Comparison Review Battle of the Premium 80mm Skis: A Segment of Glorious Skis

[Philpug]

SRs are far more beautiful.

Thats the deciding factor to hang your hat on.

 

[Tony Storaro]

Thats the deciding factor to hang your hat on.

Seriously tho, the ones you reviewed were AM98ti. On the Augment website I only see AM98. Are these the same ski?

 

[Philpug]

Seriously tho, the ones you reviewed were AM98ti. On the Augment website I only see AM98. Are these the same ski?

Same ski.

 

[Dougb]

Okay we are drifting from premium 80mm to premium 90mm skis….

 

[ski otter 2]

Actually, to 95 to 98 skis.
For me, those get used when there is some soft snow, up to maybe three inches or so. More, and it's on to the 10Xs and wider. Less, and it's back to the 67s to 90s. A small range for usage.

 

[justaute]

I also prefer mine tuned to 0.5/3.0, I like the "race ski feel". I would recommend skiing the factory 1.3/2.0 tune and adjust to your preference once its time for a bottom grind. (or sooner if you know what you like for bevels).

0.5/3.0 is definitely race feel. My friend's teenage son just came back from World Cup/World Jr and that's what he used in Europe. His dad, a former Olympian/WC racer normally use 0.75/3.0. Mine is at 1/3.

 

[DocGKR]

Except speed skis which I run at 1/3, any ski I own below about 70mm or so in width is tuned 0.5/3. My skis from around 70-90mm are at 1/3 and those wider are usually at 1/2, although a few are 1/3. I wish all performance skis would come either 0/0 or 0.5/3 from the factory.

When looking at ski width, my skis 70mm and under are typically for hard snow, on-piste carving and these are generally not ideal in fresh snow. My skis in the 70-80mm width range are generally good up to around ankle deep fresh snow; those in the 80-100mm width work for me up to knee deep; and I break out the 100+ skis for deeper days.

 

[ski otter 2]

For me it's not so much whether it will work as what is the most fun. Knee deep on an 80 to 90 ski is to me a waste of good powder, in terms of optimal fun.

And basically, if it's over, say, six inches at a resort, I'd rather be on either the Black Ops 118/186.5 (which is almost a bit too short for normal sized folk, especially in deeper); or if over, say, 10", at a resort, the Pettitor 120/189 for all forms of powder/crud. (Silverton Mountain called this ski the most versatile powder ski they know of. You'd know why if you'd tried it.)

I know there are a great many other options, but this gives the general idea.

 

[Philpug]

Okay we are drifting from premium 80mm to premium 90mm skis….

I can do that.

 

[East Coast Scott]

Except speed skis which I run at 1/3, any ski I own below about 70mm or so in width is tuned 0.5/3. My skis from around 70-90mm are at 1/3 and those wider are usually at 1/2, although a few are 1/3. I wish all performance skis would come either 0/0 or 0.5/3 from the factory.

When looking at ski width, my skis 70mm and under are typically for hard snow, on-piste carving and these are generally not ideal in fresh snow. My skis in the 70-80mm width range are generally good up to around ankle deep fresh snow; those in the 80-100mm width work for me up to knee deep; and I break out the 100+ skis for deeper days.

This is an honest question, not being a smart ass. What is the difference between knee deep snow and snow deeper than that? I guess I'm asking if you like your skinnier skis in knee deep why wouldn't they perform the same in deeper snow? You only sink so much no matter the depth, correct?

 

[François Pugh]

In deep (a few feet) snow, I sink in more with 96 mm waist-width skis than with 108 mm waist-width skis.

 

[DocGKR]

Yup.

I've had many a great day in 6-18" of snow on 88-104mm skis--the deeper the snow, the wider the ski I choose; when dealing with deeper powder, then 110+mm all the way!

Of course the best powder day I have ever experienced was on 210cm narrow straight GS skis back in the day and my second best powder day ever was on 185cm 98mm's, so there is that to contemplate.

 

[dovski]

This is an honest question, not being a smart ass. What is the difference between knee deep snow and snow deeper than that? I guess I'm asking if you like your skinnier skis in knee deep why wouldn't they perform the same in deeper snow? You only sink so much no matter the depth, correct?

Fat skis give you more float than skinny skis. Also the deeper the snow the deeper you sink. So while in say a foot of powder you may not notice a dramatic difference between a 96 mm and 110 mm ski, in 2-3+ feet of POW you will notice a much bigger difference.

Think of it this way I can easily trudge through a foot of snow in regular snow boots, but in 2-3 feet of snow I really want snow shoes as boots alone just don't cut it.

 

[East Coast Scott]

Fat skis give you more float than skinny skis. Also the deeper the snow the deeper you sink. So while in say a foot of powder you may not notice a dramatic difference between a 96 mm and 110 mm ski, in 2-3+ feet of POW you will notice a much bigger difference.

Think of it this way I can easily trudge through a foot of snow in regular snow boots, but in 2-3 feet of snow I really want snow shoes as boots alone just don't cut it.

Yeah, I was just trying to picture why skinny skis would sink any different in knee deep to waist deep? But thinking about it more I guess the snow starts to pack more under your skis if it's only knee deep.

 

[East Coast Scott]

In deep (a few feet) snow, I sink in more with 96 mm waist-width skis than with 108 mm waist-width skis.

Yes, I was trying to compare same width skis in different depth of snow.

 

[François Pugh]

It's also easier for skinny skis to sort of slide sideways off the platform of more dense snow they have compressed under them. Fat skis in deep snow compared to 68 mm skis in deep snow is like pushing an easy button.
(edit) Not a problem if the snow isn't so deep.

 

[ski otter 2]

Alright, enough. Knee deep powder before a switch? To me the section quoted, and the part being asked about in particular, is sort of extreme. Just dinosaur old school, maybe? Dunno.

To me, that posted question brings to mind something different than the answers, whatever @East Coast Scott actually meant. Knee deep snow is so deep that it's a fair question just how deep it would have to be; and at that depth, what the difference would be, exactly, with more: to get one off those relatively narrow skis. (And, among other things, off the experience of just balancing there on the compressing snow on skinnier skis, as if on a balance beam, almost.)

And the answers, so far, while sounding reasonable, are not. They are just sort of askew, just off. And as it gets deeper, more off still. Like in a time warp, maybe. Dunno.

Skipping many of the details:
More than 4" and I'd optimally be on wider.
More than a foot, up to around two (knee deep for many), plus the resulting chop/crud at a resort, no more, can be a truly memorable experience, again, on (the right) wider skis. Very different than what can happen on an 80-100 mm ski, for Heaven's sake.

 

[François Pugh]

Yeah, the 68 mm wide ski is an extreme example that illustrates the point. If the snow's 6" deep, there's no reason not to be on at least an 80 mm ski, and the only reason not to be on a lot of 100+ mm skis is that you might also on that same run end up on a firmer groomed run where a lot of the 100+ mm skis have other built in features that enhance their deep-snow performance (like softer flex and rocker) at the expense of their groomer-zoomer performance.

 

[dovski]

Alright, enough. Knee deep powder before a switch? To me the section quoted, and the part being asked about in particular, is sort of extreme. Just dinosaur old school, maybe? Dunno.

To me, that posted question brings to mind something different than the answers, whatever @East Coast Scott actually meant. Knee deep snow is so deep that it's a fair question just how deep it would have to be; and at that depth, what the difference would be, exactly, with more: to get one off those relatively narrow skis. (And, among other things, off the experience of just balancing there on the compressing snow on skinnier skis, as if on a balance beam, almost.)

And the answers, so far, while sounding reasonable, are not. They are just sort of askew, just off. And as it gets deeper, more off still. Like in a time warp, maybe. Dunno.

Skipping many of the details:
More than 4" and I'd optimally be on wider.
More than a foot, up to around two (knee deep for many), and the resulting chop/crud at a resort, no more, can be a truly memorable experience, again, on (the right) wider skis. Very different than what can happen on an 80-100 mm ski, for Heaven's sake.

I think you raise a good point, but there is also another factor we need to consider and that is knee deep what? Champagne pow, Cascade concrete ... etc. Yes agree 4 plus inches is super fun on wider skis as you have enough POW to essentially surf the snow, but what if it is 4 inches of wet Pow at that point you may not want to go as wide. Lets also not forget the flex pattern and shape of the ski as those are also factors in how well a ski performs in POW. To that end my Laser AX is super fun in 4-6 inches of POW, but my SR95 can easily handle a 1-2 feet. At the same time when we get over a foot of fresh pow my Enforcer 110 comes into play and is super fun. I think we can slice and dice this conversation and come up with super complicated algorithms but the main point is as the snow gets deeper fatter skis perform better. How deep will depend on the type of snow and the skier. Let's also not forget that 20+ years back there were no fat skis and folks had a lot of fun skiing deep POW on skinny skis

 

[François Pugh]

Let's also not forget that 20+ years back there were no fat skis and folks had a lot of fun skiing deep POW on skinny skis

For me at least, it's more fun now with fat skis. It was fun, just not as much fun as it is now. And just to eliminate the improvements I may have made in my skiing ability, it's more fun for me now on 108s than it is now on my skinny Volants - "a serious deep snow ski".