 cm (he's 5'8", carrying some extra weight, but strong)
•  Probably some camber with tip rocker. Stiff enough for groomers, but enough flex to handle crud.
• ?? Something like:  Brahma, Rustler, Daemon, Mantra, Big Stix 100, others??

Thanks.

 

[Puck it 314]

I have my ols Head Magnums. 74mm underfoot and 170cm. It is a plate so no drilling them. Let them go cheap. 

[Cannonballer 660]

3 minutes ago, Puck it said:

I have my ols Head Magnums. 74mm underfoot and 170cm. It is a plate so no drilling them. Let them go cheap. 

Nice, could be a good fit.  I don't much about that ski.  How do they handle crud, bumps, and other non-groomed?  Worried about putting him in something then requires a lot of technical skill. 

 

[Puck it 314]

It Is should a front side carver.  It has double metal.  It can handle crud on trails but not a good choice for bumps for someone that can not control it.  The shortness does help though.

[Cannonballer 660]

It Is should a front side carver.  It has double metal.  It can handle crud on trails but not a good choice for bumps for someone that can not control it.  The shortness does help though.

Thanks. I'll tell him and get back to you.

Sent from my XT1650 using Northeast Mountain Sports mobile app

[StraightSkis 7]

4 hours ago, Cannonballer said:

Thanks. I'll tell him and get back to you.

Sent from my XT1650 using Northeast Mountain Sports mobile app
 

How close is your friend to Strand's in Worcester? They have a used room and now through December is prime time for used skis to be coming in. They also have brand new leftover skis from years past on the rack for good prices. 

[Cannonballer 660]

How close is your friend to Strand's in Worcester? They have a used room and now through December is prime time for used skis to be coming in. They also have brand new leftover skis from years past on the rack for good prices. 

Not that close (South shore, MA). But that's a good suggestion. Maybe we'll take a ride out there. Thanks

Sent from my XT1650 using Northeast Mountain Sports mobile app

[Ski-kiki 16]

When you say affordable, what kind of budget are you looking at?  My basement currently has a Rossi Experience 80, 176cm, I think '15 model.  (There's also an Armada THall, 171cm, but it doesn't sound like he's looking for a park ski.) 

[Weatherman 523]

On 11/4/2018 at 7:49 AM, Cannonballer said:

Just throwing this out there in case any of you gear junkies have something worthwhile collecting dust in the basement.

I'm trying to help a buddy get back into the sport.  It's the same old story: formerly an avid skier and snowboarder, then life (kids, jobs, homes, etc) got in the way for a couple decades. Now he's looking to get back into it.  He's been out the hill a few times in the past few years but it's always been on old or borrowed or crappy gear. Although gear isn't everything it certainly can make a huge difference in terms of comfort and enjoyment when you're trying to rekindle the passion. I've

My advice to him has been to focus money and time on getting good boots, then worry about skis.  So he's headed to a bootfitter next week.  In the meantime I'm helping him hunt for a decent affordable ski. I want to put him in something where the fun and confidence factors are high and the frustration factor is low.  A good all-mountain ski that is forgiving and confidence boosting in most conditions. 

So with all that in mind, looking for some like in this ballpark (although open to other recommendations):

• ~88-100 waist
• ~172-176 cm (he's 5'8", carrying some extra weight, but strong)
•  Probably some camber with tip rocker. Stiff enough for groomers, but enough flex to handle crud.
• ?? Something like:  Brahma, Rustler, Daemon, Mantra, Big Stix 100, others??

Thanks.

 

Not sure, I can hit those requirements exactly. Any skis that checks those boxes in my quiver gets loved to death. I do have a pair of Head Monster 88s, 177cm or Nordica NRGY 100, 177cm that I could be convinced to depart with. The Monsters might be too much ski, but NRGY 100 would be more appropriate. Both skis seem at opposite ends of the spectrum of your target.

[Cannonballer 660]

2 hours ago, Weatherman said:

Not sure, I can hit those requirements exactly. Any skis that checks those boxes in my quiver gets loved to death. I do have a pair of Head Monster 88s, 177cm or Nordica NRGY 100, 177cm that I could be convinced to depart with. The Monsters might be too much ski, but NRGY 100 would be more appropriate. Both skis seem at opposite ends of the spectrum of your target.

I agree that the 88s are probably too task-specific and too much ski.  NRGY 100 could be a good fit.  How forgiving are they? I've never skied them but always viewed them as a ski that shines best when you put a lot into it. 

 

[Weatherman 523]

33 minutes ago, Cannonballer said:

I agree that the 88s are probably too task-specific and too much ski.  NRGY 100 could be a good fit.  How forgiving are they? I've never skied them but always viewed them as a ski that shines best when you put a lot into it. 

 

It's been my go-to ski for spring conditions or trips to the Alps. Really shines in the bumps. I don't consider it a very stiff ski. Rather than a full sheet of metal is has a milled-out laminate. The most controversial design element is the pintail. Some people don't like it because it takes some of the energy out of carving. But I like the fact that helps a lot with the bumps. It skis relatively short with the rocker and sidecut profile, so 177cm shouldn't be a problem.

My only caution is that a 100cm waist plus some rocker will be a big change to somebody who has been out of the game for 20 years. I love the extra width is a daily driver. I get way more in versatility than I give up in hard-snow performance. But back when this guy go out of the game, people were still getting used to shaped skis.

[Cannonballer 660]

3 minutes ago, Weatherman said:

It's been my go-to ski for spring conditions or trips to the Alps. Really shines in the bumps. I don't consider it a very stiff ski. Rather than a full sheet of metal is has a milled-out laminate. The most controversial design element is the pintail. Some people don't like it because it takes some of the energy out of carving. But I like the fact that helps a lot with the bumps. It skis relatively short with the rocker and sidecut profile, so 177cm shouldn't be a problem.

My only caution is that a 100cm waist plus some rocker will be a big change to somebody who has been out of the game for 20 years. I love the extra width is a daily driver. I get way more in versatility than I give up in hard-snow performance. But back when this guy go out of the game, people were still getting used to shaped skis.

Agree with all. But I think the learning curve on 100cm w/ rocker is very steep and the playfulness builds confidence pretty past.  I throw it out to him as a suggestion.  If he likes the idea you guys can talk about whether you want to part with them.

[Meh 9]

Don't forget that the default for older bindings will be ISO 5355 soles.       We don't know what boots he's getting and, depending on the choices he makes in the boot shop,  he could wind up with Gripwalk.     

Yes,  I know conceptually he ought to be able to change sole blocks back to 5355, but it's somewhat of a PITA and he may not be sold on doing that if Gripwalk is bigged up during boot sale/fitting. 

 

Ski choice?   Older Kendos should fit; newer RTMs (not the old ones with the zero camber middle),  Dynastar PowerTracks or Chams,  Fischer Ranger....

Edited November 5, 2018 by Meh

[Cannonballer 660]

43 minutes ago, Meh said:

Don't forget that the default for older bindings will be ISO 5355 soles.       We don't know what boots he's getting and, depending on the choices he makes in the boot shop,  he could wind up with Gripwalk.     

Yes,  I know conceptually he ought to be able to change sole blocks back to 5355, but it's somewhat of a PITA and he may not be sold on doing that if Gripwalk is bigged up during boot sale/fitting. 

 

Ski choice?   Older Kendos should fit; newer RTMs (not the old ones with the zero camber middle),  Dynastar PowerTracks or Chams,  Fischer Ranger....

Thanks for that info. I had no idea about Gripwalk.  It's always good to reminded again about how much easier snowboarding equipment is. Other than some Burton BS there's no such thing as "not compatible".

[Puck it 314]

Gripwalk is WTR for Marker. My bad. 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Puck it

[Weatherman 523]

22 minutes ago, Cannonballer said:

Thanks for that info. I had no idea about Gripwalk.  It's always good to reminded again about how much easier snowboarding equipment is. Other than some Burton BS there's no such thing as "not compatible".

I still don't consider these things. Ski boots that are easy to walk in? Blasphemy.

[Meh 9]

1 hour ago, Puck it said:

Gripwalk is WTR for Marker. My bad. 

As of this moment, when I use informal language, I'm intentionally referring to all ISO 9523 boots as "Grip Walk" 

  I am deliberately  not using "WTR"  until the WTR/WTR+ nomenclature and cross compatibility/adjustment/AFD height  mess is a little further behind us.       Sweet Almighty, that's a sticky one,  for example  WTR bindings  that are not compatible with Grip Walk are still being sold (and are quite likely to be run into by someone shopping for deals). 

 

EDIT:  Good idea investing in boots first, sorry to be the ointment fly of compatibility caution here. 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Meh