The ski’s maneuverability made skiing softer chop easy at times, since I could make quick turns around and over troughs and bumps. However, I did not find the Groundhog to be an ideal post-powder chop option. As with other skis that have flat tails, I found the Groundhog to grab the snow during a turn, which was never predictable. This issue was less pronounced in softer snow than in wet and heavy chop, but this is definitely something to consider if the majority of your powder days are actually chop days, or you regularly are dealing with wet, heavy snow.
While the Groundhog could make short, quick turns, they did not feel as intuitive and required a bit more work. The ski worked in the trees, but did not feel poppy or lively as I cruised through open glades. The Groundhog was not particularly fun in the bumps, and I found the shovels to collapse into mounds of snow rather than power through them.
Base Durability
I have been largely impressed with the strength of the Groundhog’s bases. To fulfill my mission to ski every month of the year, I have hiked to a number of remote, and often, rocky places. The Groundhog accompanied me on my September adventure to make some early season turns in Montezuma Basin below Castle Peak. Needless to say, it was a lot of hiking for a lot less snow and a lot more rocks than we had expected to encounter, but the Groundhog’s bases fared well against such conditions. I have hit a number of rocks since then too, and while there are some scratches, some of my other skis have fared worse after similar hits.
The One-Ski Quiver Question
Ultimately, I found the Groundhog to fit RAMP’s description of the ski fairly well. The ski does just about as well on groomers and hard pack as it does in powder.
My biggest problem though, is that I didn’t find it to stand out in any one condition, it just kind of did everything okay, while I have found other one-ski-quiver options to really shine in one area, then also perform well in other conditions, or to handle everything pretty well.
For example, the Nordica La Niña is great on groomers, in untracked snow, and a little worse in chop, but still pretty good. The Salomon Stella is an incredible groomer and crud ski, but not the best in chop or fresh; however I will still choose it because of how fun it is in a range of conditions.
The Groundhog can handle groomers, crud, and chop, but given that it does not excel in one of these areas (and actually feels underwhelming in all three) would make me opt for a different ski.
Bottom Line
The Groundhog has a unique feel that differs from any skis I have ridden. It can be driven hard in consistent conditions, but it doesn’t feel as lively or solid as others skis in its class, and I couldn’t always trust its reaction to variable snow. I can see it being a good ski for intermediate to advanced skiers who want to do a little of everything, as it is also quite manageable for its longer length.
But ultimately, I think the Groundhog or Beaver would be the best fit for a guy or girl who is drawn to the RAMP story: the skis are handmade in the United States with earth-friendly, U.S. made materials.
NEXT PAGE: ROCKER PROFILE PICS
tldr:
ramp sucks
Thanks for including us in this review. I would like to quickly explain something on behalf of RAMP skis and snowboards. I’m the communication director at RAMP. Our skis tend to ski long, and we would have recommend someone like Julia to be on a 169—no matter skill. The radius is smaller, and a total different experience. I’m a former ski racer and collegiate athlete and I ski on our 169s. They are a blast. With the full vertical bamboo core, they are very strong so you don’t need the length unless you want to ski big lines and go much faster. Just food for thought. This ski won two awards from Freeskier and Men’s Journal. Thanks again!
Curious as to when Blister is going to have a man test these skis? No offense but the last two reviews were from women who were most likely skiing the wrong size and one was on tele gear. I love this site, and have read most of the reviews and I feel like this ski and company are not being given a fair shake. To be clear, I have never skied on Ramps and do not know anyone affiliated with the company. If you need someone to test them, send them to me here in Maine and I will give you a fair opinion.. Consider this a Pro Call Out, it is well deserved in this case.
Before I point out that one of Blister’s reviews of the Groundhog was indeed written by a man, I’d like us to all consider that, yes, women can ski too. If you disagree with that–that a person can ski without having something hanging between their legs–then next I offer you an extended review of the Groundhog, by, yes, a woman, who has skied the Groundhog 169 and 179, both alpine and telemark.
Fancy that!
I grew up ski racing in Colorado and Vermont. I telemarked through college, and then I switched back to alpine. I now live in Crested Butte, CO. My main ski (fine, my only ski) is the 2012-2013 Blizzard Dakota 177, which is almost identical to the Cochise. This is a stiff ski, and arguably one of the stiffest women’s specific ski out there, sporting a paulownia and bamboo core reinforced with two sheets of metal. Hot damn, I love these skis. They’re tough, but if you put the energy into that turn they know how to respond. They love the fall line, they carve, and they blast through crud. While this isn’t a review of the Dakota, there are a few things I’d like for you to consider relating to the both of these skis.
1) The problem is not the length. Vanessa has suggested that Julia was on the wrong size ski. I am 5’5″ and 145 pounds. I am shorter than Julia, but I am, overall, built bigger. After skiing on both the 169 and 179, I found that my qualms with the Groundhog were not resolved by length.
What was my qualm with the Groundhog? Julia mentions in her review that this ski is neither intuitive nor precise. I think this is an honest assessment. They may not be the words that a company wants to see tagged next to their ski after shipping it out to Blister, but it’s honest.
The first time I skied the Groundhog I was on a telemark setup. I hadn’t telemarked in a while, so I blamed much of my experience on being out of practice. It just seemed like I had a really hard time initiating the turn. I skied them for a few days.
The second time I skied the Groundhog I was on an alpine setup. While I am a much more competent alpine skier than telemark, I still felt that something wasn’t quite clicking. The skis weren’t really responding. No matter how much energy I put into them, I couldn’t quite get them going. I skied hardpack, and while it wasn’t terrible, this would not be my ski of choice. At this time I was on a 179, and while Ramp might tell me that I should be on a shorter ski, if I were on a shorter ski I would have felt not only like I was incapable of maneuvering how I wanted to, but unstable to boot.
I recently made a switch from a Surface ski–another small company that suggests you ski a shorter ski because they make their skis stiff. If I compare it to my Surface set up (which I skied at 170), I far prefer the Surface ski to the Ramp. My Surfaces blasted threw crud, I loved to ski them in moguls, and although I could hold an edge and carve on them, I always felt that the height limited my speed.
For someone who likes to rip GS turns, a 170 is just not enough length under foot. Period.
That brings me to…
2) Who IS this ski for? Julia mentioned that she chose to test this ski because she was willing to give up a little float for a little more carve. A lot of ex ski racers (and other folks who skied before year 2006) miss that carve–and those skis that shred groomers. But if you’re telling us that we need to ski a ski that is so short we’re falling over the tips when we finally rip a groomer, what’s the point? And if someone who can ski a notoriously stiff men’s ski can’t get the Groundhog to respond, then who can?
I went telemarking again a few days ago, this time on a pair of Icelantics. Turns out I’m not quite as rusty as those Groundhogs had me feeling.
In conclusion, I would sum my experience on the Groundhog up with one word:
Meh.
This is Mike from RAMP, just ants to chime in. First of all, the resin there are so many brand s and models of skis is everybody likes something different and has different tastes. That’s why I respect what people say at consumer demo days and when they test, there’s something out there for everybody. At RAMP we do a lot of consumer demo days and really listen to what people say. At Magazine tests we get some great scores (won 4 medals this year( and some not good results. Bottom line is we have a new manufacturing process that’s the most flexible in our Industry. We can make any shape and use any material without having to make a new mold. Our skis reflect what we like in product and most importantly, they change and evolve a lot (because we can) in response to what our athletes and consumers tell us at our demos. I know we can’t make everybody happy (and nobody does, there are too many priorities and techniques) but luckily we are consistently making the vast majority happy. At the Freeskier Test last winter I made a few runs with the person I thought was by far one of the 3 best skiers there and this person loved the Groundhog, they felt it was the most aggressive of the 2–mm one ski quiver type skis there. It won a medal at the tsp. I also skied with people at Snowbird at the Outside test and they didn’t like, even commuted it was soft and didn’t hook up (even though it’s one of the stiffest burliest skis in the category???? Bottom line is I welcome comments and results and luckily the overwhelming majority of people who try our skis are giving us really good comments. People like what they like and I respect that.
Honestly, who even skis blizzard besides ex racers which only like heavy skis that don’t leave the ground. Seriously… 2 sheets of metal. Like Mike said everybody likes something different and has different taste.
I wanted to clear up a comment that wasn’t correct about our process. They made it sound like we use vacuum molding to cut costs so we can make product in the US. That is completely not why we do it at all. Vacuum molding is now the norm in about every high end composite operation there is except ski making. If you look at aerospace, high end boat building, and high end composite molding operation you see it’s done with vacuum. Watch them make a carbon helicopter blade or tails section for a fighter plane, it would look a lot like what we are doing. The ski industry is still clinging to the old ways mainly because it’s how they always did it and because the companies each have millions invested in that kind of tooling.
Vacuum molding distributes the pressure more evenly, allows for greater manufacturing flexibility, you can put anything in the mold and get the same pressure distribution. We consistently get the best lines and closure on our skis I’ve ever seen, when you squeeze them together base to base at the binding mark it’s like an air cushion because the whole base touches at one, no gaps. You don’t get this with presses because small variations in tooling or thickness of say fiberglass give inconsistent pressure and gaps in the line. Presses also need a lot more pressure because the whole mold assemble and the metal top have to be crushed into the shape of the camber plate; we don’t do that at all. We rely on the thermal expansion of the materials, they way they grow in length at different rates from the heat in molding to get perfect camber.
So, what I wanted to clarify is, I totally realize that everyone has a type of feel in skis they like best and I totally respect that. Our skis are a reflection of what our engineer, myself, and our athletes love. And luckily most of the people who demo them really love them also, but no company pleases them all or even comes close in general. I also wanted to clarify the reason we developed this new process for making skis is because it gives us the most consistent excellent result and provides the most flexibility. That combined with our sidecut invention, where we can change the shape-sidecut-radius of a ski without the need to make a new mold allow, us to change more quickly and test more often new things. That was and is our goal with this.
Speaking of clinging to old ways…much of the alpine skiing industry is still stuck in the 90s when it comes to materials and intuitive designs. Alpine ski boots haven’t hardky changed in years. Same buckle systems, same materials, same designs. It’s fun to see some companies reach out to new technologies and materials since that world is advancing incredibly fast. And some companies are holding back. My favorite is the ski mountaineering industry…all experimental and creative ways of changing things that, for me, have always seemed mediocre in ski equipment. Future holds lots of fun stuff in our amazing sport.