I am currently skiing on Dynastar Speed course 66 @ 189cms. Im 6'1 and weigh 210lbs. I love the speed and grip of my 66's, its a beast to say the least.
I find that towards the end of the day it gets hard to keep control over these stix. I mostly stick to steep groomers, and non intense moguls. I want to add another ski and I am considering the Dynastar contact, or an Elan Ripstix, Im looking for something a bit softer and can make nice short fall line turns and doesn't mind a couple of mogul runs. I'm pretty much going to stick with either Dynastar or Elan, Im boycotting any company who has moved production of skis to China.. and Im sure you know who they are.

The side cut on the 66 is 104 64 91.

I am thinking of going much shorter with my new ski like a 168 or 170.. do you think that would be too short of a ski for me? Im just thinking it would be more
manueverable in the bumps?

Anyone have any experience with Elan's Magfire ski series? Im considering a magfire 10 or 12, but I think the waist cut is too wide for on piste.? 116-76-102

Thanks in advance!

My skis are 97mm underfoot and work just fine on and off piste. Go wide, young man.

John

Thanks for the compliment! I turn 46 this year Im only 25 in my mind though! my body just doesnt grasp that fact though.

So is 97 considered a Fat ski or a Midfat?

I tried skiing some powder at ALTA Utah two years ago on my GS skis.. they didnt seem to care for it too much.

There's no reason to categorize skis as mid-fat or fat, these standards are flexible. The most important fact about a ski is how much fun it is. Mine are super-fun. Yours sound mid-fun.

John

Thanks for the info!
I think the fun is relative though.. i have quite a bit of fun blasting down the steep groomers on my gs skis... i know when I go into a tuck they take off like a rocket ship... which is my fun. I skiied a rosi bandit demo one year up a the Bush.. and I didnt care for the way it took turns at speed. It was ok in some moderate bumps.... it was pretty blah besides that.

Mainly Im just looking to add to my quiver.. A true all mountain ski.. which I really dont think exists.. it is sort of like an enduro motorcycle.. part street part off road... but doesnt really excell at either.

Ill just have to go out and hit up some demo ski's this season and see what works. I still have a pair of no fun 218cm pencil stix..heh heh...
I also have one of the first autodrive models from Dynastar the speed 63, at a length of 186 cm. which snaps nice tight fall line turns with ease.

I want to try skiing something shorter.. like 168 and see what happens...

I was just trying to get some peoples input on pros and cons of different sidecuts.. from actual experience by skiers. Sales brochures are written mainly to sell skis.. and may be off kilter when it comes to true on mountain experience with the ski.

Stop at Ski Sharp and demo some Stockli Stormrider XLs.

Cool, Ive read good things about Stockli skis. I'll be sure to check them out. Thanks!

Moderator note: Moved here, as it is more misc. than Sugarbush related... Lostone

with new ski technologies its all about the sidecut, waist dimensions have become less meaninful even in the past few years. You will now be hardpressed to find an "all mountain" ski in the 60mm waist range. You can very easily ski anything with a waste of 90mm or less as an all mtn ski if the shovel and tail are sized accordingly. The Elan Magfires are very fun and quick turning skis. They will be much softer than what you currently ski but that is not always a bad thing. definately ski somewhere in the 170 range, it will be more versatile. I suggest trying a Nordica Nitrous. Awesome all mountain ski with great edge hold and energy. The rossi Bandits you tried last year don't have a wood core and are light in nature. Some one with your build would over power them on high speed runs very easily. Don't let those discourage you....there are very fun skis out there, try as many as you can!