Widest Ski you will take into East Coast Trees?

frapcap · Sep 20, 2011

I have a pair of Savage Ti's that I got just before the Sugarloaf trip last year. I *think* they're 93 underfoot. Anyway, I'm very confident on them in the glades and on the groomers. They float extremely well in powder and bumpy glades but still have plenty of edge available to haul ass down some groomers if you meet some pretty ladies.
Due to this pair, I have an undying appreciation for the trees and never want to turn back.

mondeo · Sep 20, 2011

Huck_It_Baby said:
I was skiing with my buddy who had the Prophet 100's last year and he felt they were no good for bumps and super tight trees. He is a very strong skier and this is what spurred my questions about the width of the skis for trees. I think looking back he mentioned he would have preferred to go down a size from the 186 to the 179. It didn't look like he was struggling though when we ripped together in Jay last season.

Everyone else seems to love the 100's

Depends on skiing style. Edge to edge quickness doesn't matter to some people. I have to ski my Watea 94s, Addict Pros, and F17s in different ways in the bumps. The Wateas are ok when skiing super direct, but I have to slow it down a bit and start throwing them sideways a little if I can't go fairly straight. The Addicts are so damn stiff that I have to throw them sideways. F17s are just on a different level in the bumps than either, lightning quick side to side but still love going direct.

Huck_It_Baby · Sep 20, 2011

Cannonball said:
Hopefully prophet0426 sees this thread (or send him a PM). He alternates between Prophet 90's and Sir Francis Bacons. Both mounted with fritchis. He pretty much slays any of the tightest, steepest trees on either....but I know he has some insights on the pros and cons of each.

Edit: I'd much rather ride than ski when in trees. But when I do ski, I've been very happy on my Dynaster Big Troubles (92 underfoot). But I think it's the twin tip, flex, and pop of the ski that makes them great not so much the width.

Thanks...I will see if I can reach out to prophet0426 to pick his brain a bit!

prophet0426 · Sep 20, 2011

Huck_It_Baby said:
I'm curious what the widest underfoot you guys will take into the East coast trees?

I'm up for a new setup this season and looking at the 2012 Prophet 98 ( 98 underfoot) or the 2012 Sir Francis Bacon (108 underfoot) with Dukes/Barons.

The Prophets have a more desirable width for most East coast trees considering it's not always powder and often bumped up. The SFB's (re-designed from last year) while wider are very flexible and playful.

Any insight on those of you who ski a wide ski and are powder/tree junkies?

Thanks!

Huck it I ski both of those skis. I have the original Prophet 90's and love them both in the trees and on the grooms as well, I have them setup with Fritschi Freerides. It’s a really great all around ski, for almost any condition. I also have the 2009/10 SFB's and love them. They are 115 underfoot, and I have had no issue with them what so ever in the trees. I love the flex of the ski, it allow for quick turn initiation, and scrubbing of speed. I currently have them setup with Dukes and have had not issue to date, minus them being pretty heavy for the uphill. Overall I'm really happy with both setup, and recommend Line skis to everyone. Really durable and super fun skis!

BenedictGomez · Sep 20, 2011

Do the few of you here that do keep a "dedicated tree skiing" pair in your quiver, cut down on size a bit from your normal skis? (i.e., if your normal skis are 179, do you use 172 in trees etc...)

prophet0426 · Sep 20, 2011

prophet0426 said:
Huck it I ski both of those skis. I have the original Prophet 90's and love them both in the trees and on the grooms as well, I have them setup with Fritschi Freerides. It’s a really great all around ski, for almost any condition. I also have the 2009/10 SFB's and love them. They are 115 underfoot, and I have had no issue with them what so ever in the trees. I love the flex of the ski, it allow for quick turn initiation, and scrubbing of speed. I currently have them setup with Dukes and have had not issue to date, minus them being pretty heavy for the uphill. Overall I'm really happy with both setup, and recommend Line skis to everyone. Really durable and super fun skis!

Forgot to add that I'm 6'3' and weigh in around 210, and my Prophets are 179's and my SFB's are 182's

luvinjaycloud · Sep 20, 2011

Vokl Gotamas, 137/106/122 Radius: 26.1m @178cm. If it is icy then the trees arent' an option and you are skiing a different ski.

Huck_It_Baby · Sep 20, 2011

prophet0426 said:
Huck it I ski both of those skis. I have the original Prophet 90's and love them both in the trees and on the grooms as well, I have them setup with Fritschi Freerides. It’s a really great all around ski, for almost any condition. I also have the 2009/10 SFB's and love them. They are 115 underfoot, and I have had no issue with them what so ever in the trees. I love the flex of the ski, it allow for quick turn initiation, and scrubbing of speed. I currently have them setup with Dukes and have had not issue to date, minus them being pretty heavy for the uphill. Overall I'm really happy with both setup, and recommend Line skis to everyone. Really durable and super fun skis!

Nice! Thanks for chiming in on this! It's helpful to hear your experience with both of these skis. You have me leaning toward the bacon's. I want a playful ski not something super stiff.

I'm 6 foot 175lbs.

How do you have your Dukes mounted on the SFB?

I've been carrying my skis and boots on my back and snow shoeing up hill the last few seasons. So any AT setup is going to be an improvement even if the duke/sfb setup is a bit heavy.

prophet0426 · Sep 20, 2011

Huck_It_Baby said:
Nice! Thanks for chiming in on this! It's helpful to hear your experience with both of these skis. You have me leaning toward the bacon's. I want a playful ski not something super stiff.

I'm 6 foot 175lbs.

How do you have your Dukes mounted on the SFB?

I've been carrying my skis and boots on my back and snow shoeing up hill the last few seasons. So any AT setup is going to be an improvement even if the duke/sfb setup is a bit heavy.

Glad to chime in and give some input. The Bacons are really a blast. Such a fun ski both in the trees, and out. They have such a fun flex to them you can really just have a blast anywhere on the hill.

I have my Dukes mounted 2 back from boot center. I actually like this mount point since it kind of make the ski feel neutral under foot. Yes it's a heavy setup, but is manageable if you take your time.

lmgrnjeep · Sep 20, 2011

I rock a pair of Icelantic Nomad 168 140/105/130 and i love them. I am 6'2 200 yes i know a pretty short ski for my height but from what i had a before: soloman xwing 8 165 with a 116 tip and like a 75 waist its a huge step up. I ski every glade sugarloaf has to offer even some they dont... dont tell on me. these skis hold on the sugarloaf hardpack better then my sollys and float over bumps and powder in the trees and on the snow fields. if you wanna see them in action just take a look.

The Backside

Toke Road

Bracket Basin

My suggestion is if you are getting a fatter ski there is really no need to go longer at all you make up in width what you would in height.

djspookman · Sep 20, 2011

I ride my 175cm Volkl Sumos (125 underfoot) in the woods all day long and they're fine. They're mounted for tele too....

gotta love it!

jmn7w · Sep 20, 2011

Don't be afraid of a stiffer ski, the extra rigidity is very helpful in our eastern conditions and enough rocker will still make it friendly and quick in the trees.... 184 Bibby Pro is my 0.02

ALLSKIING · Sep 20, 2011

I have taken my K2 coombas 135-102-121 into the trees a lot on powder day.

Highway Star · Sep 20, 2011

You could only have this thread on alpinezone.

ALLSKIING · Sep 20, 2011

Highway Star said:
You could only have this thread on alpinezone.

You posted then deleted it....Your just to good I guess :lol:

Nick · Sep 20, 2011

Highway Star said:
You could only have this thread on alpinezone.

'cuz only AlpineZone is that friggen sweet :daffy:

Huck_It_Baby · Sep 20, 2011

jmn7w said:
Don't be afraid of a stiffer ski, the extra rigidity is very helpful in our eastern conditions and enough rocker will still make it friendly and quick in the trees.... 184 Bibby Pro is my 0.02

My initial concern was having something too flexible and not rigid enough to take some abuse. This, and 98 underfoot, is why I thought the Prophet 98's would be a good choice initially. Up until your post I was convinced to go with the SFB's.

Back on the fence.

Huck_It_Baby · Sep 20, 2011

Nick said:
'cuz only AlpineZone is that friggen sweet

Exactly!

Edd · Sep 20, 2011

Huck_It_Baby said:
My initial concern was having something too flexible and not rigid enough to take some abuse. This, and 98 underfoot, is why I thought the Prophet 98's would be a good choice initially. Up until your post I was convinced to go with the SFB's.

Back on the fence.

Huck, I skied K2 Hardsides last year with a 98 waist in all conditions. They're on the stiffer side for wider skis and I noticed no issues in the trees compared to my K2 PEs or Legend 8000s. The Hardsides have tip rocker but the tails are flat. I'm using them this year primarily for skinning since I'm getting a different on-piste ski.

jmn7w · Sep 20, 2011

FWIW i have last year's bibby 184 and frickin love it. I haven't skied the SFB but i hear its rather soft, good for deep pow but bad for h/p and u know which we get more of here

Honestly the bibbys rip on anything from softish groomers to spring slush. I skied both the regular S7 and the Atomic Bent Chetler and both felt like complete noodles. Plus for some reason the rocker profile really forced you to stay centered on the skis to make them carve. The CRJ was even worse and the flat camber underfoot made turn engagement very tricky, but then i was on a super short length that likely didnt help.

The only thing that came close to the moments was the line influence 105/115 which tracked even better on the groomed and had a wicked fun turn radius but with less rocker they probably aren't as easy to pivot in tight spaces in deep snow.

I realize that comparing the hardpack performance of these skis ignores their main purpose but the on-snow @ loon last year was pretty devoid of deep snow so it's all i have to go on. Obviously i have skied the bibbys in fluff and i loved the fact that they felt both nimble and burly at the same time.

this reveiw has some more accolades so you don;t have to just take my word...
http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/review-moment-bibby-pro-184cm

Widest Ski you will take into East Coast Trees?

Member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Moderator

Active member

Moderator

Administrator

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Similar threads