Need a dedicated powder ski

[Ryan Dietrich]

Just FYI -- everything i see reviewing the Peacepipe have its dimensions as 115 underfoot. The CM difference is quite critical in the mega-fat range. So the Friend should be right in the range.

Oh crap, you're right. I am an idiot. They were 115. Well, in my really, stupid ignorant defense, I was skiing on 80(ish)mm Rossignol Phantom's at the time, and that PeacePipe might as well had been an aircraft carrier for all I cared. What surprised me was how easy it was to ski, I took to it like a fish in water. Yeah, I do remember them mentioning it was bamboo.. And kevlar, they brought up the fact that they used kevlar a ton too, I thought that was clever.

Well, on the upside, this means I should love 'The Friend' right? I'm picking them up tonight, and I am so excited!!!!

Also, I'm kind of blown away right now. There are 4 PAGES of posts on my silly little question, and I have really been impressed with the thoughtfulness and effort made in each of these posts. Ya'll are wonderful.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

RD >>>"I ski between 50-100 days a season...I'm 6'1 185-ish...And yeah, I grew up out east, so I learned on ice, I'm not the greatest powder skier in the world.. But again, I'll get on the lift, and everyone next to me on a powder day has skis that are twice as wide as mine, so it's clear they all are doing it right and I' the one who sucks...except on powder days. I watch everyone else blow past me, while I seem to slog through. I've tried adjusting my stance (lean way back, lean way forward, try to stay balanced), and it doesn't matter...One other thing I will admit that others have pointed out to me, is that I need to go faster on powder than normal. I can't do that. My fear of getting hurt overrides going any faster than I feel comfortable, so I am kind of hoping wider skis will compensate for this lack of break-neck speed.

There are plenty of older advanced powder skiers though a minority, that have been at it for decades, that don't prefer to ski powder fast just making long planing turns because they do not buy into the notion that is the way for them personally to have the most fun and excitement. I've skied both styles and prefer more moderate, bouncy, turny fun. When the faster style emerged I also skied at times on long heavy Volvant Chubbs so am somewhat familiar what that is about and understand why many think that is most exciting at least for them due to the greater forces. Same people probably like skiing groomed slopes at speed on GS skis or driving sports cars fast on mountain highways.

Fast less turny powder skiing has dominated ski movies for the last couple decades especially when it includes airing off of all manner of terrain features. That is the kind of skiing your friends with extra wide boards are into. Since you note above " I can't do that" and seem to believe "others have pointed out to me, is that I need to go faster", I am here to tell you, no you don't need to go fast to have super fun. Advanced powder skiers have argued what style is most fun and exciting for years and really comes down to personal choices and style. It is arguably true that fast powder skiing down steep slopes using large forces make better ski movies than say cranking a bunch of S-turns through modest gradient woods. And note any of the pros one sees in ski movies are also likely to be able to grab a soft modestly wide powder ski and bounce short turns though it may not be their usual choice. And it is true for some that skiing is about challenge versus more relaxed fun so for those with the former orientation yeah get wide boards and learn to ski fast. It is also true numbers with that style that are not well rounded advanced skiers, don't have the skill to make short S turns in powder, especially when terrain gets steeper and likewise probably don't have the skill to make short turns through slalom gates, or on groomed, much less in bumps.

I personally think skiing moderate gradient slopes with trees is the most fun for me. I prefer the usual better less wind and sun impacted, less likely to be tracked up fresh snow, one is more likely to find in trees and enjoy passing through beside complex obstacles like trees and rocks. But then I'm also a strong mogul skier able to make short turns so doing so is not too dangerous. If one can make short turns, or aspire to, understand there is indeed a choice as there really isn't a need to "go faster" to have super fun as any advanced skier watching me bounce down would agree with.

Turns with a soft 2012 Rossi S7, 110mm at boot in ~3 feet of light fresh.

https://www.pugski.com/threads/dodge-ridge-31-fresh.14075/
https://www.pugski.com/threads/images-final-2018-season-heavenly-fresh-powder.9648/

The problem here, I think, is that you weigh 140 lbs. Powder behaves, in some ways, like a fluid. To float on it you need to displace more snow the fatter you are.

I weigh about 215. For me to get the same float you do from a 110 underfoot ski, I would need to be on something that is about 50% more surface area. A ski like the friend is, in fact, only about 25% more surface area than an S7 (I had to make a lot of assumptions to get that number some of which are probably wrong). To get 50% more surface area I would actually need a ski that has an average width of 20 cm or is much longer than 190 cm.

So YOU are getting the experience on an S7 I would need to be on some massive ridiculous snowboard of a ski to get.

 

[jmeb]

For me to get the same float you do from a 110 underfoot ski, I would need to be on something that is about 50% more surface area. A ski like the friend is, in fact, only about 25% more surface area than an S7

I think this is the critical thing. People forget to adjust to others size differences. I have a friend that regularly harps on me for skiing skis that are "too long" -- I'm 6'2" / 175, he's 5'9" / 150. Yo dude, your 175 is my 187.

Additionally, the S7 as a ski is way closer to the 117mm Friend in soft-snow oriented design than the OPs Mantra which is basically a super-sized GS ski with some tip rocker. There are lots of versions of the Mantra, OP doesn't have the M5 or the full rocker version which is notably looser in soft snow.

 

[SSSdave]

The problem here, I think, is that you weigh 140 lbs. Powder behaves, in some ways, like a fluid. To float on it you need to displace more snow the fatter you are.

I weigh about 215. For me to get the same float you do from a 110 underfoot ski, I would need to be on something that is about 50% more surface area. A ski like the friend is, in fact, only about 25% more surface area than an S7 (I had to make a lot of assumptions to get that number some of which are probably wrong). To get 50% more surface area I would actually need a ski that has an average width of 20 cm or is much longer than 190 cm.

So YOU are getting the experience on an S7 I would need to be on some massive ridiculous snowboard of a ski to get.

Excuse me for being vague, I should have added, that I was not recommending the S7 for the OP that weighs 185#, but rather just proving information about how I made turns on the posted image and links. Of course one obviously per your input thank you, needs to adjust to a similar weight to platform area ratio and as you noted that means a significantly wider ski than my 140-110-118 S7's. Reason for the post was to relate one does not need to ski fast in fresh powder. As a small male I'm always re-interpreting what other males relate about skis and tend to pay more attention to what gals have to say.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Excuse me for being vague, I should have added, that I was not recommending the S7 for the OP that weighs 185#, but rather just proving information about how I made turns on the posted image and links. Of course one obviously per your input thank you, needs to adjust to a similar weight to platform area ratio and as you noted that means a significantly wider ski than my 140-110-118 S7's. Reason for the post was to relate one does not need to ski fast in fresh powder. As a small male I'm always re-interpreting what other males relate about skis and tend to pay more attention to what gals have to say.

No need to apologize . Thought you were chiming in on the narrow vs. wide thing.

Just so you know - it's hard to judge from the picture, but if I wanted to ski that line on what looks like fairly flat terrain, I would probably need ultra fat skis. I honestly think I would have no forward momentum at all and stop moving in the middle of roughly every other turn. If that's a technique issue I don't know what would fix it.

Even if I got back to my lightest adult weight of 190 (with about 11% body fat at 6 ft and a lot of muscle) I think I would need a very, very fat ski to turn that much in low angle deep powder.

 

[SSSdave]

We small folk, especially many gals, have a major advantage over you weighty guys on lower powder gradient slopes regardless of how wide a tool you are on as there is of course more to the physics of float on snow than just weight to area ratio. Took the above image after an extra dry cold two feet fell. Despite being right in front of a resort base lodge and parking lot with lots of people all day looking on, and slopes serviced by 3 lifts, at days end only a few people had crossed the above low gradient slope and obviously none had intention of making turns. So had some fun annoying big people returning to their vehicles.

 

[Ryan Dietrich]

Got'em! I'm gonna head up to Sundance in a bit.

Volkl Mantra's weigh 11.4 pounds on the scale
J'Ski "The Friend" weigh 16.4 pounds on the scale

They are considerably "thicker" (obviously they are wider, I mean THICK). I'll report back on some lousy groomer conditions in a bit! (hopefully powder tomorrow)

 

[Ryan Dietrich]

1. They turned pretty well on the wet snow, I was able to snap 180 degree left/right/lefts with a decent level of precision and I didn't feel like the skis had so much weight that they were carrying momentum.
2. In a longer, gliding turn the felt like a 1950's cadillac, I could feel the weight of the ski driving me down the hill, much more-so than my mantras ever would.
3. They have such a different "sound". I like to describe the mantra as it goes over the snow in a turn like pottery being scraped. These things sound muffled, like a boat that is buffeted by small wakes.
4. Am I crazy or are these things mounted a little further up the ski? I felt like even on a 180 length ski, I had about the same amount of ski in front of me, and way more behind me.
5. I hope we get snow tomorrow, otherwise it may be one to two runs on these before I switch back to my mantra's.

 

[Tom K.]

1. Am I crazy or are these things mounted a little further up the ski? I felt like even on a 180 length ski, I had about the same amount of ski in front of me, and way more behind me.

You -- and I -- are used to traditional, directional skis. The Friend is mounted ~ 7 cm behind center if it is on the factory line, which is definitely forward of a traditional mount point. Don't be afraid to move the bindings back to -1 or even -2 cm to see if that suits you. I ended up with my Enforcer 100s at -1.5 and my Ranger 115s at - 1.0.

Hope you get some pow for tomorrow!

 

[Noodler]

Yep, I'm totally ok with that. This is something I'll use for years going forward, instead of wishing I had dedicated powder skis every time I go out on those crazy days. I guess if you saw what I saw, in terms of what skis I see people showing up with on those kinds of days (seriously, I feel like a small fry, everyone has skis twice as wide as mine), you'd be more inclined to agree with me, but I can't force that impression into your head. I live 15 minute from Sundance (door to parking lot). I go literally all the time, and I just want to have the best experience possible with the best tool available, maybe some day I'll get the gumption to do backcountry stuff, but I'm not interested in those kinds of risks at the moment.

I still want to demo some DPS skis. This thread has convinced me to give up on the Lotus 124, so I'm going to see if I can find a Wailer to try the next time I go to Alta. The only problem with that ski is that it seems to be an "everyday" type of ski, which I'm not as interested in given my love for my Mantras.

I wish I had bought those darn Ramp skis :-( I'm not kidding, 125 underfoot, and I was cruising groomers at the end of the day with no problem at all.

The DPS Wailer 112RP is nothing like your Mantra. There is magic in a 5-point sidecut ski when you get it into 3D soft snow conditions. The prodigious amounts of tip and tail rocker combine to make it a formidable weapon when it's deep, but the camber underfoot keeps it livable in the chop and on the groomers getting back to the lift. I'm not a big guy, but I ski the older 190cm Wailer 112RP. It's not a charger type design; it's far more adept at being quick and nimble; read that as you can ski it slower and tighter without stopping dead in your tracks. I value that type of a ski for the way I ski and where I like to ski. The length adds stability, but the design keeps it quick. If you can't tell I think it's a fantastic inbounds powder ski.

If you're primarily skiing inbounds (and it sounds like you are) and you have to deal with low angle deep pow in places, then you need more surface area to plane up easily and maintain sufficient speed, but you should stay away from reverse camber designs (you're trying to avoid injury and they're not going to be your friend on a groomer going back to a lift).

I looked at pics of "The Friend" and it's not a 5-point design. It looks very "plankish" which translates to less quick usually. The profile pics don't show a ton of rocker either. Definitely wouldn't be my choice for a resort powder ski. This Powder magazine review of this ski backs up my impression just looking at the design.

 

[jmeb]

but you should stay away from reverse camber designs

I think you may want to try some of the newer full rocker designs. They are much more refined than they were 5 years ago. Many, like the Moment meridian or the 4frnt Devastator are plenty able on groomers if not as energetic as a cancer design.

As for the 5-point design: the friend has significant tip and tail taper which is the defining characteristic of a 5 point ski. Most pow skis are 5 point this day even if they don’t advertise it as such, in the sense they have tip and tail taper.

 

[jmills115]

I also have a pass to Alta and a ski from your list in the Line Pescado but spend most of my days (today was #60) on a Salomon QST 106.
I have had plenty of fun on the Pescado in untracked but once it gets chopped up I would rather have the QST and only took it up today leaving the Pescado home with 7-8” and was happy.
I have probably not given the Pescado as much time as I should have but have had fun on groomers being able to get it on edge on groomers. It is very possible my issues with it are all on me and not being able to adjust to it with the limited time on it.
My first 4 runs today were taking the Hi T To Gunsight, Greeley Bowl, and Christmas Tree. The Pescado may be fun once standing at the top of these runs but it’s too soft and floppy for the bumpy Hi T (at least how I ski it) that’s in pretty good shape currently.
My pivots are set for a 308 bsl if you are close to that and want to take them out.

 

[Jimski]

My 2 cents --

In my entire skiing career, I've skied fresh, abundant powder exactly once: for about a day and a half just last month at Taos. It started snowing on the Tuesday night, and the sky really opened up around lunch time on Wednesday. My skis are Volkl Kendos (90 waist) -- not exactly a powder ski. So after lunch I went to Bootdoctors, and said I wanted to demo "a 95 width powder ski". The guy chuckled and replied "No, no -- go big or go home!" He brought out a pair of Rossi Soul 7 HDs (105 waist), and said I had to try them. I'd never skied anything this fat. They were awesome! So easy, so much fun! They are rocker, camber, rocker -- and you can use the camber, if needed, to get down the mountain on groomed or scraped off slopes.

 

[Ryan Dietrich]

Ok, quick summary from the weekend.

Saturday, Solitude 6 inches fresh. I was 15 chairs back from the first. (J-Ski The Friend)

• "The Friend" felt extremely heavy going through untracked powder. My legs (which have done 400k vertical this season so far) suffered.
• Once the skis were in a turn, it took a LOT of energy to get them out of the turn. I can tell these skis just wanted me to ski super fast and do as few turns as possible, that just isn't my style.
• The biggest upside is I felt I could lean forward like I normally ski and the tips didn't get buried. That was a nice change!
• As the day got tracked out I felt I was getting out of control very quickly because of my lack of experience, and not handling the transitions between tracked out powder and newly formed powder moguls (plus I was getting tired)
• I switched back to my Mantra's after the 7th run, they handled the tracked out snow far better and I had a great day.

Sunday, Sundance 7-8 inches wet, heavier snow, I was first chair (Volkl Mantra's)

• My favorite blue is Wildflower, if you run on the far left side it is much steeper and goes through the trees. The snow was closer to a foot deep there. I tried to ski with the same technique just to see if it was in my head with my mantra's. I got stuck. The tips got buried and I kind of slogged to a stop. So I rode in the back seat to keep oriented, and got wore out after a couple runs.
• There is a black diamond called No-Excuse where I am comfortable taking it at speed because I have skied it many times, and I was able to ski "faster", without leaning way back to maintain some sort of "flotation".

 

[Ryan Dietrich]

The DPS Wailer 112RP is nothing like your Mantra. .

I had a chance on the way to drop by a demo shop and they had the Wailer for rent. It was 191cm length, which scared me to death (that's such a long ski!) so I didn't try them. I was stunned when I asked to pick them up. They were lighter than my 170cm mantra's?! How "damp" are they? Do you feel every single bump as you go down the hill?

 

[Noodler]

I had a chance on the way to drop by a demo shop and they had the Wailer for rent. It was 191cm length, which scared me to death (that's such a long ski!) so I didn't try them. I was stunned when I asked to pick them up. They were lighter than my 170cm mantra's?! How "damp" are they? Do you feel every single bump as you go down the hill?

DPS has different constructions/layups that have different weight and dampness (sometimes the exact same design is available in different constructions; next season the Wailer 112RP is back using the same venerable design in the Foundation construction after a couple years "lay off").

I prefer a more damp ride, so I generally like the Foundation series, but I rode the latest Alchemist construction in the Cassiar 94 earlier this season and DPS has significantly improved the feel of the Alchemist layup (pure carbon). There's lots of info on the DPS constructions available.

My Wailer 112RP are from the 2011-2012 season and are stamped as "hybrid" (Fiberglass, Carbon, Bamboo). They aren't damp like a Stockli, but they are only taken out on deep soft days, so they're damp enough.

As to the length, consider just how much rocker is in the design before "scaring" yourself about the length of a dedicated powder ski. With the Wailer, much of the ski isn't even on the snow if you're on a groomer (on my 190cm skis, the running surface is only 117cm and the effective edge is 134cm). When you do use them in deep conditions, the rockered sections are already "pre-bent", so you only need to tip them to engage. This means that they are very quick to turn because it isn't necessary to build pressure and bend the ski. The result is a much quicker turning ski; something very different from what it sounds like you experienced on the not so friendly "The Friend".

DPS isn't the only game in town of course. But I think you owe it to yourself to demo a ski with a more "radical" amount of rocker and a deeper, more tapered 5-point sidecut. These types of skis really are a game changer for deep snow.

 

[Jim McDonald]

As to the length, consider just how much rocker is in the design before "scaring" yourself about the length of a dedicated powder ski.

Quoted for Truth. Last weekend I demo'd a Soul 7 HD in 188, and it skied shorter than my 177 Monster 88, 180 Enforcer, and way shorter than my 183 SR107.

 

[Tom K.]

As to the length, consider just how much rocker is in the design before "scaring" yourself about the length of a dedicated powder ski.

Quoted for Truth. Last weekend I demo'd a Soul 7 HD in 188, and it skied shorter than my 177 Monster 88, 180 Enforcer, and way shorter than my 183 SR107.

QFT again. I had a pair of 193 Patrons that were fairly soft and springy, with significant tail rocker.

They were super quick and nimble. More so than my current favorite pow boards, the 115 Rangers.

 

[Noodler]

This may give a better feel of the turn radius of a long heavily rockered ski that still has some camber (Wailer 112RP). It can make slalom type turns with even more edge angle, but in this case the speed required for the slope dictated the turn radius.


Pardon the poor camera mount. It's been a long time since I used this camera and I forgot how to mount it to keep the helmet out of the view.

 

[Ryan Dietrich]

This may give a better feel of the turn radius of a long heavily rockered ski that still has some camber (Wailer 112RP). It can make slalom type turns with even more edge angle, but in this case the speed required for the slope dictated the turn radius.


Pardon the poor camera mount. It's been a long time since I used this camera and I forgot how to mount it to keep the helmet out of the view.

I *loved* the woop at the end. I find myself hooting and hollering any time I am in an awesome line, I can't control myself, especially on bishops bowl, that run is just joy on the right conditions.

You turn a lot, that's a good sign for me, and you seem to ski at a reasonable pace. My interesting is pegged!