Midfat vs. Cross ski, & a quiver question

[dogwonder]

I've been looking at a new ski to my quiver and am considering adding a midfat or a high speed groomer ski. But I'm trying to understand the difference between a stiff midfat and a beefier groomer or ski cross type ski.

Let's use Stockli as an example. Stockli has the Stormrider XL and from other threads and reviews, this is considered one of the stiffer skis out there. It runs 116 - 75 - 102. At the same time, they offer the Laser Cross Pro which measures 113 - 72 - 98. Slightly narrower than the Stormrider. So aside from a few millimeters, do these skis differ much? Is there a big difference between a stiff midfat and a cross ski?

Which leads to my ultimate decision. I'm an east coaster and currently have the following boards in the quiver:

Legend 8800 in 178 (116-88-109)
Line Assassin in 178 (117-80-105)

The Legends tend to be a bit of overkill in the east and the Assassins are pretty soft and chatter once you pick up any speed. I was looking for something with some more stiffness and some sidecut (16 - 20 range) yet still versatile enough to go on and off piste.

Appreciate any thoughts.

[uncle crud]

Using Stockli as an example is a bit misleading, as their skis are built burlier than most every other larger mfr's skis and they tend to ski more like other mfrs' race stock skis.

I would look for something that has sandwich/sidewall construction with metal and rubber damping layers. In other words, a race construction ski. Whether it's called a "cross ski" or a "midfat" isn't the issue. It's how it's made, how it skis.

My hard snow skis are Head Supershape Worldcup. They have a fat shovel and pretty beefy construction and they do pretty well in loose snow as a result. Not like my fatter skis but surprisingly well. And on hard snow they are ice skates, way more fun than a wide waist ski.

Of course the tough guys in here will tell you you're a puss for skiing anything narrower than 88mm on hard snow.

[Tony]

You live in the EC. And looking for a groomer's ski.

Be realistic.

Most guys around here ski in Utah, Colorado or PNW. No need for a stiff cross ski. You do need one.

You already have a good midfat, the 8800.

ditch the Assassins (too much overlap and soft).

Get a cross ski. Volkl Allstar would be my pick.

Rent a fat ski if you take a ski trip to the west.

Done.

[dogwonder]

Uncle...that's one of the reasons I was kicking around the idea of the Stormriders. Seemed like a midfat with some racing characteristics. Was also considering the Movement Flame / Spark based on some reviews, but need to do some more research.

Tony...I'll probably keep the assassins cuz they are nice for the few times I enter the park and actually make a pretty nice bump ski. The Allstars may not be bad since I was looking for something at least 70mm under foot.

[mountain_man]

My Vote would be the XL's i've only skied them for about 3days but found that they were are really noce' ski skied soft moguls, slush, ice, crust and laid a great track on the groomers. At 75mm under foot its a great do it all ski, fun ski. (i was in Australia, so similar terrain in the EC but the snow gets softer quicker)

[Toadman]

You really already have a mid-fat in your 8800's. For the EC, going with a groomer ski is your best bet. I've got a pair of Soly Crossmax's which are 69mm. They are a softer ski but rail the groomers. If you want stiff, look at the Volkl Allstars, Atomic SX12, Fischer RX8

[Damian Sanders]

OK. We're going to need some more info here please. Height, weight, true ability level, agressiveness, and where do you ski.

I found that you're 6'0", 190 lb. I can't understand how you can say the 178cm 8800 is overkill in the east, unless you ski mostly in MA, southern NY, NJ, PA, etc. It's a pretty soft flexing ski, pretty light, not much metal, and a half cap. That's a fine tree, powder, and all around soft snow ski for an advanced level skier in VT that's not skiing all that fast. Most experts your size skiing the east would be interested in the 188 8800 or the 186 Legend Pro, or something else not dynastar. So that's a baseline. OTH, if you are indeed a very good skier and ski fast, think about stepping up to something in the mid 180's for your all around soft snow ski.

For the all around all around hardpack ski, I wouldn't go any narrower than a 75mm waist. The 174 or 184 cm Stockli XL is a good choice, but keep in mind it's probably going to kick your ass if you don't have previous experience on a race ski. Stockli's fat skis aren't all that stiff, but the XL is stiffer than them. They are heavy and damp....a 174 XL is MUCH more ski than the 178 8800 - more beef. Others worth looking at would be the elan M777, Head im82 and im88, Volkl AC3/AC4, etc, etc.

Overall, it sounds like you're on the right track to having a logical 3 ski quiver:

1. All around soft snow (8800)
2. All around hard snow (TBD)
3. Bumps/Park/Thin cover (lines)

[uncle crud]

For the all around all around hardpack ski, I wouldn't go any narrower than a 75mm waist.

Damian I think your comments were solid -- but I wonder about the one above. If the focus of this ski is hardpack then why even go as wide as 75mm in the waist? What's the point of all the extra width if you the ski is for hardpack use? Seems to me there are only 2 viable reasons.

One is that you are suggesting them to a poseur who doesn't know better... meaning, that a narrower waist is more fun on hard snow **unless** you want to skid all your turns and **unless** you want to put unnecessary extra strain on your knees.

The other is that you don't want the skier to go so narrow-waisted that he has a ski that essentially is almost a pure-carver, and he doesn't ski that way and has no interest in skiing that way.

If 75mm waisted skis were really useful on hard snow good racers would use them and not skis that have waists of up to 10mm narrower. Wouldn't they? Seems to me that skiing 75mm waists on pure hardpack is more a misfit/misuse of gear than you are suggesting. But I could be missing something germane that isn't clear from your post.

I should add that I have Head Monster 88s and they rail the hardpack nearly as well as my SuperShapes, so I may understand what you're trying to suggest --but they want to be out from under you as any wider waisted ski does when carving. To try to use them directly underfoot on hardpack in the bumps or in narrow terrain or at slower speeds requires hellacious knee angulation and that is pretty stressful, especially on hard snow that is transmitting lots of vibes up through your equipment.

[HitMe]

I've been looking at a new ski to my quiver and am considering adding a midfat or a high speed groomer ski. But I'm trying to understand the difference between a stiff midfat and a beefier groomer or ski cross type ski.

I skied some east cost like hills the last week. I used fice or six different paris of skis from slalom carvers to Explosive 190s with a good mix of dimensions and cuts in between. I would say that in general terms there is no way to say that one type of ski ski one way and another ski in another way. That goes especially with grip on REALLY hard snow (ice). It all depends how you ski them. For example, the Explosive (95 waist) is easier to get to grip than a Volkl supersport (68 waist) I use sometimes and a radical WC level slalom carver (64 waist) actually requires a VERY solid technique to grip. But the different skis also have totally differnt levels of speed and power input where they start to work. And if you add versatility and off pist ability to the equation it becomes even more complicated.

You simply have to ski them yourself or give a very good description of how you ski to be able to tell which ski will give you the best performance.

That said, I personally ski lots of super hard snow on small hill where I still might go off piste once in a while. While I love hard snow skiing too, if there is any chance of going off piste, I would use no smaller ski than my 184 Mantras. I love them on hard snow too, but they do need some speed to work. At the other end, A slalom carver is great fun for active skiing on hard snow, but they are also very limited. If its not hard enough they don't perform so good. The same goes for GS ski and they also need more hill to work. So, what I would look for is a 70-80mm waist ski with a really solid construction like the Mantra or a race ski. Maybe the Stöckli you mention is such a ski.

[uncle crud]

At the other end, A slalom carver is great fun for active skiing on hard snow, but they are also very limited. If its not hard enough they don't perform so good. The same goes for GS ski and they also need more hill to work.

Maybe so if you are skiing from backseat or offbalance positions. Race carvers require an absolutely centered stance especially offpiste. For an aggressive but relatively unskilled skier the race carver isn't optimal and will probably get the skier into more trouble than fun.

For a skier who is looking to improve his or her turns -- which always always always translates to improved skill offpiste -- there is no better hard ski tool than a race carver, whether it be SL or GS or intermediate sidecut.

The supposed "limitations" of a race carver really depend on the skier's skills. A good skier can use a race carver in many many situations, including offpiste and even fairly deep pow and crud.

Whether dogwonder wants to ski a race carver is an entirely different question, though. Many skiers don't want to have to be at the top of their game at all times, and for them, a race carver is a bad choice.

[dogwonder]

OK, so here's a little more background. My physical stats are still on at 6' 190lbs. I don't have a race background but would say I do ski on the aggressive side (I won't say I rail as hard as anyone, but on a 1-10, I would say I'm 7.5).

In terms of preference, I love to ski trees and off piste. That's why I tend to ski a shorter ski because I like the quickness and versatility. I had 184 Rossi XX's before the Dynastars and they just didn't feel nimble enough.

I would prefer my next ski to fill in for some hardpack and be a little more of an every day EC ski. As Damian stated above, the 8800 tends to be overkill out here. I do like on my trips to Jay and after a decent storm. But on days when it's tracked out, they aren't ideal. With a long turning sidecut and soft flex, they don't enjoy the groomers all that well. They do well in the bumps (although a little beefy for zipper line runs). I do take a couple trips out west each season as well and these boards are fine.

So I don't want something so specialized that if I decide to take it down say Timbuktu at Jay, I'm miserable.

Thanks for all the advice guys.

[milkman]

Look for a used Volkl G3/AX3 or search ebay for a pair of the old Stockli Stormriders (109-73-99). I think Denver Wholesale still has a bunch brand new in 194, and last I spoke with them, they said they'd let them go for $200 a pair plus shipping. (they're listed for $269).

[dogwonder]

Look for a used Volkl G3/AX3 or search ebay for a pair of the old Stockli Stormriders (109-73-99). I think Denver Wholesale still has a bunch brand new in 194, and last I spoke with them, they said they'd let them go for $200 a pair plus shipping. (they're listed for $269).

I think the 194's are going to be too long for my liking. I see them being solid on the open slope even with some varied terrain, but I think I'd hate life in any kind of tight glade. Maybe I'm asking too much of this ski.

[uncle crud]

That helps a bit, dogwonder.

If at 6 feet and 190 lbs you found a 184 Bandit XX not nimble enough then you should consider something with a softer shovel area so that your turns engage more easily. The Bandit XX is a pretty friendly ski and will start turns pretty easily and it comes around pretty simply if you engage it well. Someone your size and weight shouldn't have much trouble making a 184 Bandit XX be nimble.

I would say that a race carver won't be much fun for you unless your whole point of skiing the race carver is to be on a ski that makes you ski your best. And "your best" would be a level above what you used on those 184 Bandit XX, honestly speaking.

It sounds like you use an old-school straight ski turn technique and that would probably explain why the Bandits felt unwieldy. If that's the case, a race carver would help you develop a better turn, but the cost would be some frustration while the race carver kicks your ass a bit. Maybe even more than a bit.

While this might be something that many Maggots would mock, I would suggest that maybe taking the money for a new pair and spending it on some technique coaching from a coach you trust would be more valuable to your skiing. Just remember that there's a pretty strong reason why a lot of the top freeskiers and extreme skiing comp participants come from race backgrounds... race technique is refined and very adaptable. If you can make solid race oriented turns on hard snow, skiing pow and crud (and skiing trees in the pow and crud) is a walk in the park.

I guess what I'm saying is, what ski you should pick will depend on how you want to ski them and what you want them to do for you.

[Damian Sanders]

What's the point of all the extra width if you the ski is for hardpack use?

I believe he is looking for an all around hard snow ski. That doesn't mean he is looking for an ice skate or race ski. He wants a ski that is good on sheet ice but still good all around.....thus, he should probably be looking for something in the 75mm to 90 mm waist range, with a design that is strong on hardpack. Proper tune is important too.

A 65-70mm ski would be too narrow for what he wants. If you don't understand this, I'm not going waste my time trying to explain it to you because you have obviously made up your mind already. Take it to epicski.......

[Damian Sanders]

OK, so here's a little more background. My physical stats are still on at 6' 190lbs. I don't have a race background but would say I do ski on the aggressive side (I won't say I rail as hard as anyone, but on a 1-10, I would say I'm 7.5).

In terms of preference, I love to ski trees and off piste. That's why I tend to ski a shorter ski because I like the quickness and versatility. I had 184 Rossi XX's before the Dynastars and they just didn't feel nimble enough.

I would prefer my next ski to fill in for some hardpack and be a little more of an every day EC ski. As Damian stated above, the 8800 tends to be overkill out here. I do like on my trips to Jay and after a decent storm. But on days when it's tracked out, they aren't ideal. With a long turning sidecut and soft flex, they don't enjoy the groomers all that well. They do well in the bumps (although a little beefy for zipper line runs). I do take a couple trips out west each season as well and these boards are fine.

So I don't want something so specialized that if I decide to take it down say Timbuktu at Jay, I'm miserable.

Thanks for all the advice guys.

Well, that's making alot of sense then....

Check out the head im82 in a 172cm, it might work for you. Short length but should "ski long" for it's size, very good on hardpack, good on soft snow, reasonable in bumps, short for the trees, and a fairly tight 17m sidecut. I would pair it with a stiffer, heavier binding (14 or 15 din) with some lift, to maximize hard snow performance....maybe a 14/15 din tyrolia railflex even. Should be a very strong all around east coast ski for your size and ablity level.

[Adamantium]

You live in the EC. And looking for a groomer's ski.

Be realistic.

Most guys around here ski in Utah, Colorado or PNW. No need for a stiff cross ski. You do need one.

You already have a good midfat, the 8800.

ditch the Assassins (too much overlap and soft).

Get a cross ski. Volkl Allstar would be my pick.

Rent a fat ski if you take a ski trip to the west.

Done.

i'm seconding the vote for the Allstar here. i had been looking at it myself and demo'd them this past week up at mammoth. the snow was pretty hard and fast for mammoth (this was on the 29th) and they were great. all the reviews i have read have been overwhelmingly positive, and my day on them only reinforced this. i'm ordering them asap. check out the Allstar's.

as for a length, i was surprised at how solid the 175's were. from a slightly-dumb ego standpoint, i was hoping to get the Allstar's in 182. but i demo'd them in 175 and i could not get them to feel unstable/chattery at speed. the faster i went and harder i railed on them, the more they just gripped the snow and whipped around. they were a blast to cruise around on. for refference, i'm 6' but only 145lbs, although i'm pretty aggressive most of the time. the 175's took everything i could throw at them, but if i was 190lbs i'd probably want to go for the 182's. i'd recommend that you try to ski them both and compare.

[uncle crud]

I believe he is looking for an all around hard snow ski. That doesn't mean he is looking for an ice skate or race ski. He wants a ski that is good on sheet ice but still good all around.....thus, he should probably be looking for something in the 75mm to 90 mm waist range, with a design that is strong on hardpack. Proper tune is important too.

A 65-70mm ski would be too narrow for what he wants. If you don't understand this, I'm not going waste my time trying to explain it to you because you have obviously made up your mind already. Take it to epicski.......

Wow, you have some attitude issues, don't you bro-brah? Maybe I can help you understand my thinking, since you are the closed-minded one who doesn't want to consider other options despite your accusation shot that way toward me.

He already has "all-around" skis in 2 wider widths. He said he wants a dedicated hardpack ski. And he said absolutely nothing about 70mm being too narrow, as he's considering "cross" skis which generally are GS skis.

It's really that simple.

As to GapicSki, sheesh. You really are all about the pose, aren't you? Pretty sad, to tell you the truth. I have been booted from GapicSki 3x. I'm not one of their lackeys. But it seems you might do better at Freeze or some other junior place where attitude is king, ya know?

[dogwonder]

The only clarification I'd like to make is I would like some versatility to this ski. I'm not sure I'd like something solely designed for hardpack since I know my tendencies and I would certainly take it off piste or through the woods.

Not sure if this changes people's opinions, but just wanted to make sure all the info was out there.

Thanks again.

[Tony]

Volkl AC3 then, but that's compromise.

I would rather have 3 dedicated skis in my quiver than 3 all-rounders.

Hence my direction towards a cross ski, the Volkl Allstar.

[Damian Sanders]

Wow, you have some attitude issues, don't you bro-brah? Maybe I can help you understand my thinking, since you are the closed-minded one who doesn't want to consider other options despite your accusation shot that way toward me.

He already has "all-around" skis in 2 wider widths. He said he wants a dedicated hardpack ski. And he said absolutely nothing about 70mm being too narrow, as he's considering "cross" skis which generally are GS skis.

It's really that simple.

As to GapicSki, sheesh. You really are all about the pose, aren't you? Pretty sad, to tell you the truth. I have been booted from GapicSki 3x. I'm not one of their lackeys. But it seems you might do better at Freeze or some other junior place where attitude is king, ya know?

Ok there buddy, I'm quite sure you don't know what you are talking about now....and you probably don't ski in the east. Please, please, please, take it back to epicski.

75-90mm waist skis with the right construction/design have plenty of hold on ice, and have the bonus of being very good all around in mixed snow. They are an excellent choice for the east. 70mm skis these days are typically groomer oriented and not as good in variable/mixed snow. You are not paying attention to the original poster, and are pushing your own agenda/ego. He wants a solid all around east coast ski (off piste, trees, etc) that is also good on ice - a cross ski or carving ski is NOT the right choice for that.

I'm happy you like your heads. I ski the im88 in a 186cm with lifted S916's as my all around east coast resort ski (but 90% on piste, since I'm trying to not destroy them). Anywhere from ice to powder. They hold pretty damn well on ice, considering the excessive base bevel from the factory. If you can't ski yours on ice, that's not my problem.

[dogwonder]

Volkl AC3 then, but that's compromise.

I would rather have 3 dedicated skis in my quiver than 3 all-rounders.

Hence my direction towards a cross ski, the Volkl Allstar.

I know I'm trying to draw a fine line here. Let me try it this way. I want something that likes hardpack but is not so specialized it can't do anything else (Like crud, glades, off piste).

I know the Supersport line is not the Volkl race line so they may offer some amount of flexibility, is that your take?

Next step will be what naturally comes to make a final decision, demo. This is helping me round out the list and help me understand some of the differences out there.

[Tony]

Cool down, Damian.

There are many answers for the same question.

It seems you take this website too seriously in your life.

[Tony]

I know I'm trying to draw a fine line here. Let me try it this way. I want something that likes hardpack but is not so specialized it can't do anything else (Like crud, glades, off piste).

And very fine indeed. You need to start talking percentages here. How much groomers and how much off-piste?

From personal experience, this is how it works out (on/off) in the Volkl line:

Allstars: 80/20
AC 3: 50/50
AC 4: 30/70

You can also go Metron, not my first choice (heavy). Anything offpiste above this percentages you're set with the 8800. I am sure other folks here can comment percentages about other brands for an EC All-Mountain Ski.

[Damian Sanders]

Cool down, Damian.

There are many answers for the same question.

It seems you take this website too seriously in your life.

No, Uncle Crud is a douchebag, plain and simple. I've seen the crap he stirs up.

BTW, even though I mentioned the AC4/AC3 myself, I would not recommend them to an east coast skier intending to ski off trail, as I would be worried about the durablity as far as hitting rocks. Otherwise, they should both be fine on anything with good cover, hard or soft.