eaf

Yeah, the latest greatest.

I really was never going to regularly ski Elans, they're not my skis, I was only curious. But Atomics being the FIS inventory were specifically recommended from the women's line and they were right on the money. They're softer and shorter than the men's version, but in this case it works to my advantage because I'm no way a racer, and that's who the FIS skis are made for. When one says softer or easier it all depends on what the baseline is. And I'm pretty sure the price varies both ways.

Why not? It's all subjective, they're supposed to be just lighter and have more flex. At the same time these particular skis have everything in them that good skis should: titanal, full length sidewalls. They were supposed to hold, but they didn't. Also, let's not forget that my Atomics are really women's FIS skis, I'm thinking that the men's version would take me for a ride. I'm also hearing that the upper Head Joy model being again a women's ski is found to be OK by lighter men.

Btw, somebody has fallen off the 6-pack yesterday, right over the part where Sidewinder starts. Had to be evacuated. Use the safety bar.

Well, you do that and I'll briefly revisit yesterday's skis I've tried. The whole demoing was spontaneous as was the visit to the mountain. Mostly I guess it got triggered by the lousy Elan performance compared to the SL skis, and so I thought that the night should be good time to try things out, but now I lean more toward the idea that Elan Insomnia, being a ski from the women's Elan collection was just not up to my 170lbs on hard snow. At some point at night btw they regroomed a narrow strip on Vista, and as I was there at the right time, Elan was totally fine on fresh corduroy. Anyway, I initially wanted to compare Nordica Enforcer with Navigator, plus also try Monster with graphene, but the shop didn't want to prepare the third pair 30 minutes before closing (didn't want to refund 30%, reschedule and overall while the regular personnel tried to be helpful, their boss behaved like a stubborn ass), so Navigator still remains a mystery to me, and in the end it was only Enforcer 93 and Monster 88, both in 177cm. The demo established a useful baseline as far as ski stiffness is concerned: both skis were totally fine and could be bent if needed, I was afraid that Monster would be out of my reach. They of course lent themselves to faster skiing and were more stable everywhere than my Atomics SLs, but that's not because of speed, Atomics can handle speed just fine and can also be driven in big radius arches, it's because they absorb potholes and bumps better. I love my Atomics most on smooth ice because they just glide smoothly there yet holding the edge, but on frozen shit they start throwing me around. Anyway, both skis were pleasant. Enforcer felt more refined and smooth like a car with better suspension, and with Monsters I was still feeling a lot of irregularities. The irregularities weren't really throwing me anywhere, Monsters were stable enough, but they just transmitted more, I could literally feel how the edges were crushing frozen lumps of snow, brrr. At the same time Monsters were a much better and reliable carver, it's true that they weren't as hooky as Atomics yesterday, but they would still hold the edge and would bend w/o any effort. With Enforcers I found that I had to adjust to them and be more careful, for they were less eager to start going on edge and were losing it sooner at the end of a turn. But once loaded, they held. Both skis could cope easily with @AtomicSkier speeds, though I don't believe I'll be skiing that fast very often, and so it's useful that they have a medium radius of 17, I think I'll stick to it when looking for alternatives. Another subjective remark is that for as long as I was on the Monsters I couldn't get away from the feeling that their front part was not made of springy wood, but of some hard and light plastic. Didn't like the graphics at all either. But that's really just being extremely subjective. If I had to choose between the two, I'd probably lean toward Monsters because I do night skiing a lot, and they seem to be better suited for hard snow. Ideally I'd want to try them both in spring again. Just from the construction standpoint Enforcers should be better in soft snow because they have more of a rocker.

Oh God, that chart is epic! It's absolutely worth hanging it on a wall. And that's like the signature of this particular forum. People call CB a circus, but look at what we have on these 6 pages so far! Thanks @SallyCat!

I would get then if they were $200 less. And it's not because I'm cheap, they just don't cost more. I've just missed a pair like this for $450.

What the hell happened to my thread?! Ok, tonight's digest: 1. @AtomicSkier has ruined my day by not letting me to hand flex his MXs. I think he's a cheat, for his skis look neither fat nor long. He does ski them amazingly well though. 2. @GSSucks doesn't need to get to the speed of light on his unpronounceable skis to start doing nice and smooth curves. That's compared to MX98. And that was just sooo obvious on Paradise. I was already bending Enforcers, and @AtomicSkier was still hunting for speed. 3. I've burnt $60 on demoing skis that I don't need. They were good. I'd like to compare notes on Monster 88 some time. 4. The True Blue owes me $20 for letting their techs go home 30 mins prior to closing and stripping me of the 3rd pair. 5. The women's Elans sucked, they just wouldn't hold the edge despite all the titanal and sidewalls in them, and that was twice as weird because I could perfectly ski them the other day, and today was also the best day ever for my Atomics. On the rails. Literally. 6. Speaking of Atomics again, they surely were the best of all skis I've tlbeen on today. It was just awkward doing these tight turns again after finishing with Monsters. 7. I'm not gonna buy anything tonight. I was pretty happy with Enforcers and Monsters, so will look for them in spring. If I can score MX84-88 meanwhile, I'll jump on them. 8. GS skis don't have to be fat, but I do see value in getting them fatter if they're also to be used in spring crud.

Titanium? You wish. And really who doesn't have two layers of titanal these days? Your GS may send RTMs to the moon, but what does rebound energy have to do with width? The guy was probably amazed that someone wouldn't prefer skiing something narrower on hard snow that can be put on edge easier. That's all. Anyway, I finally got here. Will go check the new foot of pow and cry sinking on my 67mm.

I adore this board for being so modest. So what's your excuse for riding fatties on today's hardpack?

Perfect. I'll get to see those MXs live, could not have hoped for more.

The storm is coming from the shore. Do the math.

Dark green jacket with some light green stripes, black pants and helmet. I'll mostly be on red short Atomics, but may briefly run on some dark blue women's Elans

Not where I live. 6"-8", they say. Plus blizzard.

I'll never be able to get there tomorrow. Kinda obvious.

Yeah, I read more about these XTis in many places. They're universally regarded as very stiff. Don't want them anymore. Plus they're a blah compared to MXs. I think I'll go skiing Blue tonight, given that tomorrow is gonna be windy, snowy and icy everywhere. I'll ponder about FX85 while I'm on the mountain. I don't understand the attitude toward the RTMs. They're considered high end skis everywhere else.

Oh fine. Somebody just delete this thread. And the whole Gears section too. Shadows was right.

Oh shoot. I forgot how I was only recently telling someone about it. What, 84-88 is narrow in your understanding? Really??

That's cool. Don't need a narrow ski either. Already have one.

Is that a tricky question? If you're genuinely interested, they do. I knew you were secretly envying salty all this time.

Yeah, well, I like my descent a little bit less linear, and speed under control, for those boarders are moving so unpredictably. Hate it when I suddenly run into a sitting party in the middle of the slope. So MX98 is out. I skied a women's version of Elan with the same technology. Shorter, softer, narrower. It did well on edges, was smoother than my SLs. Didn't really get a feeling of that Amphibio technology at all. And it's interesting how they've changed the story about the convex tails since the last time I've read about it. Then they said it's good so that the tails wouldn't catch. Now they're advertising it as a way to stabilize the vibrations by 30%. The woman's version also had only one layer of titanal. XTIs have two. Anyhow, anybody skied them at all?

We can talk about lunch choices if that's more suitable. But not until the sale ends.

How did you ski them? Or rather, what style of skiing are they lending themselves to?

Then look straight at Stockli AX. Or Z90. Never discounted price. No need to time it.

Actually, 84 will probably make more sense for me: http://www.powder7.com/Elan-Amphibio-84-XTi-Skis-176cm-New-Flat-2017/for-sale