Narrower ski to create quiver

[Philpug]

I only skied them on snow that transitioned from hard pack to slush. I liked the Rossi the best, but only did one run on them, no moguls or trees.

The new Rossi's (the one you skied) are significantly different than the outgoing model, so different that they almost could be a different name. What you liked about them is what you would not want in last years version, that transition from conditions. They are also very good in the moguls and trees. The downfall of the new model is that you will not find them on sale and IMHO we will not see them discounted at least not significantly at any point during the year because Rossignol has been trasitioning into 2-year product cycles.

A couple of other skis that hasn't been mentioned but do check all of the boxes are the Armada Invictus/Victas and Nordica Navigator/Astrals.

 

[cantunamunch]

My "narrative" might be a little confusing. Maybe I'm looking for two different skis ?

I don't think you are.

I think maybe reading people's responses is shaking your focus and disrupting the clarity of what you know you want. It's very easy to become a prisoner of words.

Every time you get confusing responses here, or in a shop, take a step back and re-imagine the ski you envisioned when you were composing your first post. Don't think about what you wrote, or said, but try to imagine the ski itself and what it does for you. That is the only way to have confidence enough to process the blizzard of suggestions, and not second-guess yourself.

 

[luliski]

Thanks again for responses. I don't want to start another thread, but I should have titled this one differently. I started it because I was browsing the ski sales and wondered if any of the skis listed (on sale) would be good for bumps, trees, narrows or ice. I really want a ski narrower than my Head Great Joys, which are 98 mm wide, but I can't spend a lot on skis this year. So if anybody happens to see anything on sale that might fit my needs, please let me know!

 

[luliski]

The new Rossi's (the one you skied) are significantly different than the outgoing model, so different that they almost could be a different name. What you liked about them is what you would not want in last years version, that transition from conditions. They are also very good in the moguls and trees. The downfall of the new model is that you will not find them on sale and IMHO we will not see them discounted at least not significantly at any point during the year because Rossignol has been trasitioning into 2-year product cycles.

A couple of other skis that hasn't been mentioned but do check all of the boxes are the Armada Invictus/Victas and Nordica Navigator/Astrals.

Thanks @Philpug. I saw those listed in another thread too and have been looking to see if I can find in my length (the Armadas or Nordicas).

 

[cantunamunch]

What lengths are you looking for, approximately?

 

[luliski]

What lengths are you looking for, approximately?

Between 160 and 170. My Great Joys are 168, my older all-mountain skis are 163, my skis before those were 177 cm. I should stay under 170 since I want them to be nimble.

 

[Mendieta]

Thanks again for responses. I don't want to start another thread, but I should have titled this one differently. I started it because I was browsing the ski sales and wondered if any of the skis listed (on sale) would be good for bumps, trees, narrows or ice. I really want a ski narrower than my Head Great Joys, which are 98 mm wide, but I can't spend a lot on skis this year. So if anybody happens to see anything on sale that might fit my needs, please let me know!

Please PM if you want to change the thread title. EVO is great to look around with their filters, you can then check either their site or skiessentials, etc for the actual ski. Here is a sample search

https://www.evo.com/shop/ski/skis/a...diate-advanced/w-width_80-89-mm-2/s_price-asc

I see the victa, suggested by Phil above, for just 279
https://www.evo.com/skis/armada-victa-83-womens-2018

 

[Philpug]

Please PM if you want to change the thread title. EVO is great to look around with their filters, you can then check either their site or skiessentials, etc for the actual ski. Here is a sample search

https://www.evo.com/shop/ski/skis/a...diate-advanced/w-width_80-89-mm-2/s_price-asc

I see the victa, suggested by Phil above, for just 279
https://www.evo.com/skis/armada-victa-83-womens-2018

Thats the 83...I don't think that is enough ski for her, she would be better off with the stronger 87Ti

 

[luliski]

Thats the 83...I don't think that is enough ski for her, she would be better off with the stronger 87Ti

Thanks for answering that question! I saw both the 83 and 87ti listed at Backcountry, and was thinking the 83 might not be enough. The bad thing is 87 comes in 163 or 171. Don't want to go 171, I don't think, but 163 seems short.

 

[Philpug]

Thanks for answering that question! I saw both the 83 and 87ti listed at Backcountry, and was thinking the 83 might not be enough. The bad thing is 87 comes in 163 or 171. Don't want to go 171, I don't think, but 163 seems short.

@Tricia skis it in a 171, you will be fine. the 171 in this skis shorter than the 168 in the Head.

 

[luliski]

@Tricia skis it in a 171, you will be fine. the 171 in this skis shorter than the 168 in the Head.

Ok, good to know.

 

[luliski]

Ok, I pulled the trigger on Armada Victa 87Ti in a 171 length! Thanks for all the help. It's not the first time I've bought skis without demoing; these were a decent price and seem to have the characteristics I'm looking for. Can't wait to try them!

 

[surfsnowgirl]

I have the Invictus 89ti in a 171 that I bought undemoed. I don't think it's that uncommon to buy skis without a demo, especially if the price is right.

I think you've got a great ski there. Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[luliski]

Now for bindings...actually I'll wait on those.

 

[AmyPJ]

The DPS skis confuse me, because there are so many of them! I tried the DPS something Uschi 82 at Rose. That ski was nimble, but it felt a little "small." I didn't like it on hard pack or at speed.

A narrower ski is going to feel "small" compared to a similar length ski in a wider width. It just is--you have less material under your feet, period. Also, some skis do definitely ski "shorter", in which case, go up in length. I downsized my 2018 Black Pearls from a 166 to a 159, and it took me a few days to gel with the new length, but once I did, I had no regrets at all. It just took some time to adjust and adapt.

And yes, they would be a fun tree/mogul ski. The Sheeva 9 might also be a good option to try.

 

[luliski]

A narrower ski is going to feel "small" compared to a similar length ski in a wider width. It just is--you have less material under your feet, period. Also, some skis do definitely ski "shorter", in which case, go up in length. I downsized my 2018 Black Pearls from a 166 to a 159, and it took me a few days to gel with the new length, but once I did, I had no regrets at all. It just took some time to adjust and adapt.

And yes, they would be a fun tree/mogul ski. The Sheeva 9 might also be a good option to try.

Well, I've skied narrower than those, and they didn't feel like that. I haven't skied on wider skis for that long. And the other narrower skis I tried also didn't feel that way. Maybe it was the material or something about the construction? Anyway, I bought the Armada Victa 87Ti, and I'm happy (although I've never skied it).

As far as length, I'm heavier than I used to be, so going up in length makes sense, especially if the skis ski short. I will have to try the Black Pearls some day. I demoed the Sambas a few years ago and loved them .

 

[AmyPJ]

The Victa 87 is a fun ski! Enjoy!!

 

[BMC]

I would say stick with Head and maybe a little narrower like a front side carving ski.

I recently bought some Head Monster 83’s which are 82mm underfoot at 170cm. I bought them as hard snow carving skis for early season with some all mountain versatility. They go great incidentally - excellent skis. The female equivalent would be a great choice and they seem to be a little more supple than the Brahmas.

For conpletensss though I should say that the Monsters at 82mm are barely differentiated from my Brahmas at 88mm. If there’s a big difference between them, I haven’t got the skill to discern it. My “takeaway” is a probably needed a little more width differentiation for the purpose I was seeking to achieve (but retaining all mountain capabilities). Maybe 75-78mm underfoot.

Don’t get me wrong though - the Monsters at 82 underfoot are great skis and do serve the intended purpose. Maybe only a touch better than the Brahmas currently do.

The relevance to you is you may want to go close to 80 underfoot to get greater differentiation from your current skis.

 

[luliski]

The relevance to you is you may want to go close to 80 underfoot to get greater differentiation from your current skis.

I don't know if you saw, but I did decide on Armada Victa 87Tis.

I know what you mean about the width difference though. My Great Joys are 98 mm and the Victas 87, so an 11 mm difference, compared to the 6 mm difference between your skis. But mms are not very big, so we'll see.

I did take out my old 84 mm all-mountain skis from 2012 one icy day this past spring, and I got a lot better edge hold on those, so I'm hopeful 87 will be narrow enough.
I'm also hoping the Victas will have other characteristics that make them easier in bumps/trees.

I do have an old pair of 80 mm wide skis that I could use if I really needed to, but I don't see it happening. What I hope is that I'll have reason to demo powder skis this season!

 

[BMC]

Don’t we all!!