Originally Posted by Max_501
Excellent input...can you describe how the 162 was better in chop and the powder. Seems counter intuitive when compared to a longer ski.
I know it does, but i am not a soft ski fan in the Pow & chop. Of course skiing a 162 in general seems counterintuitive for someone my size. .
I guess it is just that is less sluggish and more agile without being less stable. I got plenty of float and seemed felt more balanced on the 162.
for example I skied a friends Seth pistols in some Pow & chop back to back with my Sugar Daddy. Wow what a difference there!
The Seth is a noodle the SD a plank. ( older SD in a 173) the Seth was the most erratic unstable bounced around junk I have ever skied.
the Sd by comparison was quiet, composed and stable as hell. Blew through anything with no deflection. the tip of the Seth is very soft. which was very unnerving. The 162 seemed to have no disadvantage to me whatsoever and now the 172 seems too big for me.
my older boy (ex racer) is on the 172 but he is 20, 6'1" & weighs 225! He loves 'em. was skeptical at first but now that he has a pair is absolutely blown away with the ski!
I have always likeed a beefier ski in the Pow. it is probably from skiing Volkls and Atomics for many years. they always seemd to be skis you had to ski from the tip.
You know it is a lot of ski.