Originally Posted by Dino
no - You need to buy my 181 Sickles and Look Pivot 14 bindings. PM me for info.
Haha. I just bought some Rossi FKS 120s which are waiting to be mounted when I get there and pick them up from the place they were sent to. Which reminds, me I need to make a thread about mount position, binding screw inserts and all that etc.
Originally Posted by dave_SSS
Sure as long as your skis flex enough evenly for your weight. Years ago advanced skiers all skied powder with much narrower skis and did so efficiently looking good. There has always been somewhat of a disconnect in understanding on ski sizes for lighter skiers usually women especially when advice is coming from heavier skiers. The following epicski article puts the powder element in some perspective since that is more a length x width area issue than just ski length.
There is more to the above than provided article numbers show because powder density and metamorphosis with time are important factors. I'm a small old advanced male skier of decades 66" and 140# that bought a 88mm width all mountain ski mainly for powder skiing because my Rossignol S7's at 168cm and 110mm width IMO have too much float for my liking unless conditions are deep and light. Thus the wide skis don't get down into moderate density fresh snow much which means one planes on the surface more resulting in higher speeds and greater forces. For some advanced skiers, that is what they want while this person is more a relaxed bouncer at slower speeds that typically skis long distances non-stop in fresh snow. Instead the mid width ski gets down into the powder more providing more to work with at a more relaxed speed.
Originally Posted by mtcyclist
I've skied my Nordica Steadfasts, 90mm waist, in show up to about 20". I'm 5'7", 150 pounds.
Originally Posted by GoBuffs1993
I think it really comes down to experience with pow over time. My wider boards were in repair during an unexpected 10 in pow day at Mt. Snow, VT during a family trip this past February. So I had to pull out my old pair of Atomic Blackeye TI's, which are only 81 under foot. After adjusting my balance a bit, I found I was fine and could still crush it. Was I floating on the top of the snow? No, but it was a great day and hardly thought it would have been better with some wider skis - in fact, I found myself looking for soft bumps more than I otherwise might have. Kinda felt old school for this 45 yr old. I'd just say, enjoy what you have, get the experience you need, then demo some fat skis when you have the right opportunity.
dave_SSS - Thanks for the link.
And to all 3 of you - Thanks, Its useful to hear some first hand opinions from people who have ridden similar width, some of who are also lightweight.
Originally Posted by beyond
Will do just fine; much over 90 mm is more about personal preference than need unless you're in hip deep. And don't forget to review your skis here, don't think we know much about this company.
Will do :D I've only had two morning on them demoing before i bought em, but they blew me away. Just for a quick comment, as far as i know there's zero torsional flex on them at all when you get up on edge or try and twist them in your hands. And when you go over bumps and the ski flexes upwards, it very quickly returns back to the snow. The result is it has a very satisfying edge hold.
Comparing to my fischer progressors 8+ (like new 800 series), they feel stiffer in a bend test, but on the snow they feel like they have far more spring and pop, its hard to describe. As someone who can't do tricks or ride park to save themselves, on the second run down on these i was confident enough to pop off edges and get a bit of air.
They also have a very distinct almost 'hollow' sound to them as you ride, of which the guy who made them explained is due to them being high tensile, much like when you drop a high tensile bolt you'll get a loud 'ping' instead of a dull thud. There's just something about having a casual chat to the guy who hand made your equipment which fills you with appreciation.
And yes they are ridiculously lightweight so very easy to bring the front around and turn on a dime if you need to. But saying all this, it could have been the adrenaline talking to me.
I'll assume around here it's okay to do do a bit of show and tell in another thread, but i might save that for when i've got a few more days on them, the lower half of the mountain was spring conditions so they haven't shown their full potential yet.
Originally Posted by oldgoat
This ^^^^. Where wider skis really make a difference is in the heavy stuff.
Whether you float or sink depends on how fast you go. Any ski will float if you go fast enough. I have been out on really deep days where on a 106mm ski anything pitched under 35 degrees or so was too flat to float. Even if you pointed them straight down the hill you would barely move. On days like that you either need a real powder ski or a consistently steep slope from top to groomed runout. But on an ordinary powder day your skis will be fine, if you have the technique and the strength and endurance. (No need to do wall squats if your skis are 130 under foot).
Useful to know, i'll keep that in mind. Plus a good reminder that I need to built up that strength too.
Originally Posted by anachronism
What I think is missing from this convo is how much powder the OP is going to have access to. How many days do you expect to get on these skis and where?
90mm isn't much for Utah or Japan and 50+ days a season. It may be too much for New York. If the OP is buying skis for a weeklong vacation to someplace snowy, they may serve great as the chances of taking a scheduled trip someplace and catching a monster storm are pretty low- even to really snowy places.
I would say a 90 waist ski should be good till somewhere around a foot, passable to two, and not abysmal beyond that. The 5 point shape should be fun on the snow.
Originally was going to be Colorado (and considering California), but highly considering Revelstoke as our NZ Dollar is almost as weak as the Canadian, so its a heck of a lot cheaper to head up north. Plus Revelstoke sounds absolutely glorious for someone who want's to experience 3-5 days of top notch North American skiing.
Typically i'll be skiing on hard pack back here in NZ on Mt Ruapehu, that i'd describe similar to some less favourable descriptions of the USA east coast.
By that i mean, no dry powder, often heavier snow, off piste is very crusted over over unless youve got a fresh coating or the afternoon sun has softened the surface a bit. And when that's not happening, the wind might have blown the loose stuff off anyway, since the treeline is well below the car park, and its all volcanic rock (on a still active volcano) upwards from there.
That's why you go to the South Island when you ski in New Zealand, its far more favourable. Come visit sometime, we have some pretty neat terrain and fairly alright views.