Powder ski advice for a big guy/advanced skier. - Page 2

ahh and so it begins......  not even August yet but we're off to a good start.

so the shovel on the toon' is too big but not whats underfoot?  

Lets back up.  what powder ski's have you skied; including demoed?  Other than the one, what ski's have you skied in the past 2 seasons. Where to you ski? and what kind of terrain are you comfortable in; meaning you can confidently ski under control with good form? I think we need to start over.  

As a Praxis fan, I don't understand why you would not go that way given the parameters as laid out here. Especially since the construction will likely hold up better for someone your size than most of the skis out there. The Protest, Powder Board and BPS all have much to recommend them in this context.

That said, I suspect the Bubba would be a good enough design choice (have looked it over, but not skied it). And the Pon2oon (have skied it) actually skis super well. But at your size, if you are really an advanced skier, I'm not sure about how a Pon2oon will hold up. I like the way the 185 Kuro skis as well (the 195 not as much).

FWIW - One of my kids who is a genuine strong skier, at bit over 200 pounds, got tired of destroying skis from Line, K2, Atomic and Salomon. He liked the designs well enough, but his last couple pairs from that collection lasted single digit days each. He is now happily pounding on a set of stiff 187 Praxis Protests that are still going strong after half a season (as far as I can tell, flex has softened to about "medium" and seems pretty stable). When I say destroying, I'm not talking about core shots - I mean skis that were broken, bent weirdly, had "pulverized" cores, etc. after landings or some really, really  fast laid over turns. They'd last great for someone less aggressive even at his size, but my guess is that at 270, you may really push outside the design curve of many skis if you use them even moderately hard.

For my .02, I would not obsess about the exact underfoot thing. Lots depends on the design. Consider a Praxis Powder Board or DPS Lotus 138. Both are 138 underfoot, but given their taper shape, IIRC, have less surface area than a umber of slightly "narrower" skis.  But...the float is where it does the "most" - so it is not a simple apples to apples comparison... Likewise, there are skis in the 120s and low 130s that have pretty wide tips/tails and so have a lot of surface area... The BPS, with a 132 waist, but not a radical taper,  sports a ton of surface area, distributed pretty nicely (but not as centered as a PB or even a Protest. My point is that it pays to look at both surface area and design in terms of how it is distributed. And how you think you want to ski. Just "waist" can be deceptive. Of course a Liberty Mutant has a big waist and big surface area 

I suspect a decent number of skis with 120-something waists and above could work for you --- you just need to settle on how you want to ski and what you want to ski in terms of snow/terrain. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philwilhelm 

I'm looking at getting Praxis Powder Boards or DPS L138s. I'm 6'5" 130 lbs. Anyone have opinions on which would be better for a bigger guy? Which is stiffer.

That depends... As mfa81 noted, you can get the Powder Board anywhere from sloppy soft to crazy stiff in either glass or hybrid. The L138 can be had in Pure or hybrid. That impacts the feel - especially from what I have heard  - with the DPS. I have not skied the most recent generations of the 138. Between the older ones and the Praxis, I prefer the Praxis in a medium or slightly stiffer kind of zone. The 138s I owned skied really nicely, but demanded more attention and a more chargey style. For where and how I ski, the Powder Boards give me as much back for less "investment" in terms of how I ski them. 

Consider the Protest as well if you need to spend time on cat tracks or groomers. 

For my .02, it is tough to beat the Praxis Powder Board or Protest - especially given flex and topsheet options for free. The current pre-season sale plus any of the coupons floating around make for a crazy deal. Not quite apples to apples - but you can get a Powder Board AND a Protest in glass (still a sweet light build) for the price (probably less than) of a DPS Pure 138. While they ski a bit differently, there's no sacrifice in quality at all IMO.

Also, you don't even need to push the lengths. Unless you are seriously ripping some big open spaces, the 190 PB and the 187 Protests will do you just fine IMO. For hard driving in wide open spaces, maybe size up...

Anyway - pick your poison. All great powder skis.

FWIW, I'm 6'1" and usually drift between 205 and 220 pounds or so. And I assume the 130 is a typo and you meant 230?

If there isn't a recommended mounting line on the ski, contact Praxis and ask them.  http://praxisskis.com/contact-praxis-skis/
 

There is a dimple on the sidewall of the ski at the suggested ski boot center.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertRS 

There is a dimple on the sidewall of the ski at the suggested ski boot center.

This. ^^^^^

It is on the left sidewall of each ski. I like the current mark. 

I put my 2011-2012 Powder Boards on the mark and in deeper snow they were great, then the low snow year this past season and I was taking them out in less snow that was heavier etc and I felt like I was in the back seat. Talked to Keith and he said to try 3 cm forward which I did and now they are great again. The 11-12 Powder Board was the first year of a redesign for the PB and the mark turned out to be slightly back. That mark has been corrected in the 12-13 model. If you want to experiment you can get Marker demo bindings which can be micro adjusted fore and back. Personally I would rather ski than adjust my bindings, but depending upon your style (ski position on the ski) there is some personal preference ie some folks like to be forward, some like to be back.

I agree with Spindrift, the Praxis skis are great skis, I have PB, Protest, Concept, and my girlfriend has PB's also. Am looking at 9D8 for the GF and Ullr or GPO for me this coming year.

Get The Icelantic Shaman and carve it up.  As an advanced skier, you'll love it.  And it's way different than anything on your list (and, conversely, all those skis are so relatively similar to one another).

I'm moderately sure I was the first person on this board to ski Shamans. They came out *maybe* once or twice after I first skied Pontoons and 138s. IMO Shamans are not even close to being in the same league as a Powder Board or Lotus 138. For that matter, not even close to a Protest, Pon2oon, or anything else in the modern powder oriented ski genre... YMMV

I feel the fact that gets lost in this thread is our size (me 250 lbs +), having a 180 lbs guy tell you what works for him just is not what works for us big guys Every powder day is different, you can ski the same resort three days in a row with three days of powder and have three different experiences because of slightly different snow conditions. Before I had fatties I skied powder on 172 Atomic Metrons B5 133-76-116, I had good days and not so days where it just did not work. I moved up to Line Motherships, 142-111-131, they worked great on a bunch of days but I still had the "not enough ski days". I have not had a bad day on any of my serious powder skis which are 138 plus under foot. Can you ski powder on a 100 mm under foot ski? Certainly yes but you stack the deck in your favor with the real deal powder skis.

My largest expense with skiing is GAS, not equipment, so I try to rationalize I will get years of use out of the fat skis, spread the cost over several years then it does not look so bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertRS 

Every powder day is different, you can ski the same resort three days in a row with three days of powder and have three different experiences because of slightly different snow conditions.

As another big guy (6'2", 290lbs), I can relate to this same challenge. Heck, I was skiing A-Basin yesterday (May 8th) and conditions went from icy to ice covered with fresh wet snow to chopped up between the time I arrived (9:30am) and the time I called it a day (2:45pm).

I used to use Ess-Var bindings on all my skis, which let me move the binding position on the ski, fore and aft, depending on conditions. I could have really used it yesterday. I'd have gone all the way forward in the morning and eased them back as the day went on. Could have used some more forward float by late afternoon!

With even skis we call "straight" today having so much deeper sidecuts than they used to, I can see how moving the binding around might have consequences that weren't present 20 years ago.

I don't honestly know if there are any bindings or plate systems around today that did what the Ess-Var (and, later, Atomic) bindings used to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mallthus 

 

As another big guy (6'2", 290lbs), I can relate to this same challenge. Heck, I was skiing A-Basin yesterday (May 8th) and conditions went from icy to ice covered with fresh wet snow to chopped up between the time I arrived (9:30am) and the time I called it a day (2:45pm).

 

I used to use Ess-Var bindings on all my skis, which let me move the binding position on the ski, fore and aft, depending on conditions. I could have really used it yesterday. I'd have gone all the way forward in the morning and eased them back as the day went on. Could have used some more forward float by late afternoon!

 

With even skis we call "straight" today having so much deeper sidecuts than they used to, I can see how moving the binding around might have consequences that weren't present 20 years ago.

 

I don't honestly know if there are any bindings or plate systems around today that did what the Ess-Var (and, later, Atomic) bindings used to do.

It's not really necessary. Ski's are so much more 3 dimensional these days. Not to mention adjusting bindings to a rearward position is just a crutch for improper technique.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecimmortal 

adjusting bindings to a rearward position is just a crutch for improper technique.

They're a crutch for having only one ski in your quiver. Frankly, if you didn't have good technique, you could move your bindings fore and aft all day long to no effect. That's why the only bindings that still offer this feature are Atomic's top race bindings. Racers have, effectively, one ski in their quiver for any given event. Being able to move the binding helps to adjust for conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mallthus 

 

They're a crutch for having only one ski in your quiver. Frankly, if you didn't have good technique, you could move your bindings fore and aft all day long to no effect. That's why the only bindings that still offer this feature are Atomic's top race bindings. Racers have, effectively, one ski in their quiver for any given event. Being able to move the binding helps to adjust for conditions.

Are we comparing top level racers equipment that is dialed to the nth degree to joe blow moving bindings aft to ski pow backseat?

Not unless you are skiing "slush" really late in the season. Corn snow will pack under you very quickly, not the same as powder. A wider ski does make a big difference, but you don't have to go wide enough to get "float" like a powder ski. My experience on a 101 mm ski is that is wide enough for spring skiing, not wide enough for powder at my 250lb weight.

Have you considered any of the Rossignol products?  I'm 6'6" and weigh in @265 on a good day and I like the Rossi 88's, 98's, and Rossi Super 7's (they're changing the Super 7 for this year and it looks fantastic). I also am a Fully Certified Level 3 Instructor and teach at Jackson Hole in the winter and have traveled to Europe on a number of occasions with my Rossi's and really love what they do for the Big Guy...Go Big