bounceswoosh
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
So maybe you guys remember how I agonized before buying the Volkl Ones (116 underfoot) @ 166
to replace my Icelantic Gypsies (125 underfoot) @ 170
, and then how I agonized again and ended up trading the Ones @ 166 for Twos (124 underfoot) @ 176.
I'd had the Gypsies since 2011. I bought the Ones in September. I traded the Ones for Twos in October.
I replaced my Gypsies with the Ones, and then the Twos, because the Gypsies always felt like too much work. I felt like I was fighting them a lot. Eventually, my deep desire for them to be the perfect powder ski for me was overwhelmed by the deeper reality that they weren't a good fit. My hope that "next year I'll be good enough to ski these the way they were meant to be skied" transitioned to the realization that I'd gotten a lot better, but my ability to ski these boards hadn't.
The Ones were fun on an early season, mellow terrain powder day, but I wasn't convinced they'd be enough float for me on a big powder day, and they didn't seem different enough from my Sick Day 110s (although I changed my mind about this last point later). And I was freaking out about having powder skis shorter than my primary skis (Santa Anas) and actually with slightly less (approximate) surface area on paper than my SD110s - because I definitely didn't feel floaty on the SD110s.
Then at some point mid season, I got interested in the La Ninas as a replacement for the SD110s. The La Ninas could be seen as the "big sister" of the Santa Anas, but they are different in a number of aspects, not just width. I think Tricia had suggested them at one point before Phil pointed me at the Volkls, but the guy at powder7 said that women weren't wowed by the La Ninas when they went out for demos. The problem I had with the SD110s is that they got knocked around too much in anything but perfectly even snow. I thought maybe the La Ninas, with their burlier construction, would be a solid midfat that handled crud and uneven snow well. AND a Breck ski buddy swore by the La Ninas - she loves them and skis them almost all the time.
The La Ninas blew my socks off. Since I got them, I only took the Santa Anas out one day. The La Ninas make me so happy that I just don't want to switch off of them, even if it's hardpack as far as the eye can see.
Recently, we've had a lot of big powder days, and I've been able to ski a few of them. The Twos were easier to ski than the Gypsies - I never feel like I can't turn them - but I still found myself getting really tired from skiing them - although it could just be that I was getting tired from skiing powder all day. And after several ski days with the Twos, I realized that I was crossing tips often enough that it wasn't just a fluke - I definitely cross my tips occasionally with the Twos, which I don't remember doing with any other skis. It's scary! And just as a general thing, I found myself feeling that I was skiing poorly on the Twos. I don't know if it's the full rocker, the length, the weight, what, but when I was on the Twos, my form got worse.
Last Saturday is what really decided it for me. Breck reported 15" of powder, but had limited lifts running. So I had one really great powder run, but then the upper mountain lifts got swamped with 20 minute lift lines. My friend and I decided to ski mellow terrain on the lower mountain to avoid lines, which was very successful. But it meant I was skiing bumps and trees and groomed trails, not wide open powder bowls. And in those conditions, the Twos were even more exhausting than when I was skiing powder all day. If I'm going to have a deep powder ski, it needs to be versatile enough to be fun after the the snow gets tracked out.
In the meantime, the La Ninas continued to shine. I had them on back to back 5" days (reported), where I was actually skiing shin to knee deep - no problem. Their huge shovels seem to pop right back up after every turn. I had them last weekend in 22" (15" from the day before, then 7" more before they finally dropped the rope), and they felt good. It made me wonder, do I really even need a superfat ski? Maybe the La Nina is it for me. My holy grail.
Except ... I really can't leave well enough alone, can I? And last Saturday, as I was discussing my Twos trouble with a ski buddy, and saying maybe I didn't need a superfat after all, he said that he had just ordered his fattest ski ever - a 126mm. He'd finally been convinced by all our friends who ski Fat-ypus I-Rocks and V-Rocks that he, too, should get a pair. And they were selling for $275. I mean, really.
So I reached out to some of our friends who ski these, and they sang the praises of the V-Rock (125mm) @ 166. And they gave me the contact info for Jared, the owner of Fat-ypus. So I talked to him. And unsurprisingly, he said these skis were really great and he was certain I would love them, although of course at this price if I didn't love them, it wouldn't be too hard to sell them. (maybe) And I told him I really hated 10cm increments, and he told me what I already knew, which is that a small manufacturer just can't afford to make them in smaller increments. He did point out he had an A Lotta on sale @ 172cm (140mm waist. Um, no).
So I agonized about 166 vs 176. Jared said that he really, really thought I should be on a 166 for my height. He was unconcerned about weight as a factor. He said he'd been on the 166s during testing, and as a 6'2 220 or whatever ex-freeski competitor, he thought they skied just fine (although he himself skis a 186). But he did say that Fat-ypus skis are made stiffer as they go up in length, so the ski that my friends rave about in a 166 would ski differently at a 176 - not just turn radius, but also stiffness. And by my approximate calculations, in any case, the V-Rock at 166 still has a lot more surface area than my La Ninas at 169.
I had been half-planning to pick them up from his home/business that night, but he had a prior engagement, so I had some time to think about it.
A note on the tips crossing. The shovels of the Twos are pretty similar in width to the shovel of the La Ninas, so it seems unlikely that's the issue. Jared said that tips crossing is usually a sign the ski is too long, which makes sense. Jenn seemed to be on board with my theory, which is that when I'm in challenging snow and I don't make well-shaped turns, the heavier skis make it harder for me to get the inside ski out of the way.
Reasons to believe:
V-Rock and I-Rock:
to replace my Icelantic Gypsies (125 underfoot) @ 170
, and then how I agonized again and ended up trading the Ones @ 166 for Twos (124 underfoot) @ 176.
I'd had the Gypsies since 2011. I bought the Ones in September. I traded the Ones for Twos in October.
I replaced my Gypsies with the Ones, and then the Twos, because the Gypsies always felt like too much work. I felt like I was fighting them a lot. Eventually, my deep desire for them to be the perfect powder ski for me was overwhelmed by the deeper reality that they weren't a good fit. My hope that "next year I'll be good enough to ski these the way they were meant to be skied" transitioned to the realization that I'd gotten a lot better, but my ability to ski these boards hadn't.
The Ones were fun on an early season, mellow terrain powder day, but I wasn't convinced they'd be enough float for me on a big powder day, and they didn't seem different enough from my Sick Day 110s (although I changed my mind about this last point later). And I was freaking out about having powder skis shorter than my primary skis (Santa Anas) and actually with slightly less (approximate) surface area on paper than my SD110s - because I definitely didn't feel floaty on the SD110s.
Then at some point mid season, I got interested in the La Ninas as a replacement for the SD110s. The La Ninas could be seen as the "big sister" of the Santa Anas, but they are different in a number of aspects, not just width. I think Tricia had suggested them at one point before Phil pointed me at the Volkls, but the guy at powder7 said that women weren't wowed by the La Ninas when they went out for demos. The problem I had with the SD110s is that they got knocked around too much in anything but perfectly even snow. I thought maybe the La Ninas, with their burlier construction, would be a solid midfat that handled crud and uneven snow well. AND a Breck ski buddy swore by the La Ninas - she loves them and skis them almost all the time.
The La Ninas blew my socks off. Since I got them, I only took the Santa Anas out one day. The La Ninas make me so happy that I just don't want to switch off of them, even if it's hardpack as far as the eye can see.
Recently, we've had a lot of big powder days, and I've been able to ski a few of them. The Twos were easier to ski than the Gypsies - I never feel like I can't turn them - but I still found myself getting really tired from skiing them - although it could just be that I was getting tired from skiing powder all day. And after several ski days with the Twos, I realized that I was crossing tips often enough that it wasn't just a fluke - I definitely cross my tips occasionally with the Twos, which I don't remember doing with any other skis. It's scary! And just as a general thing, I found myself feeling that I was skiing poorly on the Twos. I don't know if it's the full rocker, the length, the weight, what, but when I was on the Twos, my form got worse.
Last Saturday is what really decided it for me. Breck reported 15" of powder, but had limited lifts running. So I had one really great powder run, but then the upper mountain lifts got swamped with 20 minute lift lines. My friend and I decided to ski mellow terrain on the lower mountain to avoid lines, which was very successful. But it meant I was skiing bumps and trees and groomed trails, not wide open powder bowls. And in those conditions, the Twos were even more exhausting than when I was skiing powder all day. If I'm going to have a deep powder ski, it needs to be versatile enough to be fun after the the snow gets tracked out.
In the meantime, the La Ninas continued to shine. I had them on back to back 5" days (reported), where I was actually skiing shin to knee deep - no problem. Their huge shovels seem to pop right back up after every turn. I had them last weekend in 22" (15" from the day before, then 7" more before they finally dropped the rope), and they felt good. It made me wonder, do I really even need a superfat ski? Maybe the La Nina is it for me. My holy grail.
Except ... I really can't leave well enough alone, can I? And last Saturday, as I was discussing my Twos trouble with a ski buddy, and saying maybe I didn't need a superfat after all, he said that he had just ordered his fattest ski ever - a 126mm. He'd finally been convinced by all our friends who ski Fat-ypus I-Rocks and V-Rocks that he, too, should get a pair. And they were selling for $275. I mean, really.
So I reached out to some of our friends who ski these, and they sang the praises of the V-Rock (125mm) @ 166. And they gave me the contact info for Jared, the owner of Fat-ypus. So I talked to him. And unsurprisingly, he said these skis were really great and he was certain I would love them, although of course at this price if I didn't love them, it wouldn't be too hard to sell them. (maybe) And I told him I really hated 10cm increments, and he told me what I already knew, which is that a small manufacturer just can't afford to make them in smaller increments. He did point out he had an A Lotta on sale @ 172cm (140mm waist. Um, no).
So I agonized about 166 vs 176. Jared said that he really, really thought I should be on a 166 for my height. He was unconcerned about weight as a factor. He said he'd been on the 166s during testing, and as a 6'2 220 or whatever ex-freeski competitor, he thought they skied just fine (although he himself skis a 186). But he did say that Fat-ypus skis are made stiffer as they go up in length, so the ski that my friends rave about in a 166 would ski differently at a 176 - not just turn radius, but also stiffness. And by my approximate calculations, in any case, the V-Rock at 166 still has a lot more surface area than my La Ninas at 169.
I had been half-planning to pick them up from his home/business that night, but he had a prior engagement, so I had some time to think about it.
A note on the tips crossing. The shovels of the Twos are pretty similar in width to the shovel of the La Ninas, so it seems unlikely that's the issue. Jared said that tips crossing is usually a sign the ski is too long, which makes sense. Jenn seemed to be on board with my theory, which is that when I'm in challenging snow and I don't make well-shaped turns, the heavier skis make it harder for me to get the inside ski out of the way.
Reasons to believe:
- My ski buddies - people who ski the same terrain and conditions I do - swear by this ski
- Got length input from actual person who designs and builds the skis
- I like the idea of locally made skis
- The Gypsy and Ones/Twos were all fully rockered. The V-Rock has some traditional camber
- The V-Rock is a lot lighter than those other skis
- The turning radius of the V-Rock @ 166 is a lot shorter - 20.7m vs. the 24m of the Two @ 176
- Even though the ski is short, it still has a LOT more float than my La Ninas, which already work very well in powder
- The price is right. If they don't work out, it's not going to kill me.
- I'm skeptical of a 166 (This *has* to be a mental issue, but mental issues can get in the way of enjoyment)
- I've already had two pairs of 125ish skis that I haven't loved (except in the abstract)
- The shovel is a full 1cm wider than the shovel of the Twos
V-Rock and I-Rock:
