Recommendations for 2013/14 Powder Skis?

[jbotti]

I have not but as I remember these are very stiff skis with very little sidecut or what we would call planks. They are great for going straight but not great for skiing slalom turns off piste (which is the PMTS focus).

[zuschauer]

How about.......the Icelantic Shaman SKNY?? at 140/90/110 and at a 173 length with a 15m radius, this should be a great powder ski for PMTS!! Many of us ski and have tried the big Shaman. Those huge tips just freak me out a little, and the girth is more than my knees want. But the new SKNY (skinny) should act much like the carvy big Shaman, just at a nice manageable size. Tried it on hardpack, and while it was ok, I really longed for some soft stuff to see how it really works. MAX, have you tried this one yet? On paper, should be even better than the Head R & R!

Richard

[jbotti]

Good point. Probably an excellent ski. Have not skied them and I don't think that Max has either. As you noted the flex pattern on the orginal Shaman is on the burly side and the flex pattern on the RnR's is just so sweet. Assuming it has a nice flex for pow it could be an excellent soft snow ski.

[Max_501]

As jbotti points out the flex pattern of the RnR is a big part of why its such a great off piste ski. The original Shamans are BURLY. Did they change the construction of the SKNY?

[jbotti]

The Icelantic website says that the flex/stiffness is the same on both the original shaman and the skinny version. 18m tr on the 184cm length. Still reasonably wide tips at 140mm. Love to try them. My guess is that I will prefer the RnR but that is why we demo skis, so we can know for sure.

[zuschauer]

John, I have a pair of Head Mojo's here (previous iteration of the R&R) and an Icelantic SKNY Shaman. They don't feel any stiffer than the HEADS (but in the shop, who knows?)

We'll just have to demo. I am liking the idea of a 15m radius in the 173. Head R& R =17+ radius in a 173

Richard

[theorist]

Anyone been on the Nordica Steadfast (132-90-118, 17m@170, 18m@178, 20m@186)? "All-mountain" rather than powder, but I've heard positive things about this ski.

[Max_501]

I wouldn't buy a Nordica without a demo. I've been on a few and they were all too stiff.

[jbotti]

John, I have a pair of Head Mojo's here (previous iteration of the R&R) and an Icelantic SKNY Shaman. They don't feel any stiffer than the HEADS (but in the shop, who knows?)

We'll just have to demo. I am liking the idea of a 15m radius in the 173. Head R& R =17+ radius in a 173

Richard

Let us know how you like them.

[theorist]

Any thoughts on the pintails, e.g. the Dynastar Cham 97 (133-97-113, 16m@178) and Stockli Y85 (136-85-110, 15.6m@177)? The Cham, which has two layers of titinal, is available in a lighter, softer HM ("high mountain") version that foregoes the metal. It's also available in 87, 107 and 127 widths.

[HighAngles]

Any thoughts on the pintails, e.g. the Dynastar Cham 97 (133-97-113, 16m@178) and Stockli Y85 (136-85-110, 15.6m@177)? The Cham, which has two layers of titinal, is available in a lighter, softer HM ("high mountain") version that foregoes the metal. It's also available in 87, 107 and 127 widths.

I haven't ridden the HM versions of the Cham series, but do have some time on the Cham 97. It's quite heavy, damp, and absolutely does not reward good PMTS movements. Where it's lacking for me is in the tail cut. It just doesn't finish turns well at all. If you like to work a ski from tip to tail and expect certain things to happen, you won't find that with the Cham series. Likewise, the Salomon BBR (similar to the Stockli Y in shape) has the same issue for me - no tail. I haven't ridden the Stockli Y, but I would be really surprised to find myself reaching a different opinion since it shares the same shape as the BBR.

[Skiasaurus Rex]

Yeah, the Y ski is starting to seems like the Fad that didn't happen.

[Max_501]

My understanding is the original pintail design allowed the tails to sink easier (which popped the tips up out of the snow) and break free easier which allows easy pivoting. Now we are seeing hybrid versions. Given the design goal of easy pivoting it's unlikely that a pintail influenced design will reward PMTS movements.

[theorist]

Guys, thanks for your replies. Max, I understand PMTS advocates brushed carves for speed control on steeps. In deep, heavy snow (like one typically finds in the Sierras and Europe), does the tail width of a wide ski, combined with resistance from the snow, make brush carving challenging -- particularly on very steep terrain, where you might want to make short, quick turns? [I don't know the answer to this myself, because nearly all my off-piste experience is on narrow skis -- in my avatar I'm on 62mm SL boards.] And if this is a problem wide skis create under those conditions, might a pintail be useful there?

[Max_501]

In deep, heavy snow (like one typically finds in the Sierras and Europe), does the tail width of a wide ski, combined with resistance from the snow, make brush carving challenging -- particularly on very steep terrain, where you might want to make short, quick turns?

No.