EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › New powder boards for my 11 yr. old
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New powder boards for my 11 yr. old - Page 3

post #61 of 95
6/4/08 at 9:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTpowder View Post
Thanks everyone for all your help. I have really enjoyed everyones comments and points. I have been busy starting a new job so I havn't checked this for a a few days. I was suprised by the number of posts. I really think the 90 mm waist of my daughters Rossi Scratch BCs is sufficient. However there has been some really deep days in which she could could use more. Can she get by fine with what she has? Yes, no question. Would she enjoy a longer fatter ski? I would say yes she propbably would. I noticed a very big difference in the powder when she went from her old Volkl Supersport Jrs. to the Rossi's. I mentioned to her that she could probably get whatever she wanted because we could sell her supersports and her Sratch's. She said she was keeping her sratches not matter what. So if she gets something new it will have to be wide enough that there is not a lot of overlap. She doesn't do anything in the park. She rarely skis with anybody but me because she says all her friends are too slow. Maybe that will change in the next few years as she gets a little older and her old man isn't "as cool" any more. I still think something wide and soft in about a 165 would be perfect for her. I would consider the 175 Praxix Powders but just cant get over how long 175 sounds. She is quite tall for her age and is in really good shape (she swims competitivley and plays basketball as well). It seems a little crazy to me as well to be spending so much money on a quiver for a kid. But is is something we love to do together and I don't know if there is any amount of money that I wouldn't pay to continue such a relationship. Besides I just finished up my Doctorate degree and while I am not rich by any means I am makeing more money then I ever have but still living in the same house and driving the same car. So I do have some extra money to use. The smile I would get out of having us both set up with brand new matching Praxis would be worth it.
+ 1 for Spindrift's Army

- 1 for Volklskier1

Reply
post #62 of 95
6/4/08 at 9:50pm
Quote:
Their graphics are exceptional and I've heard nothing but good things about the build and performance coming out of Moment. -bklyn
Don't have much to say on recomendations here. I agree with bklyn about some of the graphics of Moment though. For some reason I am mildly obsessed with the Comi ski ever since I saw the website a couple months ago.
I can't explain it, I just like the looks of it. If I had the cash I'd just buy it.

Here's my problem with most of the Moments though - the square tips. I just like to know where the tip is heading if I glance down. I didn't like those elan squarish tip skis. I know, maybe I'm a girl...
UTPowder, maybe your daughter feels the same way?

This thread needs some color here though!
(too bad Moment pics are small)
-Line Pandora
-Moment Sierra
-Moment Comi
525x525px-LL-vbattach3432.jpg
525x525px-LL-vbattach3433.jpg
525x525px-LL-vbattach3434.jpg
Reply
post #63 of 95
6/4/08 at 10:08pm
A couple people I know got Bacons or Elizabeths & ended up using them not just as powder ski but as all-around skis. Surprisingly effective carvers on softer groomers. I'd expect the Pandora to be in the same general league. And not surprisingly, they did well in powder & soft snow. But... You gotta like soft. And you gotta like a short/tight radius. (I've never skied them though...)

I'd still talk to Keith...
Reply
post #64 of 95
6/7/08 at 10:37am
Well here's one possibly for you, the Icelantic Scout SFT which is supposed to be for people less than 120 lbs.
Ok, Icelantic's website is very annoying and the only specs they list for the scout are 143cm length, 140,105,130 with 12m radius. I'd find it hard to believe that "the conceptual flagship of Icelantic" -(the regular Scout) only comes in a 143cm version.
http://www.icelanticboards.com/
Reply
post #65 of 95
6/7/08 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
Well here's one possibly for you, the Icelantic Scout SFT which is supposed to be for people less than 120 lbs.
Ok, Icelantic's website is very annoying and the only specs they list for the scout are 143cm length, 140,105,130 with 12m radius. I'd find it hard to believe that "the conceptual flagship of Icelantic" -(the regular Scout) only comes in a 143cm version.
http://www.icelanticboards.com/
The Scout is only made in 143cm, either as the standard model or the soft tail (SFT) version.

I'd recommend looking at the Icelantic Pilgrim in 169cm which due to it's twin tip skis like a 160cm standard tail ski.
Reply
post #66 of 95
6/7/08 at 7:01pm
Thanks spyderjon. I guess their concept is short ski boards?
Pilgrim too narrow here, he's looking around 100mm.
Reply
post #67 of 95
6/9/08 at 8:37am
Thread Starter 
Just pulled the trigger on the Praxis. Ordered both my daughter and I a pair of Powders.

For my daughter Keith had a pair of light lay ups that he had made late this spring. I still think 175 sounds long but as these will be purely a powder ski I think she will be fine. Keith thought that she would be fine and it would give here something to grow into.

I havn't decided on length for me yet. Keith suggested the 185 but I still can't decide between that and the 195. My current quiver is 193 Sanouks, 183 stiff Bros, and 175 Volkl Tigersharks. I weigh 210 lbs. Primarily ski Beaver Mtn. in Northern UT. Its a smaller hill with most pow skiing being in open trees that open into small clearings. There are not really and big bowls to speak of. Any suggestions on what length I should get? Keith said he probably preferred his 185s except for going mach stupid down an open face in AK.
Reply
post #68 of 95
6/9/08 at 9:30am
Awesome.

I haven't skied the 185s, but I'm about your weight and love my 195s, especially in the trees. I don't think you'll be sorry.
Reply
post #69 of 95
6/9/08 at 11:31am

What Top sheet

Quote:
Originally Posted by UTpowder View Post
Just pulled the trigger on the Praxis. Ordered both my daughter and I a pair of Powders.

For my daughter Keith had a pair of light lay ups that he had made late this spring. I still think 175 sounds long but as these will be purely a powder ski I think she will be fine. Keith thought that she would be fine and it would give here something to grow into.

I havn't decided on length for me yet. Keith suggested the 185 but I still can't decide between that and the 195. My current quiver is 193 Sanouks, 183 stiff Bros, and 175 Volkl Tigersharks. I weigh 210 lbs. Primarily ski Beaver Mtn. in Northern UT. Its a smaller hill with most pow skiing being in open trees that open into small clearings. There are not really and big bowls to speak of. Any suggestions on what length I should get? Keith said he probably preferred his 185s except for going mach stupid down an open face in AK.
What Top sheet dod you go with on the 175's.

I look forward to hearing how she does with the 175CM reverse / Reverse.

I think you will still end up getting her a longer traditional ski next winter.

164 BRO's ??
Reply
post #70 of 95
6/9/08 at 11:48am
most reversed camber skis turn much faster then a similar cambered/sidecut ski.

My 194 EHP are easier to turn then 187 dynastar XXL.

wife is on 180 volkl explosives and 186 bro rockers, as her daily driver and powder skis
Reply
post #71 of 95
6/9/08 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT View Post
What Top sheet dod you go with on the 175's.
My 11-year-old daughter loooooved the Sister Teresas (a.k.a., the Badonkadonk).

Had I bought them for her, my wife would've thrown me out.
Reply
post #72 of 95
6/9/08 at 2:00pm
Thread Starter 
Got the Tanquility topsheet. It was not my daughters first choice. She really liked the snowflake topsheet. But beggars can't be choosers. Keith already had the light layup made up with that graphic. I havn't seen this one in person but the pics of the skis on the first page of the Praxis web sight look really nice. The colors are deeper and richer then what it shows under the graphics section. I guess I will be getting the Tranquility topsheet as well so we can have matching skis. Something my daughter thinks would be really cool. Now I'm starting to get excited for next year!!!
Reply
post #73 of 95
6/9/08 at 2:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTpowder View Post
Got the Tanquility topsheet. It was not my daughters first choice. She really liked the snowflake topsheet. But beggars can't be choosers. Keith already had the light layup made up with that graphic. I havn't seen this one in person but the pics of the skis on the first page of the Praxis web sight look really nice. The colors are deeper and richer then what it shows under the graphics section. I guess I will be getting the Tranquility topsheet as well so we can have matching skis. Something my daughter thinks would be really cool. Now I'm starting to get excited for next year!!!
Next year?! come down the bird and bring them out in the afternoon when the slushs gets deep.

I dont know what you ended up going with but its been my finding that in powder specific skis if your technical strong enough the longer/wider the ski is the more nimble it is. I wouldnt buy any other size praxis besides the 195.
Reply
post #74 of 95
6/9/08 at 2:13pm
You won't go wrong either way. The skis are big enough in terms of surface area that floatation will not be an issue. It is more a matter of the tradeoff between modestly greater turniness of the 185s and the extra platform the longer one gives you. I normally use 195s. Obviously Keith knows his skis though.

If you spend lots of time in really tight trees, consider the 185s. Although I'm a skinning JONG, you might, maybe prefer the shorter ones if you mount AT. If you are spending more time in the open & skiing faster, probably do the 195s. If you were in the PNW I'd probably suggest factoring that extra bit of tip as a plus for deep wet "over the bars" days. But in UT, that is likely not an issue. Although ask at TGR and you'll likely hear the collective shout "195"... Sorry to sound semi-wishy washy, but like I said, you really won't go wrong either way.

The Powders have struck me as being sensitive to mount point compared to some skis. If you look at TGR, I think you'll find the most of the 200 pound+ crowd has liked the rear portion of Keith's suggested range best. I'm about 220 pounds and have found the back of the zone works well for me on both 185s and 195s. In fact I switched my 195s from a "103" to "104" midpoint & am very happy with the result. In a similar vein, I suspect your daughter will want to be closer to the front of the suggested zone for the 175s.

Also, find someone with a good reputation for mounting Praxis specifically - ie already knows how to measure them & is used to dealing with the fat middle & shape, and likely freehanding depending on binding choice.

BTW - cool about the light layup skis for your kid. She's gonna have fun. Suggest she read the McConkey mental floss piece since these will be a different drill than driving a race ski through the tips...

I've found the more I use my Powders, the more I use them, if you know what I mean... Have fun!
Reply
post #75 of 95
6/9/08 at 3:10pm
I have 195 Tranquilities. They're purty.

The shop I had mount mine overrode my request for 104cm back and mounted them at 102cm, thereby peeving me. I wish they were at least at 103.
Reply
post #76 of 95
6/10/08 at 2:32pm
This thread should really be stickied!

:::
Reply
post #77 of 95
6/10/08 at 3:57pm
I read this thread and although it's a nice suggestion for skis for women it doesn't seem to answer the kids needs but maybe it speaks to her wants.

Didn't Physicsman explain the relation to weight and float ? My understanding is a smaller person of ,say , around 100 lbs could ski a 80 mm ski and have more float than a larger person on a much fatter ski because of the weight difference . Why does she need a 100+ ski when she already has more float capability on what she owns than somebody that weighs twice as much on a much wider ski.

It just sounds to be overkill but I am sure she will dig her new skis and I hope she enjoys them
Reply
post #78 of 95
6/10/08 at 4:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ View Post
I read this thread and although it's a nice suggestion for skis for women it doesn't seem to answer the kids needs but maybe it speaks to her wants.

Didn't Physicsman explain the relation to weight and float ? My understanding is a smaller person of ,say , around 100 lbs could ski a 80 mm ski and have more float than a larger person on a much fatter ski because of the weight difference . Why does she need a 100+ ski when she already has more float capability on what she owns than somebody that weighs twice as much on a much wider ski.

It just sounds to be overkill but I am sure she will dig her new skis and I hope she enjoys them
What that surface area to weight relationship doesn't take into account is that hardly anybody is floating with their entire ski. A lighter person can not flex the ski as easily therefore inhibiting tip float
Reply
post #79 of 95
6/10/08 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post
What that surface area to weight relationship doesn't take into account is that hardly anybody is floating with their entire ski. A lighter person can not flex the ski as easily therefore inhibiting tip float
So ,then , wouldn't the flex of the ski be a more accurate consideration over waist width ?
Reply
post #80 of 95
6/10/08 at 8:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ View Post
So ,then , wouldn't the flex of the ski be a more accurate consideration over waist width ?
More accurate? No.

One of many factors.
Reply
post #81 of 95
6/10/08 at 9:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
More accurate? No.

One of many factors.
For a hundred pound skier ? It's not complicated at all. A soft ski with enough float will carry her fine . She doesn't need 100mm's to get enough float. Something in the 80's would serve as well as a much wider ski for an adult.
Reply
post #82 of 95
6/10/08 at 11:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ View Post
I read this thread and although it's a nice suggestion for skis for women it doesn't seem to answer the kids needs but maybe it speaks to her wants.

Didn't Physicsman explain the relation to weight and float ? My understanding is a smaller person of ,say , around 100 lbs could ski a 80 mm ski and have more float than a larger person on a much fatter ski because of the weight difference . Why does she need a 100+ ski when she already has more float capability on what she owns than somebody that weighs twice as much on a much wider ski.

It just sounds to be overkill but I am sure she will dig her new skis and I hope she enjoys them

there is no such thing as overkill, the more float the better. By better I mean faster on flats, quicker turning, and more stable. Not to mention less work and will float easier at slower speeds. Thats why I never liked the old physicsman debate, its because most guys arent skiing on wide enough ski in powder doesnt mean a girl should ski on a 80mm ski just because its 'equal' in float. If I were lighter person I would be thinking about the advantange of being able to skim the surface in heavier snow on bigger board leaving the skinny skier in the dust literally huffing a puffing. and in light bottomless utah powder. a skinny skier will have more turn/speeds option than some old crack pot that skis on Volkl Ac4.

simply put its cheating, if you feel as if you dont work hard enough already skiing, just ski short teleski like Trod and then find place with slow lifts. But if your smart enough you will go for the newer stuff and ski places in condition you could never ski before, or if you could ski them before with less effort than ever. Faster than ever, longer than ever, more laps than ever.
Reply
post #83 of 95
6/10/08 at 11:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ View Post
For a hundred pound skier ? It's not complicated at all. A soft ski with enough float will carry her fine . She doesn't need 100mm's to get enough float. Something in the 80's would serve as well as a much wider ski for an adult.
Are you sure.
Reply
post #84 of 95
6/10/08 at 11:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
than some old crack pot that skis on Volkl Ac4.
Seriously. This is getting almost as good as the Yuki/RichieRich lovefest
Reply
post #85 of 95
6/11/08 at 6:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ View Post
For a hundred pound skier ? It's not complicated at all. A soft ski with enough float will carry her fine . She doesn't need 100mm's to get enough float. Something in the 80's would serve as well as a much wider ski for an adult.
Which is what I said a couple of weeks ago, in this very thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad View Post
The Scratch BCs are what, 90mm in the waist? At 100 pounds, that ski has to support fewer pounds per square inch than my 195 Praxis Powders. I did the math on this stuff once.

Believe me, I understand Gear Acquisition Addiction better than most, but this seems like overkill.
That said, reverse camber and sidecut is a different experience, because among other things, you don't have to decamber. And where they excel, in my experience, is not so much in pure powder conditions (face it, just about any ski is a joy there) as in the cut up, refrozen, and other cruddy snow.

So I'll stand firm. She doesn't need a wider ski. But if she wants to get a wider ski, she'll be better off with one that's not just wider, but also substantially different.
Reply
post #86 of 95
6/11/08 at 9:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post
Are you sure.
Yes. Do you doubt it ?

As Bush said shapes are fun to play with and wider skis do provide different options because of their adaptability to soft snow and that is very fun . The point was understood and pointed out by Alpinedad also that she doesn't need a superfat ski to get the same feeling a person more than twice her weight would get on a ski that is 50% fatter. Her ski already provides more float for her than mine do arund 100 mm and what I ski on floats well in soft snow. She already has more options than a much bigger,heavier skier to achieve deep snow float.

It's a combination of many factors and what it really comes down to is what is fun and not what is necessary. I don't doubt she will have a great time on the new skis and I wish her and Dad well .
Reply
post #87 of 95
6/11/08 at 9:07am
Thread Starter 
I guess I would agree as far as needs the Praxis will be overkill. However I thought about this quite a bit and decided that

1. It's something my daughter wanted.
2. I had the money.
3. She will have fun on them.
4. We have talked about getting matching skis for a long time.
5. It will put a smile on her face.
6. It's something we will enjoy together.

So why not???

I can't think of any reason except for maybe the money and as I mentioned thats not a problem right now.

Bushwacker I'd love to come down and try them at the Bird. Too bad they won't be delivered until the fall. I still might have to try to come down anyway. I'm sure my Bros and my daughters Scratches would work just fine.
Reply
post #88 of 95
6/11/08 at 9:08am
Thread Starter 
One more thing, I traded my AC4s for 183 stiff Bros. One of the best trades I've made.
Reply
post #89 of 95
6/11/08 at 9:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTpowder View Post

1. It's something my daughter wanted.
2. I had the money.
3. She will have fun on them.
4. We have talked about getting matching skis for a long time.
5. It will put a smile on her face.
6. It's something we will enjoy together.
Golden. There is nothing cooler than parents spending time on the slopes with their kids no matter what they got on their feet.
Reply
post #90 of 95
6/11/08 at 9:51am
Utpowder would love for you to come down, this weekend i will be skiing friday and sunday. Not sure if that works for you but I think they will be going longer than this weekend.
Reply
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 › New powder boards for my 11 yr. old