Pow Plusses?

[bennerlur]

Atomic Powder Plus. Found a pair of these in a 180 cm, mounted with Solly 800 series binders but NEVER skied. Apparently someones wife didn't appreciate them, so now I can get them with the binders for $200. I searched and reviews were a little hard to find. Heres what I know so far....110-115 mm under foot, wood and metal sandwich, very stiff.
I'm 5'5 135 lbs, these would be straight lining and super deep days. I'm a decently aggressive skier, I like to ski fast and drop smallish stuff, but no where near what some of you people are judging by some recent TR's......
I've got some 174 Rossi Squads as my everyday so I'm not worried if these aren't the most versatile.
Anything terrible about the Solly bindings, I dont mind the age as long as they dont have pre-release issues.

If any Tahoe mags are interested in these and I decide they are not to me, I'll hook you up with the seller.

[JeffreyJim]

Try and get them for about 150. I got a pair for my gf (who is taller and weighs the same as you) and I got them in the 165 for her. Not saying the 180 would be too much, but they will feel like 180+.

I bent them for her. You can search, but a few other people have done this too and I highly suggest you do the same. I (err Single) put a tiny amount of tip rocker and even smaller amount of tail rocker to help the ski float in deep snow. Otherwise, at your weight, they will float but good luck really flexing the ski!


EDIT: I forgot to say, she KILLED on them. Totally stepped up her soft snow game with these. I wish they were 5 CM longer but since they are a squaretail the running length is longerish (except now it has rocker...) Anyway, since they are so stiff and 110 under foot, they still are plenty stable for her even at 165.

[SafteySquad]

they are stiff, pretty straight and will plow through anything. I skied them as my first "powder" ski, but found them a bit short and not as floaty as I expected (but I'm a bit bigger than you; 5'10" 175lbs).

So for you I think they would be perfect. They will float you much better, but you have to be on your game when skiing them, they are pretty unforgiving in my experience. Another bonus is you can try bending the tips to get a little bit of rocker (they have metal so they won't break and they'll keep the bend). That'll make them easier to ski and float in pow a lot better. There is a thread about this somewhere showing methods of bending the tips...

Not sure about the salomons. I'm pretty sure they are still indemnified. They will probably have lots of plastic and the toe wings might be getting loose. Check out the tolerances and make sure the moving pieces are tight (locktite if the wings are loose). They'll probably be alright, just a low din and lots of plastic...

[hutash]

I like mine at that length. I was 165lbs when I got them. You can always swap binders, I believe solly has use the same hole pattern for years.

Fun stiff but heavy ski, and eats crud for breakfast.

[bennerlur]

Hmmm...they sound very tempting, especially if I can get them for $150 like JefferyJim said.
Anyone know the exact dimensions or are those locked in a super secret vault in Austria?
Bindings sound fine, at my weight a high din isn't all that necessary.
Can anyone compare the stiffness on these to other skis? Where might they fit in on Marsh's scale.
thanks for the help, i'll be sure to pass on the deal to any tahoe mags interested if I bail.

[marshalolson]

130-110-120

flex ~7 or so.

super super rad skis. you'll love them. they are NOT twinned, so the 180 would ski like a 190 twin. 165s are more like a 175-180 twin.

[teleposeur]

I believe they are 130-110-120, but nothings that simple

yes, i rock!

[lax]

too lazy to measure mine right now, but i'm fairly sure they're something like 125-115-122. they are fucking heavy though, sick ski, but at the end of the day they can kind of piss you off. they also really hate to turn, even if you need/want to.

[JeffreyJim]

^^^--They do hate to carve anything but huDge turns it appears. Good at scrubbing speed in a slide though and real easy to release the edge.

I'm getting all second hand info from my gf but when we are skiing soft snow or crud on them, she doesn't complain about the weight or anything. I did put a lighter solly binder on it to help with the weight. She really likes the way they plow through just about anything and keep her on top in soft snow.

[comish]

I'm pretty sure they were 135-115-125. I'm positive they were 115 underfoot, and fairly certain about the other dimensions.

I have a pair of 180's. Stiff, heavy, solid ski that I found very fun. Would like to rocker the tip as I did get some tip diveage, but take this with a shaker of salt because I'm definitely mounted too far forward and my pair have been mounted 14 timesish hence why I can't remount. I also think what happens in dense Sierra pow is the tip is too stiff and can be prone to diving. But, its a very sold very fun ski. I'm 5'9" 160 and found the 180 perfect as far as length.

[laseranimal]

I think the 190's were 115 underfoot and the 180's are 110

sick skis

[SponsoredByDuctTape]

I'm pretty sure they were 135-115-125. I'm positive they were 115 underfoot, and fairly certain about the other dimensions.

I have a pair of 180's. Stiff, heavy, solid ski that I found very fun. Would like to rocker the tip as I did get some tip diveage, but take this with a shaker of salt because I'm definitely mounted too far forward and my pair have been mounted 14 timesish hence why I can't remount. I also think what happens in dense Sierra pow is the tip is too stiff and can be prone to diving. But, its a very sold very fun ski. I'm 5'9" 160 and found the 180 perfect as far as length.

My 180s are almost exactly 133-115-123.

I'm 5'7" about 160 and I absolutely love these things. It really amazed me (and still amazes me) how easy they are to slide around in the trees - they make short turns really well in deeper snow. Plus, as others mentioned, they plow through anything if you want them to.

Mine are mounted with a pair of Salomon 912 demos, which I think may be the perfect setup. I've marked the reference numbers on the demo plates for 3 positions: boot sole center; about 1.5 cm back; and all the way back (about 3 cm). It takes me about 5 seconds to move them, no tools needed. Deep untracked Sierra pow = all the way back. Not-so-deep = 1.5 back. Later in the day when it's a little more packed = boot sole center.

180s mounted with a set of demos would be my recommendation.

P.S. Mine were brand new, still in plastic when I got them. I paid $250, so $200 seems pretty good.

[hutash]

Interesting, my 180's are 110 under foot. Did they change them around over the years?

[comish]

There are definitely different sets of graphics, but I thought dimensions were the same. hmm. Basically if you want a cheap, bomber, stiffish ski they are a good choice.

[SponsoredByDuctTape]

Interesting, my 180's are 110 under foot. Did they change them around over the years?

I'm with Comish - I thought they were all the same, but I could be wrong. I have the newest ones, I think - circa '96 maybe?

They look like this:



Whatever year these are, the 180s are definitely 115.

[Phill]

Pretty straight is the understatement of the year. These skis do not like hard snow.

[beaterdit]

Both my pairs are 115 under foot.

Awesome skis. I find myself using them like the day after the deep day. So stiff the tip can dive in light, untracked snow but they eat teh crud for breakfast. Def don't like hard snow. They rool though.

I'd love to find a pair of the 190's and rocker and twin them, that setup would pwn.

$200 seems a little steep though since those binders are pretty worthless. Like someone said above, all plastic and low din. I got my last pair for $100 mounted twice.

[Gordyman]

My pow +'s do not mind groomers as long as I don't try to make lots of turns. In fact my Pow +'s don't mind anything as long as I don't make lots of turns. My Pow +'s are like bulldozers. All I have to do is stay on top of them.

I want a 165 pair and I want to bend some rocker in them. And I want a pony.

[wandering, not lost]

I skied them today at Solitude in a 165. I'm 5'7" 125 lbs. They're very stiff and not very forgiving. They're also VERY heavy. With look p12s (because that's what we had hanging around), they were probably about 3 pounds heavier for the pair than Squirrelmurphy's 192 superbros. They performed the best coming down in the untracked off of the Evergreen hike. They did surprisingly well in the bumps and the groomed stuff, but they don't like to turn very much.

[powdog]

130-110-120

flex ~7 or so.

super super rad skis. you'll love them. they are NOT twinned, so the 180 would ski like a 190 twin. 165s are more like a 175-180 twin.

I think the first Powder Pluses were 135-115-125. A 180 Powder Plus would be like a 210 twin. If you can find a pair of them, the Axioms are somewhat stiffer. Now the 190 Powder Plus is a lot stiffer than the 180, I have tried every length of Powder Plus. because they're too fuckn heavy. They are so bomber and indestructible - sorta like the G4. the AX4 Pro, and the Explosiv.

Twin-tips ski really short - the running length of the 186 Prophet 130 is 155 cm. Plus skating with twins is a bitch. But on the flipside, twins are great in the trees.

[ggski]

My 180's are 135/115/125 and are being rockered under the stairs as we e-speak. Before rockering...burly, stiff, heavy and will crush anything in their path. Not particularly floaty for such a wide stick. Hence the rockering.