Thanks, Finndog. I have got to try the Sir Francis Bacons or Drakes or whatever foodstuff they are, not to mention the hopeless objective of demoing Protests.
For now I'll set my sights on a powder ski to complement my Super 7s, to use in more variable or crusted up bump conditions (a windblown 4" on crust, for instance). like maybe the Sir F.s or Atomic Autos real long.
Originally Posted by beyond
Interesting issues here. Just as bigger guys might need a super long softer ski that ends up being scary in trees, I'd add that IMO, we lighter skiers do not benefit from going short with a stiff model of powder ski that you big guys might be able to mash. Try skiing a SL at speed in chop and you'll see why.
The answer, seems like, is back to the future. Remember when big guys skied certain brands of wider ski, and lighter guys went with other brands? Dynastar and K2 come to mind. But then marketing departments and dealers decided that one brand should cater to all possible bodies, physics be damned, and buying advice went from "try these brands" to "try a shorter/longer length in this model."
FWIW, as a shorter guy, I seem to be finding that there is a real benefit for a longer set of ~115 powder skis: for a 5'10" 145 lbs guy, 186 Atomic Autos, for instance, are supposed to be long.
Pardon my truly vast ignorance here, but there may be a reason besides super hero ability that has Dana and Sage (Both ~150-160 lb. guys as I understand it) using the 186 and 193 versions of their ~115 skis. I find that in variable powder snow bumping up, or in variable powder condition bumps, on the longer powder skis (e.g., 186 Autos) I can do things I can't on shorter skis of any width I've played with so far. I gain stability and speed control for longer turns, bigger turn lines more in the fall line and more popping off the sides of bumps (something I rarely do on most skis).
But I'd have to mount pretty far forward to gain any edge in trees, I'd imagine. And I might lose my bump/variable advantage with that forward mount. (I'll have to get Shizo or demo bindings to play around with this.)
A slightly heavier guy might find the same advantages one ski length up, at, say, 193 cm for, say, a 160-185 lbs. guy on Autos. And above that weight, on perhaps a stiffer ski, usually of a different brand, as Beyond suggests.
A longer pair of ~108 Bacons, or even of FX 94s or Stormrider 95s, might possibly have the same advantages, for a guy of my weight at least.
I'd be very interested in anyone else's experience with longer skis, along these lines.
Edited by ski otter - 9/5/14 at 12:54pm