New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intense Off-Piste Skis

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
Hey, I'm going skiing where there will be lots of double diamonds that have terrain that fits into the following: drops, rocks, moguls, trees, steeps, and jumping ops. I have a pair of Izor 9.7s (168s) that suit me for toned down runs (diamonds), but I was thinking of renting some boards for the trip. I have skis for all the other terrain but was looking for suggestions on my backcountry adventures (wider skis would help as well.....powder). Thanks a lot!
post #2 of 19
Quote:
backcountry adventures
I think there are more pressing equipment and education issues then skis if you are going to be having backcountry adventures.

Of course I am assuming that you have not addressed these, if I am wrong, my bad.

As to the skis- How big are you? What do you like in a ski? What do you like/not like about your present skis off-piste? ......A little background info would help.
post #3 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by tief schnee View Post
I think there are more pressing equipment and education issues then skis if you are going to be having backcountry adventures.
From the sound of his post I think by "backcountry" he means anything besides groomers (a common Epic missconception), not actual backcountry skiing.
post #4 of 19

length versus width for off piste trees

This thread prompts a question I have had-I am now skiing on 186/183 twin tips (Atomic Stomps 118-88-108) for powder days but considering looking for a wider shorter ski as I find myself seeking out powder in steep trees more and more. Would going to a shorter length ski be advised in the trees and glades such as a Sugar Daddy 173? The rationale is that 10 cm less in length would allow tighter turns? T or F in knee deep powder? Would that be giving up too much flotation for 6' 190 lb skier? :
post #5 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by niege777 View Post
This thread prompts a question I have had-I am now skiing on 186/183 twin tips (Atomic Stomps 118-88-108) for powder days but considering looking for a wider shorter ski as I find myself seeking out powder in steep trees more and more. Would going to a shorter length ski be advised in the trees and glades such as a Sugar Daddy 173? The rationale is that 10 cm less in length would allow tighter turns? T or F in knee deep powder? Would that be giving up too much flotation for 6' 190 lb skier? :
I tend to think how a ski flexes is more important for tight turns between the trees than how long they are. I ski 190 Chubbs in the trees, but wouldn't dream of skiing something stiff in that length when making a quick turn is needful to avoid eating bark.
post #6 of 19
I recommend the Rossi B3. It is a very forgiving ski that won't punish you in the double diamonds. Though it is only 83mm in the waist it performs fine in all but the deepest powder.
post #7 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by niege777 View Post
This thread prompts a question I have had-I am now skiing on 186/183 twin tips (Atomic Stomps 118-88-108) for powder days but considering looking for a wider shorter ski as I find myself seeking out powder in steep trees more and more. Would going to a shorter length ski be advised in the trees and glades such as a Sugar Daddy 173? The rationale is that 10 cm less in length would allow tighter turns? T or F in knee deep powder? Would that be giving up too much flotation for 6' 190 lb skier? :
I'm not sure why you would want to go shorter tighter turns shouldn't be a problem, its pow its easy to turn unless it is mad steep, I would go longer more power and speed. If you are talking about real pow not two inches of crust go big like 100 underfoot or at least in the upper 90's. Demo some big boards, they are alot easier to ski then most would imagine even on hardpack, and they make pow and variable skiing more fun then you could ever imagine alot more charging. If you live in Nelson or just have giant balls try something reverse camber and sidecut they will really rock your world. I have a pair of JP vs Juliens that are 188cm 126/103/116 and I am 6' 170lbs and they snap around like a dream. If you want a full review pm me.
post #8 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio View Post
I recommend the Rossi B3. It is a very forgiving ski that won't punish you in the double diamonds. Though it is only 83mm in the waist it performs fine in all but the deepest powder.
I will second your fine motion, only the really gnar need the B-Squads.
post #9 of 19
I'm with VA.

The stiffness is def a factor.

I ride a pair of 180 No Ka Ois. They are easliy the stiffest ski in my quiver. I tend to get "stuck" on them when trying implement tight turns in trees and bumps unless I have serious speed going.

My 177 Mantras, on the other hand, seem to be the perfect solution.

So yeah, length is definitely one factor, but so is flex.
post #10 of 19

powder skis re stiffness

I am learning a lot here on this forum. I can see that ski length and sidecut aren't significant in powder like they would be on hardpack. Stiffness determines turn-ability for a powder ski as VolantAddict pointed out in his use of 190 chubbs for tree sking. Are there any threads on this site where stiffness of various powder skis might be compared-not just in a review of an individual ski. To a large extent I would think this is determined by the type of construction used by the particular ski manufacturer? If I understand right, then for a powder ski that I want to be more adaptable to skiing steep tight places (ie trees), instead of going shorter I ought to look for a softer ski (than my 186 Atomic Stomp)
post #11 of 19
Don't go shorter in a fat ski to try to gain more maneuverability, you'll just end up sitting on your tails to try to get them to float all the time. Someone at your height and weight, looking fora fairly maneuverable ski, should be looking for longer and softer, ie 189 K2 Seths, 188 Salomon Guns, or 186 Dynastar Big Troubles. I'd recommend the Big Troubles, as my experiences with mine have only been positive so far- they're a bit stiffer in the tips than the Guns, so they plow through crud better, but their soft tail makes them very manueverable in tight spots.
post #12 of 19
I read this tread and now have a burning desire to bathe.

I think I got some on me:

Sack up!!
post #13 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by niege777 View Post
I am learning a lot here on this forum. I can see that ski length and sidecut aren't significant in powder like they would be on hardpack.

(Lack of) Sidecut and length are just as important in pow as on hardpack...
Skis with alot of sidecut tend to get squirelly in the pow and length is nice when you hit mach 2 on the powder (+ it equals more float)
post #14 of 19
Not sure of your size.

Either the Bro Model 179 or 188. 3 flexes to choose from - soft, stiff, extra-stiff.

Look here: www.pmgear.com

TGR has tons of info on them - just do a search. These will do everything you asked for.

The Volkl Mantra is another sure bet.
post #15 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanish Armada View Post
I will second your fine motion, only the really gnar need the B-Squads.
Don't forget you can still get B4's for us slightly less gnar types.

I'll second the B3 rec...I also like Mantra's and Bro's.
post #16 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by memosteve View Post
Don't forget you can still get B4's for us slightly less gnar types.

I'll second the B3 rec...I also like Mantra's and Bro's.
When he called them "Intense off-Piste Skis" I just assumed the grar factor was pretty low.
post #17 of 19
yeah, i thought the header was a bit strange.

i mean Scot Schmidt, Glen Plake, and a ton of others have certainly made K2 long and skinny boards pretty damn intense off piste skis over the years.

i would say if you want a really intense off-piste ski you need to go extra long and super stiff.

Also, as noted earlier, are you just going to be skiing in-bounds off-piste or are you actually going to be doing hiking of a serious nature. Depending then you are getting into a whole other realm (AT binders, skins, lighter skis, etc.).

If you just want a ripping ski that will float from a groomer to the unskied areas of the mountain, then just look at anything in the 90mm+ range:

Mantra
Scratch BC
Bro
Gotama
King Salmon
Stockli DP
Head Mojo
B4 / Squad
and the list goes on and on and on...
post #18 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
Also, as noted earlier, are you just going to be skiing in-bounds off-piste or are you actually going to be doing hiking of a serious nature. Depending then you are getting into a whole other realm (AT binders, skins, lighter skis, etc.).

..shovel, probe, transciever, snowpack/routefinding knowledge..


As far as skis, the Head Monster im103 is about as "intense" of a ski that I've ever owned. I think this years is called the Supermojo 103 or 105 - something like that. I've heard they've pussed it down a bit from the old Monsters, but it should still be plenty intense.
post #19 of 19
Thread was started by a 17 year old kid. I'm betting on a a future Darwin award candidate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion