# New England powder/glades skis



## billski (Feb 1, 2009)

I've been happily skiing some midfat Volkl 724 Pros @ 115-77-104 for the past few seasons when I get untracked pow or woods skiing.

I'm generally pleased with them, I don't submarine like I do with my GS skis.  But I'm wondering if I can do better.  I still seem to sit back more than I would like in order to float well.

For the east, I'm looking for suggestions on what the optimal width and flex should be for those pow days.

Ditto for the woods.  For tight woods, it often seems that flex and length are the more critical factors.  Would you agree?  

Frame all of this by the fact that I'm a middle-aging all-terrain, explorer type of skier.  Middle aging means I ain't as strong as I used to be or would like to be.  So I don't want to muscle my way around any more, I want skill and form to rule.

Ideas?


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 1, 2009)

Well, you already have a mid-fat. So one thought might be to get something a lot fatter. However, your mid-fat is not optimal for tree skiing, especially given your not wanting to muscle your way around the mountain. Any ski with metal (most Volkl's included) would probably not fit the bill. 

I can speak for Dynastar's and Fischer's product lines. I would definitely recommend the Legend 8000 as a superb east coast tree ski when powder is light and under a foot. A little wider would be the Mythic Rider which I have not skied but I understand that it should ski better than the 8800 for woods. On the Fischer side, you have the Watea. I have not skied the 84, but I own the Atua which is essentially a Watea 94 with slightly more width and a twin and it has become my go to powder ski. In a matter of fact, I haven't skied my 8000s hardly all season, touring days excepted... and even then, yesterday I would have killed for something in the mid-90s under foot. These skis are best on powder and not so great on the groomers... especially when the groomers are scraped or icy. But that is why a multi-ski quiver is optimal. Or you can do what I do and simply not ski when the snow is not powdery. 

I can't speak for the other lines but every ski manufacturer has powder boards... often times skiing radically different than each other. A multi-manufacturer demo day would definitely be in order. Not only do you not know which ski you want... it sounds like you are not certain on how wide either. 80? 85? 90? 95? A few seasons ago, I thought I would never need something over 80. Now if it is powder and I don't have at least 95 under foot, I am not satisfied with the powder performance. But two years ago I was skiing the same powder happily with 80 under foot. With 80 under foot, I need to sit back a bit to not submerge the tips in some types of powder. With 95 under foot, I can rail skis in powder just like I might rail a groomer.

What are the optimal dimensions? That depends on what you like in a ski, what type of performance do you need, what are you used to, what is your skiing style, etc. Even some one with your same exact specs and build and style might like a completely different set of ski dimensions. Fatter the better for powder... BUT do you need a ski that is highly maneuverable when the powder is tracked out and packed down into tree bumps? Are you gunning for mostly untracked days or day after sloppy seconds? Are you going to get the occasional half foot of powder or are you only breaking out the big boards for a foot or more? Lots of compromises to make depending upon what you plan to do with the ski.


----------



## billski (Feb 1, 2009)

Excellent points Steve.  It's only been the last 7 years that I have finally been able to afford what I like.  I've a pair of Volkl superspeeds, 168cm 115-70-99, the damned stiffest ski I've ever owned.  It's my GS cruiser on hardpack/groomed/ice and it's true love, perfect for that application.

I like the Volkl 724's to (162cm) on the pow.  I only half-love them in the woods  I guess I like them because of their flex, but I can't be sure if it's good enough or the right length.  I CAN'T take the SS's into the woods; they are so damned stiff they kill me on the bumps.

I have to be realistic and say,what percentage of my days have enough pow to float on.  Probably 10-20%.  However, I'm more and more into the woods, probably at least 50% of every day.  I don't mind switching gear, I bring both and see what conditions bring, though I am apt to stick with one pair of sticks for the day.

So you believe ski weight makes a diff in the woods?


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 1, 2009)

I believe having the right weight ski for your style, ability, build, and muscles makes a difference in the woods. From my own perspective, as an example, I felt that the Volkl Mantra was too beefy and heavy for me to wield in the woods and its sheets of metal made it difficult for me to get the flex I was looking for. But on the flip side, the Mantra has many dedicated enthusiasts that swear by it for woods and pow. So there is no one right answer as so much depends on your preferences and what feels best to you.

Sounds like you are not looking for a dedicated powder board, but rather an all around natural snow ski with bias towards pow and trees. Something that can get you around the mountain all day well after everything is tracked out and chewed up and with limited untracked powder days. I'd say go with something in the 80-90 range under foot with a decent amount of side cut (i.e. less than 30m). I am biased against metal in skis for pow and woods, for the record. So take it for what it is worth when I suggest avoiding skis with sheets of titanium but I say that due to your not loving the 724 Pros in the woods. If you want something softer flexing... look wood core without the titanium sheets. Some people swear by the 724 Pros as a woods ski, and the Mantra, and a host of other heavy beefy skis. All depends on what you need.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Feb 2, 2009)

steve already hit on it...Fischer Watea 94...94mm waist, woodcore, sidewall ski with no metal...comes in a 178cm, great length for eastern trees and the occasional fluffy day.  94 is fat enough for more float than you've ever had, but not so fat that you won't get plenty of use out of them in the east...pow days and spring slush.  Tough to find a ski that width that doesn't have metal and can still hold on harder snow...lots of twins in that category but most lack in the edge grip dept.


----------



## mondeo (Feb 2, 2009)

Seems like I'm looking for about the same thing, just with some flexibility in the tip for bumps. If you're looking for a powder day ski, even in the East I don't think edge grip is a major issue. Believe it or not, you can survive a run here or there on ice with a ski that isn't particularly well designed for it. As long as the focus is on powder days, I wouldn't even think about edge hold. You can find the soft stuff on powder days at the end of the day, just as long as you don't have a strong desire to ski the main boulevards. Might not be untracked, but still stuff where you don't need edges.

And if you guys were suggesting 90+ underfoot for me coming from a bump ski, I can't see a recommendation for less than 90+ here.

How about Big Troubles? Might not be quite as good on hardpack, but about half the price of the Wateas. (Asking the question for myself for those 10% days, not as a suggestion.)


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 2, 2009)

If the Wateas are too much on the pocket book, another option is the Atua which is the predicesor of the Watea 94. This is the route I went... demo ski in perfect condition for two bills on eBay from evogear.com. Thank you very much! Two mm's wider in the waist and only one size in a 186 but it has a twin. Not that I am pushing that particular ski, but just responding to the money issue modeo brought up. Don't know much about the Big Troubles but in the Dynastar camp, the Mythic Rider is generally well regarded as a good powder board.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 2, 2009)

One thing to consider for the 'average' skier who may only get out on Powder 5-10 days a year, you could be using those skis for ten years.  My powder skis are still a set of Rossi Axioms I bought new in 2000.  They're a touch wide for where I'm skiing most of the time these days at about 115ish underfoot.

I'd love a pair of Watea's as my powder boards in a 178 to have something a bit more nimble.


----------



## mondeo (Feb 2, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> One thing to consider for the 'average' skier who may only get out on Powder 5-10 days a year,


:smile:

Just found it sorta funny how on here, an 'average' skier may _only_ get 5-10 powder days a year. When if I remember the numbers correctly, the actual average skier only skis 4-6 days at all per year.

We rule.

:beer:


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 2, 2009)

I actually skewed that number high because of people like Rivercoil and eastcoast who are more fortunate than I and ski a lot of Powder.  I'm lucky for 3-4 Powder days these days considering I only get out about 20 days a season.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 2, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I actually skewed that number high because of people like Rivercoil and eastcoast who are more fortunate than I and ski a lot of Powder.  I'm lucky for 3-4 Powder days these days considering I only get out about 20 days a season.


I only have two more ski days than you this season. Those two days were my non-powder days  Powder days are not about frequency. They are about flexibility.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 2, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> I only have two more ski days than you this season. Those two days were my non-powder days  Powder days are not about frequency. They are about flexibility.



Oh, I definitely know that.  It's the one thing I really hate about my job....zero flexibility.  I love everything but that.  All I can do is pray for weekend storms for the most part.


----------



## Terry (Feb 3, 2009)

A freind that I ski with a lot is skiing on Line 100's this year. He says that they carve very well and float unbeleivably in powder. He uses them for every day skiing on groomed, moguls, trees, and of course on powder days. Of course he can ski on anything for equipment but he really likes them. He allways has a big grin on when skiing!!!


----------



## prisnah (Feb 3, 2009)

i'm looking for the same thing. Right now I'm skiing on AR6's which are 83 underfoot I think. I also have a pair of Bros that I gotta get mounted soon. 

I've narrowed my powder/glade/touring ski options to: K2 Obsethed, Line Prophet 100, Rossi S6 Koopman and the Movement Baggy. 

Ideally I want the Obsethed, but they're pretty tough to find in a 179. The Baggy is a sick ski, but outta my price range at the moment. 

The Koopman is the same as the Scratch Steeze was and is a pretty sweet eastern pow tool.

Prophets are cheap, easy to find and really well reviewed skis. I skied Line Blends for a bit and liked those and they're pretty similar skis. Heard they're very "turny" though which I'm not sure if I like. 

If you really want a dedicated powder/glade ski I wouldn’t bother with anything that isn’t a twin.  They tend to float a bit better, turn easier, and make tight woods shots much easier to navigate in general. Nothing better than not having to worry about catching the back of your ski on a rock or tree in a billygoat situation.


----------



## snowmonster (Feb 3, 2009)

I agree that you should be looking at a ski which is 90 to 100 underfoot. Also agree that you may want a ski that's not too stiff, which can be difficult to maneuver in tight spaces.

I have 2 sets of fat skis: 94 (Rossi B4) and 100 (Rossi B Squad) underfoot. They both float well in deep snow and they make powder days a real joy. However, the ski that's 100 underfoot is quite stiff and needs to be driven. When the snow is deep or cruddy and I'm skiing in wide spaces or if the conditions are icy, these are the go to skis since they float, motor through crud and have a great grip on ice. However, they can get unwieldly in the trees when I need to turn almost on a dime. Also, they need some speed to turn which is not something you may necessarily have in tight spaces. Someday if I make it to Alaska, this is the ski I'm taking.

When I know I'm going to be spending a lot of time in the glades, the 94 underfoot ski is the go to ski -- floaty, turny, forgiving. It can take the stop and go rhythm of glade life. The down side is that it's not a great hard snow gripper which can be a problem -- but not too much -- if you need to access icy trails in between glades (e.g., Jay Peak in January). If I had to recommend a glade ski, this would be it.


----------



## Puck it (Feb 3, 2009)

Icelantic Nomad's or Pilgrim's.  I have Nomads in a 168cm.  They float in deep powder (at Alta 20") and are nimble in the woods with 10" of freshies.  Perfect East Coast Powder Tree Ski.  I am getting the Pilgrims in 179cm when I find a good price.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 3, 2009)

What did you pay for the Nomads?  How do you feel about the 168 length?


----------



## Puck it (Feb 3, 2009)

I got the Nomads from Level Nine Sports in SLC.  I paid 579 for the skis last year with LD12 RFII bindings for $40 more.   I may go flat with the Pilgrims, but it is tempting to just put a RFII on for $10 and resuse bindings.  I have 3 pair of RF bindings.

I think the length is just fine.  I would have liked a 175cm but 168cm is the longest of last years model.  I would say the 178cm would awesome for the West.  The 168cm is great for EC trees though.  I am going with the 179cm Pilgrims though.  I had a chance to 169cm for $325(last years) but passed thinking the 178cm would be better.

Great conversation piece on lift rides too.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 3, 2009)

Puck it said:


> I am getting the Pilgrims in 179cm when I find a good price.




http://www.evogear.com/skis/icelantic-pilgrim-2009.aspx

$418


----------



## madskier6 (Feb 3, 2009)

I love my Volkl Gotamas for powder & trees in the East.  They have no metal in them, float very well & are very maneuverable in the trees.  At 105 mm underfoot, they are wider than what most people in this thread have suggested for you but they don't feel that wide to me.  They do short turns in the trees very well but yet can also make nice long floaty turns in wide open terrain when you need them to.

They also are very good in the Spring on corn snow.  Check them out if you can.  They certainly don't ski like they're as wide as 105 mm so don't be freaked out simply by the number.


----------



## billski (Feb 3, 2009)

madskier6 said:


> I love my Volkl Gotamas for powder & trees in the East.  They have no metal in them, float very well & are very maneuverable in the trees.  At 105 mm underfoot, they are wider than what most people in this thread have suggested for you but they don't feel that wide to me.  They do short turns in the trees very well but yet can also make nice long floaty turns in wide open terrain when you need them to.
> 
> They also are very good in the Spring on corn snow.  Check them out if you can.  They certainly don't ski like they're as wide as 105 mm so don't be freaked out simply by the number.



You're a bit outside the standard deviation of responses, so tell me more about you and how you ski.  Aggressive?  What types of trees are you into, dense stuff or more wide open float.  What trees and where/ how about naming some resorts to give me a sense.  

What's your strength?  Above average?  I'm kinda the weak kid on the block so I rely more on technique then muscle to get through.  I'm a bit concerned it might be more work.

ARe the Gotamas a light weight ski?

tx!


----------



## Puck it (Feb 4, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> http://www.evogear.com/skis/icelantic-pilgrim-2009.aspx
> 
> $418


 

That is a good price.  I was hoping for like 300 to 350 range.  I am holding out since I think the spring sales will be good this year.


----------



## madskier6 (Feb 4, 2009)

billski said:


> You're a bit outside the standard deviation of responses, so tell me more about you and how you ski.  Aggressive?  What types of trees are you into, dense stuff or more wide open float.  What trees and where/ how about naming some resorts to give me a sense.
> 
> What's your strength?  Above average?  I'm kinda the weak kid on the block so I rely more on technique then muscle to get through.  I'm a bit concerned it might be more work.
> 
> ...



The Gotamas are a light weight ski.  No metal & not burly to turn at all.  I don't like skis with metal in them or that turn like aircraft carriers.  I love these skis.  They are known to be easier, smoother turners.

I would say that I ski fairly aggressively but I don't muscle my turns.  I'm 45 yrs. old & not necessarily in great physical shape.  I like shorter snappier turns.  Some of my fellow AZers have described my ski style as the "Flowmeister".  I like to flow down the terrain as opposed to attacking it.  I don't zipperline bumps, I flow in & around them.

I tend to like more wide open trees than real dense stuff.  I like to ski the trees at Sugarbush, MRG, Burke & Magic.  I like Egan's Woods & Eden at Sugarbush.  I like Gazelle Glades & the trees off of Ferret/Upper Glades at MRG.  I also like Paradise & Fall Line at MRG although those aren't really tree runs, strictly speaking.  At Burke, I like The Jungle, Birches & Dixiland.

I've been to Stowe 4-5 times but never really spent much time in the trees there except for skiers left off of Chin Clip.  I'd love for someone who knows that mountain to show me around the woods there, but I digress.


----------



## billski (Feb 4, 2009)

madskier6 said:


> The Gotamas are a light weight ski.  No metal & not burly to turn at all.  I don't like skis with metal in them or that turn like aircraft carriers.  I love these skis.  They are known to be easier, smoother turners.
> 
> I would say that I ski fairly aggressively but I don't muscle my turns.  I'm 45 yrs. old & not necessarily in great physical shape.  I like shorter snappier turns.  Some of my fellow AZers have described my ski style as the "Flowmeister".  I like to flow down the terrain as opposed to attacking it.  I don't zipperline bumps, I flow in & around them.
> 
> ...



thanks, sounds like we have a similar style.  PM hardline - he's great for showing folks around the puckerbrush  at Stowe.


----------



## bigbog (Feb 4, 2009)

*....*

Enjoy similar places to play billski...and agree about enjoying touch as much as _Being Hermann Maier_...
FWIW..I demoed the Watea94s..ditto everything ECPH has been saying, but can add that the lack of metal in this ski makes it a very nimble ski _at any speed_!..*probably _THE_ thing I most like about it...seems like a no brainer for fresh snow...
I wish there would've been some crud around..like in a few of my BC playgrounds....to see how far the Wateas could go..but no luck....;-)
Have seen quite a few skis that I'd like to get outdoors and ski...


----------



## Terry (Feb 8, 2009)

OMG I am in love. I skied my friends Line Prophet 100's yesterday all day. Not much soft snow left to ski them in, but was very impressed with their performance on the groomers and even in the moguls. I don't ski moguls well, but had no trouble in them with the Lines. If you don't look down, they don't feel like a wide ski. They are also incredibly light. I think I need to go shopping but my wife does not agree! I just wish that we had some powder to try them in.


----------



## billski (Mar 6, 2009)

bump.  so I'm going to try out some of these recommendations if I can find them in shops in the next few weeks.


----------



## tekweezle (Mar 6, 2009)

hide your wallets!  Evogear has an additional 25% off their outlet prices.  no tax and free shipping.


----------



## bill2ski (Mar 6, 2009)

or for something completely different...............http://www.skiandsnowboardequipment.com/Volkl-TigerShark-12ft-Power-Switch-Men-s-Skis/p/SS1088?a=volkl.com


----------



## billski (Mar 6, 2009)

bill2ski said:


> or for something completely different...............http://www.skiandsnowboardequipment...-Power-Switch-Men-s-Skis/p/SS1088?a=volkl.com




Why?  They're so narrow in the waist and are even marketed as frontside skis.  No match in my book unless you're raggin on me!


----------



## tekweezle (Mar 7, 2009)

anyone have any thoughts on the Icelantic scouts as a east coast tree ski?  it's skied short-143 in length which might make it pretty nimble in trees.  it;s marketed as an AT touring board with 105 mm waist giving it good float.

I snagged a pair of Icelantic Pilgims on evogear.


----------



## hardline (Mar 8, 2009)

billski said:


> thanks, sounds like we have a similar style.  PM hardline - he's great for showing folks around the puckerbrush  at Stowe.



funny you mention that. i realized up at stratton that im getting a little silly with threading the needle in the bush. i seem to be pushing my self to take tighter lines through the woods. the brush seems to be a lot easier on a board then on skies.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Mar 11, 2009)

tekweezle said:


> anyone have any thoughts on the Icelantic scouts as a east coast tree ski?  it's skied short-143 in length which might make it pretty nimble in trees.  it;s marketed as an AT touring board with 105 mm waist giving it good float.
> 
> I snagged a pair of Icelantic Pilgims on evogear.



those are some clown skis..Phillycore has a pair..but I can ski the trees fine on 193s..Less surface area due to the shorter length so less float..


----------



## Edd (Mar 11, 2009)

There's alot of positive talk about the Blizzard Argos over on Epicski.  I've seen it referred to as a "Mantra Killer" but opinons vary.


----------



## billski (Apr 11, 2009)

I'll be trolling for a good deal this summer....


----------



## billski (Sep 12, 2009)

*Bang!*



billski said:


> I'll be trolling for a good deal this summer....


And I kept my promise. Pulled the trigger on a pair of Fisher Atua skis. 129-96-119. 






Now all I need is an east coast powder day! Quiver Quiver Quiver is now complete. 

*THANK YOU RIVERCOIL FOR YOUR ADVICE AND YOUR REVIEW on thesnowway.com!*


----------



## RootDKJ (Sep 12, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> With 80 under foot, I need to sit back a bit to not submerge the tips in some types of powder. With 95 under foot, I can rail skis in powder just like I might rail a groomer.



I missed this thread the 1st time...


I've really only had narrow-er skis since I started skiing again.  One condition I've struggled with is boot deep powder because of submarine-ing.  That's why I bought the Hot Rod last year.  I'm hoping at 84 under foot, I'll feel more float, and get more of a "rail" & control feeling.  Now I'm wondering if I should get something even wider, that will really take help out for the 3-4 powder days a year I might get...


----------



## billski (Sep 12, 2009)

RootDKJ said:


> I missed this thread the 1st time...
> 
> 
> I've really only had narrow-er skis since I started skiing again. One condition I've struggled with is boot deep powder because of submarine-ing. That's why I bought the Hot Rod last year. I'm hoping at 84 under foot, I'll feel more float, and get more of a "rail" & control feeling. Now I'm wondering if I should get something even wider, that will really take help out for the 3-4 powder days a year I might get...


 You'll know when you ski it. Everyone is diff. I went from a 70 carver to a midfat with 77 underfoot. While I didn't dive as much, I still had to sit back and even then, I didn't float like I should have. I decided I needed a pretty dramatic step up to the 90s.  I decided to save the 100+ for out west.   I'm sure Steve will have good things to say. It depends a lot on your ability, your size, etc. I bought my midfats real cheap so it was kind of like an inexpensive demo. I convinced myself midfats, while an interesting compromise - just like all season tires. They do both snow and summer, but do neither particularly well. That's my op. and I'm sticking to it! :grin:


----------



## RootDKJ (Sep 12, 2009)

Thanks Billski.  I'll throw in some more details if anyone else has a sticky op. 

5'11" 240ish. Very good carver on all but the steepest terrain, prefer mid range to shorter turns for longer runs.  No bump skills what-so-ever.  Never been to Sundown :blink:


----------



## Geoff (Sep 13, 2009)

I have problems with a ski for this category.   I'm a big guy and carve my turns.   In the trees, I really want something that won't lock the edge so I can crank a skid turn when I need to.   My 184 cm 86mm waist 20-ish meter turn radius X-Wing Fury is OK most of the time but I've terrified myself a few times in the trees when they wouldn't skid.   Most of the powder machines are designed as big mountain GS skis.  I own some CMH-edition Volkl Explosiv heli-skiing skis that are like that.  I've skied several newer models in the west that have a 30-ish meter natural turn radius.  That's not exactly something I want to use for New England bushwhacking.   I don't see anything that's 110 wide, around a 180, and a fairly short natural turn radius that you could mount up with an AT setup to ease the slog out of the sidecountry when needed.  I'm wondering if the rockered / reverse camber skis are a better approach.   I've never had the opportunity to try them.


----------



## billski (Sep 13, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I have problems with a ski for this category. I'm a big guy and carve my turns. In the trees, I really want something that won't lock the edge so I can crank a skid turn when I need to.


 
I'm no expert in this category by any reach, so I really don't understand why you do what you do. I may not look pretty, but I have a lot of fun and stay in control largely due to technique, making up for the fact that I'm not all that physically strong. It sounds like you muscle your way through the trees. I have to understand what kind of wood skiing you do. Are you skiing in areas that have already been pounded out by others? That's the only scenario I can imagine your technique working in. Skidding in powder ain't happening for me unless you're only talking a couple inches of powder.

I had this breakthrough moment that happened after about 7 years of sking - technique trumped brute force. I stopped fighting the mountain and started using it to my every advantage. This is something that will be of more use to me every year I age. I try to avoid skidding because it really takes energy out of me every time I do it. The last thing I want to do is quit early.   I have taken various people into the woods with me and found them pooped before me; it's fair to say they are in better physical shape than I, they just are skiing brute force survival mode.  It takes time to get it.

I am in heaven if I'm skiing 10+ inches of pow, and in this case, ain't no skidding happening, even if I ever wanted to. I bought the Atura with that in mind, not banging around someone else's hardpack. I'll take 4-5" fresh too, but I don't expect much float at that point. Frankly, the whole reason I go into the woods is for the powder. Trees are almost secondary for me, though I do enjoy their unpredictibility  

You might want to re-think your technique if you are skiing trees that have packed snow about them. When I get in a real pickle like that, I may hop a little and roate mid-air to get repositioned into a more life-preserving direction, if you catch my drift. It takes far less energy and elliminates any need to skid.

It's also possible it's not the radius that's killing you but the overall ski stiffness (sorry I'm not gonna go tekkie here, I just like to have fun!) For example, I have some top end GS carver Volkls (my trail "magnets") that will absolutely kick the snot out of me if I take them in the woods. Biggest penalty is a compression turn, when I'm coming out if it. Without sufficient brute strength (not happening for me), I will basically get kicked out of the hole and land on my arse. 

There are others here who can give you the technical arguments. I just base my skiing on Zen....


----------



## Geoff (Sep 13, 2009)

billski said:


> I'm no expert in this category by any reach, so I really don't understand why you do what you do. I may not look pretty, but I have a lot of fun and stay in control largely due to technique, making up for the fact that I'm not all that physically strong. It sounds like you muscle your way through the trees.



Actually, it's exactly the opposite.   I typically carve every turn no matter where I am.  That's not muscling.  That's using the ski to do all the work.   When I have to, I roll the ski flat and skid it to shorten up the turn radius.   Your self-described "jump turn" technique is muscling it.

 As you go wider, it's easier to skid the turn in deeper-heavier snow since you're on top of it instead of down deep.   That's why all the tree dogs have gone wide.  Watch a snowboarder in the trees, most of them skid just about every turn.   It's easy since the board is so wide relative to the length.   I'm heavy enough that I'm still not floating even with a 100mm waist ski. With a 30 meter natural turn radius, a ski like that can be a problem in tight trees.   As I said, I've skied them a lot in big mountain terrain where stability at speed in powder is the important thing, not being able to crank out a really short radius turn in tight trees.   What I'm looking for is a ski with a shorter natural turn radius so I don't have to skid the turn.    I suspect reverse camber / rockered is the answer but I have no time on them.


----------



## RootDKJ (Sep 14, 2009)

Then I see something like this up on Tramdock for $350 and wonder if I should jump on it...

http://www.backcountryoutlet.com/outlet/K2S0528/K2-Apache-Outlaw-Alpine-Ski.html?avad=1768_a40759b


----------



## powbmps (Sep 14, 2009)

I don't know....tails are pretty wide .

Lengths: 170cm, 177cm, 184cm 
Dimensions: 129 / 92 / 115*cm* 
Turn Radius: [177cm] 19m


----------



## Glenn (Sep 15, 2009)

RootDKJ said:


> Then I see something like this up on Tramdock for $350 and wonder if I should jump on it...
> 
> http://www.backcountryoutlet.com/outlet/K2S0528/K2-Apache-Outlaw-Alpine-Ski.html?avad=1768_a40759b



Root,
Seirra Skis has some good deals on 09 stuff right now: http://www.sierraskis.com/shop/Sales/Mens/skis_0.asp


----------



## billski (Sep 15, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Root,
> Seirra Skis has some good deals on 09 stuff right now: http://www.sierraskis.com/shop/Sales/Mens/skis_0.asp


Holy smokes.  I wish I'd seen that.  Helluva deals on Wateas.   :-o


----------



## RootDKJ (Sep 15, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Root,
> Seirra Skis has some good deals on 09 stuff right now: http://www.sierraskis.com/shop/Sales/Mens/skis_0.asp


Thanks Glenn, I've got Sierra and a few others bookmarked for easy access.


----------



## Glenn (Sep 15, 2009)

billski said:


> Holy smokes.  I wish I'd seen that.  Helluva deals on Wateas.   :-o



Tell me about it. I sometimes regret checking that site. I keep telling myself I need to save my pennies for a chainsaw...I already have two newish pairs of skis. :razz:


----------



## bigbog (Sep 15, 2009)

Yeah, saw those prices on Wateas...:-o.   They are one ski on my list...but not to purchase yet..;-)...still mulling over some other widths/areas/camber+rocker..

$.01
steve


----------



## billski (Sep 15, 2009)

bigbog said:


> Yeah, saw those prices on Wateas...:-o.   They are one ski on my list..  I love some floatation, and at 175..can get it from pretty much anything with tails somewhere close to the flex of their shovels..but when visiting outside of home territory...I seem to find every conceivable type of cover in the trees/glades...thus am wanting of a ski with some camber, even though I'm kind of light.  Would love to see some of the multiple cambers in skis under ~96mm...they're just easier for us under 6' to roll onto edge..imho..  Just scale down some of those interesting 95+mm skis to ~92 with the same design = instant love...LOL.  *..Although with the lengths available...plus tip rocker...I'm finding myself wanting to just demo something really wide, with newer front? sidecut, and camber with some tip rocker.(Think it's been talked at a little while back...)
> 
> $.01
> steve



You sound like the perfect customer for a 333
http://www.333skis.com/customers-who-build-their-skis.php


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 15, 2009)

This thread is fun-knee.   I'm shopping for a new pow ski, and am trying to decide between something wide in the 130mm+ waist range, or narrower in the 110-120mm range.  LOL.

Granted, I do ski 80-90mm waist skis in the trees when it's skied out.


----------



## RootDKJ (Sep 15, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> This thread is fun-knee.   I'm shopping for a new pow ski, and am trying to decide between something wide in the 130mm+ waist range, or narrower in the 110-120mm range.  LOL.
> 
> Granted, I do ski 80-90mm waist skis in the trees when it's skied out.


Well not all of us are in the top 30 skiers at Killington :lol:



C'mon you  knew that was coming


----------



## bigbog (Sep 16, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> .... I'm shopping for a new pow ski, and am trying to decide between something wide in the 130mm+ waist range, or narrower in the 110-120mm range.  LOL.
> 
> Granted, I do ski 80-90mm waist skis in the trees when it's skied out.



But then...._What about the 121-130mm slot???, What's up with That!!???_......LOL..LOL
Have to agree with you...I'm going to have to just climb onto some skis to find where my comfort level, going edge-to-edge, ends...


----------



## madskier6 (Sep 16, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I have problems with a ski for this category.   I'm a big guy and carve my turns.   In the trees, I really want something that won't lock the edge so I can crank a skid turn when I need to.   My 184 cm 86mm waist 20-ish meter turn radius X-Wing Fury is OK most of the time but I've terrified myself a few times in the trees when they wouldn't skid.   Most of the powder machines are designed as big mountain GS skis.  I own some CMH-edition Volkl Explosiv heli-skiing skis that are like that.  I've skied several newer models in the west that have a 30-ish meter natural turn radius.  That's not exactly something I want to use for New England bushwhacking.   I don't see anything that's 110 wide, around a 180, and a fairly short natural turn radius that you could mount up with an AT setup to ease the slog out of the sidecountry when needed.  I'm wondering if the rockered / reverse camber skis are a better approach.   I've never had the opportunity to try them.



I'll repeat here for you what I told billski when he first started this thread.  Check out the Gotamas.  I have the 07-08 model which has no rocker although this year's model does have some rocker.  Gotamas turn easily in the trees for me & might be what you're looking for.



madskier6 said:


> I love my Volkl Gotamas for powder & trees in the East.  They have no metal in them, float very well & are very maneuverable in the trees.  At 105 mm underfoot, they are wider than what most people in this thread have suggested for you but they don't feel that wide to me.  They do short turns in the trees very well but yet can also make nice long floaty turns in wide open terrain when you need them to.
> 
> They also are very good in the Spring on corn snow.  Check them out if you can.  They certainly don't ski like they're as wide as 105 mm so don't be freaked out simply by the number.


----------



## billski (Sep 16, 2009)

madskier6 said:


> I'll repeat here for you what I told billski when he first started this thread.  Check out the Gotamas.  I have the 07-08 model which has no rocker although this year's model does have some rocker.  Gotamas turn easily in the trees for me & might be what you're looking for.



I've skied with madskier6 and can attest that what he says is true; he demonstrated what you can do.  Now, whether  you have the skills or can grow the skills is up to you....

I probably would have bought the Gotamas if I had the dough.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Sep 16, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I have problems with a ski for this category.   I'm a big guy and carve my turns.   In the trees, I really want something that won't lock the edge so I can crank a skid turn when I need to.   My 184 cm 86mm waist 20-ish meter turn radius X-Wing Fury is OK most of the time but I've terrified myself a few times in the trees when they wouldn't skid.   Most of the powder machines are designed as big mountain GS skis.  I own some CMH-edition Volkl Explosiv heli-skiing skis that are like that.  I've skied several newer models in the west that have a 30-ish meter natural turn radius.  That's not exactly something I want to use for New England bushwhacking.   I don't see anything that's 110 wide, around a 180, and a fairly short natural turn radius that you could mount up with an AT setup to ease the slog out of the sidecountry when needed.  I'm wondering if the rockered / reverse camber skis are a better approach.   I've never had the opportunity to try them.



perhaps you need to re-learn how to skid and slide...its a tough thing to do, I had similar problems when I moved back east and started skiing in the trees more often.  (I'm 6'1 ~205-210 and I like to park em and arc em)  the other thing that's not helping is the tail on your Fury or your AC50...its pretty wide compared to the waist...which makes it a blast on the firm snow but really works against you when trying to slide them in the woods..almost any ski that has a shorter radius has a wider and hooky tail compared to the waist width.   Check out the Armada JJ...camber and sidecut under foot with early rise and tapered tips and tails...it'll carve better than the majority of the rise/rocker skis out there and will slip and slide much better than the Fury.  Other than that I'd say find something around 100mm and 180-185cm with a mid 20's radius...not too turny to skid and slide, not a full big mtn ski but wide enough to float yet short enough to play in eastern trees.  Fischer Watea 101 in a 182 is one of my new favorite skis...really versatile for a 101mm waist.


----------



## tjf67 (Sep 18, 2009)

I dont see anyone mentioning going with a shorter ski.  I know it not what the cool kids ski on but it works.  First you rre going to have a shorter turning radius.  Second you will be able to get a ski with metal in it so you can ride them after a thaw freeze.  Third because of there shortness you will be able to muscle them around in the woods when you need to.  I generally ski a 177.   I have gone as small as a 152 with a 14 radius.  I can follow snoboarders in the trees with those.   You feel like a jack rabbit on them.


----------



## snowmonster (Sep 18, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> I dont see anyone mentioning going with a shorter ski.  I know it not what the cool kids ski on but it works.  First you rre going to have a shorter turning radius.  Second you will be able to get a ski with metal in it so you can ride them after a thaw freeze.  Third because of there shortness you will be able to muscle them around in the woods when you need to.  I generally ski a 177.   I have gone as small as a 152 with a 14 radius.  I can follow snoboarders in the trees with those.   You feel like a jack rabbit on them.



For trees, I agree on not maxing out on ski length. Because our trees here in NE are tighter than out west, I find it easier (and safer) to maneuver shorter skis -- easier to turn, less ski in front and back, easier to aim between tight slots. Of course, you need to strike a balance between float and maneuverability so I would suggest taking the middle road on the issue of ski length. However, I will sacrifice float or chattering on wide open slopes or when the glades open up into a ballroom. I'm willing to make the trade-off for the sake of turnability in tight spaces. In my experience, tree-skiing in the East is more of a stop and go affair rather than just slinking past trees like they were slalom gates. 

I basically have 2 glade skis: 

B Squad - 174 length, 100 underfoot and stiff
B4 - 168 length, 94 underfoot and soft

Between the two, I favor the B4 in glades because it is more maneuverable in tight spaces and you don't have to throttle it or pay too much attention. The B Squad is great if you want to mach through a glade while paying close attention to what you're doing (no looking around to admire the forest) but its stiffness makes it less nimble -- and that's how I wrapped my leg around a tree once. For this year, I got a 176 S7 (115 underfoot). I can't wait to test it in the glades. Should be fun and it may end up being this year's go to ski. Most people say that the 176 S7 skis short but for our trees out here in the East, I think that may be a good thing. 

If you opt to go for a rockered ski, you may want to follow Shane McConkey's advice about length. Basically, they have a smaller effective edge so on fully-rockered skis, go 10 cm longer. On medium rockered skis (like the S7), go 7cm longer. On slightly rockered, go 3 to 5 cm longer. For reference, see his article on last year's Powder gear guide.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 18, 2009)

bigbog said:


> But then...._What about the 121-130mm slot???, What's up with That!!???_......LOL..LOL
> Have to agree with you...I'm going to have to just climb onto some skis to find where my comfort level, going edge-to-edge, ends...


 
I already have powder skis 125mm at the waist.


----------



## tcharron (Sep 24, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> I already have powder skis 125mm at the waist.


----------



## billski (Sep 24, 2009)

Me "new" used boards for pow/woods






Fischer Atua


----------



## Glenn (Sep 24, 2009)

Nice! Is that a pic of them? E-Bay score I assume based on pic.


----------



## powbmps (Sep 24, 2009)

Not much of a powder ski I suppose, but these are mine.  Don't look that wide until you put them next to a bump ski.


----------



## billski (Sep 24, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Nice! Is that a pic of them? E-Bay score I assume based on pic.


  Yes and yes!  Can't wait!


----------



## Glenn (Sep 24, 2009)

billski said:


> Yes and yes!  Can't wait!



Keep us posted!


----------



## billski (Sep 24, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Keep us posted!



Can't wait to _ski _them.   They are in my greasy hands, got a TLC hot wax and binding check last weekend .


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 24, 2009)

billski said:


> Me "new" used boards for pow/woods
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you snag those with demo bindings? Looks like it from the pic. That is how I got mine (a year later model though in the black color). The demo bindings helped because I was able to play around with the binding position until I dialed it in and then I got some Axial 120s for a permanent mount. The ski has amazingly different personalities in the "park" compared to "freeride" mounting points. I didn't like the bindings at all when they were mostly forward and I was glad to have a demo binding to play around with them.

I still can't believe the industry does not treat mounting position with more respect. This one size fits all boot center mark is freaking crazy and it was a nice change to see skis coming with plates indicating various boot center marks depending on how you planned to utilize the ski.


----------



## billski (Sep 24, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> Did you snag those with demo bindings? Looks like it from the pic. That is how I got mine (a year later model though in the black color). The demo bindings helped because I was able to play around with the binding position until I dialed it in and then I got some Axial 120s for a permanent mount. The ski has amazingly different personalities in the "park" compared to "freeride" mounting points. I didn't like the bindings at all when they were mostly forward and I was glad to have a demo binding to play around with them.
> 
> I still can't believe the industry does not treat mounting position with more respect. This one size fits all boot center mark is freaking crazy and it was a nice change to see skis coming with plates indicating various boot center marks depending on how you planned to utilize the ski.


yepper.  I aM looking forward to a "learning experience" like I've had with other demo purchases.  Not all demos adjust toe and heel .  I am hoping to learn the best centering for the skiing style I like.   They try to simplify things to get people out the door.  That's too bad.  Been thinking about bindings for next season.  Remainder of the budget is for lifts an burgers this year.   Thanks again for the great advice!


----------



## billski (Sep 29, 2009)

Nice new 2008 Fisher Wateas192s FS for $385 +20 s/h. Bare boards, no bindings.

ebay #140349076699

Also new 2009 watea for 380  ebay # 300352446611


I might have bought them...


----------



## bigski6969 (Sep 29, 2009)

*Dynastar huge trouble 09*



billski said:


> I've been happily skiing some midfat Volkl 724 Pros @ 115-77-104 for the past few seasons when I get untracked pow or woods skiing.
> 
> I'm generally pleased with them, I don't submarine like I do with my GS skis.  But I'm wondering if I can do better.  I still seem to sit back more than I would like in order to float well.
> 
> ...



I have a brand new pair of Dynastar Huge Troubles. Got them on a smoking deal, (bought 2 pair) the second pair is collecting dust. Never been mounted and still in the plastic if your interested. I'm looking for $400 for them. Same that I paid for them. PM me if your interested.


----------

