Black Diamond Current – Quiver Arrow of the Week


Post by WildSnow.com blogger | April 19, 2013      
Black Diamond Current is solid and predictable.  Recommended.

Black Diamond Current is solid and predictable. Recommended.

The 87 waist ski is a standard for ski mountaineering. They’re light, work well on the steeps, are fun on piste, and while not a powder panacea an “87” can be a fun stick for big days. They cut deeper, possibly upping face shot percentage or at least invoking a bit more pleasing neurological attention than just tilting your knees from left to right. But mostly, 87s are pure efficiency for human powered work.

With their 118/86/106 20 meter radius profile, Current goes where you point. No chatter, no tips that quiver like they’re a dog rousting a grouse. In a word, predictable. Weight of my 175 testers gentled the scale at 50.7 ounces (1436 grams) per ski, giving them a weight/surface score of 84 that places them in our “average” category. For a ski that performs well, 84 is a good number as our scores are biased to the lighter weight end of things. Current scores an 8.14 in our weight/length calculations, which is below average. In other words, Current provides a reasonable on-the-foot weight. That said, know that this mass is somewhat off the one kilo per ski weight metric that we predict will become the new standard for skis in this width class — but if a 1,436 gram ski does well on the down and the price is right, we still give it a thumbs up. (Or, we do now. We’ll see what happens in a year or so when more of the one-kilo skis come down the road.)

This is a rockered ski, but not too rockered. In my opinion Current has just enough rocker to ease your way in difficult snow and add fun for powder, but performance on hardpack feels pretty much like a non-rockered plank. I liked the 20 meter radius and moderate widths of the tip and tail. Heavily profiled skis continue to perplex me. I like just the right amount of sidecut for the job — instead of seeing light under my feet when I stand on steep hard snow.

What’s more, nice to not feel the ramshackle over-steer that too much sidecut or too much tip can so easily induce. Again, stable, mellow; did someone feed these skis a Xanax? Yeah, if there is one con to inject here it’s that these are not the most excitement inducing planks I’ve ever been on. But hey, in an 87 for ski mountaineering, I’d rather have a transcendental calm, not a barbaric leg thrutch inducing trampoline. Yeah, Current, transcend the twitch. They work.

Conclusion: Current is a definite contender if you’re looking for a ski in the 87 waist class. It is rockered, light and versatile. In my view, a perfect spring mountaineering ski or year-around plank if you’re a fan of this width profile.

Available this coming fall. This is the new sidewall construction. Shop for the Black Diamond Current here, make sure it’s the new model.



IF YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE VIEWING SITE, TRY WHITELISTING IN YOUR ADBLOCKER, OTHERWISE PLEASE CONTACT US USING MENU ABOVE, OR FACEBOOK.

Please Enjoy A Few Suggested WildSnow Posts


Comments

48 Responses to “Black Diamond Current – Quiver Arrow of the Week”

  1. Greg April 19th, 2013 2:34 pm

    Personnaly, I would be very perplex that a 1 kilo ski can actually ski well on the down. Tour/skin up well….no doubt :-), ski down well, pretty sure this is not happening 🙁

    So I hope there will continue to be plenty of not so light skis, especially of this width which I agree are the perfect mountainering skis for people skiing steep, big faces on hard snow.

  2. Lou Dawson April 19th, 2013 3:02 pm

    Greg, why? What makes 1 kilo the magic number for ski performance? A few years ago, would you have said the same thing about 1.5 kilo?

  3. Greg April 19th, 2013 3:49 pm

    To me it’s a question of compromise between the way up when the lighter the ski the better and the way down when the heavier the ski the better (for hard or difficult types of snow; soft snow or untracked powder are somehow different).

    So if I have to be quick on the way up, I will prefer a lighter ski even if I know it will perform worse on the way down…..but if I can handle a heavier ski on the way up, it will no doubt be my choice. So yes, I would choose a 1.5 kilo ski over a 1 kilo one in many situations 🙂

    Having said that, I realize the current trend amonst manufacturers is lighter, wider, rocker :-), more side cut…..which makes it super difficult to find what is a great mountainering ski for me (i.e. a ski that will perform super well and you will feell super secure in steep slopes with hard snow).

    By the way, the BD Current has been available here in Europe this year.

  4. Rodney April 19th, 2013 4:23 pm

    My wife has been skiing the Movement Logic X up and down and it seems to give her great performance is most conditions. Paired with Dynafit Verticals – total weight < 3 kg

  5. Lou Dawson April 19th, 2013 4:36 pm

    Greg, I’m not sure the available Current model is the same ski as the review. I was led to believe this is a different ski, but I could have been confused. Apologies if that’s the case. I’ll check.

  6. Lou Dawson April 19th, 2013 5:13 pm

    Rod, I’ve gotten numerous good reports on the Logic, one of these days perhaps we’ll test some. Thanks for information comment! Lou

  7. Lou Dawson April 19th, 2013 5:15 pm

    All, if they can make a tiny ski binding that skis better than most alpine bindings, why can’t they make a 1 kilo ski that skis good on the down? Me, I’m confident it can be done. It is time, and we are on top of it. Lou

  8. Bill April 19th, 2013 5:59 pm

    I love light skis both on the up and down.
    I simply have more fun on them.
    Kind of like driving a sports car rather than a big old cadillac.
    Some are just better at taking subtle inputs and responding properly.
    If your only tool in the box is force though, you will probably never enjoy them.

  9. Rob Coppolillo April 19th, 2013 8:31 pm

    This is an interesting ski, for sure. Thanks for the stamp of approval. I got to ski a “big brother” to this one–the Convert (105mm underfoot), out next fall, same sidewall construction. Skis seem more Euro in feel and construction than Chinese-made predecessors. Big improvements by the look/feel of it!

    Lou–when you say “rockered,” I assume you mean a bit in the tail, too? I’ve liked some of the BD skis with a flat tail (2011 Drifts; 2012 Aspect) and early-rise shovel…but hesitant about a bit of rocker in the tail (worried they’ll ski “short”). Any thoughts on that?

    Thanks for the good info and fun site! RC

  10. Carl April 19th, 2013 9:23 pm

    I am with Greg, light, stiff, damp, choose 2 and I will take stiff and damp every time. As a big guy who climbs mountains to ski them as opposed to skiing mountains to get down after climbing, downhill performance is very important and I can handle a couple extra pounds for that. I also dislike the trend of increased sidecut on skis like this. I want a ski that is around 90 underfoot with a 25m radius, stiff, damp and sub 8 pounds for the pair, If I can find this at 6.5lbs (3kg) that would be awesome but I am doubtful. I would love to see a qualitative 1-10 stiffness scale included in your reviews to help with ski searching as well.

  11. jriph April 20th, 2013 2:12 am

    I´m sure that when the full potential of composites (that includes wood which is after all is a very fancy composite) is realised a 1000 gram ski that is damp and has the flex (both torsionally and laterally) you want is very possible. I reckon that a 180cm 100mm ski can be made at say 750-500 grams if you really push it.

    Todays “carbon” efforts are just geting away from slimply replacing a layer of glass fiber with a lighter carbon one, to more material appropriate designs like the movement X-series and something like the R-idea offerings.

    If you really start from square one and stay far away from accountants i am shure it can be done.

    If it will be at a price you and I are willing to pay is a different matter.

    Carl : I skied a Ranger (prototype) of a 106 mm wide, 3mm camber, 25m radius tip rocker, flat tail ski that would be around 4 kg a pair in 186cm with dynafits speeds fitted and they where an awesome mix of dependable yet not boring. Question is : are 1000 grams less worth a 400 euro price premium..

  12. Greg April 20th, 2013 4:59 am

    I am pretty sure a 1 kilo ski with a great flex and shape can be made, but I also think that because of physics, it would never ski down as good as a ski with the same flex and shape only heavier.

    Why? Because in certain type of snow where the ski get “moved” a lot, a heavier ski will always be more stable.

    The Movement X Logic is actually an excellent example. I think it’s a great ski (they sold tons here in CH and nearby France)….but for one purpose : long days where I don’t want be be completely smashed up at top. So it’s a compromise and I can accept and fully enjoy the ski down with this type of ski b/c I know I couldn’t have done the same with a heavier ski.
    Now, a couple years back, Movement had the pretty same exact ski (122/89/111) with an “alpine ski” construction….I just don’t think the skiability of such a ski can be compared with a X Logic. It’s just not the same world. Both are great though for different purposes.

    And Movement is discountinuing the X Logic (traditional camber)…..next year model (new name) has a rocker…..and I am sure they will tell me it skis the steeps just as well as the model wih a traditional camber….:-)…..but I am myself quite convinced of the opposite :-). It will probably be a more versatile and fun ski in many conditions, but for true alpine terrain, it will simply work worse and lack security.

  13. Lou Dawson April 20th, 2013 5:29 am

    Greg, I hear you guys and agree that ski weight is a factor in how a ski performs on the down. But skis overall have gotten lighter, and that has apparently not caused them to ski worse. That’s one of the fallacies in the “lighter skis ski worse” rule of thumb. More, no one can tell me what a “heavier” ski is in terms of how much it needs to weigh. In other words, since the term “heavier” seems to be relative, the argument that a heavier ski is going to ski better seems to fall apart.

    My main point with this is I think it’s a disservice to ourselves to just assume that because a ski is lighter weight it doesn’t ski downhill as well as we might like. Some of the comments seem to make that assumption. To me, that’s like saying that the ski base color is red, so the ski surly won’t ski as well as one with a black base.

    Lou

  14. Lou Dawson April 20th, 2013 5:34 am

    Carl, I’d agree about the tendency for these companies to build the lightweight skis with exaggerated sidecut. I have no idea why that happens but it is disappointing. My guesses is that doing so is one way to reduce weight, as well as a way to compensate for lack of rocker. Some of the “one kilo” skis appear to be intended to appeal to shoppers who buy according to weight as their top criteria (which is valid for some folks). For example, the Dynafit Cho Oyu is an hourglass ski, and the Hagan has a somewhat strange wide tip combined with pin tail that they tout as something special, but has not yet born that out in my testing. But the exaggerated narrow sections of these skis make a significant weight reduction. I’ve been skiing a lot of skis over the past few years, extensively rather than a few hours each at a resort demo, and I’d agree that the sweet spot in shape for human powered vert seems to be something at or somewhat above 100 in waist width, with moderate sidecut, rocker at both tip and tail, and a flat tail. Or, for steep technical skiing and spring corn, the “87” width seems ideal, still without exaggerated sidecut and with a bit of rocker but not too much.

    And I’d totally agree that if a certain ski is the tool you need and want, and it weighs more, then that’s the way it is. All I’m saying is that simply assuming a ski is going to ski worse because it’s lighter is a false assumption. DPS, for example, puts the lie to that, as do Trab, Volkl, and Voile in our recent testing.

    Lou

  15. Lou Dawson April 20th, 2013 5:57 am

    As for price, believe me, the road bike mentality is already part of the shopping environment when it comes to ski touring gear. We’ve only seen the beginning.

  16. Greg April 20th, 2013 8:10 am

    Oh no, not at all 🙂

    I am not a masochist! :-)….I truly wish my experience would tell me a lighter ski is the equivalent of a heavier one for the down, it just ain’t the case for me.

    Regarding the question of how much heavy is heavy, my thoughts are based on empirical testing 🙂

  17. Greg April 20th, 2013 8:25 am

    To me pronounced side-cut is not just happening for ski touring but pretty much all across the whole ski spectrum….there are a few exceptions, which are super specialized skis for experts (GS skis, x-cross skis, big skis for big lines, etc).

    A ski with a pronounced ski cut is easier to turn….so it sells well with the vast majority of practitioners who don’t really bother to work on their technics and still make their lifes easier.

    Manufacturers don’t produce what works best, but what sells best. It’s a bit like the trend of big skis. I know it’s totally different in NA….but here in Europe, it’s crazy how many people you could see using large skis that obviously don’t match their skiing abilities and/or the conditions.

  18. Carl April 20th, 2013 8:27 am

    Lou,
    For the average BC skier I think you are right, the new light designs should ski fantastically. The consensus I have heard is that dps hubrids are much better skis than the full carbon pures, in part because mass is an effective damper. In order to create a light damp ski the mass needs to replaced with a different damping mechanism. At this point my skis are 9.5lb 112 waist soft snow skis and 8.25lb 88 waiste hard snow skis, I want a ski that when I come out of a couloir at 40+mph and hit some variable snow is still stable and can ski fast through non-smooth conditions. I am very happy with the weight on my wide skis, but wish the narrow ones were a bit lighter. Most of the light weight skis on the market are not for me, most hard skiers don’t care about light weight and most light fanatics don’t charge so the middle is a small market.

  19. G April 20th, 2013 9:38 am

    Hey Lou,
    One question on your theory – for the equivalent waist width, wouldn’t more sidecut add weight, as tip and tail need to be wider?

  20. Christian April 20th, 2013 1:50 pm

    I agree with Greg, the lighter skis just seems to be pushed around a lot more. I have been skiing light skis for a whille now (but not superlight) (mustagh ata sl, movement bond – and dynafit rando race). Although I have had some super good skiing on them…they just fall through in breakable crust, ice and super-mixed (powder, crust, ice every other meter). Trabs that I have tried, seem the same. On longer tours light would still be my choice, as I tend to ski slower when I am far away from people, and fresh legs help when going down.
    DPSs are light for their size, but not 1 kg light…so I am not sure DPS can be used to argue for light skis. But, a semi-light wide ski, might be preferable to an equal weight narrow ski….

  21. Chris Kipfer April 20th, 2013 5:25 pm

    Lou,It seems to me that the different ski designs,exagerated sidecuts,rockered tips and/or tails are mostly marketing gimmicks. The only real advance that I have seen in ski design in my 55 years of ski touring is the weight reduction made possible by modern composits. A ski turns either because it is unweighted and then weighted and bent,or, because it is angulated and has sidecut. The technique used is easily adjusted to the ski design by the skier. When you’re over 70 years old the primary consideration is weight,trying to keep up going up.The next is length.After those hip replacements the uphill kick turn is a bitch when the sk is longer than necessary. In the wood ski era an obvious rockered tip was a real no no. You k new that the ski would not bend in a constant curve and forward weighting would make the ski wash out. As for damping and stability how about a through-bolt fitting tip and tail and some lead add-on weights when desired?

  22. See April 20th, 2013 8:40 pm

    “As for damping and stability how about a through-bolt fitting tip and tail and some lead add-on weights when desired?”

    I’m reminded of my old Dynastar “chicken heart” slaloms. They were really light but had a weight/ damper in the tip. I spent many hours replacing blown out edges on those skis because I liked them so much.

  23. Ray April 20th, 2013 8:46 pm
  24. Bar Barrique April 20th, 2013 9:45 pm

    I will take light skis over heavier ones these days. If you are younger; you are probably willing to carry some pretty heavy skis up a mountain just to make sure you have the maximum performance on the way down. I used to think that way. However; lighter skis are surprisingly good for most BC skiing. In powder, they don’t give anything away, and, for jump turns; they are a revelation. As for performance; the shape of the ski may have more influence than the weight, though a heavier weight ski of the same dimensions may have better performance in the same conditions or at higher speeds.
    I agree that for extreme type skiing the light weights may not be the best choice, but for most folks, they are great for maximizing the amount of vertical you can ski in a day, with less wear, and, tear on your body..

  25. jriph April 20th, 2013 11:25 pm

    Mass is a very dependable (easy and cheap) way to damp and lower resonance frequencies. Remove mass and you get more and more varied resonances. Make it with stiffer materials you get higher order resonances.So if you want to have a ligher ski that feels more like a heavier ski you need to make it with more and different internal damping. There is still a huge amount of new things that can be done there. (Piezo crystal infused carbon/titanium fibre anyone 😉 )

    However by removing the mass of the ski you have also changed the moment of inertia (“swing weight”) which will have an impact on the way the ski behaves with regards to deflection . So even if you have damped out all the new resonances (when flexing the ski) so that it will now behave just like the heavy ski it will still feel different because of this.
    So adding tip and tail weight to a super light ski could make it behave more like a heavier ski without actually adding a lot mass. Well that would be easily testable with a few stips of lead and some double sided sticky tape.

    come to think about it, it should be quite simple to measure as well ( oh no another project..).

    It is more or less the reverse of what Kästle did with the reduced mass in their tip and tail sections of their heavy skis.

  26. Kim April 21st, 2013 3:30 am

    I’m interested in a comparison of the Volkl Amaruq and the BD Current as tossing up which one to buy. Similar waist widths, similar weight, both predominantly cambered. So how do they ski and respond compared to each other?

  27. Tim K April 21st, 2013 5:45 am

    No chatter, no tips that quiver like they’re a dog rousting a grouse.

    my dogs take exception to that… they never never never roust grouse ….

    [IMG]http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee306/thuddddddd/training%20-%20trialing%202012/DSC_4116-Copy2.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee306/thuddddddd/dogs/DSCN3312.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee306/thuddddddd/Mid%20Coast%20Maine%20Spring%20Trial/DSC_4511.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee306/thuddddddd/Mid%20Coast%20Maine%20Spring%20Trial/DSC_4516.jpg[/IMG]

    [IMG]http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee306/thuddddddd/training%20-%20trialing%202012/DSC_4246.jpg[/IMG]

  28. Tim K April 21st, 2013 5:53 am

    sorry about that lou ….the pictures didn’t make it and i cant deleat the comment… they were of my grouse dogs,setters and pointers … my other ocd hobby here on the east coast… they’d get a stern talking to if they rousted grouse….lol

  29. Ben April 21st, 2013 10:03 am

    Hey Wildsnow,

    This has nothing to do with this post but I thought it could be answered best “by the public” so here it goes:

    I lucked into a week off in the middle of May and will use it to go skiing. I’m currently banished to the East Coast and want to get out west for some spring corn and need some advice. Would you head to Roger’s Pass or Colorado? I lived in Colorado before so I’m familiar with what’s there but have always wanted to check out Roger’s Pass as well. I was wondering if anyone had any advice on the conditions this season in either place or recommendations/opinons. Thanks for any help!

    Ben

  30. DaveC April 21st, 2013 4:00 pm

    These look exactly like the 2012 Currents, just 6 oz a ski lighter and different graphics. I like mine a lot.

    The ’12s have mild tail rocker. 7 inches when decambered, with about an inch of splay. Tips have 12 inches of rocker, with just shy of 3 inches of splay.

  31. Lou Dawson April 21st, 2013 4:25 pm

    No worries Tim, the photo needs to be hosted on our server to display. I’ll leave your post as people can copy/paste those URLs into their browser if they want to check them out. Lou

  32. Lou Dawson April 21st, 2013 6:27 pm

    Ben, Canada, or Sierra. Forget Colorado. Dust layers all over the place, dangerous sugar snow. And so on. In my experience Canada can be problematic due to the long days of hot sun slushing up the snow, but it can be legendary if you hit it right. My bet would be Sierra. Or best, Pacific Northwest, From Shasta on up into North Cascades. Lou

  33. Lou Dawson April 21st, 2013 6:28 pm

    Ray, thanks for the heads up on the horrible Colorado avalanche. I feel compelled to blog about it so that’s tomorrow’s post. Condolences to all involved. Lou

  34. Erik Erikson April 21st, 2013 11:21 pm

    Really sorry to hear about this avalanche – they brought it in the news even here in Europe. My deepest condolences to all relatives and friends – me too lost people I knew quite well in an avalanche years ago.

  35. Scott April 22nd, 2013 4:24 am

    Jriph
    DPS is working on a perimeter weighted ski. The idea sounds interesting, we’ll just need to wait and see.

  36. Chris Kipfer April 22nd, 2013 9:29 am

    One of the reasons that we climb Mt Werner inbounds after the season closing this time of year,aside from tradition,is avalanche danger. Solo skiing on the open slope is a bit safer there this time of year. The conversation at the best noon lunch picnic spot at the top of BAR UE on a the beautful sunday yesterday, aside from swapping Euro stories, was the Loveland Pass tragedy. The consensus was “stupid,been there done that”. But,how could these “experts” have been skiing in a close group on a wide open slope during “considerable” avalanche warning. We don’t know all the facts yet,but it’s hard to believe that a pit dug through the layers there would not have revealed the instability. We have had a huge number of late snow storms here this year most accompanied by the redish dust blown in from the dry plateau to the west. The Temperature extremes in each of these storms have been unusually extreme. There has been sufficient WX history this year to make an old fart like me nervous about conditions here in Steamboat.

  37. nicolas April 26th, 2013 5:24 am

    i agree mostly with Greg.

    if we could build the exact same skis with only different weight, i am sure the 4kilos pair ll always ski better tthan the 3 or 2 kilo pairs. Only because weight give stability. there is nothing “modern” in this, it’s purely physical.

    in the past 20 years skis has considerably widened. at the same time lighter material has allowed to keep the wheight approximative the same. (and except for race skis that didn’t exist, i am not sure the average weight is lower now)

    And so even if some light ski feels really good on good snow, and if it could have a lot of difference between 2 skis of same weight, on the worst snow they always feels very bad. So, on a bad day, and specially for average skiers, the 1 kilos difference ll undoutbly add a lot of safety and pleasure.

  38. See April 28th, 2013 9:56 am

    I have skied quite a bit on fairly light skis (recently old foam Verdicts and Mustagh Atas) and I can’t recall wishing they were heavier in almost any conditions where I’m skiing in the snow, not on it– chop, cement, even light crust, etc.. Where I sometimes think a heavier ski might be better is on really firm snow.

    I’ve suspected for a while that the issue of Dynafit pre-release at the toe has to do with how tech bindings deal (or fail to deal) with resonances that occur when executing turns at certain combinations of speed, tip weighting, etc. on ice. I have the impression that, in these conditions, lack of damping in the ski can lead to vibration that overwhelms the limited elasticity of the bindings.

  39. Mark December 9th, 2013 5:11 pm

    That was a really useful review of the Current – thanks! Good job I re-read this carefully as I was about to shop for the older Current which I going cheap. I guess your review then only applies to the new 2013/2014 model?

    I was also wondering if you’d comment on how the Current compares to the still available K2 Backup which I recall you made nice noises about in the past? Are these pretty equivalent planks (as quiver of 1 backcountry), or will they ski different? My domain is part west coast Norway, so mostly bony ice or sastrugi on the tops, and then breakable crust as you get lower (the Norwegians are all out on massive planks in these conditions which beats me), and part spring skiing in the European Alps, which again usually means hard steep slopes. Yep its nice when the powder days happen, but its the hard steeps where I need the precision (on the up as well as on the down!). And it would be nice to be able to follow my kids down refrozen piste on resort days, without skidding halfway down the mountain on every turn – which is what I do on my current light weight tourers.

    Thanks Lou.

  40. Lou Dawson December 9th, 2013 6:56 pm

    Hi Mark, in my recollection Backup and Current are quite different from each other, being different brands and all. But I think you’d be happy with either, it’s a tossup to me, anyway.

  41. Daniel December 10th, 2013 1:27 am

    regardless which ski manufacturer you choose, i don’t think you have to go 80mm narrow to get good edge grip. I have happily toured norway and the alps in any kind of snow on K2 backlashes (92m). 90-ish waist still has relatively low tourque in traverses and gives decent float in powder. I did multi day hut tours in spring with concrete like morning snow, no regrets. 2 month before, a meter of fresh, worked. VHIghliy variable snow in Lyngen, flawless. The gear nerd in me frced me to buy another ski, but in reality a 90mm ski does it all. The metal laminate makes for good crud stabilty as well. I think you can still get a K2 backlash for approx. 200 Euros new on german ebay. Or take my 181 with STs and skins…
    K2 have now discontinued the Baker-Backlash-Sideshow line of 90mm metal skis, which is sad I think.

  42. Mark December 10th, 2013 2:31 am

    Thanks Lou and Daniel, yes I know a lot of people tour happily on wider planks, although actually I think the Currents are nearer to 90 than 80. Interesting though that the 80 to 90 range is still what a lot of the French reviews recommend for the most versatile touring set up (e.g. there was an autumn review in the Skirandomag.com pushing this line).

  43. Lou Dawson December 10th, 2013 5:16 am

    Beyond the verity of “the best touring setup is what you have on your feet.” The main thing is there is no such thing as the best touring setup for the world. It’s all about snow climate and season. For example, if you do most of your touring in Colorado in the winter, wider boards are great. Go the Alps, and you’re much more likely to encounter ice, for which a ski that’s too wide and rockered can be a scare. It’s cultural as well. Nothing is more embarrassing than seeing an American in huge hot baggy shell pants with 125 mm skis sweating their way up a European tour, as the majority of other skiers dance past them, chatting merrily and hardly breaking a sweat on their lighter setups. Then, most of those guys ski down the hill just fine — though they make an embarrassing number of turns (grin). Lou

  44. Daniel December 10th, 2013 1:53 pm

    imho the alps have better snow than the common perception suggests…
    for a one ski quiver, I’d say 90mm easily, 100 if you are willing to compromise a little. for scary steep spring tours, 80, but not even there maybe. so not much different from the north american perspective.

  45. Bill H March 14th, 2014 11:02 am

    Hi Lou or crew,

    Any thoughts/opinions between the Current/Revert/Aspect for the following: I’m thinking about picking one of these three up for a a trip to Ortlers in 2 weeks, and then will remain in quiver for springtime in Colorado around Eagle and Slummit counties.

    I have Nunataqs for winter touring and pow, so maybe the 90 or 87 waist (Aspect or Current) to get something significantly different?

    Stick with Current for more progressive rocker/camber profile over the more traditional tail on the Aspect? Or go with Revert to maintain a little more full-season versatility for Colorado?

  46. Lou Dawson March 14th, 2014 11:22 am

    Me, if I was making this choice I’d go with Aspect for spring, I like the way it bites and carves. Not sure how similar the carbon version will be, but I’ll bet it’s ok. Will be super light I’d imagine. Will be checking it out soon.

    For full season versatility, what’s wrong with the Nuns?

    Lou

  47. Bill H March 15th, 2014 3:56 pm

    Nuns are good! You’re correct, no complaints there, so narrowing my focus to a non-fully-rockered skinnier ski for spring ski mtneering. Will get better differentiation of the ski closet with a <=90mm stick. I'm hearing that you prefer the fully traditional tail on the Aspect more than the ever-so-slightly-more-progressive shape of of the Current for edgehold etc. I notice that on steep jump turns, I sometimes end up back-seat in the Nun's, wishing I had some more tail to push off of and recover more quickly like I can on my SideStashes (A technique deficiency no doubt, but hey, gotta work with what I got 😉 ) so maybe the flat tails on the Aspect will be right to my liking. Thanks for the input

  48. Billy Balz March 15th, 2014 6:37 pm

    If nuns means nunataqs, I’ve had them on east coast this season and also in 3′ wasatch heavy powder. Fun in soft stuff, manageable on harder surface….not sold on full rocker on harder surfaces. Not enough bite and rebound.

  Your Comments


  Recent Posts




Facebook Twitter Email Instagram Youtube

WildSnow Twitter Feed



 



  • Blogroll & Links


  • Welcome to Louis (Lou) Dawson's backcountry skiing information & opinion website. Lou's passion for the past 50 years has been alpinism, climbing, mountaineering and skiing -- along with all manner of outdoor recreation. He has authored numerous books and articles about ski touring and is well known as the first person to ski down all 54 of Colorado's 14,000-foot peaks, otherwise known as the Fourteeners! Books and free ski touring news and information here.

    All material on this website is copyrighted, the name WildSnow is trademarked, permission required for reproduction (electronic or otherwise) and display on other websites. PLEASE SEE OUR COPYRIGHT and TRADEMARK INFORMATION.

    We include "affiliate sales" links with most of our blog posts. This means we receive a percentage of a sale if you click over from our site (at no cost to you). None of our affiliate commission links are direct relationships with specific gear companies or shopping carts, instead we remain removed by using a third party who manages all our affiliate sales and relationships. We also sell display "banner" advertising, in this case our relationships are closer to the companies who advertise, but our display advertising income is carefully separated financially and editorially from our blog content, over which we always maintain 100% editorial control -- we make this clear during every advertising deal we work out. Please also notice we do the occasional "sponsored" post, these are under similar financial arrangements as our banner advertising, only the banner or other type of reference to a company are included in the blog post, simply to show they provided financial support to WildSnow.com and provide them with advertising in return. Unlike most other "sponsored content" you find on the internet, our sponsored posts are entirely under our editorial control and created by WildSnow specific writers.See our full disclosures here.

    Backcountry skiing is dangerous. You may be killed or severely injured if you do any form of ski mountaineering, skimo randonnee and randonnée skiing. The information and news on this website is intended only as general information. Due to human error and passing time, the information, text and images contained within this website may be inaccurate, false, or out-of-date. By using, reading or viewing the information provided on this website, you agree to absolve the owners of Wild Snow as well as content contributors of any liability for injuries or losses incurred while using such information. Furthermore, you agree to use any of this website's information, maps, photos, or binding mounting instructions templates at your own risk, and waive Wild Snow owners and contributors of liability for use of said items for ski touring or any other use.

    Switch To Mobile Version