First ski for intermediate skier on (mostly) groomer in the PNW?

[cursioux95]

Hello! I am new here, have been lurking for a couple of weeks and finally decided to take the dive into this lovely community!

I'm hoping I could get some advice on my first gear purchase. I am 5'3, ~150lbs and consider myself a cautious intermediate skier - on a good day, I'm quite comfortable doing steeper blues or even an easier black, but my confidence level is highly dependent on snow conditions. My home is Mt. Hood Meadows and from what I've seen, we get a fair bit of fresh pow Dec-Feb, which packs down a bit in March, followed by ice-to-slush days until season end. In the season prior to COVID, I rented Rossi RTL Experience 74's but switched to Rossi Experience 88 TI's once the slush became unbearable - this was my first time on a wider ski and I loved it! More stability, smoother ride - they also felt heavier and more challenging, in a good way.

Fast forward to this season, and I want my own pair of skis. I'd like to buy used, because I'm still technically a newbie and would rather invest the extra money in good boots right now. I will probably be spending the next few seasons mostly on groomers with maybe the occasional venture off-piste once I get more comfortable. With that being said, I'm hoping to find a ski I can grow with, i.e. it is accessible for me to have fun on it now, but will force me to improve my technique and have even more fun later.

Right now I have my sights set on a few hot deals:

• 2020 Icelantic Oracle 88 155cm
• 2020 Liberty Genesis 90 151cm
• 2019 Deviation The Ellipse 95 152cm

Deviation is a small local company in Portland, OR that makes skis by hand; I've heard a lot of good reviews from friends, though they seem to be much lesser known online. This ski seems to be very forgiving and great for my level - I can also get it as soon as tomorrow! But is it too wide? Instead of a jack-of-all-trades, should I opt for a mid-80s groomer ski instead, and buy a fatter pair once my skill level is ready for off-piste? Also, it seems like it may be too short for me at that width - is that correct thinking?

Any thoughts/opinions would be very much appreciated!

 

[cursioux95]

Upon further research, it seems the Icelantics are geared towards a much more experienced skier, so I don't think they would work for me.

Also, quick correction - The Ellipse is 94 underfoot, not 95.

 

[SarahXC]

Welcome!!! I am not super knowledgeable about where you ski or the models you are considering but it seems that a lot of ski divas really like skis around 88 underfoot for versatility. I have skied 88 Nordica for a few years and this year expanded to an 84 and 94mm ski (passing the 88 to my daughter) I definitely “feel” the 94 on harder snow days and much prefer the narrower ski for harder conditions. Not sure if that helps but I think the 90 or less would be a good way to go for what you desire.

 

[AJM]

Welcome !! I am also not the person who is knowledgeable about what ski is good for certain conditions, height, weight etc but a whole heap of divas are and I'm sure they will jump in and give you some great advice. I'm advanced on some days and low intermediate on others ( I HATE the classification of ability) so I always take the strong intermediate line LOL ....anyhow I ski on 88 underfoot in most NZ conditions from ice to powder and prefer to ski off piste as its easier to disguise technical mistakes I'm around 55Kg and 165cm and ski on 159's if that helps, all the best with your decision making x

 

[Jilly]

I know it's going to come up....so a Ski Diva fav is the Black Pearl 88. I have the Santa Anna 88, but haven't been out on them yet.

At this point in your development I think you need to stay under 90 and more mid to lower 80's.

BTW - I'm on the Temptation 88's (Old Experience W's) in my avatar.

 

[emmnicole94]

Hi! It sounds like we are very similar in skill level, skiing style, and height/weight! I currently ski Armada ARW 86's in 156cm and they are perfect for a cautious intermediate like me. I want to point out they are twin tips.

I would recommend something similar in specs. Also, I did get to demo some Blizzard Black Pearl 88's before I bought my skis. I LOVED them. The only reason why I went for my current skis instead is because I wanted twin tips for park.

I hope this helps!

 

[SMichael08]

Not a lot of advice on the skis, other than to say I'm of similar-ish height/weight and just made my first step up into wider skis (86mm), but haven't yet gotten them on the mountain. But I'm also a Mt. Hood skier and would love to meet up sometime. We do get a fair amount of powder, but keep in mind it will often be a bit wetter or heavier then what you'd get somewhere like Bachelor.

 

[marzNC]

Right now I have my sights set on a few hot deals:

• 2020 Icelantic Oracle 88 155cm
• 2020 Liberty Genesis 90 151cm
• 2019 Deviation The Ellipse 95 152cm

Welcome! From what I'm reading, Mt. Hood Meadows is doing quite a good job this season at managing the situation.

Agree that Icelantic are geared to advanced/expert skiers. I demo'd a few models at Alta in April 2019.

For a cautious intermediate, even in the PacNW there is something to be said to sticking with 85-90 underfoot as an all-mountain one-ski-quiver. Fair to say that narrower skis are easier to turn than wider skis. When I was an advancing intermediate about 15 years ago, I found that even all-mountain skis that were 75 underfoot were good enough for 4-5 inches of fresh snow. I'm a bit more petite, a few inches shorter and 30 pounds lighter.

Although it may sound long, going one size longer might be useful. I was using mid-150s as an intermediate for all-mountain skis. Although for groomers in the east my narrower skis were/are 10cm shorter than my all-mountain skis.

I skied my old Black Pearls (2011), 88mm, at Mt. Hood Meadows during late season (May) and had a pretty good time. Have to say that I actually used my even narrower skis that are 78mm more because they were treated with Phantom. But focus on finding skis first before thinking about wax vs DPS Phantom.