Widest Ski you will take into East Coast Trees?

riverc0il · 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

I know guys at Jay that ski Prophet 100s in the trees and bumps all the time and rave about them being their favorite ski. Different strokes for different folks. That he thought he purchased too long of a ski should tip you off to something...

riverc0il · Sep 20, 2011

BenedictGomez said:
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...)

I don't have a "dedicated tree ski" but absolutely do not go shorter for a ski you plan to use in the trees. If you fear that your skis are too long for skiing in the trees... it is the archer not the arrow. You don't need shorter skis for skiing in the trees. My powder board is the longest ski in my quiver and the one that sees the most trees. My shortest ski is my groomer ripper that never sees trees. So if anything, my setup is exactly opposite.

BenedictGomez · Sep 20, 2011

riverc0il said:
I don't have a "dedicated tree ski" but absolutely do not go shorter for a ski you plan to use in the trees. If you fear that your skis are too long for skiing in the trees... it is the archer not the arrow. You don't need shorter skis for skiing in the trees.

Well my basis for this is it seems you always hear people on these threads and others prefer a slightly shorter ski than their groomer ski for trees and/or bumps. Dunno.

In the shaped-ski era, I've only skied on a pair of Salomon's that are 68 underfoot and 184. While they're fantastic on the trails, ice, hardpack, they absolutely blow in the trees as they go submarine in even eight inches of snow.

To remedy this I just picked up a pair of LP 90s, and I'm thinking of maybe getting something ~110 underfoot to solely use on those 4 or 5 fresh snow days I'll get out on each year (but only if I could snag something used/cheap as I dont think I could justify the additional expense of something 110 for eastern skiing).

Terry · 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

Mine are the 179's. I think the 186's would def be to long. They aren't a super bump ski but are adequate for my purposes. I am a strugling bump skier anyways.

Sick Bird Rider · Sep 20, 2011

Interesting discussion though I am not sure if the point is to compare Prophets and Bacons or discuss ski width. I have skied Prophet 100s for the last two seasons. Loved them but after demo-ing some Solomon Enduros with tip rocker, I realized that there was something missing from the Prophets. Enter the new P 98, seemed like a good idea. Sold the 172 cm P 100s to one of my summer staff, a 5'1" 23 year old who works at Lake Louise in the winter as a race coach and wanted them for her pow ski. As others have said, suit yourself. Then I read about the new SFB and became conflicted. Read these two reviews:

http://www.skiersrealm.com/general/2012-line-sir-francis-bacon

http://www.powderpoachers.net/skiiersforlife/2011/07/06/12-line-sir-francis-bacon-skis/

I'm going for the 178 Bacon. In theory, it will be easier to turn, lighter, easier on my reconstructed knee and better for the conditions I enjoy the most, adequate for the conditions that are less enjoyable and it looks fantastic. At 108 mm, the new SFB is only 10 mm wider than the P 98. That's less than half an inch in imperial measurement. Think about it.

Huck_It_Baby · Sep 20, 2011

riverc0il said:
I know guys at Jay that ski Prophet 100s in the trees and bumps all the time and rave about them being their favorite ski. Different strokes for different folks. That he thought he purchased too long of a ski should tip you off to something...

I've always been under the mindset that a solid skier can ski any type of ski regardless of length/width. We are spoiled with modern skis!

Huck_It_Baby · Sep 20, 2011

Sick Bird Rider said:
Interesting discussion though I am not sure if the point is to compare Prophets and Bacons or discuss ski width. I have skied Prophet 100s for the last two seasons. Loved them but after demo-ing some Solomon Enduros with tip rocker, I realized that there was something missing from the Prophets. Enter the new P 98, seemed like a good idea. Sold the 172 cm P 100s to one of my summer staff, a 5'1" 23 year old who works at Lake Louise in the winter as a race coach and wanted them for her pow ski. As others have said, suit yourself. Then I read about the new SFB and became conflicted. Read these two reviews:

http://www.skiersrealm.com/general/2012-line-sir-francis-bacon

http://www.powderpoachers.net/skiiersforlife/2011/07/06/12-line-sir-francis-bacon-skis/

I'm going for the 178 Bacon. In theory, it will be easier to turn, lighter, easier on my reconstructed knee and better for the conditions I enjoy the most, adequate for the conditions that are less enjoyable and it looks fantastic. At 108 mm, the new SFB is only 10 mm wider than the P 98. That's less than half an inch in imperial measurement. Think about it.

I think I started the thread hoping others would convincing me that I should buy the SFB's but also to get a feel for what others are riding in this category of ski, specifically with AT bindings.

This has been the most helpful discussion I have participated in on this forum!

you just helped me lean back towards the SFB's =)

Thanks for the links. I hadn't seen the second one!

Huck_It_Baby · Sep 20, 2011

prophet0426 said:
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.

2 Back from center. OK thanks! Mounting is new to me but I assume the bindings come with a guide for mounting.

wa-loaf · Sep 20, 2011

94 because that's the fattest ski I own.

Cannonball · Sep 20, 2011

Huck_It_Baby said:
2 Back from center. OK thanks! Mounting is new to me but I assume the bindings come with a guide for mounting.

Assume nothing! As prophet0426 can tell you, the shop original mounted his WAY wrong...in the center of the ski. If you aren't going to mount them yourself I suggest doing all of your own calcs and planning, clearly marking it on the ski, and have a face-to-face discussion with the shop before letting them drill. I've been mounting my own lately but it can be nerve-wracking, especially if you're not set up for it.

Huck_It_Baby · Sep 21, 2011

Cannonball said:
Assume nothing! As prophet0426 can tell you, the shop original mounted his WAY wrong...in the center of the ski. If you aren't going to mount them yourself I suggest doing all of your own calcs and planning, clearly marking it on the ski, and have a face-to-face discussion with the shop before letting them drill. I've been mounting my own lately but it can be nerve-wracking, especially if you're not set up for it.

No I won't mount them myself...just not comfortable doing so. I have already talked to 2 shops and they tell me as long as the bindings come with the mounting guide the should be OK.

Anything else I need to be aware of? What calcs are you referring to?

Thanks!

Puck it · Sep 21, 2011

Huck_It_Baby said:
No I won't mount them myself...just not comfortable doing so. I have already talked to 2 shops and they tell me as long as the bindings come with the mounting guide the should be OK.

Anything else I need to be aware of? What calcs are you referring to?

Thanks!

The Marker Dukes or Barons come with a mountining template in the box. I mounted a pair last year on my Fischer Prophetes. It is really easy to do. I mounted mine on center though. I made copies of the template just in case. I then put masking tape on the skis and mark the center line of the ski and the center mark across the width. From there it was a easy with the template.

Huck_It_Baby · Sep 21, 2011

Puck it said:
The Marker Dukes or Barons come with a mountining template in the box. I mounted a pair last year on my Fischer Prophetes. It is really easy to do. I mounted mine on center though. I made copies of the template just in case. I then put masking tape on the skis and mark the center line of the ski and the center mark across the width. From there it was a easy with the template.

What is your reasoning for the center mount vs back form center?

snowmonster · Sep 21, 2011

Huck_It_Baby said:
I was thinking about the S7 as well. I've been on a 176 B3 Rossi for the past couple years and have always liked Rossignols but am hearing such positive things about LINE.

Your review makes me want to run out and buy the S7's or SFB's. It's doubtful I will wait until snow to buy so demoing might be out of the question since I am impatient.

Thanks for your thoughts!

You're welcome. I can't speak to the Line skis since I've never been on them and can only speak to the S7s.

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.

Just to chime in about Dukes and S7s: I have never toured with my Dukes except for some sidehill training exercises at the golf course behind the house. I tend to road test my AT set-ups in a tame setting before going out into the real stuff. The reason I have not toured with them is because the clip I have on my skins is not wide enough to take the nose of the S7. I could duct tape it though if I really need to tour on it. Otherwise, I'll need to invest in one of those G3 skins with a clip for the nose attachment.

My AT set up is a 174 Rossi B Squad (130/100/120) with Dukes. The Dukes are heavy but I've done a lot of one-day tours on them. As a fellow skier on Dukes said to me while hiking up Moosilauke: "Spend more time at the gym."

Puck it · Sep 21, 2011

Huck_It_Baby said:
What is your reasoning for the center mount vs back form center?

No particular reason other then all of my other skis are mounted on center.

Black Phantom · Sep 21, 2011

Puck it said:
No particular reason other then all of my other skis are mounted on center.

You center mount? True center?

tarponhead · Sep 21, 2011

Black Phantom said:
You center mount? True center?

"ski center" is different from "boot center"

Puck it · Sep 21, 2011

Black Phantom said:
You center mount? True center?

They are mounted to the std binding position marked on the skis. I was not quite clear. I do not ride the park. Why do you ask, little fella?:-D

Black Phantom · Sep 21, 2011

tarponhead said:
"ski center" is different from "boot center"

No shit. What is your point?

snowmonster · Sep 21, 2011

Chiming in on the mounting point conversation: my S7s are mounted on the +3 line which corresponds (I believe) to ski center. This makes the ski feel more balanced and gives you a longer tail for stomping landings. Jib and park skiers usually mount at center for more fore/aft balance. When the S7s came out, the recommended mounting point was +3. I wanted to mount it at the 0 line but there was a foul up at the shop (partially my fault) and I got it back at +3. They offered to remount it but I decided to ski it before drilling new holes. Part of the reason you shouldn't move up the mount point is that you get less shovel and end up burying the tip in deep snow. This was a concern for me since I tend to ski with all my weight driven forward. I haven't had problems with tip dive with the S7s rocker. Someday, I may change the mount to the 0 line just to see how that goes but I find no problem with the +3 mount.

Widest Ski you will take into East Coast Trees?

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Similar threads