Is it the new bindings? Halp!

[Monique]

The edges were tuned to 1 and 2, the bases flat and structured with Medium Powder; an excellent structure for CO. Prior they edges were significantly burred from use and the bases flat, but not structured.

The moving of 1 cm on a race ski might be noticeable but on this ski, negligible. Moving the mount forward 1cm would make them slightly more turny vs moving them 6mm back which would have made them ever so slightly less responsive. The old bindings could be remounted or the new ones moved to the 6mm back position without any problems. These skis are wide enough to maintain structural integrity with three sets of holes.

FWIW, my position references are from the recommend mount point on the ski. The new bindings had to be relocated forward or aft due to conflicts with the holes with the previous bindings.

Ramp angle is easy to adjust with a shim under the binding toe and longer screws. No re-drilling required.

I don't notice you describing the problems/issues you experienced other than the double eject, which was likely not anything to do with changes to the ski. I'm glad the bindings worked properly when needed.

Doug, I very much appreciate all the work you did and am in no way trying to implicate you in my difficulties - just trying to figure out what's going on. Like I said, the skis are smooth like butter. I'm also glad the bindings are doing their job, AND very importantly that I can get back into them in snow and on a slope. The Griffons would have been a disaster.

I'm trying to think of how to describe the problems, other than "I felt off." The skis felt really fast and smooth (like, I wouldn't have known what someone meant by feeling smooth until I skied them, I remember thinking you performed magic!), which felt awesome on easy groomers, but I wonder - because I am not good at rounding my turn shape and I tend to push my tails, could that have resulted in me feeling even more out of control than usual on scraped sections or wherever I wanted speed control?

Then in bumps I just felt worse than usual, but to be honest I am not a great bump skier, and it could be that just pushing tails on the easier stuff to slow down could have primed me for some bad habits in the bumps. Also I think the first "terrain" we went to was E chair. So all of a sudden I'm on steeps and bumps when I haven't done that at all this season till last weekend. And then we went into Tom's and I fell into that snow pocket and from there I was probably shaken up and not in my best / most confident ski mode.

I think I was also just super aware of the "binding forward means you might have to be more careful about your tips in soft snow" thing and I may have been overly worried about that or been unintentionally backseating to "compensate" for that. Thought -> action.

I wish I could get back on the skis soon. It'll be another week and a half. Maybe I just psyched myself out, convinced myself they were different, and imbued a fall with more meaning than it actually had and let that set the tone for the weekend. It's not like I've never fallen before.

 

[Monique]

Or, one can graduate to a bigger ski. A ski in the 180+ range may seem huge and heavy and feel like it takes a lot of leg work, but any real dedicated powder ski is going to have a lot of rocker, making the ski a lot more manageable than it would first seem. Worries about not having enough leg strength to move the ski are warranted, but it is my opinion that you will blow your legs out sitting on the heels of too-short skis in deep pow MUCH FASTER than you will blow your legs out by strapping on a ski long enough to float your weight, whatever one's weight may be.

Well, let's see how my Twos do at 176. I didn't have those, but I didn't even bring out the Ones (166) that I had because overall conditions across the mountain didn't warrant it. But the new La Ninas I'll be getting have a big ol' shovel and I hope will be a decent in between ski.

I think you're right that I'm not sure I've ever skied this type of snow, except for one day last season when the upper mountain was on wind hold with lots of fresh snow, so that by the time we got onto it it was also styrofoam like - but without the lighter layer beneath. I don't think I fell, but I felt incompetent, teared up a bit, and left early for margarita and retail therapy.

 

[Jeff N]

Well, let's see how my Twos do at 176. I didn't have those, but I didn't even bring out the Ones (166) that I had because overall conditions across the mountain didn't warrant it. But the new La Ninas I'll be getting have a big ol' shovel and I hope will be a decent in between ski.

I think you're right that I'm not sure I've ever skied this type of snow, except for one day last season when the upper mountain was on wind hold with lots of fresh snow, so that by the time we got onto it it was also styrofoam like - but without the lighter layer beneath. I don't think I fell, but I felt incompetent, teared up a bit, and left early for margarita and retail therapy.

176 is certainly better than 166. Off the cuff, I view a 166 length as pretty much impossible for anything but a very small skier to ski powder aggressively, in a balanced stance, and not go flying headfirst over the tips, while I view 176 as giving somebody a fighting chance. My wife skis a 178 (S7W), and while it doesn't making floating it out easy, it makes it possible, and it also makes it possible for her not be in constant peril of going over the front.

 

[Doug Briggs]

Doug, I very much appreciate all the work you did and am in no way trying to implicate you in my difficulties - just trying to figure out what's going on. Like I said, the skis are smooth like butter. I'm also glad the bindings are doing their job, AND very importantly that I can get back into them in snow and on a slope. The Griffons would have been a disaster.

No worries. I just wanted to clarify some of the things that changed and how so other's offers of help could be based on good info. As well as to let you know what options you could consider for remediation. It's too bad you won't have another ski day for a while. A negative experience without a chance to redeem yourself is hard.

 

[Monique]

176 is certainly better than 166. Off the cuff, I view a 166 length as pretty much impossible for anything but a very small skier to ski powder aggressively, in a balanced stance, and not go flying headfirst over the tips, while I view 176 as giving somebody a fighting chance. My wife skis a 178 (S7W), and while it doesn't making floating it out easy, it makes it possible, and it also makes it possible for her not be in constant peril of going over the front.

*nod* S7 is 115 underfoot? The Twos are 124, which should make a big difference. I had no problem floating on my Gypsies (125) at 170 and never felt like I was going to go over the handlebars, including at Silverton on fresh powder days.

 

[Monique]

It's too bad you won't have another ski day for a while. A negative experience without a chance to redeem yourself is hard.

Yes. This is the biggest bummer of *sigh* having to go back to work (in a traditional office environment). Last season, if I had a bad day, I'd self-correct by skiing some groomers the next day, even if I only got out for an hour or two.

 

[Jeff N]

*nod* S7 is 115 underfoot? The Twos are 124, which should make a big difference. I had no problem floating on my Gypsies (125) at 170 and never felt like I was going to go over the handlebars, including at Silverton on fresh powder days.

Her S7W's are 108 underneath. I anticipate a longer and wider ski purchase some time in her future.

 

[Monique]

Her S7W's are 108 underneath. I anticipate a longer and wider ski purchase some time in her future.

A new ski purchase is always imminent in my future ;-)

Obviously you can choose either length or width (or both) to increase surface area, and they each have different effects ... I am quite sure the Two will float me in a 176, because the Gypsy floated me in a 170. If I were a hard charger I might want a longer ski. Or maybe next year I'll decide I want a longer ski. Demoing powder skis, especially the ones you particularly want to try, in appropriate conditions is difficult. ... well, maybe not in Gnarnia ;-)

 

[SkiEssentials]

In my opinion there's a happy medium for powder ski length. Sure, longer and wider gets more float, but at what expense? At 5'10" ~150 lbs I've settled around the 185cm length for most of my powder skis. I've had everything from low 170s to a Stormrider 110TT in a 192cm. They're all fun, and all have their strengths and weaknesses, but I've been pretty happy sticking to mid 180cm powder skis the past few seasons (skiing in CO, CA, and VT predominantly).

Maybe we should start a "How long are your powder skis?" thread...

 

[Monique]

In my opinion there's a happy medium for powder ski length. Sure, longer and wider gets more float, but at what expense? At 5'10" ~150 lbs I've settled around the 185cm length for most of my powder skis. I've had everything from low 170s to a Stormrider 110TT in a 192cm. They're all fun, and all have their strengths and weaknesses, but I've been pretty happy sticking to mid 180cm powder skis the past few seasons (skiing in CO, CA, and VT predominantly).

Maybe we should start a "How long are your powder skis?" thread...

And of course there's the obligatory contrarian "But I don't want to float in powder! I want to ski in the snow and I want to get face shots!" response.