or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

powder skis

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 

What ski and size would you recommend for an advanced male skier 5'3"/135lbs.  Looking for a soft ski 95-100mm that would perform well in the bumps and trees when we get snow in the East.  Thank you

post #2 of 22
Fellow small guy here. Same weight. A few inches taller. On that terrain I've been very happy with the Armada TST @ 174cm. Two full seasons on it (as part of a quiver) and no regrets. Not a high speed crud buster, but that's not what you asked for.
post #3 of 22
Thread Starter 

thanks...what do you think about the fisher big stix 100 in a 166cm?

post #4 of 22

Praxis has extended the sale on their 2015 lineup until April 7th. I strongly recommend you take a look at their website.

 

I'm not sure if they have any skis in the lengths that you're looking for but I would still email Keith. He is EXTEMELY helpful, and I cannot stress that enough. There aren't many companies that you can talk to the guy building your skis and have him guide you to your perfect ski.

 

http://www.praxisskis.com

 

FYI, I also have a 15% code that can be used on top of the current sale.

Disclaimer, I am in no way affiliated with Praxis.

post #5 of 22
Thread Starter 
Thanks
post #6 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason View Post

thanks...what do you think about the fisher big stix 100 in a 166cm?


 



100mm in my book doesn't = powder ski.

I know your light weight but wider is better.

I know people at Okemo VT with 98-100mm skis is there every day ski.
post #7 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason View Post
 

thanks...what do you think about the fisher big stix 100 in a 166cm?

 

 

those could work being so light. 

 

I mean I ski my 177cm 98mm skis fine in powder its just that my bigger skis are more fun and easier. 

post #8 of 22
Quote:
 Looking for a soft ski 95-100mm that would perform well in the bumps and trees when we get snow in the East.

 

@Mason, imo you are looking for the right kind of ski for the conditions you describe. I think the title of your thread is what's off. If you ski in the west and are average to large size for an American male skier (i.e., 50 - 75 lbs. heavier than we are), you are going to have a very different idea of what a "powder" ski is from what we're talking about here. You are looking for an east coast bumps, trees, and soft-snow ski, which is different thing. (Honestly, how many days a year are you getting untracked snow more than a foot deep? If you somehow manage that more than four or five times a year, then maybe consider a true "powder" ski.) There are several long and helpful threads on that exact topic on this board. Just Google "epicski east coast tree ski" and you will find stuff. Don't happen to agree with Max Capacity's implication that because certain jamokes choose to ski a 100mm ski as their daily driver at Okemo (and miss out on a whole lot of hard snow fun by doing so, in my view) you somehow need to be on something much wider than that for your soft snow ski.

post #9 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 

 

@Mason, imo you are looking for the right kind of ski for the conditions you describe. I think the title of your thread is what's off. If you ski in the west and are average to large size for an American male skier (i.e., 50 - 75 lbs. heavier than we are), you are going to have a very different idea of what a "powder" ski is from what we're talking about here. You are looking for an east coast bumps, trees, and soft-snow ski, which is different thing. (Honestly, how many days a year are you getting untracked snow more than a foot deep? If you somehow manage that more than four or five times a year, then maybe consider a true "powder" ski.) There are several long and helpful threads on that exact topic on this board. Just Google "epicski east coast tree ski" and you will find stuff. Don't happen to agree with Max Capacity's implication that because certain jamokes choose to ski a 100mm ski as their daily driver at Okemo (and miss out on a whole lot of hard snow fun by doing so, in my view) you somehow need to be on something much wider than that for your soft snow ski.

 

 

the thing is I have ..... 83,88,98,108,110, 113 mm skis.

 

My go to tree skis are my sould riders and my patrons as soon as I can get off the bottom most of the time (roughly 4-6 inches of snow)  the patron become much quicker and easier than the soul riders. We have easily had 50 days at stowe this year where for me searching out snow the patrons were the better ski. 

post #10 of 22
@qcanoe, good post, I agree with you, 98-100mm is to big for the east everyday, upper 80's seem to do will.

Having skied 119mm in soft crud, 106mm in soft crud, 88mm, 82mm, 70mm in soft crud, I will tell you new rocker, wide skis eat that stuff up. I ski enough to justify having a few skis, I understand someone who skis a few day's a season, can't justify that expense.

For them it's important to get it right for mostly what they ski. It's all about a compermise for them.

I like your idea about using goggle, I wish my people would, there is a ton of info out there, you have to do the web search. read the reviews.

I'm looking forward to getting back on my fat skis (119mm) this weekend at Okemo. Bring on the spring time.
post #11 of 22
Thread Starter 
Thanks qcanoe, because of what you said, now… I am interested in the TST. Because of my height and weight 135 pounds 5'3"do you think I would be more suited to the 165 cm length… Or even go with a women's TST in a 156 cm which is the same as a men's just different top sheet? Any insight you could give me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much.
post #12 of 22
Thread Starter 
Also, I feel to mention I Ski about 50+ days a year at Sunday River in Maine, and ski on the Nordica steadfast 170 cm for a daily driver. Thanks again.
post #13 of 22
Thanks for filling us in. IMO that's a long ski for you. I still suggest you go wide, 112mm or so. You have a great pair of skis now, your looking for the same thing wide, I just went through this process when I bought the Shiro's.

Fat skis make powder and crud so much more fun. I couldn't justify buying a ski a little wider then my Gotama's which are 106mm, go big or stay home.

BTW I'm 5'11" 195lbs, my Shiro's are 183cm, my Got's and Kendo's are 177cm, my AC40's are 170cm. If I was out west more my Shiro's might have been longer, I have Marker Jester Schizo's on them so I can move the backward if I need more float.


Hey you want to buy a pair of 2010 Gotama's in 177cm...smile.gif
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason View Post

Also, I feel to mention I Ski about 50+ days a year at Sunday River in Maine, and ski on the Nordica steadfast 170 cm for a daily driver. Thanks again.

what about trying the Patrons as Matta said?  have you tried the TST's yet?  

post #15 of 22
Thread Starter 
I can't decide between purchasing the TST or the fisher big stix 100… I can't find a shop that demos either one. What do you think between the two?
post #16 of 22

If you already have a Steadfast, then going to 100mm is not going to help much. 

 

with that said Ptex1 has killer deal on some 169 Soul riders, even though I personally feel that the 169 Patron(or La Nina) is the way to go maybe even the sizes up

post #17 of 22
Anyone have experience with the 2012 atomic blogs? Is mounting them at plus 2 from the team line going to be bad for pow
post #18 of 22

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason View Post

Thanks qcanoe, because of what you said, now… I am interested in the TST. Because of my height and weight 135 pounds 5'3"do you think I would be more suited to the 165 cm length… Or even go with a women's TST in a 156 cm which is the same as a men's just different top sheet? Any insight you could give me would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much.
 
 
The TST skis very short. The 156 would be way, way, way too short. I would have said the 165 is probably too short as well, even if I hadn't known you were on a 170 Steadfast. The TST skis about 10cm shorter than a full camber ski of the same length  The 170cm Steadfast is a fair amount of ski for someone 5' 3". If you are truly happy and comfortable on that, then you absolutely don't want to go shorter than 174 on the TST (or probably any similar design). 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Matta View Post
 

If you already have a Steadfast, then going to 100mm is not going to help much. 

 

with that said Ptex1 has killer deal on some 169 Soul riders, even though I personally feel that the 169 Patron(or La Nina) is the way to go maybe even the sizes up

 

I have not been on the Soul Rider, but from what I've read here I agree that would be a good candidate and probably not a bad size. Totally disagree on the 100mm comment. Josh, you know as well as anyone that the difference between a Steadfast and a Soul Rider (or TST) is not about the width; it's about the design. The Steadfast is a very traditionally designed cambered ski with a tiny bit of tip rise. Never mind what Nordica says; look at one. By contrast, the other skis in question have a lot of splay in the front, significantly tapered tips, and a more soft-snow oriented flex pattern. Apples and oranges, even though they are only 10mm different in width.

 

Mason, I do confess I'm kind of scratching my head a bit because normally I would size a traditional ski like the Steadfast at or below head height, while I would size a rockered 5-point design like the TST  above head height, all other things being equal. For example, at 5' 7" or 170cm (and your weight), my hard snow ski is a 167, and I could easily be down as short as the low 160s in a ski like that. Meanwhile my soft snow ski is a 174 and I could go even longer. Meanwhile, you are 5' 3" or 160cm, skiing a Steadfast at 10cm over head height, and asking about soft-snow skis in the 160s lengths. That doesn't quite compute for me. Seems kind of backwards.

 

There is a slight chance I will be at the River this weekend. I'll PM you if I am in case you want to take a run and maybe trade skis for a bit, if the BSLs allow.

post #19 of 22
Check out Faction Soma. 92mm waist, rockered tip/tail

See: backcountryfreeskier.com

Site has specs, rocker pictures, etc.
post #20 of 22
Thread Starter 
Hi qcanoe, last year when I demoed skis, it was early in the year. I didn't get a chance to ski any bumps or trees.... only groomers. The smallest size they come in is a 170cm. When I was finally able to get off piste and in the bumps I find myself getting tossed around. They are great in the groomers but that's it. I didn't do any research that is why I am looking for a proper 2nd ski. I should have went with a different manufacturer who carried a proper length. Do you have an opinion on the Fisher Big Stix 100? Thank you
post #21 of 22

Hi Manson, did you try and find any reviews on the Fischers?  I looked too and only saw one for the 110, but assuming they are similar, I think you may like the TST (in a 174 because it skis like a 164 on firm snow).  I bought the TST in a 183, found they skied to short for my tastes, sold them and bought them in 192.  Don't be afraid to go longer is all we are saying.

 

Look at the Blistergear reviews.  From reading the Fischer 110 review, I think you would like the TST better.

 

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2012-2013-fischer-big-stix-110/3

post #22 of 22
Thread Starter 
I think I am going to go w/ the TST. Thanks so much for the reply.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion