Powder hacks?

[MissySki]

Looks like the One and Bash are quite hard to come by for resale right now!

 

[MissySki]

@elemmac is there any difference between the One for men and women? The only one I’ve seen for sale in a 166 is a men’s for ~$329 on Ebay. I haven’t found any women’s for sale yet or the Bash either in my size. I guess people are holding onto them.

Sheeva 11 I can find demos and used for ~$559, plenty of those though so not in a rush to jump on that pricing.

 

[elemmac]

@elemmac is there any difference between the One for men and women?

Same exact ski, different graphic.

 

[mustski]

@MissySki I have the 166 and I'm 5'2." You many wish to look for the next size up. Blue or Pink it won't make a difference.

 

[elemmac]

@MissySki - Once I remount DH's skis to my boots, you're welcome to try them, they're the One's in a 176. I'll have them at Sunday River, and I think our feet are close enough in size that we could easily adjust? (I'm in a 23.5 boot). And I'll admit...I just got a new powder snowboard, so I'll probably be on that for at least the first big snow storm.

 

[MissySki]

@MissySki - Once I remount DH's skis to my boots, you're welcome to try them, they're the One's in a 176. I'll have them at Sunday River, and I think our feet are close enough in size that we could easily adjust? (I'm in a 23.5 boot). And I'll admit...I just got a new powder snowboard, so I'll probably be on that for at least the first big snow storm.

I’m in a 23.5 boot as well, 176 seems soooooo long for me though??

 

[marzNC]

I’m in a 23.5 boot as well, 176 seems soooooo long for me though??

If it helps, the powder skis I've rented over 100mm wide have been mid-160s in length. You know how much shorter I am than you are. With so much tip and tail rockers, the functional edge is pretty short. The first time I demo'd at Alta back in 2011, I tried the Cham 97 @166. They didn't have anything shorter. Had far more fun than I expected going that long. Having skied straight skis @170 as an intermediate long ago, it was clearly a lot easier with rocker design.

 

[MissySki]

If it helps, the powder skis I've rented over 100mm wide have been mid-160s in length. You know how much shorter I am than you are. With so much tip and tail rockers, the functional edge is pretty short. The first time I demo'd at Alta back in 2011, I tried the Cham 97 @166. They didn't have anything shorter. Had far more fun than I expected going that long. Having skied straight skis @170 as an intermediate long ago, it was clearly a lot easier with rocker design.

I suppose it doesn’t hurt to try! I just imagine myself floundering a lot with so much ski in heavy snow, but that might not be the case and I guess the point is to stay up higher out of the snow. I’ve just never been on any ski in the 170s. Say you were going to use a powder ski in the east, would you use that same length? Just curious due to being less wide open and tighter trees etc. here than west.

 

[elemmac]

I’m in a 23.5 boot as well, 176 seems soooooo long for me though??

176 might be a lot for east coast trees, so I think if you're going to buy undemoed you would probably be better off with the 166. The smaller size will be a lot more nimble to work with in tighter spaces. But even at the shorter length, it will give you a lot more surface area to float due to the width. Where we don't have big open spaces to ski, the extra length people on the west coast generally want for stability, doesn't really apply.

The 176 might be too much if you're uncomfortable with the length and the snow...buuuuut...it might be fun to try anyways. Who knows, you may surprise yourself and love them. Benefits of having a ski-in/out condo is you can change them out after one run if you're really not feeling it.

 

[MissySki]

The 176 might be too much if you're uncomfortable with the length and the snow...buuuuut...it might be fun to try anyways. Who knows, you may surprise yourself and love them. Benefits of having a ski-in/out condo is you can change them out after one run if you're really not feeling it.

True, that does make things much easier!! And I certainly don’t need to go anywhere near the trees on a test run! Lol

 

[marzNC]

I suppose it doesn’t hurt to try! I just imagine myself floundering a lot with so much ski in heavy snow, but that might not be the case and I guess the point is to stay up higher out of the snow. I’ve just never been on any ski in the 170s. Say you were going to use a powder ski in the east, would you use that same length? Just curious due to being less wide open and tighter trees etc. here than west.

In the east, I wouldn't go wider than 100 for myself and would probably stick to 90-95. Remember, my all-mountain skis are 85 underfoot. What I had at Bridger on a non-powder day last season was the Santa Ana 93 @161. I used them during a 3-hour semi-private lesson when we were working on bumps on blues and also did a few "adventure" runs on black/double-black terrain. The skis were fun in a variety of conditions but of course no hardpack like in the northeast.

My note for the SA 100 @153 that I took for a couple runs in that afternoon says: "probably too short, okay in deep powder or bumps or trees but hopeless on groomers." However, the BP98 @152 was good fun at Taos the season before in about 9 inches of fresh powder, and the BP98 @145 was good on groomers even at high speed. At Big Sky last Feb the snow was deep but a bit heavy. I rented the Rossi Soul 7HD (2017 version), 136-106-126, R17, for 3 days and went with 162cm. I was intent on skiing in trees at Big Sky.

In short, design may be an ever bigger factor when choosing skis mainly for use in deep powder. Meaning in comparison to picking an optimal length for all-mountain or carving skis.

 

[MissySki]

It’s awesome that you’ve gotten to try so many, I’m hoping maybe Jackson Hole will allow for this. I guess it just comes down to getting on some skis if possible since I’ve never really gotten to try any powder specific ones. Even though there wasn’t powder, I should have gotten on a few fatter pairs at the Sunapee demo day, they had a lot of the wider options than any other demo days I’ve been to in the east!

 

[marzNC]

It’s awesome that you’ve gotten to try so many, I’m hoping maybe Jackson Hole will allow for this. I guess it just comes down to getting on some skis if possible since I’ve never really gotten to try any powder specific ones. Even though there wasn’t powder, I should have gotten on a few fatter pairs at the Sunapee demo day, they had a lot of the wider options than any other demo days I’ve been to in the east!

Helps a lot that I'm retired and have had the flexibility to schedule my spring trip to Alta to include the Alta Demo Day in early April. They only bring wide skis, even if the only terrain worth skiing is frozen groomers before 11am. One year I took out the Head Great Joy, 98mm, first thing when everything was totally frozen. Took out the DPS Yvett, 112mm, later that day. What I wanted to learn was whether or not powder skis were skiable on groomers.

I invested a day during the Big Sky Diva West a while back for a personal demo day before I bought the original Black Pearls. Skied solo and took out 4-5 pairs of skis, including a repeat in the afternoon on different terrain of my favorite. When I rent on mountain for a powder day, I often change skis at lunch time. Last season was the first time ever that I lucky enough to catch deep powder storms in more than one location. Bonus was that it's possible to rent the previous season's demo skis for cheap around Big Sky. It was about $100 for 3 days.

The Sunapee Ladies Day was by far the best demo selection I've ever seen for women's skis. Well worth the registration fee.

 

[contesstant]

Put DPS on your radar. The two I skied last winter in the 100 width in powder, legit powder, were REALLY nice. And long at 171, but they didn't feel that long. It was the Yvette 100, I skied both the Foundation and Alchemist. I didn't feel enough of a difference to warrant spending the extra money on the Foundation, BUT I didn't ski them in enough of a variety of conditions to know if I might change my mind on that. They're on my radar as my new powder ski.

I find that anything wider than about 102ish feel...cumbersome. I'm not sure if it's my crazy small feet or what. I also have very few days where the powder isn't skied out in 20 minutes so a pure powder ski gets about 2 runs if I'm lucky. If I skied Targhee 100 days per year, that might be different...I skied the Volkl Secret's last year there in a foot+ of fresh (92 under foot) and they did great in it, even at a 163 length. Was I kind of wishing I had my Santa Ana 100s? Kind of, yes. And I am NOT great at skiing powder, either. I guess I'm working on technique more than relying on a fatter ski. But, between the husband and also the other instructors here, I'd get teased off the mountain if I showed up on something 110+ wide. Rarely do ANY of them show up on anything over 100mm wide. Da man's powder skis are 100 under foot, and he rarely skis them. He does have fun on them when he does as they are like tanks, but they also bother his knees by the end of the day.

I guess what I'm saying is get out and ski some different widths and constructions if you can. I have found that the construction of the ski plays a huge part in how easily it will actually turn in powder, not just the width. And put those DPS on your radar...I didn't even want to ski them because even that width is typically more than I like, but they were AWESOME.

 

[mustski]

The Volkl Ones are also great in chopped up crud and they are turn but stable. The 166 did give me some trouble in deep, heavy, wet stuff last season ... but I really am bad in powder. Much worse than you.

 

[backpackingmom]

If you've heard all of the tips before and it's still not helping, then yes, try out some wider skis. I absolutely hated powder skiing my first season when I was on 88 width skis. As a newbie skier it was an epic struggle. My second season I rented 98 width skis and I did a little better in powder but it still really wasn't my thing. My third season I got a pair of Rossignol Star 7s that are 116 under foot and suddenly I started to love powder. Once you get the hang of it on the wide skis you will be able to ski powder on anything, but wider skis definitely make it a lot more fun! You will finally understand this "float" that everyone is talking about.

I am going to show my hubby this comment so I have evidence that I need wider skis!!!

 

[mountainwest]

I am going to show my hubby this comment so I have evidence that I need wider skis!!!

Ha, excellent! Check your local ski shops for last year’s demo skis on sale. That’s what I did and got a really good deal.

 

[TeleChica]

I second contesstant's recommendation for DPS. I am on the Wailer 112 Hybrids. I picked them up for a song at an end of season sale. I LOVE these skis. Not only do they kick butt in powder on the EC and out west, they can handle firm conditions quite well. A wider ski with rocker will turn you into a powder slayer. Both features in a ski make all the difference. Also, as another poster said, not all powder is made the same. But I have not met powder I didn't love on these skis. Being an EC skier who loves glades I am happy on skis right around 170 or so. I am a big girl, so I could go longer, but have never felt the need to. Happy shopping!

 

[santacruz skier]

@MissySki look what I saw on Sierra Trading Post that may interest you
$374.95 with coupon
https://www.sierra.com/blizzard-she...n~p~711cy/?filterString=s~blizzard-sheeva-11/

 

[santacruz skier]

And look what I found for me! I have tried these in Tahoe and really like them a lot. Could fit the 88-90 mm ski that I'm in need (?) of for $299 with ooupon.
https://www.sierra.com/product/index/685nv/?colorFamily=01&itemCode=685NV-01-153