UtahDesert
Certified Ski Diva
My first post, after lurking off and on over the years. I fell in love with a pair of skis yesterday, after trying them at the Rossi yurt at Deer Valley, and would really like to discuss my impressions and get advice.
Background on me: I'm a late-start skier, having started when I was 45, because my family was living 15 minutes from Winter Park and I wasn't going to be the one staying home and cooking dinner while everyone else skied. (85 days my first season, 107 the second.) Fifteen years later, I live in Salt Lake and ski ten to twenty days a year. I can pick my days and like powder, but with the crowds and congestion in the Cottonwoods I've resigned myself to getting in very few powder days any more. After breaking my leg at Vail a couple years ago and getting diagnosed with osteoporosis I'm a pretty conservative skier. (I've always been timid.) But I like to ski well. I really enjoy rolling blues; I like some steeps interspersed with less steep stuff; I like to be able to do gentle trees, and while I'm probably never going to like actual bump runs, I want to do short stretches of bumped-up terrain. I don't want crud to stop me.
So, yesterday, for the second time, I left my eleven-year-old Volkl Queen Attivas in the rack at the Rossi yurt, and tried out some skis. I did two hours on the Rossignol Experience 88 Ti Womens--159s; and then I did two hours on the 166s. Here's what I found: I have never skied as well as this on scraped, skied-out trails with some hint of steepness. In the past on the steeper ones I would do decent turns, but with a whole lot of sliding in between the turns so that I felt no real sense of satisfaction. (The falling down the mountain standing up thing, if you know what I mean.) In the Experience 88s I was always leaving tracks I felt good about; I was in control. I was liking steeper sections I used to avoid. I had tried them out briefly before and discovered that I had to work a bit more with these skis, but once I knew what I was doing I felt like they were great for any size turn--and the confidence and stability were just a revelation. Crud was no problem--I felt like they could cut through anything.
Now, the limitations. The Soul 7s I also tried were definitely better in bumps and in the kids' trails in the trees, but I'm hoping the Experience 88s were any worse here than my old skis. I have to figure out where at Deer Valley I could try them on the kinds of trails I love at Brighton, where there are irregular bumps you make your way around. These are stiffer skis, so that makes a difference. Obviously I haven't had a chance to try them in powder. I'm comfortable with my old skis' limitations there, and these are roughly the same underfoot (88 instead of 87).
So I'm pretty much head over heels for these skis. The only concerns that are stopping me from ordering them right now are these:
1) 166s? I liked them just fine, but I liked the 159s just fine too. (And if the 166s went a little better, it might be me getting more used to this type of ski.) If it's a weight thing, there's a decent chance (no promises) that I might lose 15 pounds before next ski season. (145 now.) Is there any chance I'd have trouble getting control over the 166s if I'm that much lighter?
2) I probably should wait for the end-of-season sales, right?
3) Should I consider a different ski? What about the Nordica Santa Anas 93s? Or the Volkl Secret 92s? (I suppose I may have to pay to demo some others, but I want to make sure the shop has the right skis, so which ones?)
Background on me: I'm a late-start skier, having started when I was 45, because my family was living 15 minutes from Winter Park and I wasn't going to be the one staying home and cooking dinner while everyone else skied. (85 days my first season, 107 the second.) Fifteen years later, I live in Salt Lake and ski ten to twenty days a year. I can pick my days and like powder, but with the crowds and congestion in the Cottonwoods I've resigned myself to getting in very few powder days any more. After breaking my leg at Vail a couple years ago and getting diagnosed with osteoporosis I'm a pretty conservative skier. (I've always been timid.) But I like to ski well. I really enjoy rolling blues; I like some steeps interspersed with less steep stuff; I like to be able to do gentle trees, and while I'm probably never going to like actual bump runs, I want to do short stretches of bumped-up terrain. I don't want crud to stop me.
So, yesterday, for the second time, I left my eleven-year-old Volkl Queen Attivas in the rack at the Rossi yurt, and tried out some skis. I did two hours on the Rossignol Experience 88 Ti Womens--159s; and then I did two hours on the 166s. Here's what I found: I have never skied as well as this on scraped, skied-out trails with some hint of steepness. In the past on the steeper ones I would do decent turns, but with a whole lot of sliding in between the turns so that I felt no real sense of satisfaction. (The falling down the mountain standing up thing, if you know what I mean.) In the Experience 88s I was always leaving tracks I felt good about; I was in control. I was liking steeper sections I used to avoid. I had tried them out briefly before and discovered that I had to work a bit more with these skis, but once I knew what I was doing I felt like they were great for any size turn--and the confidence and stability were just a revelation. Crud was no problem--I felt like they could cut through anything.
Now, the limitations. The Soul 7s I also tried were definitely better in bumps and in the kids' trails in the trees, but I'm hoping the Experience 88s were any worse here than my old skis. I have to figure out where at Deer Valley I could try them on the kinds of trails I love at Brighton, where there are irregular bumps you make your way around. These are stiffer skis, so that makes a difference. Obviously I haven't had a chance to try them in powder. I'm comfortable with my old skis' limitations there, and these are roughly the same underfoot (88 instead of 87).
So I'm pretty much head over heels for these skis. The only concerns that are stopping me from ordering them right now are these:
1) 166s? I liked them just fine, but I liked the 159s just fine too. (And if the 166s went a little better, it might be me getting more used to this type of ski.) If it's a weight thing, there's a decent chance (no promises) that I might lose 15 pounds before next ski season. (145 now.) Is there any chance I'd have trouble getting control over the 166s if I'm that much lighter?
2) I probably should wait for the end-of-season sales, right?
3) Should I consider a different ski? What about the Nordica Santa Anas 93s? Or the Volkl Secret 92s? (I suppose I may have to pay to demo some others, but I want to make sure the shop has the right skis, so which ones?)