WTB: Skis 177-179, ~90 underfoot

[soulseller]

I am flirting with the idea of switching to skis and looking for a set of preferably with bindings somewhere in the high 170's around 90 underfoot.

Would like to spend around $200, possibly more if I like what you've got.

 

[gpetrics]

175 volkl super sport all stars with m12 bindings. 200$

 

[soulseller]

175 volkl super sport all stars with m12 bindings. 200$

not as exciting as I would like but probably pretty appropriate considering I haven't skied in almost 15 years and will be re-learning at wachusett and keeping the single plank around for good days.

Next problem is you appear to be 3+ hours from me assuming your Pico location is accurate.

 

[wa-loaf]

175 volkl super sport all stars with m12 bindings. 200$

not as exciting as I would like but probably pretty appropriate considering I haven't skied in almost 15 years and will be re-learning at wachusett and keeping the single plank around for good days.

Next problem is you appear to be 3+ hours from me assuming your Pico location is accurate.

Not exactly 90 underfoot, but a good ski for Wachusett.

 

[soulseller]

Not exactly 90 underfoot, but a good ski for Wachusett.

Exactly, if I take well to it, i'll just pick up another wider set later in the season.


Still open to other offers especially if you are in RI or MA...

 

[jrmagic]

I saw a post here yesterday for some reasonably priced Dynastar Troublemakers that might work for you. I think they are around 80ish underfoot.



Edit... Oops I see you already posted in tht thread.

 

[soulseller]

Thanks I did, not sure if they are going to be too long for me but they are reasonably close by / priced. Best option so far, thanks.

 

[bigbog]

Re-edit..;-)...a carver..imo can work well... My $.01..(often wrong..) as one skis today's wider skis with the same fore/aft as today's carving ski... unlike a wider ski of 15yrs ago.

 

[soulseller]

Re-edit..;-)...a wider ski underfoot will just be a relaxed(with change of balance) set of skills gained from a carving ski... My $.01..(often wrong..)

Thanks I was wondering what the heck you were talking about at first. I figured going from snowboarding back to skiing I would be comfortable on some wide 90-100 planks.

Still thinking about those Dynastar Troublemakers as well as keeping an eye on eBay.

Think i'm going to buy Dalbello Boss boots from REI largely due to their generous return policy in the event this experiment fails.

 

[bigbog]

Think you're right though...the Troublemakers' width has skied easily for just about everyone.
Yep...if your spending cash is there...can't go wrong with some of the online return policies... Best of luck.

 

[soulseller]

For the record, I ended up with a set of Mantra's for a good price off of Craigslist.

 

[wa-loaf]

For the record, I ended up with a set of Mantra's for a good price off of Craigslist.

That's a lot of ski for someone getting back on skis.

 

[soulseller]

That's a lot of ski for someone getting back on skis.

So I hear, should be interesting :wink:

 

[o3jeff]

That's a lot of ski for someone getting back on skis.

Way to take the wind out of the guys sails....:flame:

 

[soulseller]

Way to take the wind out of the guys sails....:flame:

No wind has been removed, i'm going to kick some ass on these things! :beer:

 

[wa-loaf]

Way to take the wind out of the guys sails....:flame:

Sounds like he knows what he's getting into, but it's a big beefy technical ski that's not very forgiving. Great if you can ski it. Not what I'd pick to get back on skis. Hopefully he was a good skier before he switched to snowboarding. It will be pretty good on the groomers though.

 

[BenedictGomez]

it's a big beefy technical ski that's not very forgiving...... It will be pretty good on the groomers though.

Why do you say that?

I've never skied it, but at 132/98/118 I would think it would be a decent all-mountain size, but probably also nice in powder with being almost 100 underfoot.

And on groomers wouldn't you prefer something more in the 70s or 80s underfoot than 100?

 

[soulseller]

Why do you say that?

I've never skied it, but at 132/98/118 I would think it would be a decent all-mountain size, but probably also nice in powder with being almost 100 underfoot.

And on groomers wouldn't you prefer something more in the 70s or 80s underfoot than 100?

I think he was referring to the fact that they are generally regarded as stiff, fast, and requiring concerted effort to ski.

Its been over 15 years since I've skied and at 184cm they will probably kick my ass for the first few outings but at 6'1" 205lbs, in decent shape, and an aggressive boarder I think I'll make it work.

 

[wa-loaf]

Why do you say that?

I've never skied it, but at 132/98/118 I would think it would be a decent all-mountain size, but probably also nice in powder with being almost 100 underfoot.

And on groomers wouldn't you prefer something more in the 70s or 80s underfoot than 100?

It's not the dimensions, it's the 2 sheets of titanium. They're built like race skis. Older ones are 94-96 at the waist. Not sure what year he got. It is a fun ski, just not forgiving. The new ones have rocker in them with should make them easier to ski.

 

[bigbog]

I think he was referring to the fact that they are generally regarded as stiff, fast, and requiring concerted effort to ski.

Its been over 15 years since I've skied and at 184cm they will probably kick my ass for the first few outings but at 6'1" 205lbs, in decent shape, and an aggressive boarder I think I'll make it work.

The nice thing of today's online marketplace is...that one can always sell em' if they're not what one expected.
NOT bringin' in the threatening t-storm clouds soulseller....hope they're fun for you... BUT, you won't be the first IF....