What am I looking for??

Hey everyone,

I am looking at purchasing a new pair of skis, but I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking for.

Basically, I'm no expert skier, but can do anything up to most black diamonds at most places. I prefer sticking to cruisers and blues.

Anyway, the last time I bought skies I had a choice between the longer or shorter ski and I choose to go with the longer ski, but I find they are too fast for me and hard to control.

I am looking for a ski that will make it easier for me to just cruise (i.e not too fast, easy to initiate turns etc.). I'm guessing that means a shorter ski and wider, but what I'm asking is basically what kind of ski I am looking for? Not necessarily what exact ski (brand and model), but style of ski.

Thanks for the help.

Shorter, sure, but not wider. If you're 100% groomers, you may as well get something narrower underfoot. Something really wide like 115, 120, 130 underfoot is for big mountain, backcountry, lots of snow/powder.

I would look for something that's mid-80's underfoot.

RootDKJ said:

I would look for something that's mid-80's underfoot.

Click to expand...

For the east would skis in the 70s be OK or am I a few years off?

hammer said:

For the east would skis in the 70s be OK or am I a few years off?

Click to expand...

The first day or two of my season, I'll kick around on my Crossfires which are 67mm wide, just to get my balance back. A shame really, because that ski got rotated out of the lineup too soon.

After skiing my Jet Fuels (84mm), I have a very hard time going with anything smaller. 76-78 would be fine, but stuff in the mid-80's is going to ski just as well on groomers/hardpack and even better if you find some fresh.

Both of my skis are 78 underfoot...which is probably narrow by today's standards. My wife's Aurora's are 84 underfoot and she doesn't have a problem going through/over anything with those.

Why on earth would you go with a mid-fat if you're just going to cruise on groomers? A narrower ski will be quicker and more playful, everything else being equal. Unless there's fresh snow/mashed potatoes/crud to be had, I'm on 66mm underfoot.

Not sure with shorter. Maybe softer.

RootDKJ said:

I would look for something that's mid-80's underfoot.

Click to expand...

hammer said:

For the east would skis in the 70s be OK or am I a few years off?

Click to expand...

70's to low 80's. I'd lean to 70's for the most part if it's a primary groomer ski.

i'm with root. mid 80s. sounds like he is a 1 ski quiver kind of guy - the 80's are fine for everyday hardpack, decent in spring corn/slush/crud and not going to kill you in 6+ inches of pow.

wa-loaf said:

70's to low 80's. I'd lean to 70's for the most part if it's a primary groomer ski.

Click to expand...

This and a short radius. Dont forget radius is just as important as width. You can get a ski that is 70 under foot with a 28 radius and it is not going to be as responsive as a ski 90 under foot with a 16 radius.

mondeo said:

Why on earth would you go with a mid-fat if you're just going to cruise on groomers? A narrower ski will be quicker and more playful, everything else being equal. Unless there's fresh snow/mashed potatoes/crud to be had, I'm on 66mm underfoot.
.

Click to expand...

I ski on 68mm, and the only thing they completely suck at is in powder and trees, in which they completely submarine. But I agree, for anything "on piste" they're fine with and I just don't see the need for fatter skis. It's only the powder days that they're useless.

FYI, my Line Elizabeths (110 underfoot) carve better than my 78 under foot skis...you have to take into consideration the tip, waist and tail measurements, dont get caught up with the "just underfoot" number..

SKIQUATTRO said:

FYI, my Line Elizabeths (110 underfoot) carve better than my 78 under foot skis...you have to take into consideration the tip, waist and tail measurements, dont get caught up with the "just underfoot" number..

Click to expand...

Holding an edge is one thing, but edge to edge quickness is pretty much from underfoot width. Both my midfats (84) and "fats" (94) carve better than my 66's, but they're much slower side to side. If I were to have a groomer ski, it would be narrow and stiff.

What are you guys talking 80s smoking? The guy wants a groomer ski. My groomer ski is 68 underfoot! My quick to turn mid-fat is 79 underfoot. Why is 80-90 underfoot important? Specifically, the OP writes that he wants to ski groomers on something that is "easy to initiate turns" It doesn't sound like he is going to be skiing pow and spring bumps and crud. Easy to turn and indended use on groomers does not scream 80-90 to me at all. Quite the opposite.

Why are we talking waist at all? The OP wants to know "what type of ski". The guy wants a category not a measurement.

Well Frank101, sorry to say there is no category. Ski manufacturers like to make up fancy names for each of their line ups. The names sound cool but they are not descriptive. Sometimes the categories have descriptive names but two different companies can mean completely different skis by the same name. I don't know who drives the naming scheme. I think ski companies might even be trying to actively confuse consumers so that they need to shop in a store to make a sound purchase. You might want to look for something in a "carver", "cruisier", or "frontside" category. But these generics might do more harm than good.

Go into a shop during an end of season sale and tell them that you are looking for a ski for cruising on groomers and want easy turn initiation. Tell them your abilities and what types of trails and mountains you ski. If they suggest a ski without asking your weight, walk out of the store.

Which brings me to length. Longer or shorter isn't going to control your speed. Different manufacturers ski differently depending on construction. Your weight should play a role in your length (also height, more weight). It is all about flexing the ski. You might already have a ski that is too stiff but the right length. Or it could be too long. I don't know. And no one else on here knows either so don't let any one tell you otherwise. I think you are best served by a ski shop. And preferably a multi ski demo day if you get to one.

Cheers!

thanks everyone for the responses.

All very helpful!

A bunch of good points here. Is this going to be your only ski Frank? If so than the suggestions for a wider ski become more valid. If you get caught somewhere on a powder day it can be helpful to have boards with some versatility. You can't always choose the type of terrain you'll be on.

If you have a quiver, however, and your thing is groomers/cruisers then definitely go for skis that focus hard on that terrain.

You know I think I just saw Frank101 coming out of a shop up here with Austin...and a pair of Pontoons!...:lol:
Hey riv's previous post should become a stickie...imho. Very well articulated man...

riverc0il said:

Go into a shop during an end of season sale and tell them that you are looking for a ski for cruising on groomers and want easy turn initiation. Tell them your abilities and what types of trails and mountains you ski. If they suggest a ski without asking your weight, walk out of the store.
Which brings me to length. Longer or shorter isn't going to control your speed. Different manufacturers ski differently depending on construction. Your weight should play a role in your length (also height, more weight). It is all about flexing the ski. You might already have a ski that is too stiff but the right length. Or it could be too long. I don't know. And no one else on here knows either so don't let any one tell you otherwise. I think you are best served by a ski shop. And preferably a multi ski demo day if you get to one.

Click to expand...

+1
Frank, there's also a subscription website that reviews skis: http://www.realskiers.com/index.html
They're a big investment so it might be worth it. I may subscribe for next season as I'm due for a new pair.
I've been hearing a lot of good things about the new front rocker skis; most manufacturers have introduced them. They're a bit fatter underfoot than carvers but the camber length is shorter than a traditional ski (i.e. shorter edge length contacting the snow), which allows them to pivot quicker. From what I've heard they're beneficial to intermediates. A friend got the K2 Richter this season and loves them. Here's an explanation of the new rockered skis from another ski review site: http://www.ski-review.com/ski_news/article/on_piste_with_rocker/
There are so many excellent skis nowadays that it comes down to matching your ability level and whether you "click" with the ski's personality, which means you should demo many before you buy to see which one you're comfortable with. If you identify one model, go online and ask for feedback about those particular skis. Good luck-