Bumps and Stumps Ski Thoughts?

[Tony S]

It's been six years since I spent time at Saddleback. Now that it's in business again, and now that there is a bit of natural cover, I'm remembering what it's all about: bumps and stumps. Which is FINE. That orange "thin cover" lollipop is my siren's song.

Over the fall I took my old-reliable bumps-and-stumps skis - Kastle FX 85s @ 165cm - and put AT bindings on them. Now considering whether that was a mistake.

My "every day" skis are Wingman 82 CTis @ 172cm. I am finding that, between the fattish stiffish tips and head-height-plus length, they are not the most agile boards in tight quarters where agility is paramount. Ripstick 96s are serviceable but way fatter than really needed. SLs are okay but not smooth ... plus I want to preserve the bases and edges.

Thinking about the following but open to suggestions.

• Get another pair of NOS FX85s, or put the old binders back on and find a different AT board.
• Stick with the Wingman (or new secret Wingman Black) but downsize to a 166
• Ripstick 86/88s (concern that they might lack something in dampness)
• Dynastar M-Pro 84 or 90
• Earhart 88s, based on Eric's recent review (I am nervous about this one because while I liked the Z90 I found the Endurance 98 very planky off trail)

Generally for ungroomed snow I like skis that are quite soft in tip and tail flex, especially in bumps. Some skis, such as several Fischers, Blizzards, and Heads I've tried, including the Brahma and Kore 93, is that they have a lot of "bend" (rocker) built into the tip, but are actually stiff in flex. You get into the turn and you're fine as long as you're going with the built-in curve, but as soon as you push beyond that it's jarring. In short, they lack flow and modulation in my view. I'd rather have a bit less rocker and an easier flex pattern. I did like the Rustler 9 but want something narrower than that.

Me: 5' 7" 140lbs, 58, know the limits of my overconfidence, skied with a bunch of you, much faster since I got the orange pants.

 

[KingGrump]

Kendo 170.

 

[Tony S]

Distress flares always attract pirates.

 

[KingGrump]

Bunch of vultures.

 

[mdf]

Navigator 85. They are pretty soft, yet have a real tail.
(Betcha could have guessed that's what I'd say.)

 

[Philpug]

As they say for Mad River Glen, "Either you arrive with rock skis, or you leave with rock skis". Start scouring FBmarket, Craiglist and our own Garage for options.

 

[Philpug]

Dynastar M-Pro 84 or 90

84 yes, 90 no. The 84 is the old Legend 84 with updated graphics, the 90 is pretty darn beefy. If you can find an old Legend 88, that would be a great option.

 

[Lauren]

Get another pair of NOS FX85s

This would get my vote. If you love them and they were exactly what you’re looking for, why take the chance on something that might not be juuuuust right?

FWIW...it’s exactly what I did with my Santa Ana’s. Converted them to an AT set up, then wasn’t sure I made the right decision, so bought a second pair.

 

[DanoT]

There is an ever growing list of lightweight skis that would be suitable for AT bindings so I recommend keep the FX85 for bumps and stumps and then find a touring ski for the AT bindings.

 

[Snowfan]

Trees and moguls....FX85 for the win.

 

[Noodler]

Tony - how do you like getting your agility in a ski? Do you prefer a ski that easy to twist/pivot/slarve or one that has strong tip pull and a tighter turn radius when it's tipped on edge? What are your thoughts on rocker preference?

For me, when it comes to tight quarters where I need the ski to just turn when I think turn, I prefer to have sufficient tip and tail rocker. The reason is that a ski with a good amount of rocker will immediately turn when tipped... even if there is insufficient pressure on the ski. Without enough rocker, it's on you to better manage your fore/aft and the resulting ski pressure along the length of the ski to make it work. Since I'm not a "twist the skis" kinda guy, I really like skis with tip and tail rocker that is married well to the ski's sidecut so that the effective edge engages smoothly and consistently the more the ski is tipped on edge.

 

[Tony S]

Tony - how do you like getting your agility in a ski? Do you prefer a ski that easy to twist/pivot/slarve or one that has strong tip pull and a tighter turn radius when it's tipped on edge? What are your thoughts on rocker preference?

For me, when it comes to tight quarters where I need the ski to just turn when I think turn, I prefer to have sufficient tip and tail rocker. The reason is that a ski with a good amount of rocker will immediately turn when tipped... even if there is insufficient pressure on the ski. Without enough rocker, it's on you to better manage your fore/aft and the resulting ski pressure along the length of the ski to make it work. Since I'm not a "twist the skis" kinda guy, I really like skis with tip and tail rocker that is married well to the ski's sidecut so that the effective edge engages smoothly and consistently the more the ski is tipped on edge.

For this use case we are talking a lot of twisting/pivoting/slipping. I'm operating in very tight quarters where the distance between gotchas is measured in inches, not feet. Also the snow is often hard, so skis whose tips and tails are eager to hook up and go are non grata. The trees photo posted above could not be more different than what I'm talking about. If I'd thought about it I would have taken pics yesterday.

 

[Tony S]

For this use case we are talking a lot of twisting/pivoting/slipping. I'm operating in very tight quarters where the distance between gotchas is measured in inches, not feet. Also the snow is often hard, so skis whose tips and tails are eager to hook up and go are non grata. The trees photo posted above could not be more different than what I'm talking about. If I'd thought about it I would have taken pics yesterday.

Of course no one takes photos when conditions are normal. (The cameras come out on the special days.) This one that I stole from the net comes close, but you have to imagine more stumps.

Edit: Skier is an acquaintance, so figuring it's probably okay to post.

 

[SBrown]

It's been six years since I spent time at Saddleback. Now that it's in business again, and now that there is a bit of natural cover, I'm remembering what it's all about: bumps and stumps. Which is FINE. That orange "thin cover" lollipop is my siren's song.

Over the fall I took my old-reliable bumps-and-stumps skis - Kästle FX 85s @ 165cm - and put AT bindings on them. Now considering whether that was a mistake....

I repurchased the FX85s for this exact reason. (They also made it start snowing, which was on my mind too.)

 

[Tony S]

There is an ever growing list of lightweight skis that would be suitable for AT bindings so I recommend keep the FX85 for bumps and stumps and then find a touring ski for the AT bindings.

Yeah. I guess I may end up going there. My thought was that I could get by without buying another pair of skis. It's not like I don't have enough!

 

[zircon]

Get another pair of NOS FX85s

If you find more than one pair of these in stock anywhere in a 165cm do share (please please).

I just ordered a pair of Navigator 80s to kind of fill this hole while also handling groomer duty, but you're a much better skier, so I'm not going to pretend to make any recommendations.

 

[LuliTheYounger]

Florida Man and I both got the Moment Hot Mess this year, and I think they might be worth a look? We both pull them out for bumps days pretty dang reliably; they do an admirable job with chopped up stuff and hardpack. They have a ton of rocker, both tip & tail, so they handle tight spaces & side slipping really nicely. Your length (162, assuming) would be an 89mm underfoot though, which sounds like it might be a little wider than you want to go.

 

[Brad J]

I have the previous generation FX84 176 with a 18 M radius, for a bump and tree ski here in the east they are ok , a tad to stiff and a little to long. I bought the FX 85 for that exact purpose but sold them before I actually skied them. I totally agree with you on approach, skiing bumps and tree's here in the east you must bring a bag full of skills to effectively navigate the snow/ice conditions and misshaped frozen bumps that develop. I think you have the correct ski , remount the old bindings and you are good too go IMO, or you can buy @mdf old slightly bent Navagators

 

[Tony S]

Florida Man and I both got the Moment Hot Mess this year, and I think they might be worth a look? We both pull them out for bumps days pretty dang reliably; they do an admirable job with chopped up stuff and hardpack. They have a ton of rocker, both tip & tail, so they handle tight spaces & side slipping really nicely. Your length (162, assuming) would be an 89mm underfoot though, which sounds like it might be a little wider than you want to go.

Looking ...

 

[Tony S]

Florida Man and I both got the Moment Hot Mess this year, and I think they might be worth a look? We both pull them out for bumps days pretty dang reliably; they do an admirable job with chopped up stuff and hardpack. They have a ton of rocker, both tip & tail, so they handle tight spaces & side slipping really nicely. Your length (162, assuming) would be an 89mm underfoot though, which sounds like it might be a little wider than you want to go.

Looking ...

Intriguing! With all that turn up at BOTH ends it would have to be the 172.

Edit: Not too up on my indie brands. Anyone else have input in that vein? @jmeb ? Still in touch with goings on at Moment?