New England powder/glades skis

I've been happily skiing some midfat Volkl 724 Pros @ 115-77-104 for the past few seasons when I get untracked pow or woods skiing.

I'm generally pleased with them, I don't submarine like I do with my GS skis. But I'm wondering if I can do better. I still seem to sit back more than I would like in order to float well.

For the east, I'm looking for suggestions on what the optimal width and flex should be for those pow days.

Ditto for the woods. For tight woods, it often seems that flex and length are the more critical factors. Would you agree?

Frame all of this by the fact that I'm a middle-aging all-terrain, explorer type of skier. Middle aging means I ain't as strong as I used to be or would like to be. So I don't want to muscle my way around any more, I want skill and form to rule.

Ideas?

Well, you already have a mid-fat. So one thought might be to get something a lot fatter. However, your mid-fat is not optimal for tree skiing, especially given your not wanting to muscle your way around the mountain. Any ski with metal (most Volkl's included) would probably not fit the bill.

I can speak for Dynastar's and Fischer's product lines. I would definitely recommend the Legend 8000 as a superb east coast tree ski when powder is light and under a foot. A little wider would be the Mythic Rider which I have not skied but I understand that it should ski better than the 8800 for woods. On the Fischer side, you have the Watea. I have not skied the 84, but I own the Atua which is essentially a Watea 94 with slightly more width and a twin and it has become my go to powder ski. In a matter of fact, I haven't skied my 8000s hardly all season, touring days excepted... and even then, yesterday I would have killed for something in the mid-90s under foot. These skis are best on powder and not so great on the groomers... especially when the groomers are scraped or icy. But that is why a multi-ski quiver is optimal. Or you can do what I do and simply not ski when the snow is not powdery.

I can't speak for the other lines but every ski manufacturer has powder boards... often times skiing radically different than each other. A multi-manufacturer demo day would definitely be in order. Not only do you not know which ski you want... it sounds like you are not certain on how wide either. 80? 85? 90? 95? A few seasons ago, I thought I would never need something over 80. Now if it is powder and I don't have at least 95 under foot, I am not satisfied with the powder performance. But two years ago I was skiing the same powder happily with 80 under foot. With 80 under foot, I need to sit back a bit to not submerge the tips in some types of powder. With 95 under foot, I can rail skis in powder just like I might rail a groomer.

What are the optimal dimensions? That depends on what you like in a ski, what type of performance do you need, what are you used to, what is your skiing style, etc. Even some one with your same exact specs and build and style might like a completely different set of ski dimensions. Fatter the better for powder... BUT do you need a ski that is highly maneuverable when the powder is tracked out and packed down into tree bumps? Are you gunning for mostly untracked days or day after sloppy seconds? Are you going to get the occasional half foot of powder or are you only breaking out the big boards for a foot or more? Lots of compromises to make depending upon what you plan to do with the ski.

Excellent points Steve. It's only been the last 7 years that I have finally been able to afford what I like. I've a pair of Volkl superspeeds, 168cm 115-70-99, the damned stiffest ski I've ever owned. It's my GS cruiser on hardpack/groomed/ice and it's true love, perfect for that application.

I like the Volkl 724's to (162cm) on the pow. I only half-love them in the woods I guess I like them because of their flex, but I can't be sure if it's good enough or the right length. I CAN'T take the SS's into the woods; they are so damned stiff they kill me on the bumps.

I have to be realistic and say,what percentage of my days have enough pow to float on. Probably 10-20%. However, I'm more and more into the woods, probably at least 50% of every day. I don't mind switching gear, I bring both and see what conditions bring, though I am apt to stick with one pair of sticks for the day.

So you believe ski weight makes a diff in the woods?

I believe having the right weight ski for your style, ability, build, and muscles makes a difference in the woods. From my own perspective, as an example, I felt that the Volkl Mantra was too beefy and heavy for me to wield in the woods and its sheets of metal made it difficult for me to get the flex I was looking for. But on the flip side, the Mantra has many dedicated enthusiasts that swear by it for woods and pow. So there is no one right answer as so much depends on your preferences and what feels best to you.

Sounds like you are not looking for a dedicated powder board, but rather an all around natural snow ski with bias towards pow and trees. Something that can get you around the mountain all day well after everything is tracked out and chewed up and with limited untracked powder days. I'd say go with something in the 80-90 range under foot with a decent amount of side cut (i.e. less than 30m). I am biased against metal in skis for pow and woods, for the record. So take it for what it is worth when I suggest avoiding skis with sheets of titanium but I say that due to your not loving the 724 Pros in the woods. If you want something softer flexing... look wood core without the titanium sheets. Some people swear by the 724 Pros as a woods ski, and the Mantra, and a host of other heavy beefy skis. All depends on what you need.

steve already hit on it...Fischer Watea 94...94mm waist, woodcore, sidewall ski with no metal...comes in a 178cm, great length for eastern trees and the occasional fluffy day. 94 is fat enough for more float than you've ever had, but not so fat that you won't get plenty of use out of them in the east...pow days and spring slush. Tough to find a ski that width that doesn't have metal and can still hold on harder snow...lots of twins in that category but most lack in the edge grip dept.

Seems like I'm looking for about the same thing, just with some flexibility in the tip for bumps. If you're looking for a powder day ski, even in the East I don't think edge grip is a major issue. Believe it or not, you can survive a run here or there on ice with a ski that isn't particularly well designed for it. As long as the focus is on powder days, I wouldn't even think about edge hold. You can find the soft stuff on powder days at the end of the day, just as long as you don't have a strong desire to ski the main boulevards. Might not be untracked, but still stuff where you don't need edges.

And if you guys were suggesting 90+ underfoot for me coming from a bump ski, I can't see a recommendation for less than 90+ here.

How about Big Troubles? Might not be quite as good on hardpack, but about half the price of the Wateas. (Asking the question for myself for those 10% days, not as a suggestion.)

If the Wateas are too much on the pocket book, another option is the Atua which is the predicesor of the Watea 94. This is the route I went... demo ski in perfect condition for two bills on eBay from evogear.com. Thank you very much! Two mm's wider in the waist and only one size in a 186 but it has a twin. Not that I am pushing that particular ski, but just responding to the money issue modeo brought up. Don't know much about the Big Troubles but in the Dynastar camp, the Mythic Rider is generally well regarded as a good powder board.

One thing to consider for the 'average' skier who may only get out on Powder 5-10 days a year, you could be using those skis for ten years. My powder skis are still a set of Rossi Axioms I bought new in 2000. They're a touch wide for where I'm skiing most of the time these days at about 115ish underfoot.

I'd love a pair of Watea's as my powder boards in a 178 to have something a bit more nimble.

deadheadskier said:

One thing to consider for the 'average' skier who may only get out on Powder 5-10 days a year,

Click to expand...

:smile:

Just found it sorta funny how on here, an 'average' skier may only get 5-10 powder days a year. When if I remember the numbers correctly, the actual average skier only skis 4-6 days at all per year.

We rule.

:beer:

I actually skewed that number high because of people like Rivercoil and eastcoast who are more fortunate than I and ski a lot of Powder. I'm lucky for 3-4 Powder days these days considering I only get out about 20 days a season.

deadheadskier said:

I actually skewed that number high because of people like Rivercoil and eastcoast who are more fortunate than I and ski a lot of Powder. I'm lucky for 3-4 Powder days these days considering I only get out about 20 days a season.

Click to expand...

I only have two more ski days than you this season. Those two days were my non-powder days Powder days are not about frequency. They are about flexibility.

riverc0il said:

I only have two more ski days than you this season. Those two days were my non-powder days Powder days are not about frequency. They are about flexibility.

Click to expand...

Oh, I definitely know that. It's the one thing I really hate about my job....zero flexibility. I love everything but that. All I can do is pray for weekend storms for the most part.

A freind that I ski with a lot is skiing on Line 100's this year. He says that they carve very well and float unbeleivably in powder. He uses them for every day skiing on groomed, moguls, trees, and of course on powder days. Of course he can ski on anything for equipment but he really likes them. He allways has a big grin on when skiing!!!

i'm looking for the same thing. Right now I'm skiing on AR6's which are 83 underfoot I think. I also have a pair of Bros that I gotta get mounted soon.

I've narrowed my powder/glade/touring ski options to: K2 Obsethed, Line Prophet 100, Rossi S6 Koopman and the Movement Baggy.

Ideally I want the Obsethed, but they're pretty tough to find in a 179. The Baggy is a sick ski, but outta my price range at the moment.

The Koopman is the same as the Scratch Steeze was and is a pretty sweet eastern pow tool.

Prophets are cheap, easy to find and really well reviewed skis. I skied Line Blends for a bit and liked those and they're pretty similar skis. Heard they're very "turny" though which I'm not sure if I like.

If you really want a dedicated powder/glade ski I wouldn’t bother with anything that isn’t a twin. They tend to float a bit better, turn easier, and make tight woods shots much easier to navigate in general. Nothing better than not having to worry about catching the back of your ski on a rock or tree in a billygoat situation.

I agree that you should be looking at a ski which is 90 to 100 underfoot. Also agree that you may want a ski that's not too stiff, which can be difficult to maneuver in tight spaces.

I have 2 sets of fat skis: 94 (Rossi B4) and 100 (Rossi B Squad) underfoot. They both float well in deep snow and they make powder days a real joy. However, the ski that's 100 underfoot is quite stiff and needs to be driven. When the snow is deep or cruddy and I'm skiing in wide spaces or if the conditions are icy, these are the go to skis since they float, motor through crud and have a great grip on ice. However, they can get unwieldly in the trees when I need to turn almost on a dime. Also, they need some speed to turn which is not something you may necessarily have in tight spaces. Someday if I make it to Alaska, this is the ski I'm taking.

When I know I'm going to be spending a lot of time in the glades, the 94 underfoot ski is the go to ski -- floaty, turny, forgiving. It can take the stop and go rhythm of glade life. The down side is that it's not a great hard snow gripper which can be a problem -- but not too much -- if you need to access icy trails in between glades (e.g., Jay Peak in January). If I had to recommend a glade ski, this would be it.

Icelantic Nomad's or Pilgrim's. I have Nomads in a 168cm. They float in deep powder (at Alta 20") and are nimble in the woods with 10" of freshies. Perfect East Coast Powder Tree Ski. I am getting the Pilgrims in 179cm when I find a good price.

What did you pay for the Nomads? How do you feel about the 168 length?

I got the Nomads from Level Nine Sports in SLC. I paid 579 for the skis last year with LD12 RFII bindings for $40 more. I may go flat with the Pilgrims, but it is tempting to just put a RFII on for $10 and resuse bindings. I have 3 pair of RF bindings.

I think the length is just fine. I would have liked a 175cm but 168cm is the longest of last years model. I would say the 178cm would awesome for the West. The 168cm is great for EC trees though. I am going with the 179cm Pilgrims though. I had a chance to 169cm for $325(last years) but passed thinking the 178cm would be better.

Great conversation piece on lift rides too.

Puck it said:

I am getting the Pilgrims in 179cm when I find a good price.

Click to expand...

http://www.evogear.com/skis/icelantic-pilgrim-2009.aspx

$418

I love my Volkl Gotamas for powder & trees in the East. They have no metal in them, float very well & are very maneuverable in the trees. At 105 mm underfoot, they are wider than what most people in this thread have suggested for you but they don't feel that wide to me. They do short turns in the trees very well but yet can also make nice long floaty turns in wide open terrain when you need them to.

They also are very good in the Spring on corn snow. Check them out if you can. They certainly don't ski like they're as wide as 105 mm so don't be freaked out simply by the number.