Two ski quiver

[awf170]

My opinion is to have one ski with a waist around 70mm's and one around a 95-100mm's. 70mm waist ski will be perfect for moguls, ice, groomers, and trees with no fresh snow. Anything over 6 inches(or less if the snow is heavier) and you use the ski with about a 95-100mm waist, also skis this wide rock in spring snow and on anything up Mt. Washington. So it would have touring bindings.

So what is your opinion on the best two skis for a quiver.

 

[roark]

Preferences...

I bought my M666's (76 waist IIRC) before my Ripsticks (66 waist). If I had planned better, I would have gone more your route. Plus touring is only recently on my radar. Guess I'll have to add a third set of sticks

I was wondering about the trade off of weight and crud performance for the fatter/touring ski. Not that it'll be in the budget anytime soon but I'd be interested in people's reccomendations for a touring/powder ski.

 

[riverc0il]

why settle for two when you can have three? :lol: 65 - 80 - 90

 

[awf170]

I was wondering about the trade off of weight and crud performance for the fatter/touring ski. Not that it'll be in the budget anytime soon but I'd be interested in people's reccomendations for a touring/powder ski.

Personally I think fat skis rock in crud. Matters how you're going to ski it though. If you ski crud in short mogul like turns then a skinny ski will be better, but if you like to blast through it with GS style turns then a fat ski will be way better.

why settle for two when you can have three? 65 - 80 - 90

Because it is cheaper. But if I went for 3 i would add around an 80mm ski and make the skinnier ski skinnier and the fat ski fatter. So 65,80,100-105mm

 

[Birdman829]

I have a one ski quiver right now but I'm looking to make it two. My current skis are Fischer RX9's in a 165 that I bought new before last year. They absolutely destroy groomed/ice and hold their own in bumps/crud. Unfortunately with last years snow (or lack thereof) I didn't get much powder. My big powder day was an 8 inch dump of real fluffy stuff. I'm looking to get a pair of fatter boards (85-90) for powder and crud. I'm thinking that maybe I can pick up some used or get last years model cheap maybe. Either way I'm not in a rush so if I don't find a deal, I can wait.

 

[awf170]

I have a one ski quiver right now but I'm looking to make it two. My current skis are Fischer RX9's in a 165 that I bought new before last year. They absolutely destroy groomed/ice and hold their own in bumps/crud. Unfortunately with last years snow (or lack thereof) I didn't get much powder. My big powder day was an 8 inch dump of real fluffy stuff. I'm looking to get a pair of fatter boards (85-90) for powder and crud. I'm thinking that maybe I can pick up some used or get last years model cheap maybe. Either way I'm not in a rush so if I don't find a deal, I can wait.

Go fatter. You're going to be in the snow belt of New England next year. Think of this way: Does it make sense for someone in summit county CO to get a ski with around a 100mm waist? From the sounds of what I've heard here it makes perfect sense, but you know what? Jay Peak, Stowe, Smuggs, and Bolton all get just as much snow or more than those places, sure we get rain, but we also get epic dumps.

(warning random, stupid, rambling to come)

Also if you are skiing tight trees with 1 to 2 ft. of snow(which isn't that uncommon when you get 50+ days in northern vermont) which ski is going to be quicker a skinnier ski that sinks 18 inches in or a fatter ski that only sinks a foot, obviously the ski that sinks less. Fatter skis makes it easier to make quicker turns in deep snow because you will sink less, which you need in tight trees. But also another concern is the weight, so try to find a ski that is fat but doesn't weight much because jump turns will be terrible if the ski is too heavy. From what I've read it seems like the 179 PMgear Bro would be the ultimate ice coast powder ski.

 

[koreshot]

From what I've read it seems like the 179 PMgear Bro would be the ultimate ice coast powder ski.

Yeah, the 179 stiffs look like killer skis. I have a pair of 188 softs sitting in my closet right now and can't wait to give them a try this winter.

 

[AHM]

Thoughts on the "quiver" one, two, or more.

I actually think you can get it done on one. I have skied on a 90 mm for 4 seasons and really find it fine for both coasts. Works as well on icy moguls as it does in waist deep, as long as you know how to ride it in different types of snow and terrain, when to pressure and when to just ride. One of the advantages to one ski, you learn to make it work in all conditions. That said, I think any serious skier should consider at least two skis, where one pair has the ability to tour. This simply increases your flexibility and allows you to enjoy a longer season and take advantage of the spring snowpack in so many places. By not specifying it as an east and a west ski or a pow vs packed, but the ability to tour or not to tour(looking at it from a difference in binding perspective) will most likely give you the most bang for your buck.

 

[Marc]

Works as well on icy moguls as it does in waist deep, as long as you know how to ride it in different types of snow and terrain, when to pressure and when to just ride.

Ok, I've isolated my problem. Or one of them.

I think my two ski quiver would be Legend 8000's or Stormrider AT with Freerides and something stiff but still relatively light, with a narrower waist like the Stockli Spirit Pro for lift served, groomed, bumps... and then use the other pair on the rare lift served 'powder' days

 

[DEVO]

I ski a 79 waisted Legend 8000 as my everyday ski and a 76 waisted older K2 enemy (not public enemy) as my beat on, fun with the kids ski. I find this combo works out pretty well.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

I actually think you can get it done on one.

He's right. Different skis are better for different conditions, but it's not like your on say 90mm waisted, then you run into some bumps or ice and you're at a loss for what to do. I've said it before there ain't no magic skis, you can ski at a certain level or you can't.

That said I like having alot of different skis, they ski different and it's just fun. Last year I had 4 pair, sold 2, will add at 1 or 2 pair this year, sell a pair or 2, I like the revolving door thing with skis, it helps keep things interesting.

 

[awf170]

I think my two ski quiver would be Legend 8000's or Stormrider AT with Freerides and something stiff but still relatively light, with a narrower waist like the Stockli Spirit Pro for lift served, groomed, bumps... and then use the other pair on the rare lift served 'powder' days

Stockli skis scare me. And why so skinny for an AT ski? You not touring for hours just to ski some ice. Also, for spring skiing on Mt. Washington I feel that it is the fatter/longer/stiffer the better obviously there is a limit, but IMO a ski that is good out west and in deep powder is also equally good in corn, unless it is moguled, which is not the case on Mt. Washington(atleast most of the time) You can try my Inbigs(same as 8800) at Wawa this year if you want, though they will probably be pretty terrible for slaying the ice and gaper fields...

 

[Marc]

Thanks for the offer, I'd love to try out the inbigs.

I didn't think the 8000 was all that skinny. Isn't it still considered a "mid fat?" Of course, both my current pairs have around a 68 mm waist right now, so we have different persecptives.

And why do Stockli skis scare you?

 

[AHM]

That said I like having alot of different skis, they ski different and it's just fun. Last year I had 4 pair, sold 2, will add at 1 or 2 pair this year, sell a pair or 2, I like the revolving door thing with skis, it helps keep things interesting.

I agree to a point with this approach. If you get the luxury of skiing regularly, then multiple prs of boards works great. If not, then I think most will struggle finding the true sweet spot and understanding how each ski reacts to differing conditions. Without fully understanding "what the ski is saying" you will never fully unleash the power of that ski. I recall skiing on training skis and race skis in my day. I found I actually was faster on the training ski, as they were my every day ski. Once I figured this out, I just started skiing on one pair of skis, be they rock, ice, bumps, woods, or the west. If you take this approach, with a relatively fat ski (85 plus), I will bet you find that you can hammer this ski through all terrain and conditions and that the base and edges last surprising long. I have just hammered my XXX (and Rossi's aren't known for longevity) beyond belief and it just keeps taking the beating and delivering great skiing. So check it out, you might find the fat board will do it all.

As for stockli, very very different animal......................

 

[awf170]

Thanks for the offer, I'd love to try out the inbigs.

I didn't think the 8000 was all that skinny. Isn't it still considered a "mid fat?" Of course, both my current pairs have around a 68 mm waist right now, so we have different persecptives.

And why do Stockli skis scare you?

Yes, it is considered a midfat to most people. In Powder Mags review this year the 8800 was also considered a midfat/everyday ski too. But when it is your touring ski/powder day ski I think you would want more than a midfat. Why not go wider you're not going to take it out on icy/ mogul days are you?


Also, I think Stockli skis on average are really stiff, and that scares a scrawny, 135 pounds kid.

 

[Marc]

Was the XXX a foam core ski?

 

[Marc]

Yes, it is considered a midfat to most people. In Powder Mags review this year the 8800 was also considered a midfat/everyday ski too. But when it is your touring ski/powder day ski I think you would want more than a midfat. Why not go wider you're not going to take it out on icy/ mogul days are you?


Also, I think Stockli skis on average are really stiff, and that scares a scrawny, 135 pounds kid.

Good point. I'm only 165 - 170 lbs, though. My P50 F1's have me addicted to stiff.



Maybe I'll find a better way to phrase that.

 

[riverc0il]

Was the XXX a foam core ski?

yes. didn't care much for that line of skis myself. but that is the beauty of having so many choices perhaps i am still bitter from busting open a two year old pair of rossis a few years back :lol:

HPD makes a good point in that any skier can make almost any ski work if they are good enough and ski with good technique. that said, certain skis definitely make you work less than others in certain conditions while others make you work more. imo, all ski buying decisions are about deciding which compromises work well and which take too much away from what you want out of a ski.

 

[awf170]

HPD makes a good point in that any skier can make almost any ski work if they are good enough and ski with good technique. that said, certain skis definitely make you work less than others in certain conditions while others make you work more. imo, all ski buying decisions are about deciding which compromises work well and which take too much away from what you want out of a ski.

Yeah, good point. It is pretty much what you want a ski to excel in. I put powder preformance in front of groomer preformance even if I'm skiing mostly groomers that day. I want to preform to my best in conditions I like, like powder, and I don't really care if I don't preform at 100% on groomers, as long as it is not truly painful for me to ski groomers with it.

Also, about my huge gap in a two ski quiver idea: I'm not really sure what is ideal in about 6 inches of super light snow. It is not enough to float on top off, so having a fat ski makes no difference, but maybe a skinny ski would be crappy for some other reason. Steve, I'm pretty much thinking of the conditions we had a Jay Peak on March 20th. I remember saying that your skis were probably better for that.


Also I forgot to add: Lots of times in the east below the powder is ice and rocks. A fatter ski will keep you above the crap and in the powder.



I love this nerd tech talk stuff if you guys can't tell.

 

[riverc0il]

Also, about my huge gap in a two ski quiver idea: I'm not really sure what is ideal in about 6 inches of super light snow. It is not enough to float on top off, so having a fat ski makes no difference, but maybe a skinny ski would be crappy for some other reason. Steve, I'm pretty much thinking of the conditions we had a Jay Peak on March 20th. I remember saying that your skis were probably better for that.

totally. that is why i would recommend 80 waist for an everyday ski over 90 or 100 or what not. most "pow days" in new england generally are not measured in feet, but rather inches. if you are measuring pow in inches, most likely your ski bases and edges are still hitting the hard pack under the fluff. float still is an issue, but at 6" of light fluff, you aren't exactly switching completely to pow skiing technique and still quite a bit of edge is occurring under the fluff. iirc, the only big 1'+ pow days i had last year were the ones that i hiked too, skinning on my touring setup which is the 89 under foot.