New Touring Skis

[clarkee]

So last night I arrive home with my GF's Xmas gift and she was very appreciative of the dynafit bindings but the 100mm underfoot early rise modern quiver of one skis were too wide, seriously I spend so much more time going up hill why would I want something that wide?

So we went back to the internet the skis shes is interested in.

Something from Hagan maybe the Corvus or the Soul
Black Diamond Aspect
G3 Zenoxide 88 or 93
The last skis she really liked the look and feel of was the Movement Iki

Thanks for now, any convincing argument about the goodness of 100mm skis would help to.

[Grant]

Did I miss Halloween and Thanksgiving again???

As for width, is she concerned about skinning bow legged or the weight? Check the specs if it's weight as you might be able to convince her that there's not any significant difference.

[clarkee]

Did I miss Halloween and Thanksgiving again???

As for width, is she concerned about skinning bow legged or the weight? Check the specs if it's weight as you might be able to convince her that there's not any significant difference.

No, but you did miss 10% off night at our local monopolist cooperative. Bit of both, primarily weight. I suppose it is time to revisit the ski spreadsheet

[dschane]

My wife (finally) upgraded last season from Rossi Bandits (something like 75mm in the waist) to G3 Zest (100mm) and she loves it. Before giving up on the skis you picked out, I'd make one more pitch. If that fails, your list looks fine. I'd also throw in for good measure Voile Vector and, is she's interested in extra light, Dynafit Cho Oyu or Movement Response X.

[Gunks Ray]

The G3 Zenoxide ia 105 underfoot, but light for it's width. If she liked the Movement Iki and she likes light, how about the Movement Response-X, under 4 1/2 lbs. per pair

http://www.movementskis.com/en/ski-collection/touring-x-series/response-x/

[clarkee]

The G3 Zenoxide ia 105 underfoot, but light for it's width. If she liked the Movement Iki and she likes light, how about the Movement Response-X, under 4 1/2 lbs. per pair
http://www.movementskis.com/en/ski-c...es/response-x/

That is very light indeed, the spreadsheet has some valuable data now...

[B__]

wildsnow.com has some good content for lightweight skis

http://www.wildsnow.com/9657/ski-weight-comparison-surface/

[cesare]

100mm is the threshold at which soft snow performance, rocker or none, goes way way up. If the down means anything to her, she will be very happy with 100s. If it's really all about the up, then something super light like any number SkiTrab offerings would be the ticket.

[JLB]

I bought some AntiPistes for my wife a couple of years ago, and they sat for a full year because she was used to what she had and really liked them. Finally I got her on them last year and she loves them, makes skiing soft snow so much easier and the difference on the up is imperceptible. Sometimes patience is the key. I'd love to get her on something 115+ for the really deep days, but she's not ready for that.

[Teleman]

Get her what she wants.....Not all telemarkers want short and fat...Teleman

[NoPin]

Not everyone wants to tie a surfboard to each foot. I've been touring on 100 mm underfoot skis for the last 4 years and I'm seriously thinking my next pair will be in the 90 mm range. 100 mm skis just seem to sluggish to me. Too slow initiating turns. I thought I was getting used to it but then I clicked into my old G3 Barons one day and all off a sudden skiing became more fun again. BTW, when considering weight, remember that the snow on top of the fat skis as well as the skins on the bottom, are all heavier on a fatter ski. YMMV.

[Teleman]

Wide skis are the same as a snow plough when going up, don't initiate quickly and are skied in girlie lengths.....oops, no offense women just a figure of historical speech..... Tey need mega non flexing boots....heavy bindings....Some people need that....some don't......The skinnier and lighter the setup the more of a telemarker you will become not just a caricature of a downhiller pretender telemarker....No offense intended.....Teleman

[CSG]

I dialed it back from 107 to 94mm underfoot last year. With modern flex patterns and geometry, I didnt lose any deep snow or breakable crust performance, but loved the lightness. Its hard to find a non fun ski, admittedly, but I'm thinking the pendulum might swing back a little. 95 to 100, with light construction and modern shapes, might just be the sweetspot. It is for me, anyways.

[Quadzilla]

I think when inquiring about skis you need to describe the conditions and terrain she/you ski in/on. If she skis alot of light powder then she may not want a ski much over 95 underfoot as a quiver of one If she skis alot of firmish and Spring snow then 90 underfoot would work good and if she skis alot of maritime snow then over 100 is a good choice. My wife's AT setups is two skis, a 88 underfoot stiffish non rockered and a 105 rockered light ski for powder. We ski alot of heavier wind packed snow.

[James]

Wide skis are the same as a snow plough when going up, don't initiate quickly and are skied in girlie lengths.....oops, no offense women just a figure of historical speech..... Tey need mega non flexing boots....heavy bindings....Some people need that....some don't......The skinnier and lighter the setup the more of a telemarker you will become not just a caricature of a downhiller pretender telemarker....No offense intended.....Teleman

You are persistent.

You know you live in a beautiful area, you ski a lot on gear most of us have very fond memories of and you do it with grace and style. Overall you share the same passion as most of us. You could be posting pics and sharing that passion in a positive way but mostly all you do is talk about Ron and belittle other people and the gear they choose and you do it in a very uniformed way. I bet if you wanted you could do better.