A quick word on blocking ads
It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
powpatroldepending on your size to the ski size the nose can be really soft. the mount point is quite far back as well so easier to end up back seated
powpatroldepending on your size to the ski size the nose can be really soft. the mount point is quite far back as well so easier to end up back seated
Gyro_NightsI would think the short tail would be combated with how stiff it is. Could also size up for a longer tail then
Mackaroni_spaceI used to have a pair and I used em only for big mountain as I couldn’t slide rails that long ago, they go insanely hard for big mountain. They’re a big ski (at least mine were for me at the time) and it will take some getting used to at first for sure but they’re fuckin wicked
Gyro_NightsU mind telling me your height and weight and which length u skied?
cydwhitDear lord, there is a lot going on in this thread.
The Sakana is a short, light, mid-width ski. You're describing comp-level free ride skiing, in all-time conditions. The Sakana is great for mellow, playful skiing, in mediocre to decent conditions.
It's fun in fresh snow, but not your best bet for "1-2' of fresh" I'd look for a wider, longer ski, with less camber.
Similarly, for "30-40' cliffs" there are much more stable, predictable, damp options on the market. If you are actually going this big on the regular, you do not want to be on a Sakana.
If you are actually skiing that big of terrain, in that much fresh snow, something like the Moment Bibby Pro, Line Blade Optic, Salomon QST Blank, Sego Big Horn 114 or Comp 118, Armada Declivity X, or similar is a much better bet.
Gyro_NightsYe but it’s more of a situation of as would they work skiing a foot of snow and dropping bigger stuff 40% of the time. Then 60% will be carving and just going fast and having fun. I rode the blade in the 164 length and loved it I just found it too short and not floaty enough. I thought the sakana was more like a wider blade meant for softer snow. Right now I ride edollos 172 and they shred and fell good off 25-30 foot cliffs, so I thought a 181 sakana would work. Keep in mind that I am 5 10 and 145 pounds. Would you still be against the sakana for me in this situation?
Gyro_NightsYe but it’s more of a situation of as would they work skiing a foot of snow and dropping bigger stuff 40% of the time. Then 60% will be carving and just going fast and having fun. I rode the blade in the 164 length and loved it I just found it too short and not floaty enough. I thought the sakana was more like a wider blade meant for softer snow. Right now I ride edollos 172 and they shred and fell good off 25-30 foot cliffs, so I thought a 181 sakana would work. Keep in mind that I am 5 10 and 145 pounds. Would you still be against the sakana for me in this situation?
cydwhitYeah. What Sam said. If you are just jibbing all over the hill, goofing off and having fun, the Sakana is a great ski for that. But if 40% of your skiing is as gnarly as you say it is, there are many more capable skis that are still fun when you're not skiing off cliffs with a tape measure.
Gyro_Nights1-2 feet of snow and dropping 30-40 foot cliffs
Gyro_NightsYe but it’s more of a situation of as would they work skiing a foot of snow and dropping bigger stuff 40% of the time. Then 60% will be carving and just going fast and having fun. I rode the blade in the 164 length and loved it I just found it too short and not floaty enough. I thought the sakana was more like a wider blade meant for softer snow. Right now I ride edollos 172 and they shred and fell good off 25-30 foot cliffs, so I thought a 181 sakana would work. Keep in mind that I am 5 10 and 145 pounds. Would you still be against the sakana for me in this situation?
Skiglizzy65930 footers on edollos gotta hurt the knees
cyphersvids please
Gyro_NightsAbout 25-30 feet idk. Ye I know it not 30-40 but 1. I’ve only been skiing for 2 years 2. I only started skiing non groomed runs back in January 2022 3. Landing was flat 4. I progress every time I get to go skiing and will prob be bucking 40 in no time. Then I will probably be spending a couple weekends at kicking horse and I’m hoping for fresh snow. I’m tryna think about how I am going to ski next year and the year after. Ik I’m getting downvoted to hell tho for saying I need something for more than I am doing rn
https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/1043964/trim-10D4E5DE-081E-4E19-9C62-313DE1343006-MOV
cydwhitNah. You're getting downvoted for wording all your questions in a way that comes across as super braggy. Not saying you're trying to, just saying, everyone I've ever met who talks about how they hit "20-30 foot cliffs" or whatever has been a mega douche. What you're looking for is a ski that "can handle deep snow and bigger impacts" or a ski that "is good for harder free ride type skiing" or "I'm looking for a ski that hill hold up and help me as I step up to bigger terrain and deeper snow" or a host of other ways of saying "I want a ski that's good for jumping off of natural shit"
Which, there are a ton of skis out there that fit that bill. I mentioned several of them above. But again, the Sakana is just. not. that. ski. Line makes like 6 other skis that are all better for what you're talking about than the Sakana.
Gyro_NightsYe but it’s more of a situation of as would they work skiing a foot of snow and dropping bigger stuff 40% of the time. Then 60% will be carving and just going fast and having fun. I rode the blade in the 164 length and loved it I just found it too short and not floaty enough. I thought the sakana was more like a wider blade meant for softer snow. Right now I ride edollos 172 and they shred and fell good off 25-30 foot cliffs, so I thought a 181 sakana would work. Keep in mind that I am 5 10 and 145 pounds. Would you still be against the sakana for me in this situation?
