or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Is my ski big enough for powder?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is my ski big enough for powder? - Page 2

post #31 of 113

He also posted in another thread that he really doesn't know that much about skis and he was really skeptical about reverse camber skis until this year. I'm skiing the armada TST in 192 and they're 103 underfoot. I'm 6'2" 225 and have 0 problem getting them to hook up. Had them at Abasin 3 times this year so I've been on some fairly icy conditions, corn and packed powder. They were great in all conditions.  The OP is friggin HUGE. He needs a big ski.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

I read this and thought, "where is this guy from?" and then saw you were in Europe and it all made sense.  I'm going to say that you don't know what you're talking about and some of those other people do.  85mm underfoot for a guy who is 6'6" and 255 pounds is all he needs?
 



 



 

post #32 of 113

Yeah, I'm 5'-10" and 140 lbs.  My 170cm K2 Apache Outlaws are 92mm wide at the waist and are great on hard pack, and I'm wondering if they're wide enough to really float on anything deep. I can probably get away with it since I'm pretty light.   But 85mm?  no no no no no....that would make a great carving ski, not deep snow.   

 

Of course, "deep snow" means different things to different people. 

post #33 of 113

I'm surprised no one has mentioned ski construction (although soft/stiff has been referred to) as it is important for a large skier. The strongest type of ski core is double torsion box construction made from wood laminate. Essentially they build a box inside a box. A ski with a metal top sheet will also add to the strength and durability of the ski.

 

As far as ski width goes, imo over 100mm under the foot width is best for heavy, deep, coastal snow (you know the stuff that you can make snow balls out of and that they call "powder" at Whistler but it isn't) or for those who want to ski powder at speed with few turns, sorta like a snow boarder.

 

Personally I don't buy skis for untracked powder as it is the easiest stuff to ski. It is in the afternoon of a powder day when the snow is cut up and piled up and maybe the temp has warmed up that things can get tricky. That is when I am looking for my "powder " ski to preform in the crud and not bounce me around and those are the conditions in which I like to test my "powder" skis.

post #34 of 113

good point. I would just add that another powerful construction is the sidewall / sandwich with metal top and bottom layers. they ski very strong, but some say they are more prone to bending (than fiberglass top and bottom sheets) if you abuse them.

 

I'd also add that a 140lb skier making fast, dynamic turns can put far more stress into the ski than a 200lb skier with weak technical skills (who will likely only stress the ski when he stabs the tip into the snow and pushes on it). Speed multiplies the weight factor dramatically.

post #35 of 113

he needs more length, not necessarily width, although 85 to 90mm is fine. I work with some huge guys, great skiers/coaches, and they don't need to go wider. One of our best Bulgarian skiers is about 6'6" and he skies rather shorter and narrower than anyone would recommend. I may not have the most seasons under my belt (10 instructing fulltime) plus the many seasons part time, so I'd say I do know a bit about what I'm talking about.

I will admit one weakness is the new tech skis, and I'd like BushwakerinPA to recommend a 100mm width ski for me that is nimble and great on hardpack and bumps as I'd love to give it a try.

As for being too narrow, that's rubbish. Maybe, with the new tech skis (talking about rockered here) these wider widths are nimble and fine when not in the powder, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he doesn't need to go hugely wide to really enjoy the powder. That is a fact.

 

post #36 of 113

He definitely doesn't NEED to go wide to enjoy powder but at 100mm underfoot it'll certainly help someone his size get through it easier. As far as a ski that's 100mm underfoot, nimble and great on hardpark and ok in bumps, I love my Armada TST so far this season. It's light as hell, has a short turn radius, rockered tip but none in the tail. It's obviously not the best ski for bumps or hardpack but it surely holds its own and I'm extremely  happy w/ them for my one quiver ski. 

post #37 of 113


I concur 100% on this, and buy all my skis with this concept in mind, in the front of my mind in fact. deep, dry, untracked powder is not real hard to ski, and many skis handle it admirably. It is crud that is hard to ski and harder to select a ski for. the 95mm - 100mm is the ultimate crud ski width, IMO, and we ski a lot of crud. Any ski that is damp, stiff, heavy, and straight will be a formidable crud ski, and in the good stuff, no problem, just not "floaty and turny" to quote the popular description.

 

right when the quiver idea was getting big, I asked myself: are you going to buy another ski for what you have the most fun with or what you have the most trouble with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post

I'm surprised no one has mentioned ski construction (although soft/stiff has been referred to) as it is important for a large skier. The strongest type of ski core is double torsion box construction made from wood laminate. Essentially they build a box inside a box. A ski with a metal top sheet will also add to the strength and durability of the ski.

 

As far as ski width goes, imo over 100mm under the foot width is best for heavy, deep, coastal snow (you know the stuff that you can make snow balls out of and that they call "powder" at Whistler but it isn't) or for those who want to ski powder at speed with few turns, sorta like a snow boarder.

 

Personally I don't buy skis for untracked powder as it is the easiest stuff to ski. It is in the afternoon of a powder day when the snow is cut up and piled up and maybe the temp has warmed up that things can get tricky. That is when I am looking for my "powder " ski to preform in the crud and not bounce me around and those are the conditions in which I like to test my "powder" skis.



 

post #38 of 113

So do people really think that metal is required for a damp ski?

post #39 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomB View Post

 

BPA: Lets put you in deep heavy snow on 150cm skis I bet you feel like a beginner as well..

 

Let's not, because you would lose. biggrin.gif

 

Would you feel like a beginner on 150 cm skis, just because you are faced with a bit of powder? I hope the answer is no !!



Funny. Any competent skier used to modern equipment would not feel like a beginner, they'd just feel like life sucked because they'd been shoved through a time warp and forced to use the skiing equivalent of stone knives and flint axes. 

 

For anyone fitting the OP's description, anything too much "less" than a big Bent Chetler or a big Rocker 2 is just plain ridiculous. Even as a daily driver  - let alone a powder oriented ski. 

 

The correct answer is likely very much in the zone of the OP's original list.   115+ at the waist, roughly 190-195 long (although a couple mm one way or another is likely immaterial). And at least from my POV, anything lacking both tip and tail rocker is a wildly goofy and inferior choice.

 

The absolute baseline should be skis like the Obsethed, 112RP, Praxis Concept, Opus,etc. At his size, with his aspirations, "honing skills" on something in this realm or even fatter is totally appropriate. The sweet spot size-wise is probably the Bent Chetler or Rocker 2. And there are even fatter offerings from K2, ON3P, Praxis, etc that might be worth thinking about. Maybe a big Prior Overlord... Lots of choices - but yet again tip+tail rocker and fat are the themes. Doubly so given height./weight

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #40 of 113

^^^^ Hmmm yeah, but keep in mind he also mentioned groomers. And Whistler doesn't automatically have hip deep fluff. Some of these will be adequate to decent on soft groomers - Overlord (which would be my call), Billy Goat, Super 7, Concept come to mind - but not so sure about Obsethed, BC, Rocker2, some of the softer serious powder sticks. And 112, which maxes out at 190, dunno about how it's going to react to wet crud with 255 on its back. Maybe a Flex 3 when/if they make them? 

post #41 of 113

Back to the OP's query and summing up (with extra weight on my point of viewrolleyes.gif), for Whistler, and location is key here due to the particularly heavy snow, you have to have a ski around 100mm first, so that you can cover all conditions. Then you can have a 115mm or 120mm for deep and fresh. Those wider skis get tossed all over the place in set up heavy crud and mank, partly because they do plane so well; they ride up and over every little thing, they absorb or plow nothing (though at 255lbs, who knows?). 190cm ish sounds great. tip rocker, sure, why not. very stiff, I would think so. So, there you have it, fill in a brand and model, doesn't really matter.

 

SA, as a famous American president once said: there you go again.

 

 

 

 

 

I used to, before the B-Squad. I skied the B-Squad for 2 or 3 seasons. In the 166cm, it had no metal. Foam core and fiberglass top and bottom sheets, some rubber in there. It was so damp, well, I sometimes thought it was dead: (on firm snow) "hey, wake up down there!" But dead is really good in deep crud , think: if he were any mellower,  he'd be dead, but, no, he's cool. cool.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

So do people really think that metal is required for a damp ski?


 

 


Edited by davluri - 10/26/11 at 2:17pm
post #42 of 113

Your question is about a powder ski but most days are not powder days at Heavenly or Whistler so make sure you really want what you're asking for. That said -it's a multidimensional issue. Are the 178s stable at the speeds you like to ski in powder and elsewhere? Wider can give more float but no more fore-aft stability in real powder. Longer will be more stable at speed and in true powder where you're floating but less capable when you're on a firm foundation like a groomer or bumps. My guess is in true powder/deep snow you will be happier with a 185ish length and a 110 width with some rocker that's on the soft range for this category of ski. Be careful not to get into the Big Mountain - hard charger end of this category because they are mostly Experts Only models.

post #43 of 113

I have to disagree here, wider is not necessarily the best solution. At the begining of last season I was in race camp at Mammoth and did well in the ski off ski.gifon the groomers and got put into the top class. Because of the major dump we got, the instructor had us up in the deep stuff in West Bowl, Drop Out and Climax, I was wallowing, nose diving and double ejectinghissyfit.gif with my Grizzly's (170cm, 89 under foot), because I had never skied powder before (especially with a 2" crust). After nearly a day of this I asked to move down to a lower class. I struggled with it for the rest of the week any time I got off the groomers.

 

After that, I thought about getting some powder specific skis, but with the help of one of the other racers in my club, and many more major dumps at Mammothbiggrin.gif ,  over the rest of the season I improved my technique and am even able to ski powder on my slalom skis (Head i.C180s 163cm, 65 under foot). I'm 6' 175lbs.

 

Anyway, my point is, unless you are skiing fresh powder in Utah or Colorado, go for a mid-fat crud buster all-mountan ski between 85 and 110 under foot and for your weight something longer than 185 (probably 192). However, on powder days, a powder specific ski would be Awesome...

 

Spacecase

post #44 of 113

We are talking about a guy 255lbs who has skied ~16 days ever and wants a good powder ski. Trying to be realistic? Well its a little late for that. He need to go as big as possible and then go bigger...

 

A pontoon is going to make deep snow feel very smilar to skiing a soft groomer on a narrower ski and is the best option to get the most performance for him in powder. The fact that it sucks on groomers is unfortunate, but its not like the other opitons are good on groomers. And if you can't be bothered to learn how to ski you have to make choices. I don' think a 185cm 110 under foot is going to be that much better than what he already has. And its not like any ski in this conversation  will work well for learning technique. 

 

I am curious if he has a boot that is even capable of driving a >100mm wide ski.

 

post #45 of 113

Interesting to read you all from the other side of the ocean, although I now feel a bit confused about what's right or better in terms of length and width...

Anyway... there's always that little criteria called feeling that makes you go for (for example) Dynastar skis even if everyone tells you a K2 would be more suited...

I've been addicted to Fischer girls skis for years now. Like my jeans, can't get rid of them!!!!

I suggest you have a look at the Winter-Sports.com ski review. They don't list millions of skis but I like their comments.

Can't wait for the white gold to fall...

 

post #46 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingaround View Post

 but that doesn't detract from the fact that he doesn't need to go hugely wide to really enjoy the powder. That is a fact.

 



I don't need an elevator to get to the top of the Empire State Building and enjoy the view, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer an elevator over walking the stairs.

post #47 of 113
Hey this is very good info as I am also 6'5" and 255lbs skiing our lake effect puff in OH and western NY on Elan Magfires 78 underfoot and 178 in length .. I go out to Tahoe to visit my buddy and he enjoys my headers into powder at speed biggrin.gif

I tried some 180 Dynastars when my son and I went to park city but we got pounded with more of a rainy snow mix while we were there.

I got my skis about 3 years ago and know they are not for powder at all.. wondering if they are not the best option for the mashed potatoes and baby heads I am plowing through much of the time here.

Great comments on the options as it sounds like it's tough for us to find one ski that can cover it all since size, skill and terrain conditions seem to call for different skis more than ever
post #48 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomB View Post

 

BPA: Lets put you in deep heavy snow on 150cm skis I bet you feel like a beginner as well..

 

Let's not, because you would lose. biggrin.gif

 

That's just Bushwhacker.  He can only communicate through challenges and boasts.  We keep hoping he'll grow out of it.

post #49 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by YetimanOH View Post

Hey this is very good info as I am also 6'5" and 255lbs skiing our lake effect puff in OH and western NY on Elan Magfires 78 underfoot and 178 in length .. I go out to Tahoe to visit my buddy and he enjoys my headers into powder at speed biggrin.gif
I tried some 180 Dynastars when my son and I went to park city but we got pounded with more of a rainy snow mix while we were there.
I got my skis about 3 years ago and know they are not for powder at all.. wondering if they are not the best option for the mashed potatoes and baby heads I am plowing through much of the time here.
Great comments on the options as it sounds like it's tough for us to find one ski that can cover it all since size, skill and terrain conditions seem to call for different skis more than ever.

Sorry dude, but you're a retail outlets best customer with comments like this. There are skis that are great all rounders, that will suit your size and skier type. It isn't hard to find a good ski, but these guys here who insist on huge width are ridiculous. With your size, you need a longer ski, and anywhere from 80-90mm under foot, and say 190-195 in length. Just give it a go, and see what happens. I may be off with the exact  ideal length, but you will find a nice difference with something longer given  your height.
 

 

post #50 of 113

Hey Skyler,

considering you want it to also handle groomers(uuugh!, but understandable) I suggest looking for a set of Volkl Katanas. They are extremely versatile for a ski that loves to ski POW. they have an early rise tip and partial twin tip and 111 mm under foot I'm 5'-8", 175 lbs and ski a 183 cm. The folks here at epic will tell you that this type of ski is surprisingly manueverable so you can ski a longer length. and it's true.

I followed advise from this forum and was very happy with the ski on 17 legitimate powder days last season and it's the only ski I used the rest of my days . I'm bettin you could even go with the next size up from mine if you are planning to progress and don't want to have to buy new every two seasons.Look for deals on last years stock as it doesn't seem to be a ski that's marketed as agressively as the Volkl Gotamas, Shiros or Kuros. Just my .02 worth,Pray for snow


Edited by xcountry41 - 10/27/11 at 8:09am
post #51 of 113

1. Do you have good boots, properly fitted by an experienced bootfitter?

If no, take the boots you have to the best bootfitter in your area (ask people here for recommendations) and do what he/she says. If yes, go to

2. Take the money you're looking to spend on new skis and use it instead to take a really good lesson program, one where you're with the same instructor for at least four straight days. At the end of that program ask the instructor to recommend a ski type/length/width (not a particular ski model) that will work well for the places you most often ski.

3. Use any leftover cash to put in more days on the snow and demo different models of skis that fit the instructor's recommendation. If you find something that's just right, go to

4. Look for bargains on that model after winter ends.

 

You have NO idea how often I've wished someone had been kind enough to give me that advice several decades ago (and that I would've been smart enough to take it).

Good luck.

 

post #52 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylar Goodwin View Post

I am 6'6" and 255 lbs and i am currently riding a pair of line blend 178 cm skis. For those not familiar these skis are all mountain skis with a 100mm waist but no early rise in tip or tail. I rode powder on skis for my first time in Heavenly ski resort in california. The skis were manageable but it was very difficult. I was wondering if this is just me riding too slow and lack of form or if i need some wider or longer skis for my trip to whistler, bc this winter.


 

If you are looking for skis specifically for this upcoming trip, one option to look into is to bring your own boots and demo some skis at the resort.  Usually when you pay to use a demo-grade ski (versus a cheaper rental-grade ski) you can switch out to a different model as many times in a day as you'd like.  You can then get a feel for different skis shapes and sizes before you buy your own.

post #53 of 113

What are the widest skis you've ever been on?  I'm seriously asking.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingaround View Post

Sorry dude, but you're a retail outlets best customer with comments like this. There are skis that are great all rounders, that will suit your size and skier type. It isn't hard to find a good ski, but these guys here who insist on huge width are ridiculous. With your size, you need a longer ski, and anywhere from 80-90mm under foot, and say 190-195 in length. Just give it a go, and see what happens. I may be off with the exact  ideal length, but you will find a nice difference with something longer given  your height.
 

 



 

post #54 of 113

although there are lots of good options, the Katana is an interesting call, ^^^^. it is favored by some big guys, and the 2012 is being manufactured in Germany now. IMO, a plus. and a reason not to get the 2011. although some people say the China models were as good or better, my bigger rougher friends have destroyed their Katanas in one season, that dumb tail insert fails, there are top sheet delams on many pairs. The new ones should be manufactured very similar to the Mantra, which has been bomber the last years. Problem with an intermediate that is a big person is that you want to go stiff for the weight of the skier, but you don't want too much of a pro-model ski for learning technique. I'm half your weight, so not the best to advise that aspect of your choice.

post #55 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toecutter View Post


 

If you are looking for skis specifically for this upcoming trip, one option to look into is to bring your own boots and demo some skis at the resort.  Usually when you pay to use a demo-grade ski (versus a cheaper rental-grade ski) you can switch out to a different model as many times in a day as you'd like.  You can then get a feel for different skis shapes and sizes before you buy your own.


About the only useful bit of advice in this thread so far.

 

The OP plainly asked if his ski's are good enough for powder for his size. Anything will work. But the reality of the situation is that he is on skis that are too small for him all around. It sounds like someone who is accustomed to selling people carvers sized him for a true all mountain ski.

 

IF the OP is looking for a TRUE powder ski then he will want something bigger as well.

 

post #56 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post


About the only useful bit of advice in this thread so far.

 

The OP plainly asked if his ski's are good enough for powder for his size. Anything will work. But the reality of the situation is that he is on skis that are too small for him all around. It sounds like someone who is accustomed to selling people carvers sized him for a true all mountain ski.

 

IF the OP is looking for a TRUE powder ski then he will want something bigger as well.

 



At his size, anything under 100 or 105 is not even a ski, it is a skate - unless his fulltime focus is true ice. Seriously, a Rocker 2 is a mid-fat in the context of this discussion.

 

That said, per your comment, nothing wrong with renting in a town like Whistler. But even day to day in Tahoe, I'd want something fatter than what he already has.

post #57 of 113

I think what some people may be missing is that in Tahoe - where our OP skis - many, many people who weigh 70 - 100 pounds less use 100mm+ skis as their daily drivers.  I'd say the Gotama is an extremely popular daily driver both in CA and CO and they're what, 106mm?  I weigh 165 pounds and my skinny ski is 88mm, and while it does okay in powder, I definitely wanted something significantly wider for powder days.  And we're saying this is what someone who has 90 pounds on me should get?

 

Also: while you can ski through untracked on almost anything and have a good time, for a less experienced skier a fat ski makes powder much easier because to get through deeper snow on skinnier skis you need to be going faster, especially if the slope isn't that steep.  The irony is that advanced skiers are more often the ones riding the skis that would probably assist lesser skiers (off-piste) even more.  IMO that's why so many intermediate skiers are afraid to leave the groomers because they'll give it a try on their 72mm skis, going slowly and cautiously, then eject forward when the snow builds up in front of them.

post #58 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post



At his size, anything under 100 or 105 is not even a ski, it is a skate - unless his fulltime focus is true ice. Seriously, a Rocker 2 is a mid-fat in the context of this discussion.

 

That said, per your comment, nothing wrong with renting in a town like Whistler. But even day to day in Tahoe, I'd want something fatter than what he already has.


I agree that his blend is too small for his size in Sierra Cement / Cascade Concrete. I'm easily 230 suited up. I tried to learn how to ski THAT kind of snow on 172 Prophet 100's 3 years ago. Now I generally ski a 191 Caylor on just about any day where there is some fresh. Much more enjoyable.

 

In fact I refuse to ski anything else under 186.

 

post #59 of 113

Here goes, I should keep my mouth shut, but I just can't...

 

The problem is you're american and you guys just love getting technical. I'm not saying this to be unpleasant, but I've skied with so many americans and canadians and while there are truly amazing skiers, a lot of people who aren't pro's usually talk better than they can ski. We're all guilty of this to some degree but I'm reminded of what happened on my fist heli-ski trip back in NZ. Two USA guys talking in the van ride out to the helipad had me nervous. I was a qualified instructor in the top group, and these guys were in the lowest ability group, and the way they talked, I thought they were serious pro's whom I wouldn't have been surprised to find in a Warren Miller film.

We had 30cm fresh, and at the bottom of the first run, me, my friends and the guide looked back toward the top and all let out a moan of pain. The two americans could not ski powder, they would do one shaky traverse, and either face plant, wince in pain as they performed the splits, and they could not do a single turn. We watched the poor guide allocated to them, then the chopper picked us up and took us to another peak.

 

Ok, I know I'm going to get some flak for my american comments, but I do love you guys, you're just too damed technical and get (to me at least) bogged down in the finer details. Talk of 'quivers' is ridiculous. At most, the ski instructors I work with, the majority of them, only ever had two pairs of skis at most.

 

To answer another question someone asked me, the widest ski I've been on is my current ski, the k2 public enemy at 85mm (I think). I find this width fantastic nearly all conditions, even in the bumps, although understandably its weakest being hard pack. Just get a good all mountain ski, right length, 80-90mm width underfoot, do the whole 'rockered' thing if you want, and learn to ski. To truly get good in powder and other off piste conditions, you gotta get great technique on piste. You may think you're tearing up the pow with a surfboard attached to each foot, but I bet your skiing won't improve.

 

Oh, and I am going to try one of those wider skis with a the whole rocker thing.

 

Well, I'm ready for the retaliation, bring it on.

 

post #60 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingaround View Post

Here goes, I should keep my mouth shut, but I just can't...

 

The problem is you're american and you guys just love getting technical. I'm not saying this to be unpleasant, but I've skied with so many americans and canadians and while there are truly amazing skiers, a lot of people who aren't pro's usually talk better than they can ski. We're all guilty of this to some degree but I'm reminded of what happened on my fist heli-ski trip back in NZ. Two USA guys talking in the van ride out to the helipad had me nervous. I was a qualified instructor in the top group, and these guys were in the lowest ability group, and the way they talked, I thought they were serious pro's whom I wouldn't have been surprised to find in a Warren Miller film.

We had 30cm fresh, and at the bottom of the first run, me, my friends and the guide looked back toward the top and all let out a moan of pain. The two americans could not ski powder, they would do one shaky traverse, and either face plant, wince in pain as they performed the splits, and they could not do a single turn. We watched the poor guide allocated to them, then the chopper picked us up and took us to another peak.

 

Ok, I know I'm going to get some flak for my american comments, but I do love you guys, you're just too damed technical and get (to me at least) bogged down in the finer details. Talk of 'quivers' is ridiculous. At most, the ski instructors I work with, the majority of them, only ever had two pairs of skis at most.

 

To answer another question someone asked me, the widest ski I've been on is my current ski, the k2 public enemy at 85mm (I think). I find this width fantastic nearly all conditions, even in the bumps, although understandably its weakest being hard pack. Just get a good all mountain ski, right length, 80-90mm width underfoot, do the whole 'rockered' thing if you want, and learn to ski. To truly get good in powder and other off piste conditions, you gotta get great technique on piste. You may think you're tearing up the pow with a surfboard attached to each foot, but I bet your skiing won't improve.

 

Oh, and I am going to try one of those wider skis with a the whole rocker thing.

 

Well, I'm ready for the retaliation, bring it on.

 


Just because someone can afford to go on a heli trip does not mean they can ski for shit. As far as the top euro pro's? They little ski's either. I would also venture to say that neither you nor your ski instructor buddies are as big as the OP.

 

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Is my ski big enough for powder?