- Joined
- Dec 21, 2015
- Posts
- 4,123
those are 187......
Predecessor to the Ibex 94 carbon on sale for $350 at L9 ? ... interesting deal but other then specs I know nothing about either one of those skis, Bueller, Bueller, anyone?Is this ski any good?
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/302958711044
I'd repurpose the bindings. This could be a cheap way to get started
At 176 they a little tall for me but they might work. Then i'd just need bindings, boots and skins.
@Scruffy thanks for all those links. All those links are for narrow skis. I had a waist width ideal between 90-100 underfoot. I guess i didn't realize AT could be narrow too.
Still, 100 it so would be betterThose skis are mainly for skimo. That is why they are narrow, to be fast and light on the skin track and when climbing Definitely NOT for powder!
Right, those rando racers run up the mountain in boots wthe weight of tennis sneakers, and hang on for dear life on the descents with those skinny light skis they can barely coax into a turn of which they rarely do because they can't!Those skis are mainly for skimo. That is why they are narrow, to be fast and light on the skin track and when climbing Definitely NOT for powder!
Those skis are mainly for skimo. That is why they are narrow, to be fast and light on the skin track and when climbing Definitely NOT for powder!
Save your 100mm waist skis for the lifts.
There is no reason to think that the ideal ski is close to the same when one use case is east coast groomers with a bit of fresh, and the other is backcountry in the Rockies.
Skinning up on icy snow is another case of borderline personality disorder.Skinning up on icy snow is another case where narrower is better.
Skinning up on icy snow is another case of borderline personality disorder.
I say stick with 90 - 100 waist. You now have a place in VT, with a good snow year it won't be long before you go from hiking up mellow groomers for exercise to dawn patrol and twilight missions for first tracks and free refills! Besides I seriously doubt you'll be very happy skiing down a hardpack groomer on sketchy skinny light floopy gear, my guess, you'll head for the trees where you'll want that 90 - 100mm waist ... and whats another pound of gear to you who are strong as ox@Scruffy thanks for all those links. All those links are for narrow skis. I had a waist width ideal between 90-100 underfoot. I guess i didn't realize AT could be narrow too.
I say stick with 90 - 100 waist. You now have a place in VT, with a good snow year it won't be long before you go from hiking up mellow groomers for exercise to dawn patrol and twilight missions for first tracks and free refills! Besides I seriously doubt you'll be very happy skiing down a hardpack groomer on sketchy skinny light floopy gear, my guess, you'll head for the trees where you'll want that 90 - 100mm waist ... and whats another pound of gear to you who are strong as ox
I am picking up my first time "eva" (East Coast give away) AT set up tomorrow. I went with shifts, Blizzard Zero G 108's (185) and Atomix Hawx XTD 130's. I focused on the down and weight. Since I am 240lbs, I need about 10 cm more width than your average sized human. For me, I was considering 90-110 width skis and bought the width for the snow I most like to ski in the glades. A 95 would have worked as well, but I wanted the burlyness of the Zero G 108.
@surfsnowgirl I would suggest your width range should be 80-100 and buy the width you most want to ski on the snow you want to ski in. If your on groomers, you don't need wide unlless you plan to chase some fresh powder. You got a lot of good choices and the weight versus performance seems to be the most important issue in these type of skis.
I'll let you know what I think of my new setup in a few weeks after I try it out on some groomers.