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. !
That's the 163cm pair?
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. !
Blizzard beam as!!!My Great Joys are 98 mm wide. I think I'd want something a little softer than the Brahmas for bumps and tight spots. As far as width, I'm thinking between 80-90 mm, because I'd still want an all-mountain ski. Just a narrower one.
No, those are the 177s. They're old (around 2001), but from when my daughter was little so I didn't ski as much. I think they'd still be usable. Not good crud busters, but good on hard pack.That's the 163cm pair?
No, those are the 177s. They're old (around 2001), but from when my daughter was little so I didn't ski as much. I think they'd still be usable. Not good crud busters, but good on hard pack.
The 163s (actually 162) are 84 wide, bought used (demos) in 2012. They are good crud busters and good on hard pack, but they're super heavy and I hate carrying them.
Those Volkls sound like a Volkl G30 or something...I think you'll be amazed at how much extra steering at the start of the turn those skis take in comparison to today's.
What bindings are on the 2012? I would be willing to bet that a good portion of the apparent weight comes not from the ski but from the binding.
It doesn't really matter at this point, I suppose
The 162s have Nordica Pro 2S Xt bindings. The skis are the Nordica Olympia Conquers. They are great crud busters and work well on hard pack, but they're so heavy. The binding is big part of it, but I think the skis are also heavy. Maybe I'll use them at the start of the season. It would be kind of fun to take all of these skis out on the same day.