or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski Purchase for Long Trip [a month in Colorado, first ski purchase]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Purchase for Long Trip [a month in Colorado, first ski purchase] - Page 2

post #31 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post

 If it gets really crappy and powdery 

:nono::dunno:eek


Many, many skiers,

(and I'm betting even posters here) 

dislike 3D snow

(avoid, despise, hate or fear)


Which brings me to my only semi-cynical point - crusty bumps are the new powder.

post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post
 


Many, many skiers,

(and I'm betting even posters here) 

dislike 3D snow

(avoid, despise, hate or fear)


Which brings me to my only semi-cynical point - crusty bumps are the new powder.

 

Then he might as well stay in Chicago.

 

This whole conversation sounds like booking a day at a race track then bringing a Prius with "mileage tires" because you don't like those pesky g-forces or the noise of the tires and engine, instead of Ferrari to experience what the locale has to offer. 65mm :rolleyes

post #33 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post
 
Quote:
 

Then he might as well stay in Chicago.

 

Or he could be having fun, skiing huge open terrain with no crowds, on any given day of the week, on any day in the season from December through May,  if we find him the right crusty bump ski.   :)

post #34 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post
 

 

Or he could be having fun, skiing huge open terrain with no crowds,

 

 

........on a 60mm ski. Gawd.

post #35 of 52
th_dunno-1[1].gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post

 

Or he could be having fun, skiing huge open terrain with no crowds,

........on a 60mm ski. Gawd.

No, 60 is too narrow he needs at least a 66:D
post #36 of 52
Quote:

Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post

 

Taking advice from the interweb? You get what you pay for. We have someone telling someone else who's going to ski for a month in CO to go with a 65mm ski :rolleyes. There should be certain basic requirements before being able to recommended stuff on here.

 

Great, I see you've now started to troll me on another thread (http://www.epicski.com/t/146984/respected-industry-persons-rips-and-ski-advice/60#post_2003565) by creating a straw-man version of what I actually said here, and then adding some snark based on your distortion. I don't know why you're trying so hard to provoke me (particularly since, in my initial reply to you, I went out of my way to be civil) but, regardless, this is underhanded.  Given this, how can anyone trust anything you write?

 

Here's what I actually wrote.  The difference between this, and your dishonest misrepresentation of it, is obvious: 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post
 

For the OP, my reasons for suggestion a narrow ski are different in emphasis: the OP's going to be spending 80% of his time on groomers and moguls, and he said he doesn't want a ski that will limit his development.  At his level, it will be much easier for him to develop his technique on a narrower ski* (since, at his level, as you also mentioned, they're easier to learn to put up on edge), and they're easier to ski on groomers than a wider ski, since that's what they're optimized for.  And I suspect a narrower ski would be more fun for an intermediate on groomers (where, again, he's planning to spend most of his time).   On the other hand, if he were instead planning to spend most of his time off-piste, then a wider ski would be particularly helpful for him at his level, making off-piste more accessible, easier, and more fun; but he'd be giving up skill development.   That's the trade-off he has to decide for himself.   [*Specified earlier as 66 - 75 mm.]

 

You wrote "There should be certain basic requirements before being able to recommended stuff on here."  I agree.  To my mind, they are: (1) don't be a troll; and (2) regardless of your viewpoint, operate with integrity. Based on either of these, I'd say you just disqualified yourself.

post #37 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post
 

 

Great, I see you've now started to troll me on another thread (http://www.epicski.com/t/146984/respected-industry-persons-rips-and-ski-advice/60#post_2003565) by creating a straw-man version of what I actually said here, and then adding some snark based on your distortion. I don't know why you're trying so hard to provoke me (particularly since, in my initial reply to you, I went out of my way to be civil) but, regardless, this is underhanded.  Given this, how can anyone trust anything you write?

 

Here's what I actually wrote.  The difference between this, and your dishonest misrepresentation of it, is obvious: 

 

You wrote "There should be certain basic requirements before being able to recommended stuff on here."  I agree.  To my mind, they are: (1) don't be a troll; and (2) regardless of your viewpoint, operate with integrity. Based on either of these, I'd say you just disqualified yourself.


I think you either forgot the paranoia drugs or have a far over inflated sense of self. Relax, chill out, I'm not trolling you - the fact that there's similarities on these threads isn't like a HUDGE revelation. Honest.

post #38 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post
 

Relax, chill out, I'm not trolling you - the fact that there's similarities on these threads isn't like a HUDGE revelation. Honest.

 

Right — I'm sure you were referring to some other current thread in which equipment advice is being given to someone who's "going to ski for a month in CO". :rolleyes  Seriously, snowfun, no one believes you. This doesn't even pass the laugh test.  :ROTF

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post
 

I think you either forgot the paranoia drugs or have a far over inflated sense of self. 

 

Sigh.  The boringly typical two-part response given by any routine liar that's been caught red-handed:  (1) Deny the lie by making up another (see above); (2) Deflect attention by calling the guy that caught you paranoid, etc., etc. (which is, of course, yet another set of lies). Good job, looks like you covered both bases.


Edited by chemist - 6/18/16 at 2:19pm
post #39 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post
 

 

Right — I'm sure you were referring to some other current thread in which equipment advice is being given to someone who's "going to ski for a month in CO". :rolleyes  Seriously, snowfun, no one believes you. This doesn't even pass the laugh test.  :ROTF

 

 

Sigh.  The boringly typical two-part response given by any routine liar that's been caught red-handed:  (1) Deny the lie by making up another (see above); (2) Deflect attention by calling the guy that caught you paranoid, etc., etc. (which is, of course, yet another set of lies). Good job, looks like you covered both bases.

 

 

Oh OK. The laugh test of suggesting a 60mm ski for someone who's going to CO for a month and spends time off piste? THAT laugh test? :rotflmao: Apparently you are clueless regarding the carving and FUN capabilities of something from 21st century  skiing, but hey, sure, give this poor guy such a worthwhile "suggestion" to use some slalom carving ski when he could have a tool that would be far more fun EVEN ON GROOMERS, and particularly in freshies than some toothpick. :rolleyes

 

I was just saying that some people shouldn't be considered to make smart or intelligent ski suggestions to others in VERY obvious situations, and you happened to be the most recent and most obvious example, that's all. Relax already. Not so long ago there was a genius saying the AC 30 was THE ski for every condition. No doubt he's rethinking that now. We'll give you some time.


Edited by snofun3 - 6/18/16 at 3:52pm
post #40 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post
 

Oh OK. The laugh test of suggesting a 60mm ski for someone who's going to CO for a month and spends time off piste? THAT laugh test? :rotflmao: Apparently you are clueless regarding the carving and FUN capabilities of something from 21st century  skiing, but hey, sure, give this poor guy such a worthwhile "suggestion" to use some slalom carving ski when he could have a tool that would be far more fun EVEN ON GROOMERS, and particularly in freshies than some toothpick. :rolleyes

 

I was just saying that some people shouldn't be considered to make smart or intelligent ski suggestions to others in VERY obvious situations, and you happened to be the most recent and most obvious example, that's all. Relax already. Not so long ago there was a genius saying the AC 30 was THE ski for every condition. No doubt he's rethinking that now. We'll give you some time.

 

As you know full well, I never said 65 or 60, I said 66-75, unless the OP wants to go off-piste more than he's said he will.  I also never recommended a ski with a "slalom" label; I suspect most of those would be too reactive.  Pretty soon you'll be claiming I said he should be on a 45, or maybe an RD GS ski. :rolleyes

 

As I wrote originally, there are two schools of thought on this, and the OP is ill-served by being exposed to only one of them.  If he only heard and followed your advice he'd never even try a carver to see if he enjoys it.  He needs to hear both, demo, and decide for himself. That's why I posted. You only want the OP to hear your viewpoint, and none other.   And I'm not the only one with this view:
http://www.realskiers.com/NEWSLETTERS/fat-is-not-good-for-you.html
http://www.realskiers.com/NEWSLETTERS/limiting.html

 

But look, I understand.  You can't tolerate anyone expressing a view different from yours, but are frustrated because you lack the capacity to argue against what I said on the merits.  So instead you make up stuff, and when I call you on that you try this latest tactic.  It's not like I haven't seen this before.  I am, however, impressed by how shamelessly you lie; outside of politicians, it's not often I encounter that.  

 

Regarding my knowledge of 21st century skis, there you've got me.  I've only demoed 32 different models over the past four seasons, in widths of 66 mm - 124 mm, posting capsule reviews of most of them.  I'm sure you've been on far more over the same period.  [Don't worry about how many you've actually skied, just make up a number.]  

 

Finally, if you want to talk about laughable, how about recommending an FX94 for someone that's going to be spending 80% of his time on groomers?  Even dawgcatching, who loves the FX94, says "As a carver, it really isn't great." The most likely reason dawgcatching understands this and you don't is that he actually knows how to use a ski on groomers. My guess, based on your recommendations, is that your groomer skiing is stuck at a lower-advanced level — fairly low for someone that skis as much as you seem to.  Now for you, that may be great, but I don't want the OP, who's clearly said he wants to improve, to end up stuck at the same low groomer skill level.  That would be doing him a disservice.  It's higher-level carving and pressure management skills that form the foundation of high-level off-piste skiing. 


Edited by chemist - 6/18/16 at 8:10pm
post #41 of 52

Boys, boys. Please.

 

Seriously Snofun, you know it's possible for an intermediate to have a blast on (well, anyway) 75mm skis on groomers in Colorado. I rented a pair of Pursuit 18s at Winter Park one year, and they were a blast when it hadn't snowed. Switched them out for Sin 7s when we had 8" of fresh, but otherwise, the Pursuits were great. It's not a terrible suggestion, not at all, especially for an intermediate. 

 

I might, myself, have suggested something a little wider and carvy — something in the mid to high 80s. Forgiving and smooth in the cut-up. Somebody mentioned a Power Track 89 — great choice. If you can spend money, the FX 85 is easy to like.  But demoing is the thing.

 

I've actually found a wider ski provides a more definite sensation of getting up on edge. You really have to lever up to make it happen. It's a useful learning tool, if a little hard on the knees. I was having a blast last season on hard but edgeable snow carving round, accurate tracks on 100mm Enforcers.

post #42 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post

 
Oh OK. The laugh test of suggesting a 60mm ski for someone who's going to CO for a month and spends time off piste? THAT laugh test? roflmao.gif Apparently you are clueless regarding the carving and FUN capabilities of something from 21st century  skiing, but hey, sure, give this poor guy such a worthwhile "suggestion" to use some slalom carving ski when he could have a tool that would be far more fun EVEN ON GROOMERS, and particularly in freshies than some toothpick. rolleyes.gif

I was just saying that some people shouldn't be considered to make smart or intelligent ski suggestions to others in VERY obvious situations, and you happened to be the most recent and most obvious example, that's all. Relax already. Not so long ago there was a genius saying the AC 30 was THE ski for every condition. No doubt he's rethinking that now. We'll give you some time.

As you know full well, I never said 65 or 60, I said 66-75, unless the OP wants to go off-piste more than he's said he will.  I also never recommended a ski with a "slalom" label; I suspect most of those would be too reactive.  Pretty soon you'll be claiming I said he should be on a 45, or maybe an RD GS ski. rolleyes.gif

As I wrote originally, there are two schools of thought on this, and the OP is ill-served by being exposed to only one of them.  If he only heard and followed your advice he'd never even try a carver to see if he enjoys it.  He needs to hear both, demo, and decide for himself. That's why I posted. You only want the OP to hear your viewpoint, and none other.   And I'm not the only one with this view:
http://www.realskiers.com/NEWSLETTERS/fat-is-not-good-for-you.html
http://www.realskiers.com/NEWSLETTERS/limiting.html

But look, I understand.  You can't tolerate anyone expressing a view different from yours, but are frustrated because you lack the capacity to argue against what I said on the merits.  So instead you make up stuff, and when I call you on that you try this latest tactic.  It's not like I haven't seen this before.  I am, however, impressed by how shamelessly you lie; outside of politicians, it's not often I encounter that.  

Regarding my knowledge of 21st century skis, there you've got me.  I've only demoed 32 different models over the past four seasons, in widths of 66 mm - 124 mm, posting capsule reviews of most of them.  I'm sure you've been on far more over the same period.  [Don't worry about how many you've actually skied, just make up a number.]  

Finally, if you want to talk about laughable, how about recommending an FX94 for someone that's going to be spending 80% of his time on groomers?  Even dawgcatching, who loves the FX94, says "As a carver, it really isn't great." The most likely reason dawgcatching understands this and you don't is that he actually knows how to use a ski on groomers. My guess, based on your recommendations, is that your groomer skiing is stuck at a lower-advanced level — fairly low for someone that skis as much as you seem to.  Now for you, that may be great, but I don't want the OP, who's clearly said he wants to improve, to end up stuck at the same low groomer skill level.  That would be doing him a disservice.  It's higher-level carving and pressure management skills that form the foundation of high-level off-piste skiing. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post

 
Oh OK. The laugh test of suggesting a 60mm ski for someone who's going to CO for a month and spends time off piste? THAT laugh test? roflmao.gif Apparently you are clueless regarding the carving and FUN capabilities of something from 21st century  skiing, but hey, sure, give this poor guy such a worthwhile "suggestion" to use some slalom carving ski when he could have a tool that would be far more fun EVEN ON GROOMERS, and particularly in freshies than some toothpick. rolleyes.gif

I was just saying that some people shouldn't be considered to make smart or intelligent ski suggestions to others in VERY obvious situations, and you happened to be the most recent and most obvious example, that's all. Relax already. Not so long ago there was a genius saying the AC 30 was THE ski for every condition. No doubt he's rethinking that now. We'll give you some time.

As you know full well, I never said 65 or 60, I said 66-75, unless the OP wants to go off-piste more than he's said he will.  I also never recommended a ski with a "slalom" label; I suspect most of those would be too reactive.  Pretty soon you'll be claiming I said he should be on a 45, or maybe an RD GS ski. rolleyes.gif

As I wrote originally, there are two schools of thought on this, and the OP is ill-served by being exposed to only one of them.  If he only heard and followed your advice he'd never even try a carver to see if he enjoys it.  He needs to hear both, demo, and decide for himself. That's why I posted. You only want the OP to hear your viewpoint, and none other.   And I'm not the only one with this view:
http://www.realskiers.com/NEWSLETTERS/fat-is-not-good-for-you.html
http://www.realskiers.com/NEWSLETTERS/limiting.html

But look, I understand.  You can't tolerate anyone expressing a view different from yours, but are frustrated because you lack the capacity to argue against what I said on the merits.  So instead you make up stuff, and when I call you on that you try this latest tactic.  It's not like I haven't seen this before.  I am, however, impressed by how shamelessly you lie; outside of politicians, it's not often I encounter that.  

Regarding my knowledge of 21st century skis, there you've got me.  I've only demoed 32 different models over the past four seasons, in widths of 66 mm - 124 mm, posting capsule reviews of most of them.  I'm sure you've been on far more over the same period.  [Don't worry about how many you've actually skied, just make up a number.]  

Finally, if you want to talk about laughable, how about recommending an FX94 for someone that's going to be spending 80% of his time on groomers?  Even dawgcatching, who loves the FX94, says "As a carver, it really isn't great." The most likely reason dawgcatching understands this and you don't is that he actually knows how to use a ski on groomers. My guess, based on your recommendations, is that your groomer skiing is stuck at a lower-advanced level — fairly low for someone that skis as much as you seem to.  Now for you, that may be great, but I don't want the OP, who's clearly said he wants to improve, to end up stuck at the same low groomer skill level.  That would be doing him a disservice.  It's higher-level carving and pressure management skills that form the foundation of high-level off-piste skiing. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post

 
Oh OK. The laugh test of suggesting a 60mm ski for someone who's going to CO for a month and spends time off piste? THAT laugh test? roflmao.gif Apparently you are clueless regarding the carving and FUN capabilities of something from 21st century  skiing, but hey, sure, give this poor guy such a worthwhile "suggestion" to use some slalom carving ski when he could have a tool that would be far more fun EVEN ON GROOMERS, and particularly in freshies than some toothpick. rolleyes.gif

I was just saying that some people shouldn't be considered to make smart or intelligent ski suggestions to others in VERY obvious situations, and you happened to be the most recent and most obvious example, that's all. Relax already. Not so long ago there was a genius saying the AC 30 was THE ski for every condition. No doubt he's rethinking that now. We'll give you some time.

As you know full well, I never said 65 or 60, I said 66-75, unless the OP wants to go off-piste more than he's said he will.  I also never recommended a ski with a "slalom" label; I suspect most of those would be too reactive.  Pretty soon you'll be claiming I said he should be on a 45, or maybe an RD GS ski. rolleyes.gif

As I wrote originally, there are two schools of thought on this, and the OP is ill-served by being exposed to only one of them.  If he only heard and followed your advice he'd never even try a carver to see if he enjoys it.  He needs to hear both, demo, and decide for himself. That's why I posted. You only want the OP to hear your viewpoint, and none other.   And I'm not the only one with this view:
http://www.realskiers.com/NEWSLETTERS/fat-is-not-good-for-you.html
http://www.realskiers.com/NEWSLETTERS/limiting.html

But look, I understand.  You can't tolerate anyone expressing a view different from yours, but are frustrated because you lack the capacity to argue against what I said on the merits.  So instead you make up stuff, and when I call you on that you try this latest tactic.  It's not like I haven't seen this before.  I am, however, impressed by how shamelessly you lie; outside of politicians, it's not often I encounter that.  

Regarding my knowledge of 21st century skis, there you've got me.  I've only demoed 32 different models over the past four seasons, in widths of 66 mm - 124 mm, posting capsule reviews of most of them.  I'm sure you've been on far more over the same period.  [Don't worry about how many you've actually skied, just make up a number.]  

Finally, if you want to talk about laughable, how about recommending an FX94 for someone that's going to be spending 80% of his time on groomers?  Even dawgcatching, who loves the FX94, says "As a carver, it really isn't great." The most likely reason dawgcatching understands this and you don't is that he actually knows how to use a ski on groomers. My guess, based on your recommendations, is that your groomer skiing is stuck at a lower-advanced level — fairly low for someone that skis as much as you seem to.  Now for you, that may be great, but I don't want the OP, who's clearly said he wants to improve, to end up stuck at the same low groomer skill level.  That would be doing him a disservice.  It's higher-level carving and pressure management skills that form the foundation of high-level off-piste skiing. 

+1
post #43 of 52
I don't want the OP, who's clearly said he wants to improve, to end up stuck at the same low groomer skill level.

Exactly what wide skis will do for an intermediate who stays on groomers
post #44 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post
  It's higher-level carving and pressure management skills that form the foundation of high-level off-piste skiing. 

 

Thumbs UpThumbs UpThumbs Up

 

Josh would have said, "It's not that you can't ski groomers with a skinny ski, it's because you can't ski and the skinny ski proves it."       

 

Most skier don't want to work on their foundation skills. It's way too much work. 

 

Anyway, skinny skis on groomers is fun. They are actually pretty decent all around - if you got the skilz. :D 

post #45 of 52
FW incredibly little IW, and speaking only for myself, I'd take an 80'something for a one ski does all to Vail, etc... then look for a screaming deal on something wider for big days that may or may not come. The Dynastar PT 89 was a great suggestion! Very fun, versatile, floats well because of the shovel design, bends well, and is a very good bump ski. The Atomic Vantage 90 should be on the 'to do' list as well, and don't forget the K2 Pinnacle 95... There you go... 89,90, and 95. Toss in a Kastle FX 95 or 85, or a Stockli storm rider 88 if the pocket book is padded well enough? No, these aren't race skis or high performance carvers, but for normal folks with a budget, they're all very versatile, reliable, won't kick the OP in the teeth, and are solid choices for a wide range of possible conditions. If the OP wanted something a bit more 'more', then I'd add a Head Monster 88 to the list. Also FW little IW, I find myself preferring an 85-88 for a 90% ski for the west. And everyone knows, everyone should like and prefer what I do. roflmao.gif
post #46 of 52

Agree with markojp on the 85-100 mm sweet spot as western daily drivers for most skiers.

For my annual westward migration, I usually drag around 4 pairs of skis ranging s from 88 mm on up. The 5th pair is usually a 65 mm SL for the firmer days.

Yes, there are firmer days out west too. :eek

 

The funny thing is on the days when I take out the SL, I always say to myself, "Wow, this is fun, should do this more often."

During the last two seasons, I've been on the SL more often for the fun factor alone. Who would have thunk.  :dunno 

post #47 of 52
Tell me about it. I've been hearing about how much fun the sl skis are and I finally got to test drive the head Rebel sl in the 165. Ithought it was one of the best skis I've ever been on and bought it in the 170. I can't wait to test drive my new baby.
post #48 of 52

I think many who are considering what width range they'd want for a western OSQ are implicitly factoring in their own western terrain/snow choices which, I'd guess, are around 30% on piste (?).  But remember the OP wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerSki View Post
 

Since I'll be skiing a lot with my wife and friends, I'll probably be ~80% on/20% off piste. 

 

So, respecting both the OP's wishes, and his marriage :D, imagine that you were to spend a month out west but were restricted, for whatever reason (orders from your Secret Service protection detail, etc.), to spending 80% of your time on piste (which I take to mean groomers and moguls).  What width would you use in that case?  I personally think, particularly for a smaller intermediate skier, spending most of the day skiing groomers, or groomers and moguls, on a 95 would be pretty fatiguing.

 

Now once you've done this, you may need to make another downward adjustment, because size and weight have significant relevance to ski width.  First, in terms of flotation, a 150 lb. skier on an 80 mm x 170 cm ski has about the same ratio of surface area:weight as a 180 lb. skier on an 88 mm x 185 cm. Second, industry commentators have noted that women and smaller, lighter men struggle more with overly wide skis on groomers than big guys who have both more leverage and big, thick knees.  So those of you who are much bigger than the OP, think again before you try to directly transfer your personal width preferences to a 150 lb. skier.

 

It's been said, over and over, that if you are going to be making ski recommendations, you should let the OP know your size and weight, so he/she can see if you're very different in size.  Yet, unless I've missed someone (my apologies if I have), I'm the only one that's done that here.  This is particularly unfortunate, since, at 150 lbs., the OP is significantly lighter than most of the men on Epic, which means he's probably significantly lighter than many of you — yet none of you who are much heavier than him are letting him know this!  [As someone who's himself 150 lbs., this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine with respect to ski recs here on Epic ;).]

 

Finally, some of you may want to say to the OP:  I think you should not spend 80% of your time on groomers.  That's fine, but then IMO you need to be explicit about it.  I.e., tell him: 'Here's a 95 that's great. I would *not* recommend it if you are going to spend 80% of your time on groomers.  But if you'd instead like to spend 70% of your time off-piste, you should definitely consider this ski. And, by the way, this is how much I weigh...."  [I wouldn't make the above recommendation myself, but IMO if you are going to recommend him skis approaching 100 mm, it should be done in that context.]


Edited by chemist - 6/19/16 at 11:47am
post #49 of 52
I'm 195, and yes, I took the ops mass into consideration fwiw.
post #50 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

I'm 195, and yes, I took the ops mass into consideration fwiw.


I figured you would account for mass, since you're used to giving ski recs to your students.  But what about his 80% on-piste preference? You would still recommend "89, 90, and 95" for a 150 lb. adv. intermediate that's going to be spending that much of his time on groomers? Wouldn't you find it easier to teach an adv. intermediate that shows up for a groomer lesson on, say, a 75 than a 90 or 95 (assuming all three are otherwise intermediate-appropriate in terms of flex and sidecut)?


Edited by chemist - 6/19/16 at 12:11pm
post #51 of 52
I think 85-88 is a good number personally, and he wants a pair, one pair he said, that might foster his off piste ambitions AND perform well* on piste. I think many folks come out west with little off piste experience, then catch the bug when they understand how much terrain never sees a groomer.

* we're not talking high performance tech carving here, just nice well shaped tail following tip on a wide variety of terrain.
post #52 of 52
I skied the PT89 at Okemo on soft piles interspersed with ice. I have decent skills, but I'm no Phoenix. They were just easy to ski, and I could make them do harder things easily, too. Not that I'm wedded to this ski or this width, but for the west, an all-rounder, mostly on-piste ski, somewhere in the 80s makes sense. My bias is eastern, though (and I outweigh the OP by 20 pounds).
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 › Ski Purchase for Long Trip [a month in Colorado, first ski purchase]