Which POW ski?

T.O.

T.O.

Member
This season is coming up and im trying to decide which powder ski to get. The thing is though im 5'1 and 95 pounds. I will be skiing steep faces with these skis and some medium size cliffs. Im a advanced skier and can ski all-over the mountain with ease. The prices of the skis dont matter that much because im going to get the skis of 25% what my local store sells them for. I would like the ski to be a soft to medium flex and be fairly light and be able to carve well. Some of the brands my store stocks are Line,Scott,K2,Armada,Vokl,Ninthward,Rossingal,Surface,and Moment. I just mention these brands because these would be the brands easiest for the shop to get. If it matters these will most likely be mounted with griffons and I ski Baker and Alyeska.

 
he said hes a good skier...

also the lizzies are very soft and easy to handle i used them when i was around 5 1, 5 2

and the next lives are 160
 
and rockered, lizzes are not(nore are they being made so I don't quite see why they were even suggested, not to mention they are not a pow ski, that low of tips+ pow=fail)
 
Dont get Lizzies... If you are skiing powder on them, than you are skiing powder wrong. Maybe look at the 159 S3... Its not pow specific but finding a pow ski your size is difficult. They will be a good size and probably give you everything you need. Also maybe the 168 Blends. They are definitely longer for your size but if you are a strong skier and still growing than I think you could handle them... They wont feel soft with your weight either but should be manageable and give you float/support. The s3 also comes in a 168 I think.
Or womens skis could be a good answer. If Sean Petit used them so can you.
 
alright i know this is super rare but i have a friend that is about your size, and he contacted moment skis and asked for the reagan but if they could put a mens graphic on them. they suggested that they could put on a graphic like the night trains or bibbys because they are very close to the same dimensions. it cost him more money for them to do this but they ended up doing it for him with a lot of convincing. i am doubtful they would do it again because he did a ton to get them to finally agree with him. but it is a good option for someone like your size if they are willing to do it.
 
on3p would probably do something like that for them

rowan was going to make a ski for me that was softer so i would be able to ski it

just a thought
 
flex is one thing, I know scott told me he didn't want to swap topsheets around anymore, the only reason he did last year is because of the delay. but even a soft 171 caylor I think would be to much ski for a kid that size, hight isn't all that matters, 95 pounds generally means he won't be the strongest kid on the block, and trying to ride a ski that is effectively 6.5in taller then him(on3p measures true to post-press length unlike most brands which measure flat material and say thats the length), even with rocker will in all likely hood be to much for him. Now of course, he could wake up one morning to a 3/4in growth spurt, in which case a 171 would be a better choice then say a 158-165. but the likely hood of that happening isn't all that high.

But what im just reading now is that night trains come in a 168, while still pretty long for your size OP, it will give you some growing room with them, plus i think mommy and daddy will like the idea of only buying 1 pair of skis to last more then a season(assuming they are which im guessing by the price is no object thing, not hating tho). mount those up center to make them ride even shorter and you should be golden.
 
hmm, maybe too short with the rocker? I really don't know it just came to mind. Somebody else have input on this?
 
To be honest, if you're a really good skier, I wouldn't be afraid to get 175 jjs. They have a ton of rocker and are probably the easiest skis to ski ever. They're light, quick, and fun.
 
I have looked at ep shorty's and think they are to small with the rocker. But I think a 162 bacon or 168 night train would be perfect. What do you guys think is a better ski? Also what about the 167 keeper or 168 vancular pro model?
 
actually the cvp might be a better choice then the NTs, narrower underfoot means better hard pack performance, and with how small you are the added girth of the NTs will just hinder you.

so yes, for the very first time in the history of my NS account, I am recommending a 9thward ski
 
You can have my mom's old skis lol. They are in 153 (perfect fit for you) and have some rail damage from when I was learning how to ski, but they have a nice, soft flex and aren't center mounted, but that can be fixed :) Trust me these fuckers shred in the pow they make AK their bitch :) $600 obo with bindings

5056205858_73184e4260_b.jpg
 
Really now? Just because you aren't on a fat rockered powder specific ski, doesn't mean you are skiing powder wrongly.
 
No your right, but a short ski with very low tips and an extremely soft flex that begs anyone who skis them to ski backseat... Kinda does. They sink like submarines, have no backbone and get pushed around if you try to ski aggressively on anything but a groomer... and even there they have a very short turn radius. One of the last ski I would want on my feet in anything but park, or playing around with. 9 times out of 10 people skiing on the Lizzies outside of park are skiing wrong.
 
Depending on how wide you want to go, check out the Liberty helix or Double Helix. Helix are 105 underfoot, dub helix 121.

Both come in shorted sizes (167 for Helix and 174 for Dub Helix); are really really light for the size and can definitely still carve on them

If you can find somewhere to demo them; definitely give them a go.

Unless you are adamant about having new skis for the very start of the season; it's probably worth actually testing out a couple of different skis before commiting; that way you know you'll be happy with the ski you get in the end.
 
Helix and Dub Helix have a kind of mini rocker called Fat Head, it's basically a longer tip and tail section; check the website for more details.

As far as softness; I'd say it's a moderate flex; gives a lot of energy return, very poppy and playful ski.
 
Moment rocker?
I know its a 'park' ski but it might work well for your weight as a pow ski. Rocker in tip and tail should make them float well for their size. Plus the feel a good 10-15cm shorter than their size (I've got the '10/'11s in a 178).
I found them way too soft for me (they're a lot softer than last season's version), but I'm around 210lbs. If your using them for pow then the softness, especially in tip and tail, will probably be a plus. They are also very light.
If you're gonna put Griffons on them then you could have a nice setup for landing switch on both pow and park (symmetric) with a centre mount and then shift them back for regular pow skiing. Regular camber underfoot should help on groomed too.
Or maybe 2012s? Similar idea to Rockers and felt similarly soft.
 
This is not about powder skis but I like the blue steeles but they are to big, what other park skis in my size are like them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top