or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › looking for women's ski that's good in crud
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

looking for women's ski that's good in crud - Page 2

post #31 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post
 

 

 

Do you really have ice out there, or "ice"?


Well, according to the group of gals I was skiing with who were mostly from the east coast, it was absolutely east coast ice. Now, was there boilerplate? Maybe a few spots here or there, but not really.

post #32 of 58

I'm skiing the Fischer Koa 98 this year in

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggal24 View Post
 

Hi Phlox, thanks for the detailed response.  I notice that you favor skis that are slightly longer than your own height.  This makes sense from a stability and crud-cutting standpoint.  Are they more difficult in quick turns, maneuverability, etc?  (The last long skis that I owned were my narrow and straight-as-an-arrow Rossi Roc 550's, which I loved at the time, lol.)


The Fischer Koa is lighter and more maneuverable, the Bonafide less so. In terms of ski length vs. my own height, I haven't and/or don't take that into consideration. This is a very different game than when I was in high school, bombing down the hill on 210 cm planks because they were "stable". :)

 

The Koas are light and certainly bother my knees (four surgeries, one ACL reconstruction, most meniscii gone) less than the Bonafides - if I'm skiing Baker, I tend to favor the Koas because there are no foot rests on the lifts and they are light enough that I really notice. I found the Samba, the Aura and the Kenja way too soft to hold any speed. It could be that the few extra cm is what helps the Koa.


Edited by Phlox - 3/26/14 at 10:37am
post #33 of 58
Originally Posted by ggal24 View Post
 

Looking for some advice here on a women's all terrain ski that is particularly good in crud and thick snow build-up conditions like we frequently see here in Vermont.  I've been skiing on 149 cm Volkl Attiva Lunas for the past 5 years and am becoming very frustrated when the slopes are not perfectly groomed. While other people seem to be cutting right through the crud, I find myself bouncing all around in it.   I'm in my mid 60's, 5'4", 150 lbs.  I like to ski black diamonds and even a mogul run or two when conditions are perfect, but don't particularly go in for speed on any slope.

....

Your current skis are 73 waisted skis if I searched correctly (narrow), and 149 in length (super short, as in beginner length).  

 

These people that are talking about 98 waisted skis holding nicely on hard snow may very well be able to do that.  But if you jump from a 73 waist to a 90+ waist, you're certainly going to feel a big difference.  It will be dramatically different trying to get wide those skis up on any kind of edge.  Id suggest you purchase 90+ skis another year, later.  

 

Get something now that's more for the hard snow you'll most often be skiing in Vermont.  A somewhat wider ski (78-85ish) with more length (156-163ish) will get you through the crud much better than what you now have, and still behave itself on hard groomers and your usual moguls in a way that will not put a lot of stress on your current technique.  It'll take a few days to get used to the length and width change, but not a major overhaul of your edging skills.


Edited by LiquidFeet - 3/23/14 at 4:29am
post #34 of 58

I weigh 150-160 lbs depending on food intake and exercise.  My quiver ranges from 165 cm to 208 cm, and all are between 65 and 70 mm wide at the waist.  My 190 cm Volant Machete skis work much better in crud than my 165 cm WC SC skis, and somewhat better than my 188 GS skis which have roughly the same turn radius but slightly softer longitudinal flex.  The 208 cm skis are speed skis so I'm leaving them out of the story.  Stiffer, heavier, longer, and longer turn radius up to a point, is optimization for crud. 

 

You should get a pair of longer skis for crud.  Unless they are going to be your crud and deep snow only skis I would not go wider than 85 mm for your location.

post #35 of 58
"My quiver ranges from 165 cm to 208 cm, and all are between 65 and 70 mm wide"

Ghost, suggest not confusing the poor woman with your deeply conservative idiosyncrasies. It's about her, not you.

[Edit: Don't mean to come across as snippy. Just think that there is a better place for that info. If someone comes into my wine shop who is not a wine enthusiast, looking for a safe bottle to bring to a friend's dinner party, I don't immediately start talking about Vendange Tardive Gewurtztraminer, even though I might do so with a different customer who already has the whole picture in context.]
Edited by qcanoe - 3/23/14 at 6:11am
post #36 of 58
I ski Blizzard Black Pearls; women specific, 88 under foot; rockered in the tip. I ski 152 at 5'0" and under 100 #. Love them. They'll also hold on hard pack. Very versatile ski.

JaneB
post #37 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

Your current skis are 73 waisted skis if I searched correctly (narrow), and 149 in length (super short, as in beginner length).  

 

These people that are talking about 98 waisted skis holding nicely on hard snow may very well be able to do that.  But if you jump from a 73 waist to a 90+ waist, you're certainly going to feel a big difference.  It will be dramatically different trying to get wide those skis up on any kind of edge.  Id suggest you purchase 90+ skis another year, later.  

 

Get something now that's more for the hard snow you'll most often be skiing in Vermont.  A somewhat wider ski (78-85ish) with more length (156-163ish) will get you through the crud much better than what you now have, and still behave itself on hard groomers and your usual moguls in a way that will not put a lot of stress on your current technique.  It'll take a few days to get used to the length and width change, but not a major overhaul of your edging skills.


Yes, this is good advice. I went from an 82 to an 88 to the 98 after about a 10-year hiatus from skiing more than a couple times per year.

 

Sometimes, with my knee, if conditions are just too much for it, I call it a day. Oh, to be twenty-something again!

post #38 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneB View Post

I ski Blizzard Black Pearls; women specific, 88 under foot; rockered in the tip. I ski 152 at 5'0" and under 100 #. Love them. They'll also hold on hard pack. Very versatile ski.

JaneB

 

Exactly. You are probably the right size for a ski that short. The OP can extrapolate from this based on her specs.

post #39 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by contesstant View Post
 

 Oh, to be twenty-something again!

 

 

Don't give up on age, contesstant.  At 56 I'm in far better shape, leg-strength-wise, than I was at 20.  

 

(Of course, I could have been in far better shape at 20 than I am now, but that's water under the bridge.)

post #40 of 58
The line prophet/celebrity skis are worth taking a look at, and come in various widths. I don't know the crossover for the women's line, but the p90 and p85 are very capable on hard snow.
post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakespapa View Post
 

 

 

Don't give up on age, contesstant.  At 56 I'm in far better shape, leg-strength-wise, than I was at 20.  

 

(Of course, I could have been in far better shape at 20 than I am now, but that's water under the bridge.)


Unfortunately I might have overdone it in my twenties and am paying for it no. I taught about 7 step/fitness classes per week and did all my other usual outdoor activities. But trust me, age is not going to slow me down, just have to adapt! :beercheer:

post #42 of 58
Thread Starter 

Anyone have comments or feedback on how the Head MYA (84mm model) and the Atomic Affinity Storm would compare against the K2 Superglides and the Rossi Temptations?  I'm planning on demoing the latter two early this week, and if they don't jump out at me as exactly what I'm looking for, then my next most convenient place to get demos would be at a shop that sells the Heads, Atomics (and Koas, which were already discussed, above).  Thanks to all, I really appreciate all the input!

post #43 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

I weigh 150-160 lbs depending on food intake and exercise.  My quiver ranges from 165 cm to 208 cm, and all are between 65 and 70 mm wide at the waist.  My 190 cm Volant Machete skis work much better in crud than my 165 cm WC SC skis, and somewhat better than my 188 GS skis which have roughly the same turn radius but slightly softer longitudinal flex.  The 208 cm skis are speed skis so I'm leaving them out of the story.  Stiffer, heavier, longer, and longer turn radius up to a point, is optimization for crud. 

 

You should get a pair of longer skis for crud.  Unless they are going to be your crud and deep snow only skis I would not go wider than 85 mm for your location.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

"My quiver ranges from 165 cm to 208 cm, and all are between 65 and 70 mm wide"

Ghost, suggest not confusing the poor woman with your deeply conservative idiosyncrasies. It's about her, not you.

[Edit: Don't mean to come across as snippy. Just think that there is a better place for that info. If someone comes into my wine shop who is not a wine enthusiast, looking for a safe bottle to bring to a friend's dinner party, I don't immediately start talking about Vendange Tardive Gewurtztraminer, even though I might do so with a different customer who already has the whole picture in context.]


It's not about me.  It's about physics and what length, side cut, and width works well in crud  and otherwise performs well on mostly hardpacked groomed conditions for someone who weighs 150 lbs,, namely 10 cm longer, 85 mm or less in waist, and 15 and up m in radius. 

post #44 of 58
There is a lot of opinions out there, because for a crud ski that does well on hard pack I would want a ski 85-90mm and >15m radius. The last think i want in varible snow is a skinny ski that sinks to the bottom and wants to do GS turns while im trying to do short radius turns. I wouldn't say its "simple physics".
post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggal24 View Post
 

Anyone have comments or feedback on how the Head MYA (84mm model) and the Atomic Affinity Storm would compare against the K2 Superglides and the Rossi Temptations?  I'm planning on demoing the latter two early this week, and if they don't jump out at me as exactly what I'm looking for, then my next most convenient place to get demos would be at a shop that sells the Heads, Atomics (and Koas, which were already discussed, above).  Thanks to all, I really appreciate all the input!

 

 

Sounds great -- hope for crud!

post #46 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

I weigh 150-160 lbs depending on food intake and exercise.  My quiver ranges from 165 cm to 208 cm, and all are between 65 and 70 mm wide at the waist.  My 190 cm Volant Machete skis work much better in crud than my 165 cm WC SC skis, and somewhat better than my 188 GS skis which have roughly the same turn radius but slightly softer longitudinal flex.  The 208 cm skis are speed skis so I'm leaving them out of the story.  Stiffer, heavier, longer, and longer turn radius up to a point, is optimization for crud. 

 

You should get a pair of longer skis for crud.  Unless they are going to be your crud and deep snow only skis I would not go wider than 85 mm for your location.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

"My quiver ranges from 165 cm to 208 cm, and all are between 65 and 70 mm wide"

Ghost, suggest not confusing the poor woman with your deeply conservative idiosyncrasies. It's about her, not you.

[Edit: Don't mean to come across as snippy. Just think that there is a better place for that info. If someone comes into my wine shop who is not a wine enthusiast, looking for a safe bottle to bring to a friend's dinner party, I don't immediately start talking about Vendange Tardive Gewurtztraminer, even though I might do so with a different customer who already has the whole picture in context.]


It's not about me.  It's about physics and what length, side cut, and width works well in crud  and otherwise performs well on mostly hardpacked groomed conditions for someone who weighs 150 lbs,, namely 10 cm longer, 85 mm or less in waist, and 15 and up m in radius. 

 

Your comment about not going over 85mm for a one ski quiver was great.

 

In the context of this particular thread, all the stuff about having no skis over 70mm wide, and having some up to 208cm long, implies that this kind of a quiver is normal and useful as a reference point for someone like the OP, who is apparently not well versed in the current state of ski sizing and design. Most Bears and probably most industry pros would consider some of your skis and perspectives 25 years out of date. I don't think that tossing them out there without any disclaimers is doing the OP a service.

post #47 of 58

I'm glad you agree with me that 85 mm or less in the waist is the best choice for an ice-coast one-ski quiver.

post #48 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneB View Post

I ski Blizzard Black Pearls; women specific, 88 under foot; rockered in the tip. I ski 152 at 5'0" and under 100 #. Love them. They'll also hold on hard pack. Very versatile ski.

JaneB

That would be my pick for the OP as well, but it has a little more energy and feed back that the skis she's been asking about.  

 

But seriously, @ggal24  you may want to demo the Black Pearl in the mix.  

post #49 of 58
Thread Starter 

This turned out to be a very encouraging day, even though I only got to demo one of the skis on my recommendations list.  Unfortunately the Rossi Temptation 82's were no longer in stock in my requested length (160), but I did get to try out the K2 Superglide 80's in 160cm.  I was in awe at the stability and ease of carving, especially on the steeper slopes.  Conditions were groomed hardpack, so I didn't get to try out any crud or powder, but that may come later this week.  I sought out a windblown icy slope and even that handled much better than with my current shorter skis.  I was surprised to discover that the longer, wider skis can actually be easier to ski, and take up less energy and muscle strength, than the shorter ones that were originally recommended & sold to me.  The K2s I demo'ed today show me that there are many much better skis out there.  I need to try a few more before making any purchasing decisions...  Keep those comments coming, I'm grateful for all that this forum is teaching me!

post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggal24 View Post
 

This turned out to be a very encouraging day, even though I only got to demo one of the skis on my recommendations list.  Unfortunately the Rossi Temptation 82's were no longer in stock in my requested length (160), but I did get to try out the K2 Superglide 80's in 160cm.  I was in awe at the stability and ease of carving, especially on the steeper slopes.  Conditions were groomed hardpack, so I didn't get to try out any crud or powder, but that may come later this week.  I sought out a windblown icy slope and even that handled much better than with my current shorter skis.  I was surprised to discover that the longer, wider skis can actually be easier to ski, and take up less energy and muscle strength, than the shorter ones that were originally recommended & sold to me.  The K2s I demo'ed today show me that there are many much better skis out there.  I need to try a few more before making any purchasing decisions...  Keep those comments coming, I'm grateful for all that this forum is teaching me!

It's crazy how that works, isn't it??!! So glad you found at least one ski you like and in a great length for you. Keep in mind, too, that K2's often tend to measure short, meaning they are longer than others even in the same length. So what you were on would probably be comparable to a 162 or 163 in another brand.

 

As to the Black Pearls. I have a pair I bought two seasons ago in a 159 that I LOVED but I did find that their drawback was in crud and chop, at least for me and how I ski. I think part of the issue is they really are too short for me. They are a BLAST in other conditions, but make sure if you demo them, you try for a 166 as we are not much different size-wise and it sounds like skill-wise. That being said, I like their "big sisters" the Sambas even more!

post #51 of 58

Have you tried any men's skis, or have you already barked up that tree/don't want to go that route? My wife had similar concerns about finding a womens ski with a decent amount of stiffness, good edge hold and rebound, stability in crud, etc. She didn't find anything that met her criteria on the women's side, so she skis the Head Supershape Rally, which gives a fairly damp and forgiving ride despite its strength...good compromise. 


Edited by LiveJazz - 3/24/14 at 4:43pm
post #52 of 58
Thread Starter 

OK, I think I've fallen in love.  But backing up in my story for a minute, today I discovered that since it's near the end of a very good season, most of the ski shops around here are sold out of the models and sizes of what I wanted to demo (argh!).  I found a rental shop that had 1 last pair of the Rossi Temptation 82's at 160cm, so I took them out for a ride.  Unbelievable what I've been missing up until now, on my very short and very narrow old skis!  These skis just wanted to get out there and play.  Turning and carving were effortless, they handled icy and mixed terrain very well, and I found myself skiing faster without even realizing it (speed is something I've always been overly cautious about).  All in all a very fun experience.  Granted there was no crud to be found today, but science and technology tell me that the added width, length and rocker design should make these babies do just fine in more adverse conditions.  So I've made my decision, tomorrow I'm picking up a brand new pair of Temptation 82's at a really good end of season price at a shop I found 2 hours away.  Next season I may jump on the demo bandwagon early in the season, since I'm still curious about many of the skis recommended earlier in this thread.  And who knows, I just may end up adding to my quiver...  Thanks again for all the great feedback. 

post #53 of 58

I demoed the Temptation 82's two years ago (when I bought the Black Pearls) and it was a close contest! They just LOVED to turn and were so zippy! I think they sent me out on the wrong size, though so I ended up with the Pearls. Anyway, congrats on finding the Ski That Makes You Smile!!

post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 

 

Exactly. You are probably the right size for a ski that short. The OP can extrapolate from this based on her specs.

Good point. The OP probably can find a women's ski that fits the bill but it may be difficult for taller/heavier skiers who are women to find skis that work for them. I was completely frustrated when looking and I am not *that* big - plenty of women who ski are taller and heavier than I am.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ggal24 View Post
 

I was surprised to discover that the longer, wider skis can actually be easier to ski, and take up less energy and muscle strength, than the shorter ones that were originally recommended & sold to me. 

Wish I'd known about Epic when I re-entered the ski market after a 15 year hiatus in March 2011. I was sold a pair of Salomon Topaz women's skis that were 158 cm and 118/72/100. How I ever tolerated them for one run is beyond me. As @sibhusky knows, I ditched them after two days of the of 2012/2013 season - they wouldn't hold an edge because (amongst other reasons) they were at least ten cm too short! This was the first shape ski I had ever been on. When I left the mountain circa 1996, I was skiing a K2 TNC 190 cm with a 62 mm waist and my second pair of skis were 203 cm GS skis.  While getting used to the aesthetics of the new skis was a challenge, it really wasn't too difficult to adapt to 98 mm underfoot and with the rockered tips/tails, they carve like a dream. I wouldn't worry much over the width but focus on how they feel on the snow. And I would strongly encourage you to try more than just women's skis if you are looking for something to hold an edge on ice and bust through crud.

post #55 of 58

Ah! I missed @ggal24 's post when formulating my most recent response. I was out skiing this weekend and not near my computer. :)

 

Looks like you've found something that works well for you - huzzah! Hope you get some quality bonding time with the new skis before season end. Cheers ~

post #56 of 58
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
 

Your current skis are 73 waisted skis if I searched correctly (narrow), and 149 in length (super short, as in beginner length).  

 

These people that are talking about 98 waisted skis holding nicely on hard snow may very well be able to do that.  But if you jump from a 73 waist to a 90+ waist, you're certainly going to feel a big difference.  It will be dramatically different trying to get wide those skis up on any kind of edge.  Id suggest you purchase 90+ skis another year, later.  

 

Get something now that's more for the hard snow you'll most often be skiing in Vermont.  A somewhat wider ski (78-85ish) with more length (156-163ish) will get you through the crud much better than what you now have, and still behave itself on hard groomers and your usual moguls in a way that will not put a lot of stress on your current technique.  It'll take a few days to get used to the length and width change, but not a major overhaul of your edging skills.

Just some follow-on comments now that I've had my new skis for a little more than a week.  Your statement: "It'll take a few days to get used to the length and width change, but not a major overhaul of your edging skills" is very true.  The day that I bought the skis I went out in the afternoon in cold, hard packed & icy glazed conditions.  By the third run I felt defeated... my edging was especially off, felt somewhat out of control.  Since then I've gone out 4 more days, in varied conditions, with success and confidence building on each run.  My latest thrill was to be able to cut through the spring crud and buildup with relative ease.  What a huge difference the extra width and length make!  Thanks again to all for your insight and advice.

post #57 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggal24 View Post
 

OK, I think I've fallen in love.  But backing up in my story for a minute, today I discovered that since it's near the end of a very good season, most of the ski shops around here are sold out of the models and sizes of what I wanted to demo (argh!).  I found a rental shop that had 1 last pair of the Rossi Temptation 82's at 160cm, so I took them out for a ride.  Unbelievable what I've been missing up until now, on my very short and very narrow old skis!  These skis just wanted to get out there and play.  Turning and carving were effortless, they handled icy and mixed terrain very well, and I found myself skiing faster without even realizing it (speed is something I've always been overly cautious about).  All in all a very fun experience.  Granted there was no crud to be found today, but science and technology tell me that the added width, length and rocker design should make these babies do just fine in more adverse conditions.  So I've made my decision, tomorrow I'm picking up a brand new pair of Temptation 82's at a really good end of season price at a shop I found 2 hours away.  Next season I may jump on the demo bandwagon early in the season, since I'm still curious about many of the skis recommended earlier in this thread.  And who knows, I just may end up adding to my quiver...  Thanks again for all the great feedback. 

Sounds like you found what you're looking for.  :beercheer:

post #58 of 58
I have a pair of volkl aura skiis with bindings 170cm that I am selling for 350.00 or will trade for men's all mountain skis with bindings in good condition.
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 › looking for women's ski that's good in crud