Like to purchase new tele skis advice needed

6'1" 220lbs beginner to intermediate looking for recommendations for 100% resort ski.  I am on an old beat to hell pair of Rossi Dirtybird  174 which I like just looking to upgrade. Any advice appreciated.

The Dirtybirds had a reputation as a ski with a fairly soft flex. Are you looking for something stiffer, perhaps wider, or just a new version of the same old thing? More info needed about what is important to you in a ski.

A lot of telemarkers like Line skis and they are reasonably priced. I would take a look at the new Line Supernatural 90 (the Supernaturals have replaced the Prophet series) or if you want something a little lighter and flexier, the Sick Day 95.

I am sure others will have widely different opinions.

I do find the dirtybirds unstable at speed.  Weight doesnt really matter to me as I won't be touring with them.  I'd like a ski strictly for resort.  Im guessing 85-95 underfoot.  

+1 on SBRs advice - except that they're actually Supernatural 92's

http://gear.powdermag.com/buyers-guide-2015/line-supernatural-92.html

Id be inclined to ski these a touch longer than what you're used to as they are mildly rockered - "early rise" in current trendoid sales babble.  

BTW, I tried the Dirty Birds back in the day (when they came out) and after one run returned them to the demo van.  They're a nice slow speed recreational type ski.  And that's all.  So don't feel bad about moving on.  

TD

Thats good TD!  I bought a 2 for one on used skis and they're all I know.  The other are rossi T4's with hammerheads which I did'nt like at all(if anyone wants them let me know cheap).  The length I was unsure on too. I was thinking in the 180 range but not sure. I am 185 cm tall.

Another ski you should be looking for is any of the Volkl Mantra's.  Pretty much a cult ski, especially for tele skiing.  It's a ski you wouldn't outgrow.  It's steadily gotten fatter over the years, (newest one is 100+ waist), and gained rocker, but the older versions were around 94-96 at the waist.  

You could probably find a used pair already mounted tele if you start looking...

TD

schwanztucker wrote

I do find the dirtybirds unstable at speed.  Weight doesnt really matter to me as I won't be touring with them.  I'd like a ski strictly for resort.  Im guessing 85-95 underfoot.

If you like skiing fast the Supernatural would be a great choice. I had the Prophet 100, non-rockered version, that ski was ultra-stable at mach looney. A ski like this will be a quantum leap in difference from the Dirty Birds, so some adjustment in technique (perhaps a lesson, paging MC2) would be advised. If you want something a little more versatile and quicker in the trees, the Sick Day would be a better choice. Metal VS no-metal.

Maybe Harv can chime in with link to his thread on a similar agonizing decision, there was lots of good discussion there.

Wait what agonizing thread?I say give into the force.

Tip rocker and 98mm.

Worth Daily Bread.

Harvey wrote

Wait what agonizing thread?I say give into the force.

Tip rocker and 98mm.

Worth Daily Bread.

Harvey wrote

Wait what agonizing thread?I say give into the force.

Tip rocker and 98mm.

Worth Daily Bread.

I told you that you would love them

I have gone 10mm at a time.  Basically whenever I could afford new skis I went 10mm wider.

This has brought me to 98mm.

When I can afford my next will be 110.

Magic or Humpback? Anyone.

schwanztucker wrote

I do find the dirtybirds unstable at speed.  Weight doesnt really matter to me as I won't be touring with them.  I'd like a ski strictly for resort.  Im guessing 85-95 underfoot.

Even if you're not touring, weight is a factor. Even at your size and my size (6', 200), it's a lot of work to ski a heavy ski.

I don't have any scientific evidence or anything (I'm sure there's some out there), but my knees and feet always feel better when I'm on a lighter weight setup, even at resorts.

Mattchuck2, what are you using for resort skis.  I also forgot to mention I did buy a set of BD Kilowatts (95 underfoot I think)that I used at Sugarbush for 2 days but found them hard to turn at the time and sold them.

mattchuck2 wrote

Even if you're not touring, weight is a factor. Even at your size and my size (6', 200), it's a lot of work to ski a heavy ski.

I don't have any scientific evidence or anything (I'm sure there's some out there), but my knees and feet always feel better when I'm on a lighter weight setup, even at resorts.

I am not as quick as I use to be and I find a light weight rig seems to allow me to swing the skis better. If I am letting the skis do their own thing a heavier stiffer ski seems to track better. So far I have gone light weight. I am looking at the BC chargers for next year as I am getting tired of the on/off of skins.

schwanztucker wrote

Mattchuck2, what are you using for resort skis.  I also forgot to mention I did buy a set of BD Kilowatts (95 underfoot I think)that I used at Sugarbush for 2 days but found them hard to turn at the time and sold them.

I use a 94mm waisted ski as my daily driver. Ski companies seem to have figured out the solid-edge-hold-wide-waist formula. Even the groomer specific skis in the latest Ski Magazine are in the low 80mm range. You might need to be a little more patient edge to edge on hardpack, but the flotation in every other snow condition is worth it. (And this is coming from the person who started this thread).

PeeTex wrote

I am not as quick as I use to be and I find a light weight rig seems to allow me to swing the skis better. If I am letting the skis do their own thing a heavier stiffer ski seems to track better. So far I have gone light weight. I am looking at the BC chargers for next year as I am getting tired of the on/off of skins.

If you're skiing Tele, the only time you're really "letting the skis do their own thing" is when you're making lazy alpine turns at the end of the day.

And don't go crazy about the BC chargers. A fishscaled ski is still a fishscaled ski. It won't climb anything steep without skins. But it is awesome for up-and-down approaches and thwacking around in the woods.

mattchuck2 wrote

 And don't go crazy about the BC chargers. A fishscaled ski is still a fishscaled ski. It won't climb anything steep without skins. But it is awesome for up-and-down approaches and thwacking around in the woods.

Yup, that is what the Voile BC skis are all about. They are a great ski and a lot of fun, but not meant to be a resort ski.

My first lesson was on k2 world piste and I really liked them as they were pretty easy to turn.  Has anyone ever skied the k2 sideshow?  90mm underfoot and looks like a reasonably priced good do it all east coaster. I may check out the Greek ski sale next month and see whats available.


Side note:
I have the mashus annum and yes skins are certainly a necessity if you get into steep stuff. I am hoping to hit Raymond Brook this year with them!

schwanztucker wrote

I have the mashus annum and yes skins are certainly a necessity if you get into steep stuff. I am hoping to hit Raymond Brook this year with them!

No skins required for Raymond Brook.

ADK Jeff has them:

http://saratogaskier.blogspot.com/2012/12/gore-mountain-12012012-and-how-i-buy-my.html

Maybe he'll chime in.

mattchuck2 wrote

ADK Jeff has them:
http://saratogaskier.blogspot.com/2012/12/gore-mountain-12012012-and-how-i-buy-my.html
Maybe he'll chime in.

Yeah, I've got 'em.  Schwanz pm'd me, here's what I said:

I consider them to be a solid all-mountain ski.  Wide enough for good float in deeper snow but still holds a good edge on groomers and hardpack.  I am pretty much a "quiver of one" type of skier and these fit the bill well.  Before the sideshows I had K2 Work Stinx, and before that the World Pistes.  I think you said that you liked the Worlds, and I can say that if you liked those you will like the Sideshows even better.