Slush/Crud Ski for old legs?

[Wilhelmson]

Was it Nordicas a few years ago that were noodly?

 

[KingGrump]

Second @James on skinnier & stiff.

 

[ScottB]

So, Angry Analyst, you are saying you do not like the Wildcat tour in slush? I thought your post was indicating you did.

I like some heavy skis in slush, really it comes down to personal preference and the characteristics of the ski. I was kind of surprised how much I liked the Zero G 108 in slush, but I am liking the ski in almost all conditions. Not my favorite in hard conditions, but I really like skiing it and don't mind it in anything short of ice. It skis like a light Cochise and can carve and pivot at will, but its not surfy or playful. It did fall apart at high speed over bumpy frozen snow, but it is a AT ski after all. Even in those conditions I just slowed down and it calmed down.

I hear the Wildcat tour is a great ski as well, if I was not in the East, I would have considered it more seriously for me.

So back to the OP's issue, my input is get a ski that is wide enough to float you on top of the slush and it will ski with a lot less effort required and be easier on your legs. How wide is fairly much determined by your weight. I found 108mm wide to float me in slush and I am 240 lbs. Slush is a lot more dense than light powder, so you don't have to go as wide as a powder ski, but you could if you want to.

 

[slowrider]

A substantial amount of front rocker should reduce the leg burn. I still ski on carve skis so I could be wrong.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Sorry, wasn’t trying to be confusing but can see how what I wrote would be. The Wildcat 108 Tour is pretty good in slush. If you told me I had to choose a light ski to use in slush it is a good choice - I don’t like short radius skis in slush and I do like rocker. It worked well this spring in and out of bounds at Stowe.

However, I prefer heavy skis to light skis in slush because I feel like I get less drag. My favorite “slush” skis would be heavier than the Wildcat 108 tour (for example, the new Wildcat 108 in bounds core). The major caveat is I am less than half OP’s age so it’s a bit hard for me to tell you “you’re doing it wrong” for preferring a lighter ski.

More concisely summarized - the Wildcat 108 Tour is good, relative to other lighter skis I’ve used, in slush. It is also good in an absolute sense though it is not my first choice for slush because I’d rather have a heavier ski. Does that make sense?

Really my personal first choice is an ON3P billygoat or a OG Wildcat 118

 

[GregK]

Agree with the Moment Wildcat 108 but in the new non tour version. Similar feel to the wider Wildcat but quicker edge to edge and actually a hair damper because of the different wood but at a similar lighter, easy to handle weight. For resort use, get the slightly heavier non tour versions which are more damp.

I use my Bibby’s daily in the East Coast In afternoon Spring crud as they are so fun. Even better than the Enforcer 104 if the heavy piles are really high and much better than the Enforcer 93.

This year I was the only person skiing one lift after 2pm as it was so rough but the Bibby’s just motor through it. You can feel the ski absorbing the bumps and don’t have to change your style of skiing even when it’s choppy. Was talking to one group asking about my skis as they saw me flying through crud and I told them “I giggle with the skis through this stuff”. One women in the group with older skis said “I’m not giggling today!” Lol

Bibby’s are heavier than the Wildcats but due to construction updates, they are lighter without affecting crud performance much and have a much lighter the swing weight and the top sheet chips less now.
The 184cm version would be perfect for the OP.

 

[tball]

I'll endorce Nordica Navigator 80 for $299 (from a site sponsor):
http://www.skiessentials.com/skis/view-by-year/2017-18-skis/2018-nordica-navigator-80-skis.html

I'm making that suggestion based on a semi-scientific slush shoot out on Palivachini at A-basin.

For much of May, I couldn't decide which of my skis I should be skiing at A-basin, so I tested my four serviceable skis back to back down the same line on Palivachini. I then took the two finalists for another lap. Six total laps down the exact same spring line. Here's how I ranked them.

1st Place - Navigator 80 172:

2nd Place - Blizzard Magnum 8.5 Ti 174:

3rd Place - Nordica Steadfast 179:

4th Place - Rossignol Sickle 181:

I then just skied my Navigator 80's the following weekend (this Sunday, June 1st). I was pushing them fairly hard in very slushy conditions and loving them. The firm middle and softer rockered tip with a solid tail worked great for me. I bought them to ski with my family, but they do so much more. It's priced like an intermediate ski but doesn't ski like one.

We were the last ones down Pali for the year Sunday before it closed for wet slab avalanche danger. Here's what it looked like, again on June 1st!

More pics of the fairly historic and very slushy June 1st conditions that the Navigator 80's ate up:
https://www.pugski.com/threads/2018-19-colorado-weather-and-stoke.11273/page-162#post-363848

 

[tball]

Me: 5'11", 210 lb, 72 y.o. advanced skier, prefer groomers (long and steep preferred) in my old age.

Obviously, that's not a groomer above, but we did ski several groomers and the Navigator 80 did well.

I do recall wishing they were longer. I'm 5'10' and 180 lbs on a 172 Nav 80, so kinda short. I think a bit wider might be better for slushy groomers too. The flex and rocker is great for slush, so maybe the Navigator 85 or 90 instead.

The rockered tip isn't great for refrozen in the mornings, though. I'm planning on using my 8.5 Ti's in the morning and my Nav 80's in the afternoon going forward.

 

[NE1]

Another vote for a beefy tanker in slush; I prefer them more on the mid-fat side than wIder. You need to move the slush a bit, not bounce off it.
YMMV

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Everyone who likes narrower skis in slush, can you help me understand why? My big concern in slush isn’t edge hold, it’s the edge of a ski getting caught in a rut and taking a bit of my knee with it when it comes free of my leg.

I believe, but have never carefully tested, that wider skis are less likely to hit get caught in ruts.

Am I missing something? I’m pretty sure I don’t want camber in slush so convincing me on that one is virtually impossible.

 

[markojp]

Everyone who likes narrower skis in slush, can you help me understand why? My big concern in slush isn’t edge hold, it’s the edge of a ski getting caught in a rut and taking a bit of my knee with it when it comes free of my leg.

I believe, but have never carefully tested, that wider skis are less likely to hit get caught in ruts.

Am I missing something? I’m pretty sure I don’t want camber in slush so convincing me on that one is virtually impossible.

Ski lower edge angles and avoid abrupt applications of pressure. Inclination isn't always a bad thing either*... think 'smooth and easy, tail following the tip'. There's nothing inherently bad about camber in slushy corn at all, but skis that you're having trouble bending because they're too stiff are to be avoided.

*

 

[slowrider]

I prefer carve skis in slush. They slice throught everything. Once the snow softens where your skis are over a foot or more below the surface things can get tedious. Then it's time for the fatties.

 

[KingGrump]

Everyone who likes narrower skis in slush, can you help me understand why? My big concern in slush isn’t edge hold, it’s the edge of a ski getting caught in a rut and taking a bit of my knee with it when it comes free of my leg.

I believe, but have never carefully tested, that wider skis are less likely to hit get caught in ruts.

Am I missing something? I’m pretty sure I don’t want camber in slush so convincing me on that one is virtually impossible.

Yeah, you are definitely missing something. Probably couple of round turns.

FWIW, my personal experience this season regarding spring skiing. Starting 4/6. One week at MJ. 3 weeks at Squaw/Alpine and 4 weeks at Mammoth. Totaled 8 weeks of spring skiing. Well, OK, there was couple weeks of winter in May at Mammoth. That still makes it 6 weeks of spring mush. About 60 ski days in that 8 week time frame. I was on a pair of BMX 105 for exactly one day. An 158 FIS SL for 4 days. The remaining days were split 70/30 between couple pairs of Kendo and Mantra M5.

Have to remember spring mush is rarely smooth. Especially off the groomers. Most spring mush devolves into bumps/piles sooner rather than later. A narrower cambered ski just feel better in those conditions.

This season's experience is pretty much in line with previous seasons.

YMMV.

 

[James]

Everyone who likes narrower skis in slush, can you help me understand why? My big concern in slush isn’t edge hold, it’s the edge of a ski getting caught in a rut and taking a bit of my knee with it when it comes free of my leg.

I believe, but have never carefully tested, that wider skis are less likely to hit get caught in ruts.

Am I missing something? I’m pretty sure I don’t want camber in slush so convincing me on that one is virtually impossible.

Don't think we said they're better, just we like them better in general. There's definitely drawbacks. Like if you try to go a different way the skis are going- faceplant. That can happen in moguls sometimes if you blow the timing.

Basically, you're carving in the stuff. They go through. There's less push back from the piles.
Oh, these all have camber. Never heard of a slalom ski with reverse camber. Yikes.
The last big "slush", wet corn really, event I had was a few days in Switzerland. First was on a 170 Atomic S9. The one with the rod, not the real slalom ski. Bleh. I've spent enough time on that ski now to dislike it though I tolerated it. The next day I switched to a skinnier and shorter slalom ski. So much better. Does what you want.

At one point came upon an instructor with some advanced kids. The instructor was on slalom skis too. Doing high edge angle short/medium turns.
You either go straight through the piles, turn in them, or time it so you land already in a turn and blow up the pile. So much fun.
I guess it all works because the snow is so consistent.

 

[Scrundy]

Another vote for narrower stouter ski over a wider softer ski. Had the experience of skiing late season this year in slush. First on stiffer 78 underfoot then switched to softer 95 , much preferred the 78. Seemed a lot easier to cut threw slop and not as catchy.

 

[slowrider]

Getting those slushy face shots.

 

[James]

Well the op wanted something easy on the knees. The current skis are a 175 Fischer Progressor 950, and a Rossi Bandit 83 180cm.

 

[markojp]

Well the op wanted something easy on the knees. The current skis are a 175 Fischer Progressor 950, and a Rossi Bandit 83 180cm.

... and in truly deep funky (and especially steep) mush, the new Mind Bender 99 skis very well. Goes without saying that the Monster 88 rocks, but that one might fall in the category of 'you should like what I like' sort of thing.

Gett'in down, gett'in gushy...

 

[Bill Miles]

Well the op wanted something easy on the knees. The current skis are a 175 Fischer Progressor 950, and a Rossi Bandit 83 180cm.

Actually, easier on the quads. Knees not bothering me (ywt).

 

[tball]

Skinnier (80-90) for slush bumps, wider (90-10?) for slush cruisers is my thought. Slush bumps are a big part of the fun of spring for me, so narrower is my preference.

For reference, I used to love the 1st and 2nd gen Kendo in the slush and spring crud. Mantra was also nice, but not as quick turning in the bumps.

What's interesting is how challenging it is to find the right ski for spring conditions. On winter Colorado snow I'm usually happy with whatever I'm skiing. By late spring, I always feel like I'm on the wrong ski, which led me to shop for Kendos late one night. Thought I should go shopping in my basement first and glad I did.