• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Widest Ski you will take into East Coast Trees?

Huck_It_Baby

Active member
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
1,264
Points
36
Location
Colorado
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!
 

Nick

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
13,176
Points
48
Location
Bradenton, FL
Website
www.alpinezone.com
I'm interested in this as well as I'm considering going to a much, much wider ski from my last set and am a big fan of glades .
 

snowmonster

New member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
4,066
Points
0
Location
In my mind, northern New England
I'm pretty much a glade skier. Between January to April, I'm basically heading into glades and staying in there until last chair. In the past two seasons, I've been taking my 176 Rossignol S7 (145/115/123) mounted with Dukes. With a rockered tip and tail and traditional camber underfoot, it's very flexible, floats well and turns on a dime. They're pretty good on the bumps and the fat waist gives me confidence when hucking too. Before that, my glade tool was a 168 Rossignol B4 (122/94/112). Last season, I went full bore with the S7s and have not turned back since. There's still some resistance to rocker but this is one application where it truly shines. Demo an S7 if you can get your hands on them and you'll feel what I can feel.
 

Morwax

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
505
Points
0
Hmmm

Depends on snow conditions more than anything else. Fat skis are useless chattering tongue depressors when its icy.
 

jaja111

New member
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
489
Points
0
Location
Spencerport, NY
Depends on snow conditions more than anything else. Fat skis are useless chattering tongue depressors when its icy.

You were on the wrong fat ski then.

I haven't had any issues with a minimum of 86 underneath, in trees or anywhere for that matter. When I started on fatter skis after an "out west" emergency demo at Jackson Hole (skinny skis were absolutely the problem in deep mashed potatoes since the weather decided to become spring in early March when I went), I believed that chatter would be a huge issue back home on hard pack and ice. The Fischer 86 Bigstix were the first fat ski I had, and they would eat anything I threw at them with grace. I know people on absurdly wide pontoons claiming the trees are an even better experience.

Of course my opinion is biased to fatter the better as I now like to ski on a 195 width ski, but just one ski.
 

skiadikt

Active member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
1,081
Points
38
i'm on salomon czars, 105 underfoot. surprised at how well they did on eastern hardpack but of course that's not where you want to ski 'em. great in pow & trees. of course last year was great for that type of skiing.
 

roark

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
2,384
Points
0
Location
Seattle WA
Width is only part of the equation. Shape, camber, flex, weight, stiffness are all just as important.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
12,119
Points
113
Location
Wasatch Back
I'm pretty much a glade skier. Between January to April, I'm basically heading into glades and staying in there until last chair. In the past two seasons, I've been taking my 176 Rossignol S7 (145/115/123) mounted with Dukes.

Just picked up a pair of Line Prophet 90s and I'm also looking for another wider pair (something 110 or 115) as well as I imagine they would be even better than the 90s off the beaten path. May I ask how tall you are? I'm wondering whether once you start getting really wide like 110 if it effects what length ski you'd ski on, as the S7 is on the short list I'm considering (also: Volkl Katana, Line Influence, Blizzard Answer and Dynastar Huge).


EDIT: BTW, this question is open to anyone who has experience on wide skis. I'm curious as to what to expect, other than the people I know who have them love em'.
 
Last edited:

snowmonster

New member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
4,066
Points
0
Location
In my mind, northern New England
Just picked up a pair of Line Prophet 90s and I'm also looking for another wider pair (something 110 or 115) as well as I imagine they would be even better than the 90s off the beaten path. May I ask how tall you are? I'm wondering whether once you start getting really wide like 110 if it effects what length ski you'd ski on, as the S7 is on the short list I'm considering (also: Volkl Katana, Line Influence, Blizzard Answer and Dynastar Huge).


EDIT: BTW, this question is open to anyone who has experience on wide skis. I'm curious as to what to expect, other than the people I know who have them love em'.

I'm a hobbit (5'5', 160 lbs.). On a traditional cambered ski, I think ideal length is more a factor of the stiffness and construction of the ski rather than waist width. On a rockered or early rise tip, the effective edge is smaller, so you should size up by +5 cms.
 

darent

Active member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,548
Points
38
Location
nantucket ma
last year was my first on a wide ski,elan999 and it was weird at first. took some time to get use to the feel of the big things,I really got to like them and it seemed to improve my bump and tree skiing, I always over edged on my skinny skis and the wide ones wouldn't let me do that. my foray into the trees at the sugarloaf summit suprised me as I am just beginning to venture into the east coast trees. the steep tight lines always made me hold back and I was able to let them run a little more as my turning gained some confidence
 

riverc0il

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
13,039
Points
0
Location
Ashland, NH
Website
www.thesnowway.com
Width is only part of the equation. Shape, camber, flex, weight, stiffness are all just as important.
Yup.

All skis are compromises in some way. The various characteristics combined with your body dimensions, build, and technique all combine to produce certain results in certain conditions. "Too fat" is when you make more compromises than you actually should for a certain ski. Since more often than not glades are bump runs rather than powder runs... unless you plan on using said fat ski only on powder days, you are better asking yourself how wide would you go for a bump ski rather than how wide would you go in the trees. Or better yet, as roark noted, consider all aspects of a ski and your own characteristics as well and find a ski that works right for you in the conditions you want to ski.
 

Cannonball

New member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
3,669
Points
0
Location
This user has been deleted
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!

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.
 
Last edited:

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,681
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
I use Monster 88's, Johnny 94's or Icelantic Nomads (105's). It really depends on the snow conditions. I go midfat if the snow is hard aka icy. The Nomads can be a little tough. And tiring in the ice.
 

Terry

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Messages
2,192
Points
48
Location
Fryeburg Maine
The Prophet 100 is my goto ski for everything. Amazing how well it handles the hardpack and bumps. Floats great in the powder and is fairly quick edge to edge. It took half a run when I demoed them to get comfortable with them.
 

Huck_It_Baby

Active member
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
1,264
Points
36
Location
Colorado
I'm pretty much a glade skier. Between January to April, I'm basically heading into glades and staying in there until last chair. In the past two seasons, I've been taking my 176 Rossignol S7 (145/115/123) mounted with Dukes. With a rockered tip and tail and traditional camber underfoot, it's very flexible, floats well and turns on a dime. They're pretty good on the bumps and the fat waist gives me confidence when hucking too. Before that, my glade tool was a 168 Rossignol B4 (122/94/112). Last season, I went full bore with the S7s and have not turned back since. There's still some resistance to rocker but this is one application where it truly shines. Demo an S7 if you can get your hands on them and you'll feel what I can feel.

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!
 

Huck_It_Baby

Active member
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
1,264
Points
36
Location
Colorado
The Prophet 100 is my goto ski for everything. Amazing how well it handles the hardpack and bumps. Floats great in the powder and is fairly quick edge to edge. It took half a run when I demoed them to get comfortable with them.

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
 

Puck it

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,681
Points
48
Location
Franconia, NH
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

My Nomads are 168cm. They are the perfect ski for East Coast trees on a powder day!:snow:
 
Top