EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What skis for West Coast tree skiing??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What skis for West Coast tree skiing??

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Hello all, this is my first post so please be kind!

I`m trying to find a ski suitable for tight tree skiing. Mid West CO

I`m female, 5`4", 130 -140lbs depending on how much cake i`ve troughed.

I have Volkl Auras    (94mm) 170cm for all purpose but would like something shorter & flickier for tight spaces and not so wide
underfoot.

Advanced+ skier.

Suggestions would be MUCH APPRECIATED!    and older 07 /08  models welcome. Thanks All
Edited by granite - 8/22/09 at 6:55pm
post #2 of 12
 
Welcome Granite!
I have very close stats to you (5'6" 130ish lbs)
I've skied the aura in a 163 and had a ton of fun in the trees with them.  Perhaps you'd enjoy the Aura one size smaller in the trees, but since you have it in a 170 and are not likely to duplicate that ski in your quiver, May I suggest going down about 10ish mm(+/-) in the waist.  
When I think of skis in this range the first ski that comes to mind is the K2 Lotta Luv(low end of a mid fat that cuts through crud with power),  Head Wild One comes to mind if you want to stay in the low 80's, however my Go To ski last year, which was tons of fun in the trees was the Hart Beat.(now its called a Cheetah),

A few other  skis that I haven't skied but have heard great things about is the Blizzard Viva Magnum, Volkl Aurora.....and much much more.  You can see a review on many of these skis here.

When it comes to skis in this range, the world is your oyster!
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
Yep,  I went too long for me in the Aura, should have got the 163, that would have been perfect.  I was thinking along the lines of some secondhabnd Head im 78 or 82.
post #4 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by granite View Post

Yep,  I went too long for me in the Aura, should have got the 163, that would have been perfect.  I was thinking along the lines of some secondhabnd Head im 78 or 82.
I wouldn't worry about the Aura being too long for you if it works for everything else you do...
The Head Wild One that I suggested is 81 under foot and IIRC the women's version of the 82, so we're thinking along similar lines.
post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 
Don`t particually want girly with the usual lame tame girly graphics!  Whats with up these manufacture?. Surely its the last thing aggressive women skiers want!!

I have found some atomic sweet daddys  163 really cheap, any thoughts on those anyone?
Edited by granite - 8/23/09 at 8:34am
post #6 of 12
Had sugar daddies in 153 (i'm smaller) and loved them. I preferred them over hte Phat Luvs by a LOT. However, after skiing Wateas as everyday ski, the SD's seemed to have developed either a speed limit or a twangy feel that i didn't like as much as the smoother feeling i'd gotten used to.

It may be that they were too short for me.

They were very good in the trees and especially good in spring goo. Overall, i'd recommend them.
post #7 of 12
I disagree on the Lotta Luvs cutting through crud with power.  I am 5 '8 and weigh 140. The Lotta Luvs felt a bit wimpy to me. If you like the Auras, I am not sure you will care for the Lottas.   I think you need to go a bit shorter in the trees. You say "mid west co" so I am not real sure where you ski so if you could let us know -we may be able to help you a bit more. 
post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 
Hi,  actually just bought some CHEAP sweet daddys 163.Only 80mm underfoot but I skied powder for years with 68 underfoot so they will do the job. I reckon they will do for inbounds all purpose trees,bumps, powder etc. Ski at Winter Park and  don`t get much crud;snow tends to stay soft.

Getting a touring setup for Berthoud and probably put AT binding on the Aura.

Problem solved.

Thankyou  all.
post #9 of 12

I kind of asked this question in the "Big Guy" thread but this seems like a better place.

 

I have a similar question to the OP but my stats are different.

 

I'm 6'3" and 220lbs.  I'm an intermediate skier, only been skiing 3 years but I'm looking to make a big jump in my skiing abilities.  I'm a pretty athletic skier, fine on the groomed, improving on bumps and trees.  Right now all I own are some frontside technical carving skis (Head isl rd, SS, Hart Phoenix).

 

I'm looking for some fatter skis that are good in the trees and can handle the occasional bump run like down Gunbarrel.  But nothing too fat, so that I still have to use skill to ski the powdery snow in the trees.

 

I was thinking about the Scott Punisher.  I know the Mission is similar but also read that since the Punisher is all sidewall construction, while the Mission is sidewall/cap, the Punisher is a little beefier and considering my weight probably better.

 

Any other recommendations?

post #10 of 12


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by esso View Post


 

I'm looking for some fatter skis that are good in the trees and can handle the occasional bump run like down Gunbarrel.  But nothing too fat, so that I still have to use skill to ski the powdery snow in the trees.

 


 

yep basically no skill being used here in this video as my skis were to fat.

 

 

 

 

post #11 of 12


I'm sure you're an excellent skier.

 

I'm still learning so my runs will be quite a bit easier than that, at least for a while.  As I've read on this very forum, too-fat skis might make me lazy and not work my technique.  Or whoever said that could be wrong.  I dunno. 

 

So why don't you school me some more.

 

Or better yet, suggest me some skis.

 

Or at the very least post more video of your skiing cause that was cool.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post


 


 

yep basically no skill being used here in this video as my skis were to fat.

 

 

 

 



 

post #12 of 12


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by esso View Post


I'm sure you're an excellent skier.

 

I'm still learning so my runs will be quite a bit easier than that, at least for a while.  As I've read on this very forum, too-fat skis might make me lazy and not work my technique.  Or whoever said that could be wrong.  I dunno. 

 

So why don't you school me some more.

 

Or better yet, suggest me some skis.

 

Or at the very least post more video of your skiing cause that was cool.

 



 




if your lazy and un skilled it wont matter what your on really. You ll suck  as hard on top of the line powder ski as you would on any mid fat.  the video was only posted to show true dynamic skiing being done that was only possible at the speed /tightness  because of the skis size and rocker. Those speed(let alone argueable lines) would be impossible on carving skis and even the speeds/fluidity couldnt be matched on old tech skis or mid fat. the people who say that fat skis kill skis are old comengdrens who really dont know any better and are just stuck in their ways. 

 

first skis that are good in powder arent usually pretty good in bumps but with that said bump skiings is one area where the skis your on matters the least.

 

 Let me first ask where do you ski? what are you willing to give up in performance? what do you want to gain?

 

 

 

 

 

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 › What skis for West Coast tree skiing??