Powder skis for young adults

I put my son on a woman's ski at that size.  But you have to be careful of the graphics.  I chose the Rossi B4w which looked exactly the same as the men's? Couple of strategically placed stickers and bingo, they were never the wiser.

But I also think the Jr. skis are better to today.  Ten years ago, there was a lot of slocky  Jr. skis and they didn't have hardly any Jr. fats?

I also used demo bindings, because their feet grow really fast at that stage and I was handing down until grom Jr. took to the dark side of snowboarding.  Are they twins?

If you're really talking "powder skis", I wouldn't worry about going with an adult ski.... my 9 year old skis powder on 169 pontoons (his 2nd year on them too !!!, while my 12 year old was on 169 hellbents this years and 176 s7's last year.... here's the 9 year old on his pontoons this past April...

Some that I can think about are Armada JJ 165cm, it`s available at a good price at evo. Also 4FRNT Crj 164cm which you can get for a really nice price using 35% coupons at STP. Rosignol S3 168cm available at evo, great price, at 98 underfoot STP also has the Fischer Watea 98, also good price if you use coupons. Maybe the Line SFB 172cm if you can find one at a good price, right now I can just find 2013.

I think there is really good options at small sizes. I`m not sure how wide are you looking for, you said powder so maybe JJ and CRJ are better options than something 98 which is really more towards all mountain. You can also find Obsethed 169cm.

My first option would be the Armada JJ, I would get one for me if I could find a longer on for that great price, but my wife would kill me since I have just bought skis. :-)

I second the demo bindings suggestion. It would also allow them to switch skis from time to time. Which would be cool I guess...

I think you need to be clear on what you mean by "powder skis". In the world I live in, neither Mantras nor Gotamas come close to being powder skis. Much more "all mountain". Goats are arguably powder enabled - but that's as far as I'd go.  (I say that having skied a couple generations of Gotamas & having family members who have skied Mantras and Auras) And Volkl itself would more likely pitch skis like the Shiro or Kuro for true powder use.

I have a strong Praxis bias. IMO nobody makes a better powder ski. Some may make skis as good. But nobody makes "better".  Both the deigns and construction are as good as it gets. And the pricing on Praxis makes it the value leader hands down. There are skis you can spend one and a half or twice as much on and get no more for your money (maybe not even as much). There are a number of models in the the "All Mountain" series (still with good powder genetics) up into the "Powder" series that come in appropriate sizes to qualify as powder skis for your kids. And they can be ordered in soft flexes. Keith at Praxis presumably could offer you good advice (his cousin who works there is a super well regarded kids freestyle coach at Squaw - so they are probably pretty dialed into what you'd be seeking). If you are talking true fresh snow use, the Powder Board is stunning fun. Hardly what I'd call versatile, but for my two cents it is the leader in a space only a small handful of skis even play in. If you really mean "powder", it slays.

As others have noted - a number of skis from more "standard" manufacturers could fit the bill. Find a 169 Obsethed. Salomon Rocker 2 series comes in appropriate lengths. S7 is an obvious candidate. The previously mentioned JJ... Etc. Etc. Original or Blue and White Pontoons in 169 could be interesting contenders. On the feet of people who "get" them, they are far more capable than many give them credit for - but they might still be a bit much this year.

While I hate to differ with any of the above suggestions - I am not a CRJ fan. IMO this year's Hoji is more what the CRJ aspired to be. But I do not think it comes in short lengths.

I went through the exact same situation with my son last ski season.  At 5'2" and about 115 lbs he was outgrowing his 158 Gotama Jr skis, so we started searching for a replacement ski.  We visited at least a half dozen shops in and around Salt Lake City as well as many hours of internet research.  We initially targeted something in the 165 - 170 range and roughly 100mm underfoot.  In the end, we settled on a ski a little fatter and a little longer than we originally planned for, but were sooooooo glad we did.  He ended up with a 177 Atomic Blog @ 110 underfoot, and found it was not at all too long or too wide.  He absolutely loves their versatility in powder and crud, and that they can still rip the groomers almost like his GS skis.  He said they skied a bit shorter than the 177 length, probably due to the slight tip and tail rocker.

171 Atomic Access

Well, that's a philosophical/design question with respect to powder skis. Skis like the Access lack tail rocker. Some folks prefer that. I do not. If I had to ski powder on skis without some decent tail rocker, I'd wanna shoot myself... YMMV

I'm going to pick up where Spindrift left off with Praxis.  I'm a fan as well and am not so patiently waiting for skis they are building for me.  They are currently accepting orders for next years' skis at preseason prices, with an additional 10% off available by using super secret promo codes like "Praxis" and "Epic" at checkout.  They are offering semi custom builds on all their skis with your choice of four different flexes, carbon fiber (extra $$), and your choice of graphics from their graphic library.  They do a super job and will talk to you at length if need be.  For the time being they are accepting orders with 50% down; check them out. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift 

Well, that's a philosophical/design question with respect to powder skis. Skis like the Access lack tail rocker. Some folks prefer that. I do not. If I had to ski powder on skis without some decent tail rocker, I'd wanna shoot myself... YMMV

For 10 days in the mid-Atlantic and 10 days in Utah or CO?  They will be lucky to get 3 or 4 powder days. They can probably struggle along without tail rocker . Having a tail will be nice for the vast majority of their skiing.

At 5'3", do they expect to grow a lot in the next few years, or are they topping out in a few inches? Those Atomics are at a pretty good price point, which is one reason I recommended. The only time my son outgrew skis before 2 seasons was when he was 15/16.  I bought the women's version, the Century, for my 14-year-old daughter, and she really likes them. Got the 166, she's about 5'7". They appear to hold up fine in powder ... don't need much to float at this weight (adding gratuitous picture of blue sky and white snow, because it's July:)

^^^^ This.

Pretty solid advice in these two posts. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by segbrown 

For 10 days in the mid-Atlantic and 10 days in Utah or CO?  They will be lucky to get 3 or 4 powder days. They can probably struggle along without tail rocker . Having a tail will be nice for the vast majority of their skiing.

 

 

At 5'3", do they expect to grow a lot in the next few years, or are they topping out in a few inches? Those Atomics are at a pretty good price point, which is one reason I recommended. The only time my son outgrew skis before 2 seasons was when he was 15/16.  I bought the women's version, the Century, for my 14-year-old daughter, and she really likes them. Got the 166, she's about 5'7". They appear to hold up fine in powder ... don't need much to float at this weight (adding gratuitous picture of blue sky and white snow, because it's July:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

At 5' 3" and 120 lbs..........no way are most Jr skis the right call unless they are intermediateish skiers and you suggest that they are not. You suggested (I think) that they are going to use these skis for 100% of their skiing (true?) If so, do you really want a "powder" ski? Or do you want a widish all mountain ski (such as the one you ski on) Do you think they need wider skis than the ones you have? Would you want 110+ skis as your only ski? Think about this............in 10 days each in the west and in mid-atlantic how many days of greater than 12" do you expect you'll see? True powder skis or skis well over 110mm will certainly do a better job on those days but will of necessity not do as well on days when there is no recent snow. So......you might do a priority check to see if a powder biased ski is what you/they want.

 

If you do want a somewhat powder biased ski, there is maybe one jr ski (Volkl Shiro Jr in 163) that would probably be enough ski for at least a year. I know you want a more long term purchase but those will be roughly half the price of an adult ski in season. (+or- about $225-250 right now) While "only" 100mm wide, it is a fully rockered ski so that helps and besides it's wider than what you have and they are way lighter than you so maybe that can put the width into some perspective. If you want an adult build powder ski in ~~ 170 with a male graphic the choices are fairly limited.

 

OTH, If you think an all mountain ski might be a better call then are a bunch of adult great skis in the ~~ 95-105mm range that are available in the 168-174 size range. You can buy many of these now for good prices and there are a lot of good choices. Given their light weight, the stiffer skis in this category might not be a great idea but there are tons of medium flex skis that would be great.

 

SJ

A thought that occurs to me is ... how tall are you?  I ask because my son went from 5'4" - 6' in one ski season.  Once he started to sprout, he caught his dad quickly.  I only bring this up because if you buy too short, you might be buying again next season.  We handed down  an old pair of my husband's skis which he used last season, and hubby got the new skis.  We just purchased new  skis for my son (which he will receive this Christmas).  I know it is a bigger challenge with two who are growing at the same rate.  I would agree with Sierra Jim and look for more of a "one ski quiver" that they can use for a few years in a variety of conditions.  The Mantra is an excellent choice, as is the Kendo, the Bonafide, and the Bushwacker.  It just depends how fat you want that waist and how much time you spend on east coast groomers.   

FYI We went with the Bushwackers (180) because he is only 160 lbs and we felt was a better fit for his light weight.  We also found a great deal! 

I was just looking at the Praxis web site and see the LePetite is designed for the up and coming or light weight skier and may be something worthwhile to look into. 

 The Sambas have treated me well in powder  at 98 under foot and flipcore rocker, they're a great option for someone small, with a growing spurt coming on.  (Samba = Bonafide)

I've done some tagging of skis that are being talked about in this thread on the right side of the page so you can see some of the comparable info. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouD-Reno 

If you're really talking "powder skis", I wouldn't worry about going with an adult ski.... my 9 year old skis powder on 169 pontoons (his 2nd year on them too !!!, while my 12 year old was on 169 hellbents this years and 176 s7's last year.... here's the 9 year old on his pontoons this past April...

I can't even comprehend too you how much of an overkill this is.

Edit: On topic... You could look at something like 165 JJ's, 165 TST's, 161/171 Atomic Access's, 168 S7's/S3's, 169 Kung Fujas... honestly every ski manufacturer makes something in a 100-115 waist, with most available in sizes ~160-~170ish.

Yeah, that kid isn't having any fun at all.  You're ripping on a 169 pontoon with an effective edge shorter than the effective edge of the 165 JJ you speak of?

I'd vote for the Icelantic Keeper.  I also would have nothing bad to say about Praxis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guroo270 

Yeah, that kid isn't having any fun at all.  You're ripping on a 169 pontoon with an effective edge shorter than the effective edge of the 165 JJ you speak of?

 

I'd vote for the Icelantic Keeper.  I also would have nothing bad to say about Praxis.

I don't think the relative effective edge or fun has any relation to my point whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsk94 

 

I don't think the relative effective edge or fun has any relation to my point whatsoever.

That's true.  I forgot to notice you didn't make a point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsk94 

I can't even comprehend too you how much of an overkill this is.

 

Edit: On topic... You could look at something like 165 JJ's, 165 TST's, 161/171 Atomic Access's, 168 S7's/S3's, 169 Kung Fujas... honestly every ski manufacturer makes something in a 100-115 waist, with most available in sizes ~160-~170ish.

 I have to respectfully disagree :o)   I qualify this again that for a "powder ski".... the pontoon is hard to beat.... Andy (and I) has his choice from a quiver of skis, and for powder days (like in the video)  he (and I) always goes for the pontoons ... they are a riot !!!    

A 169 Pontoon is a great surfy powder ski for someone in the 120-145 or even 150-ish pound range. No way is it "overkill". Unless you think young skiers should not have fun in powder. Or should suffer through some ritual of learning inappropriate technique on inappropriate skis. Just for yucks, I looked around and found that the crazy deals I knew of seem do be gone. But a good deal on either red/whites or the slightly stiffer newer blue/whites would still rock for growing kids. Those skis are way more capable than the market ever gave them credit for being. IMO, mount +1 if the BSL and binding combo don't take you out of the zone... The only negative IMO is that at 160 the tips are damn wide, which can make for a stance issue for much smaller people. (in contrast, even fatter waisted reverse style skis like the Lotus 138 and Praxis Powder Board are fattest at or near the middle - so they are actually "narrower" than a Pontoon).

Back to Praxis - they make several excellent candidates - and Keith will a) guide you toward the "right" ski in the line given some skier info (and likely growth patterns) and b) build a flex appropriate to the skier for no extra $$$. Given the sale still going on until Aug 10th, you can get any of a number of  Praxis powder skis for about five hundred bucks even. Good luck beating that this week. 

Really, depending on the style of skiing your kids are into - many of the 115 and above skis discussed in this thread are fine. But if you want a true "powder ski", I'd probably get into the high teens and maybe into the 120s or higher. Many folks are finding those skis can handle a very wide range of snow and terrain. And they are much surfier in powder - and manageable even for smaller people. However, YMMV and lots comes down to the personalities of specific skis (for example I'd do a 4FRNT Hoji before some somewhat "fatter" skis...)...   And, of course, much depends on how much "all mountain" heritage you want blended in.  The truly good news is that there are lots of credible options today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift 

A 169 Pontoon is a great surfy powder ski for someone in the 120-145 or even 150-ish pound range. No way is it "overkill".

He's 9. He doesn't need a ski that will float a 180lb man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouD-Reno 

 I have to respectfully disagree :o)   I qualify this again that for a "powder ski".... the pontoon is hard to beat.... Andy (and I) has his choice from a quiver of skis, and for powder days (like in the video)  he (and I) always goes for the pontoons ... they are a riot !!!    

Obviously they would float great, they are overkill because he would get the same float from a ski 90mm underfoot at his weight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsk94 

 

He's 9. He doesn't need a ski that will float a 180lb man.

 

 

Obviously they would float great, they are overkill because he would get the same float from a ski 90mm underfoot at his weight.

 But Andy wouldn't have as much fun as on his Pontoons.... and Andy cares about fun... not sure if he is even aware of relative flotation.... It ain't overkill when your kid is loving it...  they work great !!! :o)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsk94 

 

He's 9. He doesn't need a ski that will float a 180lb man.

 

 

Obviously they would float great, they are overkill because he would get the same float from a ski 90mm underfoot at his weight.

Have you ever flexed a pontoon?  This is a thread about pow skis.  There is no overkill.  Also, I'd say that the statement that he would get the same float from a 90mm ski as he would a 130 waisted ski, is just completely bogus.  On what kind of snow?  How fast is he going?  If you're looking for a pow ski, get a pow ski.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by tsk94 

 

He's 9. He doesn't need a ski that will float a 180lb man.

 

 

Obviously they would float great, they are overkill because he would get the same float from a ski 90mm underfoot at his weight.

To quote that famous sports philosopher, Yogi Berra... "In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory... in practice, there is"... :o) ..... 

If you were wondering why you don't see any other kids in the video rippin' up the powder on their 90mm (or whatever) skis, it's because there were none...  in theory, they shoulda, coulda been in there with us... but in practice ???  ;o)

I learned how to ski powder on Salomon Force 9's.  They were probably like 65mm underfoot.  They were fun. 

I guess that's why my powder technique is so flawed now though.  Because I learned on skis that were all wrong. 

If this is a one ski quiver, I wouldn't go much further than 105 mm.  If they are jumping up from 65-80mm junior skis, going all the way to like 120 is a pretty huge jump.  Plus I still think skis that big aren't versatile enough for a one ski quiver.  I'd pick something around 95-100mm if I had to choose only one.  Fat enough to float, skinny enough to carve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SierraJim 

One has only to look at Susan's daughter to see that even a light skier can use more than 100mm underfoot. After all.......she is at least 2-4" deep in the snow, and heck, you can't have that. She obviously needs more flotation because after all.....that's all that matters.

 

SJ

tee hee ... although I did go back and look at photo, and it's interesting to compare tracks. The track at the very left of the photo was made by a 200-pounder on Bonafides; I don't think there was any more loading or anything going on where he went down, but you can see that he was a lot farther into the snow. Still not uber deep or anything ... some has to do with the snow, which was about a week old, so it was fairly dense instead of super fluffy. It really held her up there compared to him.