Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BD Stigma vs Aspect?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BD Stigma vs Aspect?

    I'm looking for a new 'in bounds' ski. I ski in Vermont and choose trees and soft snow over hard packed groomers, when possible. When on piste, I ski with a group of chargers that tend to be on alpine gear and slalom race stock skis. I've got a pair of 112mm waisted skis for when it's fluffy.

    I'm thinking of something that can 'carve' and turn quickly for riding lifts and some side/slack country effort. I think both of these skis will work well but I'm curious as to which might be better. I wonder if the extra waist on the Aspect is that big of a deal. I've read that the Aspect has a very soft tip and I'm worried that might be a little sloppy/floppy.

    If anyone has skied them, please let me know your thoughts.

  • #2
    I only know about the Stigma and while I think it is a very good resort hard pack ski it is really only a good resort and hard pack ski for a Black Diamond ski. There many other European skis that are much, much better for this. So I think you would need to use them a lot for climbing before I would settle for them.

    Comment


    • #3
      I agree with James about looking a little beyond BD skis, and I can add I have skied the Aspect. I used the pre-rocker (2011, I think) version. It is a soft ski, at least that one was and I'm not sure they changed the stiffness when they added slight rocker to the tip. I personally think it's excellent for BC touring (light, adequately stable, and decent float), but I wouldn't recommend it as in-bounds only ski.

      Comment


      • #4
        I was just turned on to a great deal on the Fischer Watea. I'm thinking the 84 might be best for working into my quiver (124/84/112). Anybody ski them? Are they too soft?

        Comment


        • #5
          I have not skied them but a friend of mine does and reps for them. He tried to talk me in to them but I declined. He is very good but not very big and does not ski very fast and they chatter like crazy when he skis them. Not something I want in a ski. YMMV but I would say yes to your question.


          If I were you and a metal capped ski is ok for your climbing days I would look at the Rossi Exp series. The 88 is a bit stiff and will really rail and the 83 is a little easier to handle. If you don't want metal then look at the Nordica Steadfast or the line Prphet 90. They won't carve as well as the Rossi or the Blizzard skis but are lighter and more fun on the up and in bumps.


          i have been trying every all mountain carving ski I can trying to figure out what I want. I was on the Blizzard Magnum 8.7 Ti and it absolutely destroyed groomers and cut up but was crazy heavy and way to much work in the bumps. I am on the Steadfast now and it will still do ok on groomers but is more suited to climbing, softer snow and bumps. I have skied both Rossi skis mentioned above a few times and think they fit in between the Blizzard and Steadfast. If I did not have race skis I would get the Rossi and I might get them anyway. Half the ski instructors I know ski them and the entire national team skis them at a very high level.

          Comment


          • #6
            I have a pair of the original Stigmas, and took them to India in 2009. IME, they are absolutely worthless in any kind of soft snow as the tip is low and the forebody is stiff. Combined with a relatively narrow waist this means no float. I never got them to work very well with tele boots and bindings, but they do much better with a fixed heel at the resort on relatively firm snow (I'm in Oz). I've seen others get them to float reasonably well on BC snow, but only with 1) a fixed heel, and 2) going very fast. FWIW, the people I've met who've liked them have all been on AT bindings.

            I'll probably keep using them as resort skis in firmish conditions with a fixed heel, but that's all I really think they're useful for. If it's *really* firm, stiffer would be better.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by satanas View Post
              I have a pair of the original Stigmas, and took them to India in 2009. IME, they are absolutely worthless in any kind of soft snow as the tip is low and the forebody is stiff. Combined with a relatively narrow waist this means no float. I never got them to work very well with tele boots and bindings, but they do much better with a fixed heel at the resort on relatively firm snow (I'm in Oz). I've seen others get them to float reasonably well on BC snow, but only with 1) a fixed heel, and 2) going very fast. FWIW, the people I've met who've liked them have all been on AT bindings.

              I'll probably keep using them as resort skis in firmish conditions with a fixed heel, but that's all I really think they're useful for. If it's *really* firm, stiffer would be better.
              This is actually one of the reason's I posted. I skied the older (all orange) version and liked it on firm snow. I even ran gates a few times on them.

              The newer version (orange/grey and yellow/gray and white/yellow/black) states it has a semi-rockered tip. Maybe it will be more versatile. Either way an older model was on closeout at BD.com today so I ordered them.

              Comment


              • #8
                Stigma is a narrower, firmer ski that likes to turn and holds an edge well on firm snow. It is only fat by teleman's standards. At EYT I classify it as a lo-fat ski (<87mm at the waist).

                BD's Aspect is a great mid-fat touring ski. Light, turny, but it has a problem holding an edge on firm snow, especially at speed.

                No doubt BD has worked to improve the performance of each model to be able to float better (early rise tip in the Stigma) and hold an edge better (Stiffer version of Aspect). Nonetheless, their dimensions dictate their inherent limits. IMO. YMMV.

                Edit: I should add BD's Aspect is one of my fave skis for its light weight. It is wide enough for me to be a great powder ski, and holds an edge well enough that it can survive icy conditions. A better ski might exist at either end of the spectrum, but for its size and weight it's a great ski.
                Last edited by Dostie; 6 November 2013, 08:29 AM.

                ain't no turn like tele!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Grant View Post
                  Either way an older model was on closeout at BD.com today so I ordered them.
                  Paging Grant . . . wondering what are your impressions of the Stigma?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    ^^^^I really like them. They fill the middle of my quiver for resort skiing on the east when it's firm. They have great edge hold and carve nicely with NTNs on top. They can handle bumps and trees nicely. At 176cm they are certainly short for me (6'1", 185lbs) but I can throw them all around and they have enough feedback to snap around.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Thanks, good feedback.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X