AT Ski Options (Noob Question)

[Rastus]

Was hoping to get some opinions on a couple skis. I've got the opportunity to get some BD Havocs (173s) or K2 Bakers (167 or 174) on the cheap through a buddy. I'm a long time resort skiier, but new to AT. 5'10" and 155lbs.

 

Any advice on which ones might be a better fit for me?

 

Thanks!

[Bigtree]

I bought a pair of K2 Shuksans this season (181 cm)and am very pleased with their performance resort riding and in the backcountry. The testers in my '07 Backcountry Gear Guide magazine describe the K2 Mt. Baker as:

 

"Designed on the Work Stinx footprint and also sporting Titanal laminates but in a softer-flexing layup, the Mt. baker is big and beamy and damp - no tester called it lively or best suited for tight trees. testers found this year's version less contentious than last year's. "Nice damp ski. Can plow through anything. Super stable, [produces] a nice, solid, round turn" said one. Added another: "Feeling a bit blocky and planky at ow speeds, they tend to plow through, rather than float on, soft snow. Crank it up a notch and they plane-off nicely in deeper snow, windpack and chop"

 

If the price is right and they're anything like my Shuksans buy 'em.

[RogerJ]

I've got a pair of 173 Havocs and am very happy with their performance. They like to turn! I've skied them in a variety of conditions from ice to powder and they handle it all well.

 

-r

[hemp22]

When I was shopping for AT skis it came down to my two top choices being the same skis you're looking at: the havocs (173) and the mt bakers (174).

The havocs are very springy & snappy. The bakers are more damp, like the review says above.

So, the havocs will be more suited to quicker turns, but the bakers will do cruiser turns a little better.

I went with the havocs, and I'm happy with them. Since getting them, I have spent about equal amount of time in resorts & in the BC.

 

A good friend of mine just bought the Bakers (174), and he and I otherwise have the same setup (same boots/size & same bindings), so I'll hopefully soon be able to compare the two head-to-head very soon.

 

at 5'10" I think either one would probably work well for you. If you're not used to the fatter, more shaped skis like the Bakers, then the 167s might be more manageable.

[jordop]

When I was shopping for AT skis it came down to my two top choices being the same skis you're looking at: the havocs (173) and the mt bakers (174).

The havocs are very springy & snappy. The bakers are more damp, like the review says above.

So, the havocs will be more suited to quicker turns, but the bakers will do cruiser turns a little better.

I went with the havocs, and I'm happy with them. Since getting them, I have spent about equal amount of time in resorts & in the BC.

 

A good friend of mine just bought the Bakers (174), and he and I otherwise have the same setup (same boots/size & same bindings), so I'll hopefully soon be able to compare the two head-to-head very soon.

 

at 5'10" I think either one would probably work well for you. If you're not used to the fatter, more shaped skis like the Bakers, then the 167s might be more manageable.

 

Ditto. I have the Bakers from the previous season (w/o the metal sheets that were added to this years') and have found them pretty soft, too much so for bolierplate and crud. Friends with Havocs love em for everything except extended tours as they tend to not be the best "straightline trackers".

[Rastus]

Thanks for the repsponses. I went with the Havocs, should be fun!