End of Season??? Time for New Skis??

[icelanticskier]

more sidecut harv! icelantic pilgrim 127 in the tip and 90 underfoot. they'll turn for ya and give the, nothing else can compare-ride. the reverend is a damp, wet, minimal performance ski like the k2. got my girl on some of next years icelantic nomad 156 cm 140-105-130 and one turn was all it took to make her want to sell those mantras she's been ridin. watching her ski those nomads made me jealous at her immediate increase in rippabilities.
rog

[Admin]

It's tough to find a do-everything ski, hence the reason that most serious skiers have at least a small quiver. FYI the Reverends are my every day, bread-and-butter ski. They're fun on groomers, at least the western variety, and can still handle powder even though I prefer my Movement Goliaths for the deep untracked. My only complaint about the Revs is that especially mounted with the lightweight Silvretta Pures, they're such a light kit that chunky snow deflects them readily. I'd hate to see what happens to them in eastern death cookies.

[icelanticskier]

and some serious skiers prefer to ride one ski for all conditions with an emphasis on the snow surfaces in which they frequent and like best so that they can fully understand and learn to ski that one ski in all conditions well.
i don't spend much time on firm snow and like a wide ski with a bunch of sidecut that still rips the groomed or hardpack. the nomad 140-105-130 does all things well for me all of the time.
it is really nice to never have to decide which ski to take out on the hill and much more affordable to have a one ski quiver.
rog

[rfarren]

I was thinking about trying out a pair of verdicts this season but never got around to it. My nordica's hold their own pretty well, but a powder specific ski might be fun, especially if it is good in tight turning areas.

[icelanticskier]

i sell bd skis and have spent time on em all. the verdict as all bd skis are on the stiff side and have limited sidecut. they are damp and stable but, not the most versatile or turny ski out of the line. my fave bd ski for all round performance is definitly the havoc. 123-88. not as much shape as i like but, poppy, performy little devils.
rog

[rfarren]

88 under foot is pretty wide, but I was thinking about something really really wide, at least just to try it out. Ideally for me I would want a specialist ski for deep powder in tight trees. However, I would want the ski to be compatible with a touring binding for side country adventures, and short tours. That was why I wanted to try the verdict.

[icelanticskier]

trust me rob, the icelantic nomad not only has more surface area for pow, it also has way more sidecut to aid in it's turniness in tight trees+ it's less money and made in the u.s.a not china like bd. plus, the nomad is way more lively than the verdict. the verdict rides like a stiff k2 but, unfortunately dosen't give you much back for your efforts.
rog

[Admin]

88 is skinny around here. 93 underfoot is my groomer ski.

[icelanticskier]

93 underfoot's barely a mid-fat. i'll stick w/my 105 for all.
rog
i may come to foofyland to ski w/craig for 5-6days starting this coming friday. looks like there's still some snow out there.

[rfarren]

I skied all my powder days with 79 underfoot, and they were fine. At the tip they are 123 so they didn't really dive. My concern with the Icelantics, is I've heard a lot of conflicting reports on those skis, and they seem really short.

[Admin]

Rog, I've got to disagree with you. I found the Verdict to be anything but dead, and I love lively skis (you should see the camber on those Goliaths) and thus don't care for any K2 I've ever skied.

Give us a shout if you make it out here.

[Admin]

I skied all my powder days with 79 underfoot, and they were fine.

Yeah, and we skied powder with 50mm-waisted skis 15 years ago and we got by then, too, but that doesn't mean it was any better. On those skis you're working much harder in powder than you have to.

[rfarren]

I skied all my powder days with 79 underfoot, and they were fine.

Yeah, and we skied powder with 50mm-waisted skis 15 years ago and we got by then, too, but that doesn't mean it was any better. On those skis you're working much harder in powder than you have to.

Yep, thats why I want a ski that is super wide. I'm also interested in trying out the reverse cambert skis, but I'm not sure if they are compatible with touring bindings and skins.

[riverc0il]

I skied all my powder days with 79 underfoot, and they were fine. At the tip they are 123 so they didn't really dive. My concern with the Icelantics, is I've heard a lot of conflicting reports on those skis, and they seem really short.

Get thee some 90+ under foot for powder days, sir! My 8000s are 79 underfoot and work very well up to a foot of powder and less dense stuff. Over a foot, oh man, the fatter skis are worth the addition to your quiver.

[icelanticskier]

Rog, I've got to disagree with you. I found the Verdict to be anything but dead, and I love lively skis (you should see the camber on those Goliaths) and thus don't care for any K2 I've ever skied.

Give us a shout if you make it out here.

i guess dead wasn't the right word for the verdict. i meant that you gotta work alot harder to make them perform than a ski like nomad imo. rob, there are alot of icelantic skeptics out there but, many who have tried were shocked at the performance and agreed that the length w/surface area was
super maneuverable but floaty all in one package. try some for yourself in all conditions. i was skeptical too, i have to admit i bought them for the cool artwork and never thought they'd change my skiing experience in such a huge way.
admin, i'll give a shout if i come out. we'd be touring in the b.c. from friday-wed this next week w/ maybe one lift assist b.c. day in upper wp from the bird.
rog