# How wide is too wide?



## rocks860 (Feb 6, 2015)

I'm thinking of picking up so new skis and using my current ones as my crappy conditions skis. My current skis are 181s and are 100mm wide and I love em. They don't have any rocker. The ones I'm looking at do have rocker and come in a 181 (110 wide) or 191 (120 wide). I was considering the longer ones because of the rocker but is 120 too wide for east coast skiing? At the beginning of the month we had a minor powder day up at sugarbush and this past week I skiied some deeper stuff at okemo and the 100's skied great but I almost wanted something a little wider. Any thoughts?


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 6, 2015)

Do you plan on skiing west at all?  What terrain do you primarily ski?


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 6, 2015)

I would love to ski out west but I don't see it in the immediate future. I ski pretty much everything but prefer woods/ungroomed to groomers. 
These are what I'm skiing now 

And these are what I'm looking at


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 6, 2015)

What are the sidecut dimensions?  That might make a difference with that width.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 6, 2015)

This is from the site


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 6, 2015)

That is a very fat ski for east coast.  But if you're used to skiing fat skis in east coast conditions than it may not be a big deal.  Is this going to be your daily driver?


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 6, 2015)

Indeed, it is in fact called the daily haha. I mean I don't think the 110 would be bad at all, I think I demoed some libertys that were that size and they skied just fine. I'm just concerned about the 120 on the 191. I think It would make sense to go with that length based on the rocker though


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 6, 2015)

I'd like to stick with surface for a couple reasons. I love the skis I have now and ended up getting them for $150 because they were going to sell me a demo pair but someone accidentally sold that pair so they gave me a brand new pair for the same price. I just realized that the guy I was dealing with is actually the president of the company, great guy. Secondly, I can get this pair for 40% off so they would be about $375


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 6, 2015)

I think that it will come down to personal preference.  If you can demo it, do it.  That's what I'd say.  But it sounds like you're pretty comfortable on a 100 mm waist ski.  A 120 mm is not THAT much of a difference...relatively speaking.  The 191 cm length is a long ski and will be better for going fast...real fast.  Based on my experience, I think a 181 standard camber ski would be similar to a 191 cm rockered ski in terms of edge contact, but I might be off there.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 6, 2015)

Yeah that's what I'm thinking. I just don't want it to feel too short. Unfortunately I don't know that any place out here even carries their skis let alone demos them


----------



## moresnow (Feb 6, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> I think that it will come down to personal preference.  If you can demo it, do it.  That's what I'd say.  But it sounds like you're pretty comfortable on a 100 mm waist ski.  A 120 mm is not THAT much of a difference...relatively speaking.  The 191 cm length is a long ski and will be better for going fast...real fast.  Based on my experience, I think a 181 standard camber ski would be similar to a 191 cm rockered ski in terms of edge contact, but I might be off there.



Don't get caught up in the numbers. They don't tell the whole story.  The stiffness of the ski is important as well. A 190 that is a 2x4 is probably  going to be too much ski for around here.  If it's a noodle it won't be good for anything but a pure blower kind of day. Personally I think something with softer tips and tails with a stiffer portion underfoot would be the way to go.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 6, 2015)

This is the ski
http://www.surfaceskis.com/hardgoods/freeride/daily/index.html


----------



## jrmagic (Feb 6, 2015)

Agreed. With all the multi dimensional radius etc that many of the newer skis have, width on its own isn't a detriment on the east coast. I'm on 188 moment rubies that are 110 under foot just about every day. On a boilerplate day you might have to skid a bit but I really couldn't give a rats as if I'm holding perfect form. I just want to have fun and 9 1/2 times out of 10 I find that to be true.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 6, 2015)

Love the look of moments but I've never skiied them


----------



## moresnow (Feb 6, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> This is the ski
> http://www.surfaceskis.com/hardgoods/freeride/daily/index.html



It's tough to know from that website. They have it listed as a medium flex, but it gives you no idea how it'll actually feel underfoot. You'd have to get your hands on a pair. 

A surface demo is going to be a tough thing to come by, so I'd scour the Web for reviews. It should give you a rough idea if it'll be the type of ski your looking for. It's how I ended up on my Icelantic Keepers. They are a fun ski. 

Good luck! And if you get a good enough deal, I'm sure they'll be fine.


----------



## jrmagic (Feb 6, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> Love the look of moments but I've never skiied them



I've skied a few models and really like how versitile they are plus the bases are bomber which is really good given how hard i am on my skis. I know a few guys who rock 100+ surface skis as their daily driver and they love them.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 6, 2015)

jrmagic said:


> I've skied a few models and really like how versitile they are plus the bases are bomber which is really good given how hard i am on my skis. I know a few guys who rock 100+ surface skis as their daily driver and they love them.



Nice, I love the ones I have now, especially for the deal I got on them. We'll see how my tax return looks. The guy who's the founder of surface hooked me up with those. They don't have any demos of the daily they're selling but he gave me a promo code for 40% off


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 6, 2015)

moresnow said:


> Don't get caught up in the numbers. They don't tell the whole story.  The stiffness of the ski is important as well. A 190 that is a 2x4 is probably  going to be too much ski for around here.  If it's a noodle it won't be good for anything but a pure blower kind of day. Personally I think something with softer tips and tails with a stiffer portion underfoot would be the way to go.



I agree that stiffness is a huge concern but the op asked only about width. I'd be hesitant skiing a ski this fat and long as my daily driver at Sugarbush but that's just me.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## moresnow (Feb 6, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> I agree that stiffness is a huge concern but the op asked only about width. I'd be hesitant skiing a ski this fat and long as my daily driver at Sugarbush but that's just me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



That's kind of my point. Width is almost meaningless without knowing how the rest of the ski is built.


----------



## ScottySkis (Feb 6, 2015)

420/inches might be to side lol


----------



## mishka (Feb 6, 2015)

IMO 100 under foot is  enough with is a daily driver. I didn't find 110th substantially better on pow. Depends on ski design stiffer skis can be more versatile


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 7, 2015)

I'm not really concerned about the 110 on the 181,  I skied the liberty helix a few years ago that was 105 underfoot in sloppy spring conditions and it skied just fine. Just wondering if the jump to 120 is too much. I will also still have the 100's I have now for less than optimal days. Can't really find any reviews online unfortunately


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 7, 2015)

There is also this ski but they have it listed as a park ski
http://www.surfaceskis.com/hardgoods/park/outsider/index.html


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 7, 2015)

That one is definitely skinnier at the tip and tail but stiffer. Wish I could find some reviews


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 8, 2015)

I'm not sure I'd like that much rocker in the East.  It almost looks gimmicky


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 8, 2015)

You "can" ski anything in any conditions.  But will it be enjoyable?  For a east coast everyday ski I like to be around 90 underfoot with a decent amount of rocker profile and a metal core. 
I have a wider ski (Rossi Soul 7) at 106 under foot, but they are just like every other wider ski I have skied.  Great in powder, or soft spring skiing, but to slow edge to edge on anything else, and to floppy to be able to hard charge anything even remotely packed.


----------



## goldsbar (Feb 8, 2015)

Hawkshot99 said:


> You "can" ski anything in any conditions.  But will it be enjoyable?  For a east coast everyday ski I like to be around 90 underfoot with a decent amount of rocker profile and a metal core.
> I have a wider ski (Rossi Soul 7) at 106 under foot, but they are just like every other wider ski I have skied.  Great in powder, or soft spring skiing, but to slow edge to edge on anything else, and to floppy to be able to hard charge anything even remotely packed.



Yup, I have 98s, but edge to edge is noticeably slow when comparing back-to-back with more race oriented low 70s skis.  When carving, I can feel the torque on the ski of my weight trying to flatten the ski vs. tipping movements trying to get the ski on edge.  They still carve fine, but it's clear why a narrow ski is better in that regard.  I use them a lot and they're fun, but I also have a quiver.  88 with some visible rocker seems like the perfect compromise.  Enough for all but really deep, light powder (i.e. Alta) and not so bad when "stuck" on groomers.  The metal part would depend on skier weight and primary use.  

YMMV.  I've demoed 115s in Alta and was told people daily drive them.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 8, 2015)

That doesn't sound like the surfaces I have now. They're 100 underfoot and are totally fine on groomers and at speed. They also don't have any rocker.  I think I'm going to go with the daily's. They apparently are the same as the live life model from previous years


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 8, 2015)

jrmagic said:


> ... width on its own isn't a detriment on the east coast. I'm on 188 moment rubies that are 110 under foot just about every day. On a boilerplate day you might have to skid a bit ....



Ski width now carries the same 'macho factor' as ski length once was, and it is getting out of control.   Obiviously, anyone can ski a 110mm underfoot planks all the time but does it mean you should ?  

Who uses wide skis ?   World cup FIS skiers ?  No.  They use underfoot in the mid 60mm.   Mogul skier ?  Same thing here - mid 60mm.  Park ? Big Air ? Slope style ?  Nope.  Most top guys use skis in the mid 80 to low 90mm.  Backcountry skiers ?  Hardcore backcountry skiers (the ones who go up and down more than once in a single day) will rarely go wider than 100mm.   On the other hand, who uses big fat skis all the time ?   Freeskiers charging down big untracked mountains.  The guys we see on the videos.  This is very telling.  110mm underfoot is the wrong tool for 99% of skiers out east.  If you can only afford one pair of skis, if you chase powder all winter long, and take sick days everytime there is more than 4 inches in the forecast by all means go for it.   But you are making compromises for any other type of snow conditions.  Seriously, wide skis shine in some very specific conditions, but they absolutely suck on the hard stuff (groomers and moguls).


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 8, 2015)

I've been skiing 100mm wide skis for the last 2 years on the east coast and I certainly haven't found that they "suck". In fact they've been way better than the 80mm rossignols I was skiing previously


----------



## jrmagic (Feb 9, 2015)

fbrissette said:


> Ski width now carries the same 'macho factor' as ski length once was, and it is getting out of control.   Obiviously, anyone can ski a 110mm underfoot planks all the time but does it mean you should ?
> 
> Who uses wide skis ?   World cup FIS skiers ?  No.  They use underfoot in the mid 60mm.   Mogul skier ?  Same thing here - mid 60mm.  Park ? Big Air ? Slope style ?  Nope.  Most top guys use skis in the mid 80 to low 90mm.  Backcountry skiers ?  Hardcore backcountry skiers (the ones who go up and down more than once in a single day) will rarely go wider than 100mm.   On the other hand, who uses big fat skis all the time ?   Freeskiers charging down big untracked mountains.  The guys we see on the videos.  This is very telling.  110mm underfoot is the wrong tool for 99% of skiers out east.  If you can only afford one pair of skis, if you chase powder all winter long, and take sick days everytime there is more than 4 inches in the forecast by all means go for it.   But you are making compromises for any other type of snow conditions.  Seriously, wide skis shine in some very specific conditions, but they absolutely suck on the hard stuff (groomers and moguls).



It's all about choice. I do have a pair of 78mm and a slalom race ski that is about 60mm and I rarely take them out. My locker is 100 yards or so from the lift and I still never go back for the other boards 
  Is it the absolute best tool for the job? Definitely not in all cases but I can honestly say mine are pretty darn versatile and are a lot of fun in the moguls too . Speed isn't an issue for me on these even with no metal and I am not a small man. Hard pack... Skinnier skis absolutely shine over wider models. Another benefit I have noticed is that my bases do not take the same kind of beating with the weight distribution. I used to routinely end up with gouges in the base and for the most part, that doesn't happen anymore. It's all about what you think is fun and I happen to continually gravitate to the fat ski.


----------



## xwhaler (Feb 9, 2015)

I ski the 100mm Surface Watch Lifes in 181. Nice ski, sometimes a bit too stiff to really enjoy in the trees/bumps. Wish they were a bit more playful and/or I could control them better in those spots.
That said its a nice all mountain ski that does everything above average for me (other than bumps)
Picked them up a few seasons ago for $250 shipped and they have held up pretty well.

I've thought about getting a true carve ski low waist something around 175 cm long for the true hardpack days


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 9, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> I've been skiing 100mm wide skis for the last 2 years on the east coast and I certainly haven't found that they "suck". In fact they've been way better than the 80mm rossignols I was skiing previously



Suck is relative.   My main skis are 98mm wide and they carve relatively well at their natural radius.  But their is no comparison to real carving skis.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 9, 2015)

jrmagic said:


> It's all about choice. I do have a pair of 78mm and a slalom race ski that is about 60mm and I rarely take them out. My locker is 100 yards or so from the lift and I still never go back for the other boards
> Is it the absolute best tool for the job? Definitely not in all cases but I can honestly say mine are pretty darn versatile and are a lot of fun in the moguls too .



Same here.  I stick to the woods and steeps all the time so 98mm underfoot with mild rocker is my weapon of choice.  I have a condo on the hill and only take the carving skis early in the season on artificial snow.  And not for long cause I find carving to be boring.  But they can't be beat on hard surfaces.


----------



## Tin (Feb 9, 2015)

I was never a fan of carving but a pair of fat skis with little tip rocker are fun to charge on. My dailys are 105 and the hardest thing to figure out was positioning on them. I have Schizos and now move them back and forth depending on what I need. Once you figure out the ski and how to ride it wide skis are the way to go. There is nothing you cannot do on them, including bumps.


----------



## Glenn (Feb 9, 2015)

Demo, demo and then demo. Do it on a day where conditions are "average" for where you usually ski. Don't buy into the hype. I'm always perplexed when I see these dudes on double rockered 110mm "bronana" boards. "Yeah, they do fine on a ice." ummm......


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 9, 2015)

Tin said:


> There is nothing you cannot do on them, including bumps.



You can ski powder on skinny skis.  Does not mean you should.  It's all about compromise.  

You can ski ice on fat skis.  You can also ski hard bumps on fats skis.  But they are not designed for that.  

My point is that you see more and more intermediate skiers with minimal technical ability, who spend most of their time on groomers, sporting fats skis.  And it does not make sense.


----------



## Tin (Feb 9, 2015)

fbrissette said:


> You can ski powder on skinny skis.  Does not mean you should.  It's all about compromise.
> 
> You can ski ice on fat skis.  You can also ski hard bumps on fats skis.  But they are not designed for that.
> 
> My point is that you see more and more intermediate skiers with minimal technical ability, who spend most of their time on groomers, sporting fats skis.  And it does not make sense.



Absolutely agreed.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 9, 2015)

Glenn said:


> Demo, demo and then demo.



Yes, yes and then yes.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 9, 2015)

xwhaler said:


> I ski the 100mm Surface Watch Lifes in 181. Nice ski, sometimes a bit too stiff to really enjoy in the trees/bumps. Wish they were a bit more playful and/or I could control them better in those spots.
> That said its a nice all mountain ski that does everything above average for me (other than bumps)
> Picked them up a few seasons ago for $250 shipped and they have held up pretty well.
> 
> I've thought about getting a true carve ski low waist something around 175 cm long for the true hardpack days



The green life's I have are the same ski as the watch life. I got them from surface back in 2012 for 150 shipped. I really like them but I'd like to try something with some rocker. I believe the ones I have are 182 with no rocker, just wondering if the 181 is going to feel too short since it has the rocker


----------



## xwhaler (Feb 9, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> The green life's I have are the same ski as the watch life. I got them from surface back in 2012 for 150 shipped. I really like them but I'd like to try something with some rocker. I believe the ones I have are 182 with no rocker, just wondering if the 181 is going to feel too short since it has the rocker



Mine are the 182 with no rocker, same as Green Lifes other than the graphics.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 9, 2015)

How tall are you?  How much do you weigh?  Maybe you already posted that information.  It's not really a question that can be answered without that information.


----------



## bigbog (Feb 9, 2015)

Yeah,
 Agree with all that's been said.. Think looking at the intended environment of the particular ski...along with their length table should help.   Just haven't skied that many soft-snow skis in the last 5 years..;-)


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 9, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> How tall are you?  How much do you weigh?  Maybe you already posted that information.  It's not really a question that can be answered without that information.



6'1 ~240 (I'm a fatass). I ski the 182s right now.


----------



## mishka (Feb 9, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> How tall are you?  How much do you weigh?  Maybe you already posted that information.  It's not really a question that can be answered without that information.



I disagree. This information may or may not be relevant. good example my skis MR87, 100 and MR110 has been tested by different people ranges from 5' to 6' 5"  and 130Lb to 250+ with who same results. you included btw

to OP you can possibly make your non-rocker skis into rocker skis if that is your goal

 skis under 110 under foot can be daily driver. imo 120  and up is specialty skis for pow just like under 70 race skis or mogul skis

as a ski maker I can have anything and I mean ANYTHING even 160 underfoot. My daily drivers MR87 and MR100


----------



## bdfreetuna (Feb 9, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> I've been skiing 100mm wide skis for the last 2 years on the east coast and I certainly haven't found that they "suck". In fact they've been way better than the 80mm rossignols I was skiing previously



Which Rossignols and which new 100mm skis if you don't mind me asking. Reason is I have 80mm Rossignol Phantoms. Love these skis, but they're getting a bit beat up. I'm thinking I might go around 90mm for my next skis. "Rocker" tips and camber underfoot like I have already.

Can you really make quick turns in woods and ski bumps as well going from 80mm > 100mm?


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 9, 2015)

I've demoed some bigger skis in the past not sure if I'll have a chance this year. FYI if anyone is looking at any surface skis I've got a promo code for 40% off. The all mountain blanks (basically the skis I have now) at 172cm are like $167 right now with the code.They didn't tell me not to give it out but I want to make sure it goes through for me first


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 9, 2015)

mishka said:


> I disagree. This information may or may not be relevant. good example my skis MR87, 100 and MR110 has been tested by different people ranges from 5' to 6' 5"  and 130Lb to 250+ with who same results. you included btw



You are proving my point.  I'm 5'8" and 210#  (though normally in the 185-190 range).   My Nordica Vagabonds are 107 underfoot and about 180 length.  I would not want the 185.  Too long.  If I were the OPs size, I'd go with the longer length Vagabond, as someone his size wouldn't get the same float out of the 180 as I get.

When I tested your MR110, which I believe are 186?  I thought, "nice ski, but too long for me."  Depending on the size of the skier, that extra 5-7cm in length will make a HUGE difference in performance IMO.  It's a very noticeable increase in overall surface area of the ski, which affects quickness edge to edge and more importantly than that, swing weight.   Swing weight is a very big deal in steep, tight Eastern trees when you've got minimal room to execute a jump turn or you'll end up eating bark or rock. 

Now, you might say you've seen me ski both on my 180cm Vagabond and your 186cm MR110 and think to yourself, "I skied both skis equally as well."  I did ski pretty well on the MR110, but they were a lot of work for someone my size.  I would begin to struggle on that ski much earlier in the day than I would on my Vagabonds.  That's not to say the MR110 isn't a great ski, it is.  But, I think they're designed for someone 6'+ and 220#+.   

My only thought regarding the OPs initial query is that 120 is absolutely too wide for a daily driver.  I've been using my 107mm Vagabond as a daily driver this year, but that's only because I've been very lucky and 75% of the time I've been out, I've had fresh snow to ski.  They're a fantastic ski that I can ski everywhere, but for certain they are too wide for a daily driver in the East.  I would think a perfect NE daily driver is 88-100, with camber underfoot, tip rocker and maybe a little in the tail depending on preference.  If you're someone who is highly critical of a skis bump and carving performance, go to the low end of that scale.  If you prefer more float and crud smashing ability, go to the wider end of that scale.  Bump performance is a big deal to me.  I'd probably choose a ski around 90 underfoot for that reason.  For me, something like a Nordica Steadfast would be the perfect east coast ski.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 9, 2015)

bdfreetuna said:


> Which Rossignols and which new 100mm skis if you don't mind me asking. Reason is I have 80mm Rossignol Phantoms. Love these skis, but they're getting a bit beat up. I'm thinking I might go around 90mm for my next skis. "Rocker" tips and camber underfoot like I have already.
> 
> Can you really make quick turns in woods and ski bumps as well going from 80mm > 100mm?



Looking at the rossignols I had I think they were actually skinnier. They were the pow airs from several years ago


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 9, 2015)

fbrissette said:


> My point is that *you see more and more intermediate skiers with minimal technical ability, who spend most of their time on groomers, sporting fats skis.  And it does not make sense*.



Agree 100%.

I also believe many are on skis that are longer than necessary, a holdover from the days when longer skis = better skier.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 9, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> I also believe many are on skis that are longer than necessary, a holdover from the days when longer skis = better skier.



So my question is if I've been skiing 182s with no rocker is 181 with rocker going to feel too short


----------



## mishka (Feb 9, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> So my question is if I've been skiing 182s with no rocker is 181 with rocker going to feel too short



if rocker small probably not if rocker big specially with very short running length possibly ski will feels short. imo individual experience might be different. meaning to try something similar to what you want to get.
I don't know what else to tell you except...... if you're looking something specific and can't find it I can make whatever you want.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 9, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> So my question is if I've been skiing 182s with no rocker is 181 with rocker going to feel too short



Nearly impossible to say.  Depends on too many variables - ski, skier and terrain related.   Demoing is the only sure way to answer this.


----------



## jrmagic (Feb 9, 2015)

BenedictGomez said:


> Agree 100%.
> 
> I also believe many are on skis that are longer than necessary, a holdover from the days when longer skis = better skier.



People on skis too long generally do it to themselves. There are many others on skis way too short as well and those are often recommendations from sales reps at ski shops which is a gold er from when the ski industry was pushing stupid short skis. My buddy is one case. He  was sold AC40 or 50 in a 161. He's 5'8 and close to 200 :what:


----------



## Scruffy (Feb 9, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> So my question is if I've been skiing 182s with no rocker is 181 with rocker going to feel too short



Too many variables to answer your question. There is not a lot of information out there on Surface Green Life skis. EVO gear says they are on the stiff side. The Daily skis are medium flex. Right there you have and issue. Because of the both tip and tail rocker, the running length of the Daily is much shorter and the flex is softer, than your current ski. Just because they are both Surface skis, don't expect them to ski the same; they will most likely ski entirely different. At 181cm, and your size and weight, they could feel not only short, but like noodles too.

Does that mean you go with the 191? You could take a chance, but you may hate them. Better to demo if you can, or take a chance, and be prepared to sell them for pennies on the dollar on ebay if you don't like them.


----------



## jrmagic (Feb 9, 2015)

Scruffy said:


> Does that mean you go with the 191? You could take a chance, but you may hate them. Better to demo if you can, or take a chance, and be prepared to sell them for pennies on the dollar on ebay if you don't like them.



Given that the OP can get them for under 400, I'd think the markdown he'd have to swallow to sell on ebay shouldn't be horrendous but it's definitely a risk. That type of ski could probably fetch low 300s on TGR if only used a couple of times.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 9, 2015)

Apparently they're the same ski as the previous live lifes. I haven't seen any reviews of that ski suggesting that it is too soft


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 9, 2015)

On an unrelated note any recommendations on bindings? I currently have the rossignols axial2s on my green life's and the seem to work fine. The din is set at 8.5 I believe. Again I'm 6'1 and about 240. Thanks guys


----------



## jrmagic (Feb 9, 2015)

Salomon sth 14 bindings are pretty bomber. You can probably find last year's model for under 200.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 9, 2015)

jrmagic said:


> Salomon sth 14 bindings are pretty bomber. You can probably find last year's model for under 200.



What's the difference between the 12 and the 14?


----------



## prsboogie (Feb 9, 2015)

The 14s are metal toe and heel and they have a "driver" toe piece. They adjust to your boot toe height and width also have a 4 screw mount apposed to the 3 auto adjust toe on the 12s. And there is the difference in upper din settings


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 9, 2015)

I generally don't have a din set above 10 so I'm not sure I need that. I found another pair of the axial 2s for 178, maybe I'll see if I can find any of those for cheaper


----------



## prsboogie (Feb 9, 2015)

I love my look PX 12s and you can find them for about 129 on evo.com


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 9, 2015)

Just found this 
http://www.alpineshopvt.com/rossignol-axial-2-120-alpine-binding-2014.html#.VNlvzLWCPCR


----------



## C-Rex (Feb 10, 2015)

I saw a guy at Magic yesterday that had the widest skis I've seen to date.  They seriously looked like he took two of the narrower carving snowboards and stuck ski bindings on them, only they were much longer.  I can't imagine needing that much surface area to stay afloat on any type of deep powder.  He wasn't a heavy looking guy either.  Just makes me wonder, do some companies take it too far?  Is that every really necessary?


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 10, 2015)

Well I decided to go with the 191s after reading about the previous years live lifes and looking at some skis at alpine haus. Couldn't pass up that deal, looks like I should be able to get the skis and bindings for about 500 total


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jrmagic (Feb 11, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> Well I decided to go with the 191s after reading about the previous years live lifes and looking at some skis at alpine haus. Couldn't pass up that deal, looks like I should be able to get the skis and bindings for about 500 total
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Not a bad price at all. Good luck and be sure to let us know what you think once you have been on them.


----------



## jrmagic (Feb 11, 2015)

prsboogie said:


> The 14s are metal toe and heel and they have a "driver" toe piece. They adjust to your boot toe height and width also have a 4 screw mount apposed to the 3 auto adjust toe on the 12s. And there is the difference in upper din settings



Great desccription. I know  the OP already bought so it doesnt really matter for him but  it's the metal construction that adds to the cost and hopefully to the longevity of the bindings The driver toe is a nice feature though not neccesary. At 6' and almost 260 I'm pretty hard on my bindings so didn't mind the extra cash. I wound up buying the previous model year and paid 169 I believe.


----------



## RustyGroomer (Feb 11, 2015)

C-Rex said:


> I saw a guy at Magic yesterday that had the widest skis I've seen to date.  They seriously looked like he took two of the narrower carving snowboards and stuck ski bindings on them, only they were much longer.  I can't imagine needing that much surface area to stay afloat on any type of deep powder.  He wasn't a heavy looking guy either.  Just makes me wonder, do some companies take it too far?  Is that every really necessary?


 I heard someone else mention that guy.  I wish we had a pic.  Maybe they were the new "Circus Clownz"


----------



## jrmagic (Feb 11, 2015)

RustyGroomer said:


> I heard someone else mention that guy.  I wish we had a pic.  Maybe they were the new "Circus Clownz"



Or the new EC Spirit Animal...


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 11, 2015)

jrmagic said:


> Great desccription. I know  the OP already bought so it doesnt really matter for him but  it's the metal construction that adds to the cost and hopefully to the longevity of the bindings The driver toe is a nice feature though not neccesary. At 6' and almost 260 I'm pretty hard on my bindings so didn't mind the extra cash. I wound up buying the previous model year and paid 169 I believe.



I actually haven't bought any bindings yet, I'm still looking. I found the axial2s for 137, I haven't really found anything else for less than 200 so I may end up going with those


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 11, 2015)

Ok so I could get the axials with a 120mm brake for 137 shipped or I could get the look px 12s for the same price except the brakes are only 100mm. I assume I would need to buy the wider brakes so it would be an extra 30 bucks or so right? Would it be worth it for the looks over the rossis?


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Feb 11, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> Ok so I could get the axials with a 120mm brake for 137 shipped or I could get the look px 12s for the same price except the brakes are only 100mm. I assume I would need to buy the wider brakes so it would be an extra 30 bucks or so right? Would it be worth it for the looks over the rossis?



Same binding, different color and name.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 11, 2015)

Well then it looks like I'm getting the rossignols. Just wish I could find another pair of the Orange ones for the same price. That's what I have now and I love how they look


----------



## dlague (Feb 11, 2015)

http://www.skis.com/Rossignol-Freeski2-120-XXL-Ski-Bindings-2013/311158P,default,pd.html


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 11, 2015)

dlague said:


> http://www.skis.com/Rossignol-Freeski2-120-XXL-Ski-Bindings-2013/311158P,default,pd.html



That's the same binding as this isn't it?
http://www.alpineshopvt.com/rossignol-axial-2-120-alpine-binding-2014.html#.VNu0dCOCPCT


----------



## jrmagic (Feb 11, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> Ok so I could get the axials with a 120mm brake for 137 shipped or I could get the look px 12s for the same price except the brakes are only 100mm. I assume I would need to buy the wider brakes so it would be an extra 30 bucks or so right? Would it be worth it for the looks over the rossis?



Level nine has the axial with 120mm brake  for 119


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 11, 2015)

jrmagic said:


> Level nine has the axial with 120mm brake  for 119



That looks like it's the demo version (as it has the demo plate underneath). Does that make a difference?


----------



## jrmagic (Feb 11, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> That looks like it's the demo version (as it has the demo plate underneath). Does that make a difference?



I didn't even notice that... Demo bindings arent bad per se but If I was going to be the only one using them I would opt for the non-adjustable ones.


----------



## dlague (Feb 11, 2015)

dlague said:


> http://www.skis.com/Rossignol-Freeski2-120-XXL-Ski-Bindings-2013/311158P,default,pd.html





rocks860 said:


> That's the same binding as this isn't it?
> http://www.alpineshopvt.com/rossignol-axial-2-120-alpine-binding-2014.html#.VNu0dCOCPCT



What's the difference between freeski2 binding and Axial2 binding? Is it adjustable to fit a slight different BSL?
Asked : Mar 09, 2014
By : Yong
Know the answer? Answer this question

A: The Rossignol Freeski2 120 XXL bindings will have an adjustable range of ~10mm, and, will be the newer version of the Axial2 bindings.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 11, 2015)

dlague said:


> What's the difference between freeski2 binding and Axial2 binding? Is it adjustable to fit a slight different BSL?
> Asked : Mar 09, 2014
> By : Yong
> Know the answer? Answer this question
> ...



Huh, that's what I get for not reading. Looks like this is at the head of the pack then


----------



## Puck it (Feb 11, 2015)

You might want to ask this question!!!


*Does this ski make me look fat?*


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 11, 2015)

Would that 115 brake fit a 120 ski? The other axials I posted have a 120 brake


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 11, 2015)

Puck it said:


> You might want to ask this question!!!
> 
> 
> *Does this ski make me look fat?*



My fat makes me look fat


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 11, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> My fat makes me look fat



You beat me to it !


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 11, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> Would that 115 brake fit a 120 ski? The other axials I posted have a 120 brake



Will likely fit without bending.

Will definitely fit after minimal bending.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 11, 2015)

Guess I'm gonna go with that Rossi freeski2


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 13, 2015)

Skis should get here next wednesday


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 15, 2015)

fat skis are bad for you, apparently.

http://unofficialnetworks.com/2015/02/study-finds-that-fat-skis-are-killing-your-knees


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 15, 2015)

gmcunni said:


> fat skis are bad for you, apparently.
> 
> http://unofficialnetworks.com/2015/02/study-finds-that-fat-skis-are-killing-your-knees




'...has found that skiing hard-packed snow on a ski wider than 80 mm underfoot puts an undue amount of stress on knee and ankle joints'

The key point here is 'hard-packed'.   

A- fat skis are not designed for hard-pack (no matter what many seem to think on this board)
B- any good skier with experience knows that narrow skis carve much easier with less body movement (I assume this study looks at carving)
C-fat skis are much easier on the joints than narrow skis in powder and crust. 

What you need is the right tool for the job.


----------



## dlague (Feb 17, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> Guess I'm gonna go with that Rossi freeski2



    Good choice!


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 18, 2015)

Well got the skis, now just waiting on the bindings


----------



## prsboogie (Feb 18, 2015)

Nice!!


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 18, 2015)

Schweeeet! I think you have the right season for them. Enjoy!


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 18, 2015)

They are definitely some big ass skis


----------



## mishka (Feb 18, 2015)

you did it  .... now it will be raining often lol


----------



## moresnow (Feb 18, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> They are definitely some big ass skis



Quiet down. 
http://unofficialnetworks.com/2015/02/study-finds-that-fat-skis-are-killing-your-knees

These are not the skis you are looking for.


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 19, 2015)

You know that was already posted... On this same page of the thread


----------



## moresnow (Feb 19, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> You know that was already posted... On this same page of the thread



So much for paying attention.


----------



## bigbog (Feb 20, 2015)

Would be worth it, performance-wise, to get a fore/aft alignment assessment.  If you need a little help in getting in balance from the binding's ramp = often an issue, or whatever, ...simply shimming the toe high 1-3deg, under the binding, can solve an issue pretty easily...and make a world of difference in how it all works.  Fwiw...
*Always really good shops/guys up near the mountains....


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 20, 2015)

I'm so confused by this post


----------



## rocks860 (Feb 23, 2015)

Mounted and ready to go


----------



## prsboogie (Mar 4, 2015)

So any updates on performance?


----------



## rocks860 (Mar 4, 2015)

They worked out great at pico on Saturday. Great in the woods, carved some nice turns on the groomed loose snow. We're even nice in the soft moguls. A little sketchy on the slicker skied off stuff at the top of the mountain but nothing too bad. Overall very fun. They definitely feel a bit more surfy than anything I've skied before but I really enjoy them. Probably gonna hit up plattekill with them this weekend


----------



## prsboogie (Mar 4, 2015)

They are awesome looking sticks, good luck with them


----------



## rocks860 (Mar 4, 2015)

Thanks man, already got some questions/compliments on em saturday. Definitely glad I went with the 191, they feel like just the right length


----------



## freeski (Mar 4, 2015)

Swap out the bindings this summer and you can water ski on them. Seriously they look cool.


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 4, 2015)

freeski said:


> Swap out the bindings this summer and you can water ski on them. Seriously they look cool.



He's definitely set for pond skimming this spring...


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 4, 2015)

Those are some sweet looking skis.


----------



## rocks860 (Mar 4, 2015)

St. Bear said:


> Those are some sweet looking skis.



Was hoping to find some of the Orange axial 2 bindings for them but the black and white were way cheaper. I've got the Orange on the other skis.


----------



## dlague (Mar 4, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> You know that was already posted... On this same page of the thread



happens all the time - become numb to it!


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 4, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> Was hoping to find some of the Orange axial 2 bindings for them but the black and white were way cheaper. I've got the Orange on the other skis.



I like the white on white look.


----------



## gmcunni (Sep 2, 2015)

From some skiing mag -

The Rise and Fall of Fatties
There’s mounting evidence that superfat powder pigs have had their day, and that slimmer widths are what’s really selling. According to industry figures, last year’s sales of skis wider  than 110 mm remained well below their 2011–12 high. “There are still a lot of fat skis sitting on retailers’ walls from two and three years ago,” says Fischer’s Matt Berkowitz. 

Skis with 80- to 90-mm waists remain the hottest sellers, and the fastest-growing segment is 101 to 110 mm. 

Eastern skiers appear to be warming to 80-plus waists, while Western skiers gravitate to 100-plus waists for everyday use. Brands are beefing up on narrow offerings. Examples: Rossi’s redesigned Pursuit series (71 to 74 mm), Head’s all-new Instincts (74 to 82), Fischer’s Progressor series (73 to 75), and Blizzard’s new G-Power (a value-priced citizen racer, $799 with binding). Salomon adds a 75 and two 80s to its X-Drive series, and Nordica adds two new models (80Ti and 76Ca) to its carvy Fire Arrow line


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 2, 2015)

About time.


----------



## St. Bear (Sep 2, 2015)

> the fastest-growing segment is 101 to 110 mm.



So...still wide then?


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 2, 2015)

rocks860 said:


> I'm thinking of picking up so new skis and using my current ones as my crappy conditions skis. My current skis are 181s and are 100mm wide and I love em. They don't have any rocker. The ones I'm looking at do have rocker and come in a 181 (110 wide) or 191 (120 wide). I was considering the longer ones because of the rocker but is 120 too wide for east coast skiing? At the beginning of the month we had a minor powder day up at sugarbush and this past week I skiied some deeper stuff at okemo and the 100's skied great but I almost wanted something a little wider. Any thoughts?



Accept nothing less than the Duret 178:

http://www.duretproshop.com/en/skis/256-monstre-fat-duret-.html


----------



## Dickc (Sep 2, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> Accept nothing less than the Duret 178:
> 
> http://www.duretproshop.com/en/skis/256-monstre-fat-duret-.html



You might as well mount bindings on a pair of snowboards.


----------



## SnowDogWax (Sep 2, 2015)

The wider the better...


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Sep 2, 2015)

One pair of snowboard boots and bindings. 
Two snowboards. 
Mount at 90 degrees. 
Leashes optional.


----------

