New to pow

Posts: 348 - Karma: 1,012

Karma: 1,012

Posts: 348

Loner

Alright thanks for suggestions guys! , sorry I didn't mention my style of skiing,I've skied park for a while and like technical slopes so switch landings and bumps/trees/short turns are common, so I guess closer to 170 for that,

I'm planning a few long powder trip next winter (maybe even stay in whistler for a while) but I'll still ride glades and groomers here in the east, so I guess I'll go with something not too fat like IDMT_BC024's suggestions.

For my level it's always hard to say, I can't say I'm an expert yet but I'm a ski instructor and I'm pretty comfortable on my skis

Apr 11 2014 11:25AM

0 0

Posts: 348 - Karma: 1,012

Karma: 1,012

Posts: 348

Loner

Before writting this thread somebody recommended me the 4frnt Cody, wich are 98 at 172 and 100 at 179, would those be acceptable for powder or am I going too skinny?

Apr 11 2014 11:33AM

0 0

b-kul

Posts: 4350 - Karma: 1,111

Karma: 1,111

Posts: 4350

No Life

Sh4dowIf you want a twin tip, K2 Pettitor, Atomic Bent Chetler, Armada JJ, Moment Bibby Pro, Surface New Life, etc. Most have camber underfoot so they'll be fine for groomers. The New Lifes do not have camber so they won't be as good on groomers as the others but they'll still work fine.

If you want a directional ski (not twin tip), K2 Annex 118 or Atomic Automatic would be good choices, or if you want something really aggressive, Dynastar Cham 117 (this year they had 107 and 127, the 117 is new for 2015).

Around 170 should be fine. Anything in the 170-180 range would be good for you. I would lean towards ~170 if you will be doing a lot of trees and bumps and anything real technical, ~180 if you'll just be going fast in wide open pow bowls and hucking cliffs all day every day.

automatics are directional but definitely a twin.

Apr 11 2014 12:30PM

0 0

skier58284

Posts: 1705 - Karma: 5,365

Karma: 5,365

Posts: 1705

Insane

outaouais_reppinBefore writting this thread somebody recommended me the 4frnt Cody, wich are 98 at 172 and 100 at 179, would those be acceptable for powder or am I going too skinny?

98 is definitely too narrow. Sure, it can handle the pow, but it is by no means a pow ski. I think around 175 would be the ideal length for you. I would go AT LEAST 110 underfoot, if not closer to 120. Assuming you'll still have your old skis for every day skiing in the east, that is. Just take out your pow skis when it's a pow day and when you go west. If it makes a difference, I live in Utah and my all mountain skis are 117mm underfoot and I use them almost all the time, even if it hasn't snowed in a week or two. The only exception is when it's icy or really hard snow. Sure, most people would go narrower if it hasn't snowed in a while, but if it's snowed within the last few days you'll definitely want something in the ~113-123 range.

b-kulautomatics are directional but definitely a twin.

Valid point. Still not ideal for someone who skis switch a lot though.

Apr 11 2014 1:16PM

1 1

cobra_commander

Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686

Karma: 4,686

Posts: 16909

Post Whore

...It doesn't fucking mater.

Get a twin tip if you want to ski backwards. The skis you have now will undoubtably work.

Keep in mind people were skiing deep snow long before fat skis or rocker came into being. They of course, learned to ski outside of a terrain park. So they had that going for them.

Apr 11 2014 1:44PM

0 3

Posts: 348 - Karma: 1,012

Karma: 1,012

Posts: 348

Loner

Yeah well I didn't learn to ski in a park but I've skied the park a lot these past years so my skis are pretty much destroyed, considering I'm planning on skiing more pow than anything next year asking what ski would fit my need better couldn't hurt haha.

Apr 11 2014 10:10PM

0 0

Posts: 348 - Karma: 1,012

Karma: 1,012

Posts: 348

Loner

I guess I'll go with something around 175 and 110, I'll check out the list of your suggestions for sure, thanks for the help guys!

Apr 11 2014 10:12PM

0 0

charmander

Posts: 10636 - Karma: 370

Karma: 370

Posts: 10636

Crazy Fool

last_tangoI think you mean the hoji. The devastator is 122 in the waist. The hoji is 112 in the waist with a shorter turn radius of 30. Both skis charge hard and demand speed. I wouldn't ride the hoji/devastator out east with all the tight ass trees. Out west the hoji is okay if you like to charge hard but it maneuvers enough for the available space out west.

Hoji skis so easy lol, it doesn't charge hard in any way. My dad has a pair and I've got several days on em, really intuitive quick turning ski. Sure you're not think Renegade?

Apr 11 2014 10:28PM

1 0

Posts: 142 - Karma: 136

Karma: 136

Posts: 142

Pro

At 5'11" you'd look like kind of silly on anything shorter than 180. Too many people get pow skis that are too short for them. Pow skis are designed to be longer... the shortest the Bent Chetler comes in is 183 for a reason. The added length really helps with float, stability, and turning in pow.

Apr 12 2014 3:05AM

1 1

IDMT_BC024

Posts: 224 - Karma: 129

Karma: 129

Posts: 224

Loner

last_tangoI think you mean the hoji. The devastator is 122 in the waist. The hoji is 112 in the waist with a shorter turn radius of 30. Both skis charge hard and demand speed. I wouldn't ride the hoji/devastator out east with all the tight ass trees. Out west the hoji is okay if you like to charge hard but it maneuvers enough for the available space out west.

The devastator is 108 underfoot @ 184 with camber and a turn radius in the mid 20s. It sounds like youre thinking of the renegade.

Apr 12 2014 3:57AM

0 0

Posts: 7147 - Karma: 17,457

Karma: 17,457

Posts: 7147

Crazy Fool

jadavisAt 5'11" you'd look like kind of silly on anything shorter than 180. Too many people get pow skis that are too short for them. Pow skis are designed to be longer... the shortest the Bent Chetler comes in is 183 for a reason. The added length really helps with float, stability, and turning in pow.

This actually I not the case always. Pow skis are made fat and rocker added so that you don't need to up size. The added surface area gives the float. I agree you will usually slightly upsize over say a park ski but not by much most of the time.

Apr 12 2014 4:31AM

1 1

cobra_commander

Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686

Karma: 4,686

Posts: 16909

Post Whore

outaouais_reppinI guess I'll go with something around 175 and 110, I'll check out the list of your suggestions for sure, thanks for the help guys!

Out of all the skis I have been on (most of them). I think the 185 Nordica Patron is the best general purpose 'fat' ski out there. Yes The BEST. If you are only going to have one ski over 100mm, and otherwise not sure what else you want, get that one. You really can not go wrong with it.

Close second would be a ON3P Jeffrey 114.

Apr 12 2014 5:01AM

0 0

KillerPow

Posts: 99 - Karma: 113

Karma: 113

Posts: 99

Wannabe

cobra_commanderClose second would be a ON3P Jeffrey 114.

For the way you describe your skiing, these seem perfect..

Apr 12 2014 8:08AM

0 0

marcel_ID

Posts: 91 - Karma: 47

Karma: 47

Posts: 91

Wannabe

outaouais_reppinI guess I'll go with something around 175 and 110, I'll check out the list of your suggestions for sure, thanks for the help guys!

176 or 181 13/14 jeffrey 110 underfoot

cobra_commanderClose second would be a ON3P Jeffrey 114.

it would be good if you could get some demo time on next years 114 jeffrey 176 / 181 as well!

I think you could go 176 or 181 in both 13/14 and 14/15 jeffrey! the size would depend on your priority, pow vs hardpack/grommer! 181 jeffrey 110 would probably be the most versatile

Apr 12 2014 2:00PM

0 0

last_tango

Posts: 2635 - Karma: 2,665

Karma: 2,665

Posts: 2635

Addict

charmanderHoji skis so easy lol, it doesn't charge hard in any way. My dad has a pair and I've got several days on em, really intuitive quick turning ski. Sure you're not think Renegade?

IDMT_BC024The devastator is 108 underfoot @ 184 with camber and a turn radius in the mid 20s. It sounds like youre thinking of the renegade.

I did mean the renegade. I did ride the renegade and the hoji and they don't like to hold a nice shorter gs turn. They like to make super g turns but you can easily put them over sideways when you are dumping speed. In the east want a ski the is going to turn tighter naturally for moguls and the nature of tree skiing out there.

Apr 12 2014 5:17PM

0 0

charmander

Posts: 10636 - Karma: 370

Karma: 370

Posts: 10636

Crazy Fool

I agree on the Renegade, disagree on the Hoji. With enough input that ski will carve as tight of a turn as you want.

Apr 12 2014 6:29PM

1 1

Blake.P

Posts: 9894 - Karma: 3,585

Karma: 3,585

Posts: 9894

Crazy Fool

the jeffery 114 or even the caylor (120) would work.

however, you are definitely looking too short. i would get something in the low 180's. i'm 5'10 and 160lbs and i feel like i could easily handle a 191 pow ski, as i sometimes feel my 181's are too short

Apr 12 2014 9:22PM

0 1

cobra_commander

Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686

Karma: 4,686

Posts: 16909

Post Whore

The Hoji and Renegade do not 'carve' anything.
To be frank: they both suck a fat one for anything other than deeper winter powder/crud and fully sun baked spring mank.

Or if you are a 140lb Canuk with perfect balance.

Apr 13 2014 1:25AM

1 1

Posts: 142 - Karma: 136

Karma: 136

Posts: 142

Pro

tomPietrowskiThis actually I not the case always. Pow skis are made fat and rocker added so that you don't need to up size. The added surface area gives the float. I agree you will usually slightly upsize over say a park ski but not by much most of the time.

Well for someone who's 5'11" upsizing over a park ski would definitely be over 180. My shortest pair of skis is 170 and my longest is 183 and I'm 5'7". With pow part of it is how much your tip can deflect vertically. The tip of a longer ski can deflect more without making the ski curve as much. This really helps with how well the ski planes and lets not even get into hucking into pow. Now I wouldn't ski a 190, but I certainly wouldn't go shorter than 180 for a fat ski for me. I'm talking about true fat skis, though (greater than 120 at the waist). As far as skiing them back east, the listed turning radius for pow skis means pretty much nothing since you turn completely differently in pow. You could take a ski with no side cut and go shred some super tight trees.

One other thing. Think more about how stiff you want your ski to be. Stiffness changes handling in soft snow a ton. A stiffer ski will be more chargeable and handle harder snow better, but a softer ski will handle better at lower speeds and be more playful.

Also I like how carving has come into a thread about pow skis. Who gives a shit if their pow skis carve.

Apr 14 2014 4:44AM

0 1

Posts: 7147 - Karma: 17,457

Karma: 17,457

Posts: 7147

Crazy Fool

jadavisAlso I like how carving has come into a thread about pow skis. Who gives a shit if their pow skis carve.

I do agree that you will upsize slightly, What I was pointing out is everyone seems to think that you instantly go 10-15cm bigger which is just not the case. For me I upsize 3 cm from my park skis. I ski a 181 thall and a 184 rocker 122. So I can nearly use teh same size but I get all the float I need from the width, rocker and flex of teh ski.

And carving is being discussed because unless you are heli skiing or touring then chances are you will end up at some point on the groomers to get you back to the lifts, so having a ski which can still carve a turn is a big benifit. Also as much as we all like to think we only ski deep pow, in reality you will want a ski that can still handle a steep icy traverse, so having some carving form will be inportant still.

Apr 14 2014 7:21AM

1 1

Posts: 142 - Karma: 136

Karma: 136

Posts: 142

Pro

If you are going to ski aggressively you go with a longer ski. Enough said. I would assume if he says advanced then he skis at least slightly aggressively. For me my ideal all around ski size is between 170 and 183. So really I down size for one and up size for the other.

As for carving, why buy a big ski with groomers I mind if you have another ski? I would much rather have an amazing pow ski on a pow day and forsake gs turns on the frequently short bit of groomed back to the chair. Especially since most of those groomed sections back to the chair and blue squares or green circles so you can get by with just plain not turning. And for icy gnar, I've dropped into some icy wind blown crap on fat flexy skis to get to a nice fresh spot and it was perfectly fine. I'm talking steep icy chute with so much curvature that weighting your skis evenly leaves only your tips and tails on the ground. Sure you have to fight through the icy bit, but again I would rather fight through the ice and shred some fresh than vice versa. When your traversing you don't really turn so you could do it just fine on a straight ski, since your edge holds and edge not your side cut holds an edge.

Apr 14 2014 12:22PM

1 1

Posts: 7147 - Karma: 17,457

Karma: 17,457

Posts: 7147

Crazy Fool

jadavisAs for carving, why buy a big ski with groomers I mind if you have another ski? I would much rather have an amazing pow ski on a pow day and forsake gs turns on the frequently short bit of groomed back to the chair. Especially since most of those groomed sections back to the chair and blue squares or green circles so you can get by with just plain not turning. And for icy gnar, I've dropped into some icy wind blown crap on fat flexy skis to get to a nice fresh spot and it was perfectly fine. I'm talking steep icy chute with so much curvature that weighting your skis evenly leaves only your tips and tails on the ground. Sure you have to fight through the icy bit, but again I would rather fight through the ice and shred some fresh than vice versa. When your traversing you don't really turn so you could do it just fine on a straight ski, since your edge holds and edge not your side cut holds an edge.

Well I live normally in whistler, so having a ski which can crank out a few turns is a real advantage. And you may just head down green or blue runs but I will be rising anything back down, so it could be full on ice, steep moguls or cut up pow. And lets be honest somwhere like whistler your not getting fresh tracks for more then about 1 run. So as much fun as a big floppy pow ski is its just not practical most of the time. We tend to find most people buying biiger skis actually care more about how they ski out of the pow. Any fatter ski will generally ski deep snow well, what sets a fat ski apart from the rest is if you can also use it as an every day ski while still skiing bottomless powder well.

Apr 15 2014 5:35AM

1 1

chuckmarty

Posts: 344 - Karma: 448

Karma: 448

Posts: 344

Loner

I'm 6ft, 140 pounds and I ski 185 and 183 Bent Chetlers in the trees. The rocker helps them pivot really well in the tight trees despite their longer length. You'd have no problem skiing on something close to 180. And if you get something too short you might not have as much fun on the steeper, more open lines.

Apr 15 2014 10:27AM

1 0

Posts: 142 - Karma: 136

Karma: 136

Posts: 142

Pro

tomPietrowskiWell I live normally in whistler, so having a ski which can crank out a few turns is a real advantage. And you may just head down green or blue runs but I will be rising anything back down, so it could be full on ice, steep moguls or cut up pow. And lets be honest somwhere like whistler your not getting fresh tracks for more then about 1 run. So as much fun as a big floppy pow ski is its just not practical most of the time. We tend to find most people buying biiger skis actually care more about how they ski out of the pow. Any fatter ski will generally ski deep snow well, what sets a fat ski apart from the rest is if you can also use it as an every day ski while still skiing bottomless powder well.

I'm glad you live in Whistler, buddy. But if you only get one fresh run there you're doing something wrong. Around Dec. and Jan. you can find fresh stuff all day long on both mountains. Provided you have to hike a little. And you know what, the really good stuff empties to blues and greens, not blacks or double blacks, because you drop all your elevation skiing good snow on good pitches.

Back on topic, if you have two skis you won't be skiing the fat ones on ice. He definitely has another pair of skis considering he's skied before. If you have multiple skis there's not point in compromising on intended purpose. What differentiates powders skis is how well the ski powder and how they suite your style. They don't all ski it the same. For a real powder day you want a real powder ski. How much fun they are in pow makes up for their inability to carve. Not to mention you can carve any day of the week on skis that are much better at carving. Think if it this way: there's no reason for the intended uses of your skis to overlap, so if one is a full on powder ski and the other isn't you'll always have the ski for the day, but if one is sort of a powder ski then there will be days where you wish you had a bigger ski.

Apr 15 2014 4:44PM

0 0