or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Two skis for the east?

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
I am considering buying the 9.22hc as my second set of skis.
Last year I bought the mountain viper z for my everyday ski, I love bumps, and since I ski Killington about 30 days a year they had to be decent on ice. I love them, and plan on skiing on them this year too. My problem is, if there is so much as an inch of powder they sink.
I love skiing in the trees, very tight around here, but like a lot of skiers from the east I struggle with powder. I’m looking for a second set of skis that will help me with my lack of abilty, and turns quick enough to make it through the woods. From what I’ve heard the 9.22hc is great for the east coast powder skier, oxymoron, who like’s to ski it all. What do you think? Has anyone skied them in the east? :
post #2 of 7
If you get a mid-fat.. you won't ski that Rossi again .
post #3 of 7
K2 Axis. Consider two lengths, and if it's for trees, go with the shorter of the two. The ski is wide for a mid-fat, shapely, and turns easily. It has a weak spot: really hard snow. But for everything else, it's dreamy. I weigh 145 [tonight - a few days ago I weighed 142] and I'm a so-so skier. I have been sking on the 174 cm, but the K2 folks said the 167 length would also be good for me - and I'm planning to demo it this year in proper conditions. The ski has given me great confidence in soft snow. In really hard eastern snow, what gives me confidence is Jack Daniels in the lodge. or if I HAFTA ski it [the snow], then the Rossi shorty slalom.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ October 23, 2001 08:05 PM: Message edited 1 time, by oboe ]</font>
post #4 of 7
Yea, I ski 9.22 HC in the east, they seem to handle hard pack very nicely, have good grip. I'm in the midatlantic though, and anyway really not interested in skiing boiler plate, so I couldn't say how they do in the worst the east can offer. In moderatly icy condition, frozen sluch, etc.. they are quite grippy. And of course, very nice in the soft stuff.
post #5 of 7
Thread Starter 
Phil- I don't know if a mid-fat will be able to handle bumps as well as my Rossi. I am curious though [img]tongue.gif[/img]
oboe- what size do think I should try I weigh 175. I want a quick ski for the trees. Won't see much groomed with me that's what the Rossi is for!
Lodro- What size did you try? My shop is telling me to go small real small-170?? Also how quick do the turn?
Thanks [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #6 of 7
Can't think of a more appropriate ski for skiing trees at Jay Peak. Light, quick, but wide enough to float yer boat a bit. One of those short n fat twin tips might also work well, like the V, Enema or PocketRocket--these are probably heavier than the 9.22 though.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ October 24, 2001 04:44 PM: Message edited 1 time, by JW ]</font>
post #7 of 7
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by skiingpathfinder:

Lodro- What size did you try? My shop is telling me to go small real small-170??

Also how quick do the turn?

Wow, 170?! I ski it in a 190, you could go 180, but I really like it in this length. 170 seems awfully short, but it is a brave new world I guess. Its allready a very light quick ski, the extra length adds some stability, I would think, and the turn is plenty short.

How quick? Plenty quick! Especially if you put energy into them; they really whip around. One of the more endearing traits..

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ October 24, 2001 08:42 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Lodro ]</font>
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion