Salomon Czar Ski - 2009 BCS

you're gonna love these. rocker makes it so damn fun to ski pow or chop, and easy too. Since the rocker makes it so much easier to turn, you could even think about the 182 if you wanted a true big mountain ski, otherwise I think the 174 will be good.

the czar is much more subtly rockered than the blog while the blog has more early rise that doesn't extend out as far The czar has very little side cut so it probably turns better in powder which could make it quite a handful on groomers. If your looking for a ski just for powder go with something wider that has more rocker like the hellbent, ep pro. even though these skis are much wider they will probably do better on groomers than the czar

From what I've experienced, the blogs have more sidecut and arc tighter turns on groomers while the Czar will make longer radius arcs, so picture giant slalom vs super g. In funky snow I found the blog to be "hooky", meaning it wants to turn too much for my liking. In Powder they are both excellent, but I believe the Czar has more tip rocker.

Yeah the 174 Czar will ski shorter because of the tip rocker. if you felt good on the 171, you should be fine.

Thanks a lot Weston and Jamey, that's exactly what I needed. I'm sold and ready for an epic winter :)

Hey Colin, you hit the nail right on the head with the hammerhead! The hammerhead binding is the only one that can not only teach you the correct technique when learning (pivoting from the BALL of your feet, not your toes) but can also allow you to rail turns and stomp big airs once your past learning. In all honesty, its the binding I like to have my students on as well as the only binding I will let either one of my parents ski on.

Tthe hammerhead is hands down the best binding available on the market for the resort, but if you wanted to get into back country skiing, I would recommend the Axl. Both made by the same company, both have pivot points to fine tune stiffness/activity level but the Axl comes with a free pivot touring mechanism, night and day when it comes to touring. A bit more spendy than the hammerhead but worth it if you plan on spending more than 30% of your time touring.

As far as boots go I am a Scarpa guy, they fit my smaller volume feet and, in my opinion, they make the best boot. Garmont's tend to have a bit roomier feel, however with a dual injected bellows the are a bit too soft for me. Crispi's....good luck finding any information on them that is current but generally they are btwn the scarpa and garmont's on fit and they have a "hingy" feel for their bellows. My recommendation is either the Scarpa T1 or the Scarpa Trace. T1 is a bit softer, 4 buckle boot with a walk mode (great for touring), both very well made with intuition moldable liners and micro adjust buckles. The T1 will be a bit difficult to learn on as it is stiff, but once you do (and paired up with hammerheads or axl's will help break the boot in) you will be flying and shredding hard. They will be more similar to your alpine boots than you think...

Czars make an incredible ski to learn on as well as to shred on, with that set up you will be charging hard in every condition from hard pack to pow!! I would recommend mounting the Czars just how Salomon does, with the boot sole center of your boot (may need to do some measuring to find out exactly where it is on telemark boots).

Probably MUCH more info than you bargained for but I hope I answered all your questions, give me a shout if you think of anything else.

http://twentytwodesigns.com/axl/index.php Axl Binding

http://www.scarpa.com/scarpa.php T1 Boot

I will check w my tele buddies on boots/bindngs that would be the best for you.

I'm about the same size as you guys (6 feet tall, 165 ish lbs) and I mounted progressive with a pair of Marker Dukes and absolutely loved the skis, the rest of my quiver are now wall ornaments. I was really stressed over where to mount (you can see my original question down below that I posted in December) but I'm super happy with my decision. Never had any issues with tip dive in the deepest of the deep once I got up to speed and the longer tail you get by mounting a bit more forward just helps their overall stability.

You make a valid point, but the truth is that rockered skis are SOOOO easy to ski. They are so maneuverable. The 174 could be better in some situations though for sure. Probably a more 'everyday powder ski' where the 182 would be more of a 'big mountain powder ski'. Judging by what you are on now, stepping up to the 174 will probably be the way to go.

182.....really? I know I'll be growing some more, but I feel like that would be too big. Especially for maneuverability in tight trees? I'm not sure....my current skis are non-rockered 4FRNT MSP's, and I ski a 161 and they seem alright for me. You both probably have better/more experience with rocker than I do though.

I agree, the 182 will probably be perfect.

I'm 5'8'',135lbs, and 16
I wasn't able to demo the Czar specifically, but I have demoed similar skis, and you should go 182 for sure.

Here are my reviews if you're interested.
http://williamrichmondski.blogspot.com/2010/03/crystal-mountain-demo-day-3-27.html

Hey Joe,

You made the right choice with the 182, without question. What you have to remember, is that with a rockered ski, you decrease the skis overall effective edge length. So, skis tend to ski shorter than their listed length. Based on that Snoop you're already on, standing 6'0'' and where you ski, 182's are the ticket.

With two recommended mounting positions, you can also compensate how much "ski" you have.

dunno, but they're really heavy

Here are the weights per half pair:

166 - 2020gr
174 - 2120gr
182 - 2220gr
190 - 2318gr

Kim nailed it, definitely the 182

My suggestion would be the 182. Due to the tip rocker, and taking into consideration your height/weight and progression goals, the longer ski dimension would probably work best for you. I think you'll find the 174 a bit short on snow days. hope that helps..

Hammerheads. Don't even think about another binding. They are versatile and bomber.

Hammerheads. No question about it

Go for the BD 02's they are great for driving fat boards, and if you're not doing a lot of touring you don't need the extra features on the 01's. Slap em on, and drop a knee. you're good to go!

I went ahead and contacted a tele buddy of mine who tested these out a couple weeks ago. His words: "tip was stiff, good energy out of the turn, skis short and maneuverable". He has a pair on the way. forgot to ask him about the mount, but I believe they were mounted standard. oh yeah, he also liked them better than the Shogun and he is a Utah skier.

yes, the Czar will be very different from the AC40. much wider, with tip rocker. long story short: they will change your world! (for the better)

I think you'll probably like the Shoguns better. They do everything!

Lots of people like to mount these forward of the standard mount. But after skiing both I prefer the standard mount. You can ski & land switch just fine with that mount. You'll definitely want to mount forward if you ski or land switch in pow however. Its hard to say what you'll like best, but that's what I've found for myself.

actually sorry i meant to ask where i should mount it.

I skied the 185 JJs and 190 Czars head to head about a week ago during a storm that dumped 12"-18". My buddy skis the JJs and me the Czars so we took a few runs on each others skis. I definitely liked my Czars better in the pow. Even though it is not as wide, I found it easier to stay forward on the ski. I believe it is because there is more tip rocker on the Czar, meaning that the rocker starts further down the ski from the tip. What it really comes down to though is that the 2 skis are different styles of skis. JJs are light, have tip and tail rocker, are more 'jibe', if you will. Czars is more 'big mountain' with more tip rocker and traditional (non rockered) tail. never skied the bacons.

If you are an "aspiring expert", you might find the Czar to be a little more easy to ski than the Gotama. As Jamie P says, the Gotama is a super precise ski, and if you grew up racing you might prefer that over the Czar for everyday skiing, but if you prefer a nimble, easy to ski ski that can go from soft snow to groomed terrain (the Gotama is probably better on ice), you should consider the Czar.

got or czar? Probably depends on what you want it for. I've got the Czar and have skied the Got. If you plan on using the ski for more soft snow, powder skiing, then the Czar would be my choice. The Got would be my choice if I were looking for something more resort oriented and some occasional powder. But like Jamie, I'd go with the Barons over the Dukes for your size and weight.

I have skied both and would lean towards the Gotama if you like a precise ski that is more of an allrounder. The Gotama will shine on just about anything but ice and will work well with a Duke. But at your weight consider the Baron to shave some dough and weight. The Czar is a much more pure powder and a little less solid feeling than the Volkl. Either will work, but as an expert I'd lean towards the Volkl.

here are the full dimensions of the 190s from the Salomon website: 133-114-123

nice work Rian! knew I shoulda double checked. wider by 3mm.

The 190's are 3 mm wider than the 182's, i.e. 114 mm underfoot. I had a pair of each at home and used calipers to measure them. Strangely, the 190's had the dimensions misprinted on them as 131/111/121, i.e. the dimensions of the 182's(all sizes have the dimensions printed on them ). But, again, I used digital calipers to measure them and compare the 182's to the 190's, and the 190s were 3 mm wider.

the 190 is actually not fatter under foot, but holds the same 111mm of girth. so again very similar to the 182, very comfortable at speed, and holds a really good edge.

Definitely does. That was exactly what I wanted to hear, that it was basically very similar to the 182 just bigger. How's it ski on the grom? I know the 182 handled it well but with the longer side cut and being slightly fatter under foot I'm curious. Thanks a lot.

Hey Henry, The 190 are pretty badass. They are the same width as the 182, so they ski very similar... just longer. Salomon made the 190 in response to people like you and me. So they have the extra length, and with that comes increased stability and float (more ski in front of you). Let me know if that helps or if you have any other questions.

Czar is good for off-piste, and they turn about 10cm shorter than their length. Be sure to de-tune the rocker, as it tends to hang up occasionally.

ok great, I think you'll probably want the 174 then. The great thing with the Czar is that it will ski like a shorter ski when you want it to ski shorter and it will ski like a longer ski when you want it to ski longer... you'll see what I mean when you ski them, but basically this is because of the rockered tip and traditional tail.

I'm 121 lbs and 5'6", very aggressive skier on piste, I like high speeds and steep slopes.

If you've got a carving ski, then I say: Czar!! for powder and cropped up powder it is an epic ski, you've be in heaven on the Czar.

You'll likely want the 182, but let us know your height, weight, and ability level if you would like help picking the size.

Altitude means distance above sea level OR Earth's surface, Jack(ass). Elevation means any number of things, few of them geographic. Don't be a dick.

I've got already a carving ski, so I need a ski more for powder. Conditions: Yesterday I arrived from there. It snowed only 2 days during 10 days trip but laid so much that there were 5 avalanches. Yesterday it started to snow and it will snow till 24th January. Regularly in January there is 3 or more meters of snow, but we have a bad winter this year and there is only 1 meter on the top station and on the lowest lift some centimeters.

ALTITUDE does matter. If you're going to be skiing in the sky, rocker tip and dimensions don't matter. The conditions will not matter much, since you don't sky dive on a powder day. In fact, skinnier would be better- less wind resistance. If you're skiing on the ground and measuring ELEVATION, then let us know what kind of snow you're getting, and conditions. Jamey's ignorance to the difference between Altitude and Elevation aside, he makes a good point. The Czar has more rocker, and wider dimensions, so it will handle softer, deeper snow better. If you'll be carving groomers, too, and want a ski that is more versatile for a variety of conditions, the Shogun would be a better choice.
I know I'm arguing semantics here, but it's a pet peeve of mine. Just remember: "Although the term altitude is commonly used to mean the height above sea level of a location, in geography the term elevation is often preferred for this usage."*
*Wikipedia

Altitude does not really make a difference in ski choice. It depends entirely on the type of conditions you ski. If you ski equally on piste and off piste then go Shogun. If you ski the majority of the time off piste then go Czar.

go 190, the 182 and the jj will be too small. or try and get ur hands on some 195 s7's

Depends on what type of skier you are and what conditions you prefer to ski...the Salomon Shogun is an amazingly versatile ski and highly recommended for an all-mountain (groomers, powder, bumps) as well as big mountain skier. The Czar is more of a high performance deeper snow specific ski then an agility ski. With your height, and the conditions the Czar performs best in, the 191 would be a better bet.

the 191 try k2 obsethed or line phrophet 100 or maybe line elizibeth

Oups, forgot to ask about your skiing style. Which type of skier are you? Do you like charging or do you prefer to cruise?

Considering your size, I recommend you the size 191. But if you are looking for versatility, you'd better look at the Shogun, same size, much more usable on groomers than the Czars

If you are still looking for info on the mounting points, following is the recommended mounting points for the various sizes of Czar. All distances are measurements from the tail of the ski to the mid point of the boot. C= Classic (further back) and P= Progressive (more forward):

Czar 190cm: C-853mm P-883mm
Czar 182: C-816mm P-846mm
Czar 174: C-780mm P-810mm
Czar 166: C-745mm P-775mm

If you prefer a traditionally mounted ski, closer to the classic is probably going to be your preference, but anywhere between the two points above for each size is in the "sweet spot" of the ski's shape and flex pattern.

normally IMO the fwd mount would hinder performance slightly because it would effectively make the ski shorter. but with the rockered tip I don't think it matters that much. to me, the most noticeable thing with the fwd mount is that the tail feels longer. I just got a new pair myself which I'll be mounting between standard and progressive.

I'm fairly certain they will not be more than you can handle. The rocker makes skiing pow so easy you'll wonder how you did it before. I personally enjoy the Czars on groomers. For you I think it will be fine as long as you're not expecting a carving ski. Great for sliding around, very stable and predictable, but definitely not a carving ski unless your talking super G radius turns... it will also hold an edge really well on hard snow/ice.

I recommend everyone ski a rockered ski for powder. Its way way easier than traditional cambered skis.

Thanks Jamey... I have the 182s so this is great info. I'm gonna go ahead and mount progressive. Thanks.

This is for the 182s. Talked to Cody Townsend, he mounts them on the forward line. He told me Abma finds the exact balance point and mounts them there, ~3cm in front of the forward line. My first pair I mounted standard, second pair mounted between the lines. Didn't notice much difference. I've always liked the standard mount, but others swear by the forward mount... I don't think you'll have a problem with a forward mount, plenty of tip rocker for the pow. Not much info on the 190s as of yet.

Hi there, if you're used to the 1080 behavior, and as Jamey wrote, if you're not a deep powder skier, I'd recomment you the Shogun which will provide you a way better experience in powder than the 1080 and the Lords, still not changing too much your sensations. The Czars will be more difficult to put on the edge, while the Lord is too much a freeski inspired on piste toy. With the Shogun, I promise you your 1080 can hold a place on your family room wall of ski fame ;-) Excepting if you still wanna enjoy a couple of park runs!

all great skis. the biggest difference between the czar and shogun (and lord) is the width underfoot - 111 vs. 101 vs. 88. so then what it basically boils down to is... how deep is the snow? If it snows frequently in the 8-10"+ range then I would recommend the czar. It will be the most fun on the deeper days, wider w/ more rocker. shogun will be really good everywhere, turns better on piste than the czar, but has less width for the deep days. so if you get 4-8" days more often and want a better ski on-piste, then the shogun is probably the way to go. hope that helps!