Ultimate survival ski?

[Andy Mink]

I very much like the DPS Foundation Cassiar in 87 or 94. Both carve quite well yet give you the ability to poke off piste. They have enough tip rise to float in shallow powder and the tails are rounded enough to make slarving and playing in the bumps not scary. I have been on the Dynastar Legend 88 and 96 and the Rossi Experience 88Ti. All good skis but FOR ME and my "style", I prefer the DPS. I will say I was very surprised how well the Legend 96s turn. A very short radius 15m for a fairly wide waist with a generous shovel.

 

[Doeschna]

My idea of a “survival ski” is something with a little metal that isn’t too stiff ex: 2018/2019 bonafide, enforcer 93/100 or stokli sr95. Those are skis I could ski in bumps, ice or cut up run outs at Mach speed and would be damp enough to handle that without being punishing. Love all three of those skis but they are not the style that I currently ride when I go to Bohemia. I like lighter, more energetic skis that are more fun to carve and are easier to throw around in trees (liberty origin, head kore 93/99, elan ripstick, line sick day 94, blizzard rustler 9) and kind of just grit my teeth and hang on when skiing crud way too fast.

 

[Shawn C.]

Slim,

What are you on now and what do you like/dislike about your current skis? There may be a number of skis that fit your definition but perhaps you can narrow things a bit by letting us know what characteristics you like.

As for the Ranger 98, I've skied on them for the past 5 ski days (new skis!) and I can tell you they require attention from the driver. Very quick, very lively, quite stiff, tones of rebound. I love these skis in untracked anything and on smoother groomers. I think they are a bit of a handful in chop/crud but that is just me as I am used to skis that are more damp. Point being, these things rock in a lot of conditions for me, but I would not want to ski dense chopped up snow on a steep, narrow line with the Rangers. However, if you really like energetic skis they may fit your comfort zone.

 

[tromano]

These poles have screw drivers built in, will keep your survival skis from prereleasing if you need to crank your din in a bad spot.

https://www.backcountry.com/atomic-...7eIb0TA5CQ1iPZ-ueGTrdPX2A7oZLbIYaAn8IEALw_wcB

 

[Analisa]

Not a ski recommendation, but I’ll add that whatever you end up with, ski it often, not just on vacation. Ideally, I can bring or demo the perfect ski for that day’s conditions, but if not, I have the most fun on the skis I “know” the best. For me, that’s a pair of Pandoras that were my OSQ for a while and have since been my touring ski. My other skis are more fun, but they’re newer to me. When you talk about a ski that “performs predictably, safely and in control on all surfaces,” part of that is user-input and after 80 days on the Pandoras, I know exactly where my tails are when I’m wiggling through technical entrances and how when snow gets cruddy and skied out. I’d demo some all-mountains with a versatile waist for where you travel and get a pair that you connect with pretty well from the get-go and spend some time on them on your home mountain.

FWIW, my boyfriend’s most-trusted, daily driver ski are a pair of 120-waist Bents – for all terrain and all conditions. He gets lots of comments on the lift if it’s a hardpack/crud day and he just kind of shrugs like “they take a bit more work to get on edge and you have to move fast enough to skim over all the chunder, but you just get used to it.” Not suggesting a 120 waist ski is it, but rather that it’s a lot like predictive statistics. Predictability & reliability get better and better with more data points.

 

[Slim]

@martyg , thanks for the generous offer! During a has always sounded great(I’m a mtb’er too) and SW CO seems to be getting the goofs this winter! Unfortunately, I don’t think we will be able to get there this winter, no more vacations :-(.
@Analisa good point about familiarity, very true!

 

[AngryAnalyst]

I confess the title was a more interesting question to me than the question you’re actually asking.

My answer to the question you’re actually asking is something like Doeschna’s. Depending how often you ski out west a slightly wider ski could be good too - if you ski heavy crud often a 100-110 underfoot ski is better than something narrower but you do lose hardpack performance and quickness in bumps or trees.

The more interesting question to me is what ski would be best in highly consequential terrain independent of snow conditions. I spent some time thinking about that. My best guess is you’d want a pretty flat ski (not too much camber or rocker) between 95 and 110 underfoot. I’m not sure if you’d choose heavy for dampness or light for maneuvers, but it should be stiff. The reason you don’t want too narrow or a lot of camber is breakable crust. The reason you don’t want too fat is ice.

I should add a caveat to that answer by saying my suspicion is truly big lines are unskiable in really bad conditions based on the fact in bounds extreme terrain - which is not that large in the grand scheme - is pretty close to unskiable in bad snow. So maybe big powskis are the actual answer because you either cant ski the line at all or want a big ski to do it...no personal experience of Alaskan spines or other “real” gnar to tell you anything definitive unfortunately.

 

[Slim]

@Shawn C. and others.
My current skis are K2 Marksman (185cm). I love those skis for their loose, surfy feeling and easy pivoting. They are also fun to carve medium turns on decent snow, not snappy on initiation of course, but nice arcs.
Since they are fairly short in front, (considering I’m 6’5” tall and they have a pretty forward mount point), my weight can get thrown way over the tips, so they are not very supportive in chopped up crud or G-outs.
Grip on ice is also low. That’s not a problem taking them out west, or even at Lutsen, because any icy parts tend to be short, and you can just arc down the fall-line a bit more.

These skis are wider than I need in general, and I don’t need a true twin tip either, so Ihave been toying with the idea of replacing them with somehting abit narrower and more directional for trips out west. I had some good ideas for skis that might work for that use.
But, due to my skiing style and preference for soft snow, I would still stay with somehting wider and looser. However, those ski’s typically don’t do well on ice.

Then, I was reading @Cheizz trip report. In it, he mentions how the second day, there was a good amount of fresh snow, which he happily skied on his Kendo’s. Later in the trip, he mentions many runs were very steep and icy, but with his GS skis, he was safely able to ski those.
He was doing a car trip with a quiver, but it got me to thinking. If I flew to the alps, i would only take one pair of skis. And I would like have a decent time on the icy runs when that’s all there is(often the descent at the end of the day), while still matching my fondness for softer snow and surfy skis the rest of the time.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Slim]

I confess the title was a more interesting question to me than the question you’re actually asking.
The more interesting question to me is what ski would be best in highly consequential terrain independent of snow conditions. I spent some time thinking about that. My best guess is you’d want a pretty flat ski (not too much camber or rocker) between 95 and 110 underfoot. I’m not sure if you’d choose heavy for dampness or light for maneuvers, but it should be stiff. The reason you don’t want too narrow or a lot of camber is breakable crust. The reason you don’t want too fat is ice. .

I think that is exactly the question I’m asking.
I think the difference perhaps stems from our different perceptions of “highly consequential terrain”.
I consider heavy grabby wet snow on a steep tree run to be consecqnetial: if you don’t turn in time, you clock a maple. I consider a the steep icy groomer to be consequential terrain, since if you fall, you will slide at very high speed, possibly of a cliff or into a rock or tree.
I suspect, you might not find those “highly consequential” (even though thy are), because you are very confident you can ski them in control.

 

[James]

@Shawn C. and others.
My current skis are K2 Marksman (185cm). I love those skis for their loose, surfy feeling and easy pivoting. They are also fun to carve medium turns on decent snow, not snappy on initiation of course, but nice arcs.
Since they are fairly short in front, (considering I’m 6’5” tall and they have a pretty forward mount point), my weight can get thrown way over the tips, so they are not very supportive in chopped up crud or G-outs.
Grip on ice is also low. That’s not a problem taking them out west, or even at Lutsen, because any icy parts tend to be short, and you can just arc down the fall-line a bit more
He was doing a car trip with a quiver, but it got me to thinking. If I flew to the alps, i would only take one pair of skis. And I would like have a decent time on the icy runs when that’s all there is(often the descent at the end of the day), while still matching my fondness for softer snow and surfy skis the rest of the time.

Hope that makes sense.

Well, two things.
1) Why not take two pair?
Possible reason- trains, travelling.
It's a little harder. But if you're taking shuttles (vans) it doesn't matter much.

2) Why not rent?
Renting is cheaper in Europe.
Against: You've got free bags on plane. Otherwise, ski bag costs about $100 each way.
Against: heinous tunes. Worst has been in Switzerland ironically.

Anyway, depends how much you like fat skis. 88-98 would be tops for me and what your talking. This is personal. Then just rent if going deep. You could also rent AT/tech gear.
Euros love carving skis. You can actually rent slalom skis.

 

[trailtrimmer]

Well, two things.
1) Why not take two pair?
Possible reason- trains, travelling.
It's a little harder. But if you're taking shuttles (vans) it doesn't matter much.

If your bag has wheels, two is the way to fly. Airline price is the same if it's two skis or four skis in the box or bag.

A well rounded carver and a wide all mountain or powder ski is a great combo for travel.

 

[Slim]

Well, two things.
1) Why not take two pair?
Possible reason- trains, travelling.
It's a little harder. But if you're taking shuttles (vans) it doesn't matter much.

2) Why not rent?
Renting is cheaper in Europe.
Against: You've got free bags on plane. Otherwise, ski bag costs about $100 each way.
Against: heinous tunes. Worst has been in Switzerland ironically.

Anyway, depends how much you like fat skis. 88-98 would be tops for me and what your talking. This is personal. Then just rent if going deep. You could also rent AT/tech gear.
Euros love carving skis. You can actually rent slalom skis.

Good points, and I have thought some of those same things.

1) why not two pairs?
First off, I only have one pair right now, so would need a second pair anyway ;-)
Second, I have 8 and 11 year old daughters. Currently we typically pack our family stuff into 2 ski bags (2 Pairs each) and 2 other bags/suitcases. I am sure we could make it work with just 3 or 4 skibags, maybe 1 regular bag and carry-on’s, but still I just don’t like to travel very heavy. Even in cars/shuttles luggage size seems to be a challenge, as is just schlepping it around. But might be doable.

2) Don’t all transatlantic flights have free bags? We still had free bags last summer on a basic economy ticket on Delta.
If renting, the question would still be “which ski to rent”.
Certainly renting specialist skis like big powder boards, slalom skis or lightweight AT gear seems like the way to go.

 

[Slim]

If your bag has wheels, two is the way to fly. Airline price is the same if it's two skis or four skis in the box or bag.

A well rounded carver and a wide all mountain or powder ski is a great combo for travel.

You are probably right. I just have to get out of the “take less” mode of thinking I am used to from backpacking. I am usually arguing with myself or my family about bringing a second sweater or something like that, let alone an entire second pair of skis!

 

[AngryAnalyst]

I think that is exactly the question I’m asking.
I think the difference perhaps stems from our different perceptions of “highly consequential terrain”.
I consider heavy grabby wet snow on a steep tree run to be consecqnetial: if you don’t turn in time, you clock a maple. I consider a the steep icy groomer to be consequential terrain, since if you fall, you will slide at very high speed, possibly of a cliff or into a rock or tree.
I suspect, you might not find those “highly consequential” (even though thy are), because you are very confident you can ski them in control.

You self described earlier as being an upper level intermediate or lower level advanced skier. I understand skiing is a dangerous sport but what I’m thinking of when I say high consequence is terrain I doubt you ski. As an example, I suspect you don't need to worry about the ability of your ski to handle straight lining the crux of a steep chute. This pushes you away from long and stable at the margin.

The best any condition ski I have personally ever used is probably a (discontinued) Kastle FX104. I don’t use them often anymore because there is almost always a more fun ski, but they are stable and carve well for their width. They are not very loose and I would probably like them better if they were. I am not sure I’ve ever had the privilege of using them in breakable crust but my suspicion is they’d be ok at it.

They are not necessarily easy to ski which is a cost of most skis in this class. The Kastles are work in bumps when you have to pivot the relatively flat tail. I have also spent a few weekends skiing them in east coast trees. I can tell you it works and they are fast. However, you had better be physically strong and have good technique - if you were much better than I am perhaps the strength would be less important.

Skis I haven't been on but which are interesting to me in this genre:
ON3P Wrenegade 96/108
New Black Crows Corvus

Hope that helps.

Last thought, all your choices have trade offs and some performance characteristics are harder to combine than others. If you were willing to relax your need for performance in trees you can go wider and stiffer which helps in open spaces on both hard and soft snow. If you relax soft snow you can go narrower which helps on hard snow and in tight spaces. There are probably a lot of choices like that you need to make and if you think of your skis as having a fixed budget of points you can allocate them to best use.

I personally would say an enforcer 100 is as close to a do everything acceptably well ski as exists, but it doesn't have incredible top end in any particular area.

 

[James]

2) Don’t all transatlantic flights have free bags? We still had free bags last summer on a basic economy ticket on Delta.

Ski bags are a different category, but check. Last year I didn't take skis. Year before on TAP airlines it cost 100 Euros each way. They were astonished my ski bag was at the limit, I think it was 30kg. Tuning stuff, clothes, gloves, extra liners... It was such a hassle with the roller bag the next year I rented. Your holding a long lever with 190+ skis and supporting most of the weight since the wheels are at the end.

I used to use a basic over the shoulder bag with two pair and clothes somehow crammed in. But it was limited to 180cm, I now had a pair of 192's, and then Southwest destroyed it dragging it on the tarmac at high speed. Sanded one of the binding heels down and ruined it.
Still, though it's heavy on the shoulder it's in some ways easier to schlep then the double roller bag. For you with kids roller is the way.

How much off piste would you do in Europe? Considering anything off a marked trail is off piste.
Make sure you get the insurance with the ticket, trip insurance isn't a bad idea either as the ticket insurance is a gray area. They like choppers for transport at many areas and they ain't cheap.

Renting you get to try stuff. How else can you learn about these things?

Some recs:
'19 Rossi Exp 88,94
Nordica Enforcer 93
Blizzard Rustler 9

 

[ARL67]

This thread is like a OSQ thread, depending on one's ski location.

I do my wider ski experimentation when on trips to Europe as they are of little necessity where I live. I have always taken 2 wider skis ( 95 to 112 range ) and it is fun to see how versatile they can be, and suit our individual likes/dislikes. I have encountered very little ice slopes in my Euro travels, so have little concern for dealing with that. Next month I'm off to Solden Austria with a couple pals and I will take an SR97 177 and BMX105 non-HP 181. My one pal is bringing Volkl 90Eight 177, and the other SR95 192 ( carbon tip & tail version ) and possibly also his Kore 105 189. But after this season I will probably just take 1 ski from now on. I'm suspecting the slightly softer SR97 will be the winner for me, and then I'll rent whenever a ski change might be appropriate, or the latest hot-ski of the season catches my curiosity. Europe is geared to the rental market, and no shortage of interesting skis to try out. If one is in St. Anton, check out Sport Jennewein for a great selection for rental or purchase.

 

[FairToMiddlin]

Well, two things.
1) Why not take two pair?
Possible reason- trains, travelling.
It's a little harder. But if you're taking shuttles (vans) it doesn't matter much.

2) Why not rent?
Renting is cheaper in Europe.
Against: You've got free bags on plane. Otherwise, ski bag costs about $100 each way.
Against: heinous tunes. Worst has been in Switzerland ironically.

Anyway, depends how much you like fat skis. 88-98 would be tops for me and what your talking. This is personal. Then just rent if going deep. You could also rent AT/tech gear.
Euros love carving skis. You can actually rent slalom skis.

@James the tunes were magnificent at Kitzbuhel last year.

This isn't a bad idea at all. My wife and I did this, and were loving the freedom of movement through trains and sidewalks, etc. We got into Europe through Munich (which was awesome, and a pleasant surprise), took the train right to the gondi, picked out skis, booted up, and off we went.

 

[FairToMiddlin]

Renting you get to try stuff. How else can you learn about these things?

Some recs:
'19 Rossi Exp 88,94
Nordica Enforcer 93
Blizzard Rustler 9

...and these are the exact skis I would recommend (with the added bonus of being able to go narrower as a last-second audible; it's like standing at a buffet, right at the base).

 

[AngryAnalyst]

2) Don’t all transatlantic flights have free bags? We still had free bags last summer on a basic economy ticket on Delta.
If renting, the question would still be “which ski to rent”.
Certainly renting specialist skis like big powder boards, slalom skis or lightweight AT gear seems like the way to go.

Not to add too much complexity but how big are you again? I mention this because I am 6 ft and 220. My personal experience (though this varies greatly by base area) is that it's genuinely hard to find the big dude size powder skis if you want something other than the standard issue Soul 7.

 

[Slim]

Not to add too much complexity but how big are you again? I mention this because I am 6 ft and 220. My personal experience (though this varies greatly by base area) is that it's genuinely hard to find the big dude size powder skis if you want something other than the standard issue Soul 7.

I am 6’5”, 180lbs. I do know it is hard to find the longest engths of skis at demos(and I am sure the same is true for the smallest sizes)