What light buttery skis are there

[flippensweet]

i am looking for the lightest most buttery skis that i will break by next season, any suggestions?

 

[TACO-DOG.exe]

j skis whipits are insanely soft and are fairly light. last years traveling circus ski is softer than the whipits too i think. either of those would fit you well.

 

[Daski]

PM'd

 

[maxstr]

j skis whipits are insanely soft and are fairly light. last years traveling circus ski is softer than the whipits too i think. either of those would fit you well.

The traveling circus's are insanely soft.

 

[shin-bang]

Nah. Vishnu skis -wet

 

[yungsteeze]

light weight isnt usually a sign of a nice ski because it sacrifices durability and doesnt make a big difference besides a small difference in the swing weight.

 

[270on420out]

light weight isnt usually a sign of a nice ski because it sacrifices durability and doesnt make a big difference besides a small difference in the swing weight.

Not true. Amplid makes light, and very durable skis.

OP im guessing youre younger so I'd recommend Amplid Bikinis

 

[tomPietrowski]

light weight isnt usually a sign of a nice ski because it sacrifices durability and doesnt make a big difference besides a small difference in the swing weight.

Yeah I would have to disagree. Certainly in te past that was true but now brands have the technology to make a lighter ski whic still rips. Lighter equipment helps so much especially in the park. Try some lightweight skis an boots and see what you think.

 

[Lonely]

Since its on topic I'm litterally like a day from deciding whether to get the blends or sfbs. I like buttery skis but I heard the sfb got stiffer and smaller sidewalls so it won't be as durable. I'm about 75 park 25 all mtn and I'm either skiing on a hill with 600 ft of drop, or Alta. Thoughts?

 

[Swandog7]

Since its on topic I'm litterally like a day from deciding whether to get the blends or sfbs. I like buttery skis but I heard the sfb got stiffer and smaller sidewalls so it won't be as durable. I'm about 75 park 25 all mtn and I'm either skiing on a hill with 600 ft of drop, or Alta. Thoughts?

I woukd have to vote Blend. Defenitley is going to be better in the park than the SFB and considering you'll be there most of your time I woukd go Blend. Don't worry though, the Blend can still rip through slush and 100 waist doesn't mean it can't float.

 

[Twig]

Yeah I would have to disagree. Certainly in te past that was true but now brands have the technology to make a lighter ski whic still rips. Lighter equipment helps so much especially in the park. Try some lightweight skis an boots and see what you think.

I'd have to disagree again. Pretty much any lightweight-tech ski still blows up in the park long before the regular tech equivalent ski does. That's not to say they don't rip, they just don't last as long. Examples off the top of my head include the original Candide 1.0 (withdrawn after a year, snaps), Amplid Syntax (don't last nearly as long as the Antidogma, which is the same ski just heavier/chunkier), Line Chronic (12-14 Macroblocklite 'snapcore'), Blend (same years, same core), Atomic Infamous (not specifically lightweight but they are... at least these are cheap). I honestly can't think of any ski that is light for its category but known as durable (with the possible exception of really high end $900+ skis). If I were dropping full retail on a ski to ride in the park, I'd 100% go for something chunky, no matter if a light ski is easier to ride.

Since its on topic I'm litterally like a day from deciding whether to get the blends or sfbs. I like buttery skis but I heard the sfb got stiffer and smaller sidewalls so it won't be as durable. I'm about 75 park 25 all mtn and I'm either skiing on a hill with 600 ft of drop, or Alta. Thoughts?

In order (for your usage), I'd probably go 2012-15 SFB, Blend, New SFB (I've owned all 3). The new SFB is the lightest, but it's also the stiffest and has pretty narrow edges/thinner bases so if you ride rails/wreck skis, I wouldn't expect them to last all that long. It really is meant to be a mountain/pow ski now, they kill it for that but they wouldn't last me in the park.

The Blend is super soft in the tip and tail, but relatively solid underfoot. I'd consider myself a fan of soft skis but these were too soft tip/tail and then the flex is too uneven. I've snapped a pair buttering, right at the hinge point (both skis), though they may have changed the core since then (Snake/tiger graphic). They actually ski pretty well in soft light snow but when the going gets heavy, they flap like mad and just aren't much fun. Most of the Line team rides them for what that's worth, but they get free skis.

The older SFB is softer than the new one, but stiffer than the Blend, with a more even flex profile. It's also way more durable than either in my experience, I've owned two pairs and skied them for whole winters without killing them. They aren't the lightest but imo they are the best of the 3. They still aren't good in crap snow, but better than the Blend. I think i've got more full reviews of all 3 in my profile.

*OP may be trolling judging by his post asking for a ski he can break, but the other stuff is interesting*

**This post was edited on Aug 8th 2015 at 3:41:57pm

 

[shin-bang]

I'd have to disagree again. Pretty much any lightweight-tech ski still blows up in the park long before the regular tech equivalent ski does. That's not to say they don't rip, they just don't last as long. Examples off the top of my head include the original Candide 1.0 (withdrawn after a year, snaps), Amplid Syntax (don't last nearly as long as the Antidogma, which is the same ski just heavier/chunkier), Line Chronic (12-14 Macroblocklite 'snapcore'), Blend (same years, same core), Atomic Infamous (not specifically lightweight but they are... at least these are cheap). I honestly can't think of any ski that is light for its category but known as durable (with the possible exception of really high end $900+ skis). If I were dropping full retail on a ski to ride in the park, I'd 100% go for something chunky, no matter if a light ski is easier to ride.

In order (for your usage), I'd probably go 2012-15 SFB, Blend, New SFB (I've owned all 3). The new SFB is the lightest, but it's also the stiffest and has pretty narrow edges/thinner bases so if you ride rails/wreck skis, I wouldn't expect them to last all that long. It really is meant to be a mountain/pow ski now, they kill it for that but they wouldn't last me in the park.

The Blend is super soft in the tip and tail, but relatively solid underfoot. I'd consider myself a fan of soft skis but these were too soft tip/tail and then the flex is too uneven. I've snapped a pair buttering, right at the hinge point (both skis), though they may have changed the core since then (Snake/tiger graphic). They actually ski pretty well in soft light snow but when the going gets heavy, they flap like mad and just aren't much fun. Most of the Line team rides them for what that's worth, but they get free skis.

The older SFB is softer than the new one, but stiffer than the Blend, with a more even flex profile. It's also way more durable than either in my experience, I've owned two pairs and skied them for whole winters without killing them. They aren't the lightest but imo they are the best of the 3. They still aren't good in crap snow, but better than the Blend. I think i've got more full reviews of all 3 in my profile.

*OP may be trolling judging by his post asking for a ski he can break, but the other stuff is interesting*

**This post was edited on Aug 8th 2015 at 3:41:57pm

Also about the light skis usually being less durable, in order to make the ski lighter, do they thin the core, lower edge, base, and side wall size?

I would rather have a beefier ski that last longer than something light

 

[Twig]

Also about the light skis usually being less durable, in order to make the ski lighter, do they thin the core, lower edge, base, and side wall size?

I would rather have a beefier ski that last longer than something light

It can be any of the things you mention, but also lighter core materials (balsa/flax 'cloudcore' for example). Reduced edge size is almost always present in lighter skis, for obvious reasons and because of the way things are layered up, thinner bases to match.

I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with lighter skis, they can rip around the mountain for sure. I enjoyed the new Line SFB for all mountain for example and I really like the Faction 3.0 with the same core. But if I were throwing down full retail on a ski to use in the park, I'd stay clear unless I had money to burn.

 

[shin-bang]

It can be any of the things you mention, but also lighter core materials (balsa/flax 'cloudcore' for example). Reduced edge size is almost always present in lighter skis, for obvious reasons and because of the way things are layered up, thinner bases to match.

I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with lighter skis, they can rip around the mountain for sure. I enjoyed the new Line SFB for all mountain for example and I really like the Faction 3.0 with the same core. But if I were throwing down full retail on a ski to use in the park, I'd stay clear unless I had money to burn.

Well said Jedi master