Shorter and Wider

good question and I'm going to say the answer is no. reason is: the 168, in all widths and models, is engineered for a skier of a certain weight range, say 120 to 150lbs give or take. Even if your example was more like 120mm than 105mm, the ski will still be made softer than any model of 186cm, powder or otherwise. Most of these skis are broad in performance coverage, making one size shift generally possible, but a two size shift is not a good idea, IMO that is.

regarding the Enforcer, a long ski with a lot of sidecut and moderate stiffness requires a certain skill level to drive them, not just weight.

I'm 6'3" and 210.  Last year I managed to demo the Enforcer in 177 in hard, sketchy, icey conditions, with some softer stuff around the edges, and I was instantly at home on them.  Late-July this year I managed to demo the 185 in softer, cruddy conditions and found it to be much more ski - even with the slight early rise in the 2012 ski.  I get where you're coming from.  As an all-mountain ski I would go for the 177 and be happy.  If I were bombing the slope in softer snow I'd be more inclined to head for the 185, but that's not what you're about at the mo'.

On the same day this year I tested the Rossignol S3 in 186 on the same run.  It was light, playful and fun, and the ski felt significantly lighter and shorter than the 185 Enforcer (which has a relatively flat tail and two sheets of metal, remember).  The two skis are like chalk and cheese.  I just forgot about the Rossi and zoomed about the hill.  That, to me, is a good demo (and a big smile).

Note that skiing a twin tip will shorten the ski's contact/running length, meaning the ski will feel shorter than the stated length in harder conditions.  Also, the way many twins are measured (around the ski's physical surface) means a 186 will often measure 184 or less when standing on end.  The Enforcer is not a twin (edit - or at least not in recent years) so you feel every one of those 185 centimetres.  The Line Prophet 100, on the other hand, is a twin and will ski a little shorter.  Be aware that K2 measure their skis differently though - twins are longer than stated as (I believe) they exclude the tail when measuring for the reasons stated above.

Tip and tail rocker (or rise) usually means a ski skis even shorter than a twin of the same stated length.  For that reason I'd go with Scott and say 186 is the correct length for you in the ON3P lineup.  I've looked at the ON3P skis, read up a bunch about them, and would be torn between the Vicik, the Jeronimo and the Jeffrey - all in 186.  If I were to buy a pair I'd have a discussion with Scott about which skis I have liked (and why), which skis I didn't like (and why) and allow him to explain where they all fit in the spectrum.  I'd also try to demo them all if I could manage it.

Everything I've read about the Icelantics (not a lot) indicates you tend to ski them in a shorter length, which may explain their recommendation for you.

If you're looking to stay in the mid-180s there are options - the Line Prophet 98 this year has an early rise tip, for instance, which may help, although here are any number of offerings which will allow a ski to feel shorter, or easier to ski than a 185 Enforcer.

All of this has probably confused you, rather than helped, but my intention is to highlight the fact that there are lots of different skis designated as 186cm (for instance) and they're not really directly comparable.

Seems to me you need a forgiving mid-fat for inbounds.  If you can get your money back on the Enforcers, and aren't fully comfortable on them, I think you should snap up that offer and start to demo a bunch of forgiving skis with waists in the mid-80's to high-90's.  Also, if you ski inbounds, be realistic about how much you'll be skiing off piste.  That's a critical decision point for a one-ski quiver.  I'm guessing a lot of people overestimate their off-piste time to the detriment of their ski choice.  I know I have once or twice . 

Remember, demoing is a hoot!

Best of luck.

Oh!  And getting back onto the original topic, a shorter wider ski may have the float, but it may cost you a little in the stability stakes.  Float is often as much about flex as it is about the surface area, so there's lots to consider.

Ah!  OK, your original post mentioned skiing in powder. 

Taking a big step back, perhaps you should explain where you ski most often, the mountain(s) and individual runs where you hang out, the conditions you experience, and how you ski there; aggressive and fast, moderate pace with lots of turns, bumps and hucks and that flippy / spinny behaviour, or cartwheeling down the hill shedding equipment in all directions and scaring the wildlife as you go

I'm thinking you're probably looking for something flexible with a waist in the mid-to-high 80s (MX88, Magnum 8.7, Kendo, Aftershock type of stuff), but there's a whole 'nother bunch of skis up there in the 90s that overlaps in the all mountain space.  If you lay out where and how you intend to ski in some detail the team will have more chance to sort through the options in an informed way.  I'm quite open to being wrong in every way.

Cheers.

One big thing I've noticed lately that people don't often focus on is tip shape (not rocker but the actual shape of the tip). I've found that, even on a relatively long and wide ski, a short, stubby tip just isn't as much fun in powder. It seems to stick in the snow the instant it goes under (which will happen more often on a shorter ski) and requires a lot more pressure to push through. But, a more pointed tip or one with early taper really goes through the snow more easily, allowing the rest of the ski to smoothly come back up.

So, given the terrain you ski and your style, I'd say a shorter ski could work as long as it has a decent amount of width and a tip shape that works well in the soft stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malazan 

Well I have a buyer for the Enforcers, so I can get my money back for them. Now I'm stuck again looking for a pair of skis

 

One thing, I asked the Icelantic guys about their Pilgrim vs Nomad, and they recommended the Pilgrim in 168 for me

 

Let me put some skis out to you, and tell me what you think?

 

I'm

 

41

5'10

220lbs

Level 6-7, closer to 6

 

Ski in CO, and UT

 

Line Prophet 100  179, 186

Icelantic Pilgrim 169, 179

Icelantic Nomad 169, 181

ON3P Vicik 176, 186 Scott from ON3P Suggested this ski to me in the 186

4Frnt MSP 181

4Frnt Turbo 168, 175 182

Moment Tahoe 170, 180 , 188

 

I want a wider ski for the deep days, but I'm not a super aggressive, balls out kind of skier. I ski in bounds

I'm pretty much the same dimensions as you. I ski the Vicik in a 186 as my daily driver, when I can pry the Caylor's off of my feet. I think you should be looking in the mid 180's for the type of ski you are looking for.

As a part time skier at the boat, I can relate to where you are skiing and where I assume you want to be. If you are looking to hone your tree skills as well as get on a real pow ski for the boat, you want to go wider but since we are somewhat vertically challenged, I don't think you need to go super long. I am sounding like a broken record but I would tell you to grab a pair of DPS 112's in a 184. At 112 underfoot with the sidecut, this ski is wide enough for the light stuff we are blessed with and will still provide excellent soft/broken snow ability and very good groomed performance. I wouldn't even bother with a ski under 110.  This is my soft snow ski that will take me anywhere on the mountain and comfotably into sidecountry (pioneer ridge, shadows, closets, O'clock trees, etc).  
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malazan 

Well I have a buyer for the Enforcers, so I can get my money back for them. Now I'm stuck again looking for a pair of skis

 

One thing, I asked the Icelantic guys about their Pilgrim vs Nomad, and they recommended the Pilgrim in 168 for me

 

Let me put some skis out to you, and tell me what you think?

 

I'm

 

41

5'10

220lbs

Level 6-7, closer to 6

 

Ski in CO, and UT

 

Line Prophet 100  179, 186

Icelantic Pilgrim 169, 179

Icelantic Nomad 169, 181

ON3P Vicik 176, 186 Scott from ON3P Suggested this ski to me in the 186

4Frnt MSP 181

4Frnt Turbo 168, 175 182

Moment Tahoe 170, 180 , 188

 

I want a wider ski for the deep days, but I'm not a super aggressive, balls out kind of skier. I ski in bounds

I can't speak to the specifics of any of those skis, but at your height I'd strongly suggest keeping it over 175cm in length.

I will defer to people who know those areas better than myself.

We're all assuming this is going to be a one-ski quiver, but if you already have a narrower ski things change somewhat.

I'll admit to being partial to the ON3P kit just from reading through Scott's challenges over the last few years.  Nice to be able to talk to the guy who makes the skis.  I've not been anywhere near an ON3P ski though, so don't take my word for it. 

Good luck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malazan 

Yeah, It will be my one and only ski, so I have to make it count

Bad idea. I would suggest you pick up two used pairs for the price of one new pair. Your obviously going to want a hard snow day ski and that will likely be 85-95 underfoot and about a 175-178 length. For the soft days (some pow) you want a ski 110+ under foot and more like 185-190 in length. I have bought lots of skis on Gear Swap over at TGR. You should visit the darkside, as you will get hooked up quicker there than here with two pairs of nice new to you skis. Just my 2 cents.

Likely based on your comments to them and the ski you were looking at.  Someone previously stated that Icelantic has a few models they sell pretty short for a powder ski.  At 220lbs I don't see it, but I am not familiar with their models.

Just to keep things flowing.  The EpicSki flavour of the month when it comes to a one-ski quiver is the Blizzard freeride series (Bushwacker, Bonafide, Cochise and Bodacious) with waists of 88mm, 98mm, 108mm and 118mm respectively, plus early rise in the tip and a very slight rise to the tail.  They're getting rave reviews as a flexible tool for all over the mountain, and for your needs I suspect they would fit the bill nicely.  Search on any of those names, or search on "flipcore" (which is a descriptor for Blizzi's new approach to laying up the ski's core) and read some of the reviews.  There's hardly a dissenting voice among them (until you get into the topsheet graphics). 

speaking unofficially; when Ben created the company (with others) he wanted to build skis that were nimble and solid. The original idea was to view skis from a surface area perspective rather than a lenght or width view. The concept was to have the skier on a shorter ski and still achieve the float and stability of a longer ski. 

As I posted above, at your height and weight and where you are skiing, you want something at least 110 (although a Cochise @ 108 would be an awesome ski) underfoot and rockered. Steamboat skiing requires the ability to turn on a dime and something with good soft snow abilities. @ 220#'s, The DPS 112, or super 7 would be near the top of my list. I think youy are too heavy for an Access but as a skier looking to improve, don't jump for a ski that's "over your head" . To gain skills and confidence, get something that will be easy to ski.  I know several technically adept skiers that don't have the confidence and that skill is worthless without that. 

Also posted above is good advice: you want two skis. There's really no way around this. I am on the Bonafide and the 112. There are a lot of skis in the 95 to 100 underfoot range. Bonafide, Rossi Exp 98, I love the Sentinal @ 95, Volkl Mantra but Between Ski Haus, Stamboat Bike and Kare and Sportstalker, you should be able to demo a bunch.  I am not sure who is selling Blizz' skis this season up there but I think it's Sportstalker (christy's)  Chad Fleischers shop in One Steamboat has atomics as well. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malazan 

Does anyone have any idea why Icelantic would suggest a 168 to me?

Great job and keep up the great work!  I hope to make some turns with you in December? 

Good on ya for the weight loss goal. That will also help your skiing. As you lose the weight, some of the pressure will be released from your knees, so you should be more nimble and able to ski more aggressively without as much risk of injury. That said, do LOTS AND LOTS of quad, calf, hamstring, ab and adductor work. Keep those muscles around your knees strong and you'll see the benefits.

For this season, stick with the longer ski. As you drop weight, you can reassess next season.

Edit: Spelling error.

did you just call him an asses? 

Hope YOUR knee is doing better! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finndog 

did you just call him an asses? 

 

Hope YOUR knee is doing better! 

 

 

I have no idea of what you write . . .

assess........... 

The Prophet gets a lot of great reviews and people recognize it as a "fun" ski. I've only skied it once and, have to admit, I wasn't that impressed. But I was coming off the Blizzard flipcore series and I think the Prophet had a pretty shitty tune on it, so I wasn't having much fun. Can't speak to the others . . .

I take it your new bindings have a 100mm brake, yes?  I imagine the Vicik will ski short in comparison to the other two (even though the others are twin tips) but you've no doubt chatted it through with Scott at ON3P.  I don't think you can go wrong with any of them.  I think the 186 Prophet, rather than the 179.

Best of luck.