Originally Posted by nochaser
Thanks. Yeah I agree--the question is whether to fill the gap between my race skis and the FX or add powder-ish skis wider than the FX, for the upcoming trip in particular and also for going forward.
I have both the Bushwackers and the Bones in 173. I didn't set out with the intent of having essentially the same ski duplicated with only 10 mm underfoot separating them, but happened upon the BW ex demo at a price I couldn't refuse two yrs ago. Then when the same thing came up last spring with the Bones, what was I to do?? Anyway, I have found that they ski more differently than one might think at only a difference of 10 mm underfoot. I also have a narrower, carving tool, though not full on race (Blizzard Supersonics). I don't know the FXs, but reading about them, they seem a wider carving-type tool. While the Wackers are not a carving tool, they do ok, and they are waay fun, but I don't see you getting them as they likely overlap significantly with what you now have and do not extend the performance envelope for the purchase to make sense. I haven't been on the Brahmas, but I suspect the same goes for them. On the other hand, I think the Bones would greatly complement what you already have. They do great on groomers and you will enjoy them much more than what you have in boot top powder and the trees.
If I might muddy the waters just a bit: in my own personal quiver, I find the Bones to be something of an orphan. I picked up a pair of Gotamas two years ago and I am hugely fond of them. At 107 mm underfoot, they and the Bushwackers make a perfect traveling quiver. The Goats do amazingly well on groomers to firm-ish snow and extend more into the powder category than the Bones. I take it that the FXs are 94 mm underfoot, which is only spitting distance to the Bones' 98 mm. I would definitely consider the Goats. Or the Cochise, if you really like that bull on the tips (I do)