Welcome to our new beta design! Click here to go back to the old Newschoolers.
-wakes-i think anything over about 110 underfoot is too large to truly be an everyday ski.
joetheponybut my big question was how they would do in tigh trees or even some moguls any time where right fast turns are needed? Thanks
kung_powpowI was surprised at how maneuverable the 192s are in tight turns. I live in CO and have had no problem skiing the tight trees, the 20m turn radius is awesome. The only problem I have is when I have to hockey stop the skis are too long to fit through some trees sideways. I wouldn't use them as a daily ski since they aren't very fun on hardpack. They eat up any soft snow tho
cobra_commanderI honestly think that the 120+ ski's are overkill, even for a powder ski. They will continue to have a place as a great compliment to a low 100's everyday ski, but as ski companies refine their rocker and shape designs, we will find that the high 110's will be excellent powder skis, with more versatility. Ski width's are going to start to come back down, now that the fat ski craze has reached , and is coming back from its peak. YMMV.
Blake.Pi can see where you're coming from, but i find 120 +/- 2 to be the sweet spot for a pow ski (anything over that is definitely overkill). i rode a pair of hoji's (112 underfoot) on a deep pow day a few weeks ago, and felt significantly held back compared to my caylors because of the differences in float (but this could also because i prefer a stiff ski and the hojis are far from that). i've used my caylors in all conditions and have never had any issues on a 120 ski
tomPietrowskiThere are loads of versatile freeride skis which would be almost a good in the pow but would be better out of it.
joetheponyDo you think the bents are going to work as my daily driver or is it overkill?
joetheponyAny suggestions on alternatives to the bents?