Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
dave schultz

Fat Skis for PNW?

Recommended Posts

I have never had a problem with my skis in Colorado or the NE, but never really got into significant powder or massive amounts of new and fresh snow. My current skis are 125-81-111 (184cm Sportiva GT with AT tech bindings) and 132-90-119 (186cm BD Aspect with tele bindings) ... just curious how wide people end up needing to go. The AT will be used almost exclusively for backcountry touring and ski mountaineering; while the tele will be 50-50 between touring and resort, not much ski mountaineering with the tele set up. I was looking at another pair of skis with a fatter base, something like 135-105-125 (188cm Sportiva Hi5)but wasn't sure if those would even be wide enough to be "wide" or is something more like 145-117-135 (188cm BD Megawatt) going to fit the bill. I am an aggressive skier, about 6'0'' and 185lbs.

 

Thanks

 

Dave

Edited by dave schultz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not only about size, its about shape! baa

 

With that being said I did all my touring on a 112 underfoot ski last winter and loved it. I even took a 123 out on some nice pow days. You won't go wrong with anything 105-115, but having some rocker sure is nice to stay above the lovely crust that will inevitably form. Here's what i'm rocking (but in 187) with dynafits w/o brakes, comes to ~11 lbs total

i'm 6'1" 175 for reference

 

pm gear fat bro

 

P1010474.JPG

 

7012698175_fc234da233_b.jpg

 

Edited by kevino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to be a great wide- multi purpose tool... I might purchace it for myself this year.

 

http://k2skis.com/skis/adventure/sidestash-1213

 

I currently ski the Line sir francis bacon, which is also 108 under foot, but just a little wider in the tip and tail than the k2 sidestash. The combination of the rocker+ traditional camber with a good radius like 140-108-136 makes for an awesome ski that works great in just about every condition. I used it for backcountry skiing and everything inbounds 6 days a week last season (I work nights on the hill and ski all day). I really have to reccomend this style of ski, especially for around here. The flat tail is also appealing to me- I'll be able to click in and out with a bit more ease on steep aspects. That can be a more of a delicate process with the twin tips I have now. Im pretty much sold on the sidestash. Just need to demo it to confirm what I already know. Or do i? :) Now if it would only snow!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Sidestash seems too heavy for a dedicated tourintg rig. These days so many manufacturers are making ripping skis weighing less than 8.5 lbs in a 180-185 cm.

 

For a one ski-fits-all in the PNW, I think something in the range of 100-105 underfoot is probably best. Sounds like you've got some good skis for summer skiing / ski mountaineering already though so you may want to look at something you'll use primarily for mid-winter pow skiing - something in the range of 105-112 underfoot. Seems like if you go any fatter than that for touring its too heavy and a pain in the ass on the skin track.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My everyday touring ski happens to be ~130 underfoot and 164.5cm in length. I find I have better glide than most of the partners I go out with (verified by who slides further out into the flats off of rollers) and better traction too (based on who starts slipping first on climbs). In soft snow it's not really a big deal but on firm snow and steep traverses the width really sucks.

 

Of course I'm much happier than any of the skiers in 2 feet of spring slush when I pin my 2 halves back together and snowboard down. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the light powder days everythings seems to work great. Wider skis with some tip rocker seem to help keep you above all of the manky snow we end up skiing.

 

Seems that you are on the right track with the HI5 skis. I demoed those last year and was blown away. Seems that 105 waist is kind of a magic number for the BC around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a 90-110mm waist is about right for general use in the PNW. Tip rocker is very helpful, particularly when new snow has warmed up a bit and is no longer perfectly fluffy.

 

I have a "quiver" 128mm waisted skis for deep days (over a foot of new), 100mm for general use and some 76mm waisted "rock skis" for late spring and summer.

 

Edited by RandyTele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×