Hey Ladies

[nick malozzi]

Hey everyone, my girlfriend is in the market for a fatter ski for this season since she is now in Colorado with me. She wants to pick something up now while the deals are good. I know nothing about skis. So I was hoping for some advice.

 

Gwen is 5'3" and 125lbs, and has been skiing her entire life. Looking around at charts and such it seems like she should be in the 150-155 range (please correct me if I am wrong). She is a very solid skier, good form, etc etc. She basically just needs something a little more appropriate for Colorado powder. She isn't looking specifically for a true twin as she is not a park skier, but it seems most powder skis have some sort of twin tip design.

 

I'd like to see here get something solid, as next season we are planning to get out a lot. So I want something that is going to hold up to a lot of abuse since she isn't very experienced in the trees just yet (and I love to be in them, ).

 

We found a great deal on a pair or Rossi Bandits on Backcountry, but I have no idea if they are any good and can't really find any reviews.

Here is the link: http://www.backcountry.com/store/ROS0245/R...ing-Womens.html

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

Edited July 9, 2008 by nick malozzi

[Dan-]

Im no pro on skis since i don't ski, but if she's that solid of a skier i'd think she'd be happier on something in the 165 range for a pow ski. But i know nothing about skis so i could be way off.

[Shadows]

dont know much about the b83 ski combo. but it looks to be an integrated ski? if so, i wouldnt get it.

what kind of money do you want to spend? and do you need bindings or just skis?

Edited July 10, 2008 by shadows

[Justo8484]

i'd stay away from the b83. its not a bad ski, but since you live in colorado and have access to great soft snow, go for something a bit wider. if you can find it, check out the nancy from k2... http://www.k2skis.com/skis/ski.asp?ProductID=23. the 159 would be the size for her. it actually measures out to about a 163, which should be just slightly above her head, perfect for soft snow. mount the ski at +5, and she's golden.

 

another one you may want to check out is the roxy black magic. basically the same ski as the dynastar big trouble, but in a slightly toned down flex and smaller size for girls. my brother skis the big troubles and loves them, and i've skied them as well; they're a great all around ski, a little bit narrower than the nancy, but a tiny bit stiffer as well. size 166 mounted +2 would work well.

http://www.backcountryoutlet.com/outlet/QK...&mv_pc=r147

 

if you see anything else that looks appealing and have questions, just let me know.

[Papasteeze]

80-85 underfoot, 160-165 standard/traditional Mount if you are going with a twin tip.

 

On the biased side of things, Salomon is in tune with Womens skis. They have an extensive womens line,

Edited July 10, 2008 by Papasteeze

[snorovr]

80-85 underfoot, 160-165 standard/traditional Mount if you are going with a twin tip.

 

On the biased side of things, Salomon is in tune with Womens skis. They have an extensive womens line,

 

 

A lot of companies right now seem to have fun women's lines. Salomon, K2, Line, Dynastar, Roxy, etc...

 

I got my girlfriend K2 Missdemeanors, and she can't really imagine anything wider right now, even after a powder day at Utah. She is still getting used to powder skiing, but she really liked it after her low 70s waist ski. For such a light girl like you're girlfriend you might check out some of Lines stuff too.

[Glenn]

80-85 underfoot

 

I don't know anything about anything when it comes to skiing, but this is skinny compared to the average ski at WP among those who can actually ski. The lady rippers are on big fatties just like the guys.

[Johnny Law]

I don't know anything about anything when it comes to skiing, but this is skinny compared to the average ski at WP among those who can actually ski. The lady rippers are on big fatties just like the guys.

 

Agreed, go bigger like 100 underfoot and she will have to do alot less work when its deep. This as I'm sure you know is key to keeping a happy relationship.

 

If you got the $$$ go with a DP or the older DB's on TGR, their full carbon so their super light weight. If not go with a nice big fatty in the 160's, you guys look active so I bet she would have the leg strength to push them.

 

Look at the 165 ARV, its in the 90's so it might get the job done and you can pick them up super cheap.

[nick malozzi]

Thank you all so much for the replies. It is weird, I'm actually learning a lot about skis through all of this.

 

I took measurements on her current skis, and she is running a 160 with about 70 under foot. She has been complaining the last few seasons that she felt like her skis are a tad too long (she bought them early in high school expected to still grow an inch or two). So we both agree that she should stay at around 158-160. That way she is on the bigger end for the powder, but not too big when she just wants to lay some turns on the groomers.

 

Also given that she is accustomed to 70 under foot, and that she wants this ski to be pretty much a 1 ski quiver it seems like 85-95 under foot would be for her. That way she can float decently in the pow, but still feel comfy on them in all other conditions.

 

She also has no interest in park skiing/riding switch so a full blown twin tip is not essential, but she'd be fine running a pair if the rest of the specs fit her.

 

So I've been looking around online and found these at local shop (she really wants to be able to go check them out in person, and I don't blame her):

 

Exclusive Powder by Dynastar - That would put her on a 158 with 85 underfoot if I'm understanding the specs listed. They also have some great reviews floating around on the intrawebs.

 

Any thoughts?

Edited July 10, 2008 by nick malozzi

[sibhusky]

Thank you all so much for the replies. It is weird, I'm actually learning a lot about skis through all of this.

 

I took measurements on her current skis, and she is running a 160 with about 70 under foot. She has been complaining the last few seasons that she felt like her skis are a tad too long (she bought them early in high school expected to still grow an inch or two). So we both agree that she should stay at around 158-160. That way she is on the bigger end for the powder, but not too big when she just wants to lay some turns on the groomers.

 

Also given that she is accustomed to 70 under foot, and that she wants this ski to be pretty much a 1 ski quiver it seems like 85-95 under foot would be for her. That way she can float decently in the pow, but still feel comfy on them in all other conditions.

 

She also has no interest in park skiing/riding switch so a full blown twin tip is not essential, but she'd be fine running a pair if the rest of the specs fit her.

 

So I've been looking around online and found these at local shop (she really wants to be able to go check them out in person, and I don't blame her):

 

Exclusive Powder by Dynastar - That would put her on a 158 with 85 underfoot if I'm understanding the specs listed. They also have some great reviews floating around on the intrawebs.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Clearly you need to have her start reading SkiDiva. The hands-down weapon of choice for her is the Aura. Siblet is 5'3", 115 pounds and has the 163, but many women of not quite her caliber have opted for the 155.

[Shadows]

I don't know anything about anything when it comes to skiing, but this is skinny compared to the average ski at WP among those who can actually ski. The lady rippers are on big fatties just like the guys.

 

the average twin tip lady BC ski is a 95 waist. there are only 5 skis made out of 24 that have a waist of 100 or above. FYI.

 

dont know about regular/non twin tip skis though.

[Melissa]

Helpful what ski to get guide: http://www.skipressworld.com/SkiFinder_Int...nder~type$

[nick malozzi]

Clearly you need to have her start reading SkiDiva. The hands-down weapon of choice for her is the Aura. Siblet is 5'3", 115 pounds and has the 163, but many women of not quite her caliber have opted for the 155.

The Aura looks sick, but damn are they hard to find. I've got a nice little list for her to check out this weekend at the shops:

 

-Volkl Aura (if I can find a shop with a pair).

-Dynastar Exclusive Powder

-Solomon Mynx

 

Any others I should be sure to have her check out?

 

As far as SkiDiva, i tried getting her into message boards a few other times and it just isn't her thing. Plus then I'd have to give up the computer every now and again!

[First Grade Teacher]

I took measurements on her current skis, and she is running a 160 with about 70 under foot. She has been complaining the last few seasons that she felt like her skis are a tad too long (she bought them early in high school expected to still grow an inch or two). So we both agree that she should stay at around 158-160. That way she is on the bigger end for the powder, but not too big when she just wants to lay some turns on the groomers.

 

Also given that she is accustomed to 70 under foot, and that she wants this ski to be pretty much a 1 ski quiver it seems like 85-95 under foot would be for her. That way she can float decently in the pow, but still feel comfy on them in all other conditions.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Being that she is on a 70 now and wants a "1 ski quiver " I would not go above a 85. Above 85 will ski great in powder but will feel a bit tugboatish if it's harder snow. If she was going to have 2 pair then I would say go wider than 85. I think between 80-85 is perfect for an everyday ski out west. Just my 2 cents.

 

[nick malozzi]

Being that she is on a 70 now and wants a "1 ski quiver " I would not go above a 85. Above 85 will ski great in powder but will feel a bit tugboatish if it's harder snow. If she was going to have 2 pair then I would say go wider than 85. I think between 80-85 is perfect for an everyday ski out west. Just my 2 cents.

 

The more I am reading the more I agree. Luckily most women specific powder skis fall into the 80-85 range.

[sibhusky]

The more I am reading the more I agree. Luckily most women specific powder skis fall into the 80-85 range.

Please, that's not even a "mid fat" anymore. She's in Colorado now, guys, not PA. Edited July 11, 2008 by sibhusky

[First Grade Teacher]

Please, that's not even a "mid fat" anymore. She's in Colorado now, guys, not PA.

OK, then get her a 105 and see how she likes it EVERYDAY!

 

[Shadows]

OK, then get her a 105 and see how she likes it EVERYDAY!

 

 

ok, so 85 is too small. i agree with that.

and 105 is too big for everyday. i agree with that too

so why not just get a 95 waist? or something in low/mid/high 90's

[snorovr]

or something in low/mid/high 90's

 

Roxy Black Magics then like Justo said. They were on Steep and Cheap not too long ago but I know that doesn't help now. I've had good times for the last few years on the guys version of that ski on both coasts and overseas...

[Justo8484]

my 98mm waisted ski does not feel wide whatsoever when skiing on groomers out west. sib's got the right idea, and the experience to back it up, since she skis conditions a lot more similar to what you will get than what most of us do. something in the 90-95 range might feel a bit wide the first day or two on them, but once you get used to keeping a wider stance, you don't notice the width. after skiing on wide skis, and then going back to my narrow (85mm) skis for spring conditions in whistler, i wished i brought my wider skis because they're just so much easier to ski on anything that isnt perfectly groomed.

[nick malozzi]

Thanks for setting me straight. I have no idea about a lot of this so I've just been reading lots of reviews and as much info as I can find. Just found a tent sale at a shop in town for Saturday. We are going to head there early and hope to pick up some fatties.

[Shadows]

check out jibij. he may have some stuff in back that isnt listed on the site. hes pretty cool, definitely check his shop out.

[sibhusky]

my 98mm waisted ski does not feel wide whatsoever when skiing on groomers out west. sib's got the right idea, and the experience to back it up, since she skis conditions a lot more similar to what you will get than what most of us do. something in the 90-95 range might feel a bit wide the first day or two on them, but once you get used to keeping a wider stance, you don't notice the width. after skiing on wide skis, and then going back to my narrow (85mm) skis for spring conditions in whistler, i wished i brought my wider skis because they're just so much easier to ski on anything that isnt perfectly groomed.

Siblet's new "normal" ski is the Aura. Only when conditions are hard and fast would she revert to her race skis and that's because she likes to tear up the slopes like she's back on a race course then, NOT because she's unhappy with the Auras' performance. There was one woman who used the Aura to RACE, I think it was in Austria, just a fun race, but she thought it did the job. I can't think it would be good for that, but both times I demo'd the Auras, I thought, this ski is just plain FUN and really builds your confidence. I already own a "powder ski", tho, and can't see adding another ski. I've got the Outlaw and the Recon, and used them 50-50. There's just no sense in using the Outlaw on days you don't have to, tho, because it's HEAVY. However, two friends of mine ski it all season. There are two women I know who ski the Aura 90% of the time.

 

By the way, steer clear of the "Nancy", it sucks.

[Papasteeze]

She doesn't ski trees now and is at 70 under foot now. How many days a year, did she race? is she an aggressive strong skier or a cruiser?

 

 

IF you are suggesting new skis for her so that she can trail you in the trees. and since you are saying that she doesn't have much experience in the trees.....

 

 

then get her a set of icelantics http://www.icelanticboards.com/ go with the pilgrim for the powder days..

 

 

Otherwise don't go above 90cm under foot - I doubt she will like anything larger for everyday use.

[Glenn]

She doesn't ski trees now and is at 70 under foot now. How many days a year, did she race? is she an aggressive strong skier or a cruiser?

 

 

IF you are suggesting new skis for her so that she can trail you in the trees. and since you are saying that she doesn't have much experience in the trees.....

 

 

then get her a set of icelantics http://www.icelanticboards.com/ go with the pilgrim for the powder days..

 

 

Otherwise don't go above 90cm under foot - I doubt she will like anything larger for everyday use.

 

Why buy a ski that she's going to be embarrassed to take out in a year? She sounds like a competent skier, though she will be in a new element. It may be a bit of a learning process (isn't everything?) but I would think go for a ski that she will be able to use for years to come. She's going to be living in CO, not visiting 2 times a year. She doesn't need a snowler blade on steroids.