• Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add webmaster@theskidiva.com to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.

Next ski for my quiver?

RachelV

RachelV

Administrator
Staff member
So I'm thinking of getting a 2nd pair of skis for my quiver this year.

Currently I have Head iM77's (77 underfoot), which are a great all-around east coast ski, and can even hold their own in powder when you're a mediocre powder skier who doesn't know any better. ;) My only complaint is that they're *really* heavy.

Initially I was thinking my next ski would be something in the 85-90 range for me to use as a powder ski. The number of days I'd use that per year is pretty limited, though.

We're also going to do Tuckerman Ravine this spring, and this got me thinking that I might want something lighter to make the hike up easier... I could easily save 5-6lbs based on weighing my iM77's vs. my friend's park skis. I feel like park skis are a bad choice for something like Tucks, though.

So - does anyone have any thoughts on skis I should check out? Maybe something with a width in the high 80's that's relatively light and is still a decent front-side ski?

I guess my question is: if you only had room to store 2 skis, your first pair was kind of an all-around east coast ski, and you wanted something light to hike with that would still add something to your quiver, what type of ski would you look at?

Thanks! :smile:
 
rachelv said:
So I'm thinking of getting a 2nd pair of skis for my quiver this year.

Currently I have Head iM77's (77 underfoot), which are a great all-around east coast ski, and can even hold their own in powder when you're a mediocre powder skier who doesn't know any better. ;) My only complaint is that they're *really* heavy.

Initially I was thinking my next ski would be something in the 85-90 range for me to use as a powder ski. The number of days I'd use that per year is pretty limited, though.

We're also going to do Tuckerman Ravine this spring, and this got me thinking that I might want something lighter to make the hike up easier... I could easily save 5-6lbs based on weighing my iM77's vs. my friend's park skis. I feel like park skis are a bad choice for something like Tucks, though.

So - does anyone have any thoughts on skis I should check out? Maybe something with a width in the high 80's that's relatively light and is still a decent front-side ski?

I guess my question is: if you only had room to store 2 skis, your first pair was kind of an all-around east coast ski, and you wanted something light to hike with that would still add something to your quiver, what type of ski would you look at?

Thanks! :smile:
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised how much you can get out of a midfat ski. I really like my karmas and would recommend either those or the Elan 888's.
If you're looking for women specific, the Queen attiva or the Aura are at the top of my list!!!

The Elan Wave spice is a bit burly for what you're thinking, but I love it for blasting through the crud we face in the midwest.
If you're looking for an AT set up, I know where there is a sweet pair of G3Siren's with AT bindings.
 
I could easily save 5-6lbs based on weighing my iM77's vs. my friend's park skis.
Click to expand...
Is that a typo? 5-6 lb is A LOT!

(I never weight my skis, but I don't think they weight over 5 lbs!)

My understanding (bear in mind I only owned two skis so far), park skis that are light often have foam core instead of wood core. And they often skip the metal top sheet to be so light. So most park skis are soft, which is just what park users want, but not necessary the best for skiiing back country when you may need to charge through frozen crud.

On the other hand, a good skier can ski anything with any ski. So if saving the weight means getting one more run in or not, the compromise is acceptable. Just something to keep in mind?
 
Pequenita said:
https://www.rei.com/product/742571

Uh, I'm trying to do math here.....3.6 kilos per pair.....3.6 times 2.2 = pretty close to 8 lbs. for the pair. Wood core.
Click to expand...

Right, and that's without the bindings. I just weighed them on my bathroom scale and they're about 12lbs total, skis + rail flex 12 bindings.

These for example are just over a pound lighter (about 6.8 lbs), so with some lighter bindings on there as well it could be a noticeable difference. I guess I was exaggerating a bit thinking I could save 5-6lbs, but not by too much.

And abc: My concern with the weight is not so much for skiing, it's for when I'm carrying them on my back hiking up to Tucks.

Maybe the weight makes less difference than I think, but at the end of a full day I can definitely feel that these skis are heavier than my old ones... my legs are more tired and my feet are more sore from having heavier skis hanging off them all day. So I can't help but think that a lighter pair would make a 2-3 hour hike a bit more pleasant.
 
There is a significant difference in weight from one ski to another. Some of it is actual ski weight, but a major part of the weight is the binding choice.

System skis are NOT light.
Race Skis (with race plate) are not usually light.

I am thinking of something like this G3 Siren
I think they have one of their demos with An AT binding in their close outs but I can't find the link.

IF you buy from Backcountry.com and access them through EpicSki, you will get a discount.
 
Hm, a whole new category of gear to learn about. :smile:

What are the typical characteristics of an AT ski? The G3 Siren, for example... how is that different than something like the Karma (besides the obvious twin tips on the Karma). The dimensions are pretty similar... 121/88/109 on the Sirens vs 119/87/111 on the Karmas.
 
It has a lot to do with weight and mounting point.
A karma is a twin tip, the G3 Siren is not. The karma (though it can be mounted any where) is usually mounted a bit more centered, because it is designed for park.
The G3Siren is AT specific, so it is meant to be mounted slightly back, and doesn't have a tt so it will lend a bit more stability, maybe a bit less of a tendancy to wash out.
Some of this I know, some of it I'm assuming based on what I have been reading.
 
Personally I'm not a rossi fan but some love those skis.
Go for it.
You can surely get your money back if you try them and don't like them.
Chances are, you'll get some grins out of them no matter what!!!

Divas Rock!!
 
I'm not a Rossi fan, either. I used to have a pair, and found them way too damp. Then again, some people like that. It's all a matter of preference.

I agree with SnowHot -- if you don't like 'em, sell 'em!
 
Let us know. Being a Rossi fan (Z5's, Xena boots and clothes) I think you might just like them.
 
Hm, the tracking page on ups.com says:
"THE PACKAGE WAS DAMAGED IN TRANSIT. UPS WILL NOTIFY THE SENDER WITH THE DETAILS"

Hopefully the box just got banged up or something. I have a hard time believing that UPS could be rougher with a package than baggage handlers at the airport, but I guess you never know. I'll find out in a few hours, anyways.
 
They arrived. :D Box was a bit banged up, but the skis were fine.

Here's a terrible picture from my camera phone!
1325168432_fc0df405f9_o.jpg
 
Love the graphic. I love bamboo (had bamboo table centerpieces at my '04 weddin and have plants home and at the office). They look like fun for traveling out west and playing in the park.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 647 (members: 5, guests: 642)

Forum statistics

Threads
27,675
Messages
529,541
Members
9,761
Latest member
Donna
Back
Top