Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,575

    Which powdery women's touring ski? Short, wide, LIGHT

    This is sort of an x-post but I don't think that anyone has read the other post.

    My girlfriend needs a powdery touring ski. She has been toughing it out on alpine boots and diamirs on some borrowed icelantic skis this winter and decided to go with Zzero 4 PX boots and Dynafit comforts. She hikes for turns here in the east when the snow is decent and we ski in the rockies pretty frequently as well - always looking for (and seemingly finding) powder. Her favorite skiing is short turns on moderate to low angle slopes in powder and she avoids ice or super-steep slopes. She will ski mostly anything you would find in a ski resort if the conditions are favorable enough. She is a good skier, 5” 6″, 130lbs, but not overly aggressive and likes an easy-turning ski - especially here in the east. She also doesn’t have a huge amount of experience skiing powder (just a few years) and a wider ski has proven to make things a lot more fun. She loved the 153 K2 Phat Luv last winter in deep powder (all alpine that time) but these days she also is usually trying to keep up with faster skinners (me and others) so something lighter would be optimal.

    The Mt Baker superlight in a 160 seems just a bit too long and a bit too narrow (~86mm waist, K2s run quite long.) This setup would see the occasional resort powder day as well. A 159cm Manaslu would probably be perfect but it doesn't exist. The Karhu Jil might be decent but I'm not sure which length would be right as they seem soft and springy with lots of sidecut. (A tough ski to demo.) As for weight, under 7 lbs/pair would probably be best. The Phat Luvs are surprisingly heavy, a bit over 7 Lbs. Then again my 181 Coomba are 9 Lbs so I shouldn't be surprised!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    512
    The sidecut on the Jil isn't that deep... it's pretty quick to initiate, but it's really versatile in turn shape, not really hooky or trapped in a quick turn. It's really well suited to East Coast touring and quick turns in the trees. That shape is really easy to ski, and the 158cm length would be superlight (6lbs 2oz for the pair) for climbing. Matched with a Dynafit setup, she'd be saving a ton of weight for skinning.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Banff
    Posts
    20,272
    164 bro in soft or super soft flex?

    anything goode, trab (if they make em fat enough)

    what about some of the longer Jr skis? Rossigirl scratch?


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    P-Town
    Posts
    223
    FYI, REI has the Jil for 30% off right now.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,900
    There are two other recent posts re soft chika skis. I'll echo what I said there:

    My 5'7" 130 lb. very athletic GF (ski level 7+ and quickly improving) loves her Karhu Berthas, 134/100/125, sorta like the Jak BC but with a metal top sheet (be sure to use a tap) but still quite light. She got the 165's to make the kick turns easier. Her Berthas are Dynafit equipped.

    Berthas on sale for $399 at telemarkdown. http://www.telemarkdown.com/index.pl?page=karhubertha
    Last edited by Big Steve; 02-10-2009 at 12:06 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,638
    Moment Pika FTW.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    7,804
    phat luvs are the answer
    7lbs per pair = stupid light
    your other option might be the shorter lengths of the BD Womens Joule ski, k2 womens dawn patrol, or k2 miss bakers.
    While Ive not had good experiences with the voile carbon surf, maybe consider a 161 voile insane?

    i think if you go much lighter, she may not like them going down (slow pitch?)
    going to a lighter ski, while making it better on the up, will generally require more effort in difficult\variable snows
    it really sounds like shed be best taking the compromise of the "heavy" 7lb setup of the phat luvs.
    Last edited by pechelman; 02-10-2009 at 12:12 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,575
    Quote Originally Posted by nexus6 View Post
    FYI, REI has the Jil for 30% off right now.
    Thanks for the tip.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Steve View Post
    There are two other recent posts re soft chika skis. I'll echo what I said there:

    My 5'7" 130 lb. very athletic GF (ski level 7+ and quickly improving) loves her Karhu Berthas, 134/100/125, sorta like the Jak BC but with a metal top sheet (be sure to use a tap) but still quite light. She got the 165's to make the kick turns easier. Her Berthas are Dynafit equipped.

    Berthas on sale for $399 at telemarkdown. http://www.telemarkdown.com/index.pl?page=karhubertha
    This can't be right: http://www.bentgate.com/bewoskibyka.html


    Company Ski Length Dimensions Weight (Grams) Weight (Lbs)
    Karhu Wm Bertha 165 134-100-125 3485 7 lbs 11 oz
    Karhu Wm Bertha 172 134-100-125 3365 7 lbs 7 oz


    Quote Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark View Post
    Moment Pika FTW.
    Cool ski. Too big for the intended purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
    phat luvs are the answer
    7lbs per pair = stupid light
    your other option might be the shorter lengths of the BD Womens Joule ski, k2 womens dawn patrol, or k2 miss bakers.
    While Ive not had good experiences with the voile carbon surf, maybe consider a 161 voile insane?

    i think if you go much lighter, she may not like them going down (slow pitch?)
    going to a lighter ski, while making it better on the up, will generally require more effort in difficult\variable snows
    it really sounds like shed be best taking the compromise of the "heavy" 7lb setup of the phat luvs.
    You have some good points. I feel exactly the same way about my Coomba setup, it's all I've skied this year. However, I ski with Jonathan S. a lot and get dropped on the skintrack despite my best efforts. Obviously the same thing happens when the lady in question and I ski together, but there are worse things. We checked out some skis in the shop the other day: The Joule was surprisingly stiff, too much so for her. The Miss Baker is nice but a little more width for the weight would be nice. The Voile Insane sounds interesting, but everything that google says seems to suggest that they are stiff.

    I think I've got the solution. We're going to mount her bindings on a beater pair of 162 BD Miras which are 6 pounds. After a few runs I tape 1/2lb of nickels to each ski and I see if she really notices or cares. I'm only half joking about that....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    7,804
    from hand flexing the new insanes, i didnt like the flex pattern at all
    stiff shovel, softer tail, lots of camber, not sure what crack they smoke there in utah
    hence the lukewarm suggestion

    bd also has an issue imo making skis that are too stiff and overcambered for use as a BC ski

    your note on the weight for the width on the bakers is why i think the phat luv is the answer...and she knows she likes it already.

    cool idea with the miras
    i cant tell you how many times ive thought about ballast on skis, for touring especially, for the DH

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,575
    Quote Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
    ...cool idea with the miras
    i cant tell you how many times ive thought about ballast on skis, for touring especially, for the DH
    You and Jonathan really do need to ski together.....


    Phat Luv may be just right. I'd rather get to the top 10 minutes later and have her enjoy the ride. We're only talking 1-1.5 pounds difference (taking wider skins into account.)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    7,804
    ha
    i think everyone knows that

    i forget the exact weights, but i think those g3 alpinist skins are pretty light
    might be able to save a quarter pound there as well to make up for a heavier ski
    thats sort of like ballast i guess

    also, dont forget she just saved a shit ton of weight going to those zzeros over alpines and comforts over freerides

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,575
    Quote Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
    ha
    i think everyone knows that

    i forget the exact weights, but i think those g3 alpinist skins are pretty light
    might be able to save a quarter pound there as well to make up for a heavier ski
    thats sort of like ballast i guess

    also, dont forget she just saved a shit ton of weight going to those zzeros over alpines and comforts over freerides
    It's true. The differences from the skis will be pretty minimal in comparison. I have to geek out over something! I'm sure you understand.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    7,804
    hey!
    what are you trying to say?!


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Not Philly
    Posts
    4,496
    If she likes the feel of the phat luvs- try the dawn patrols. CBB (Ms. Hutz) rocked the phat luvs and stayed in the K2 line with the dawn patrol when we started to tele. She says it is a great all around ski. Not quite as much float (86 or 88 underfoot compared to 95) as the phat luv but it is light and she has toured with it fine without ever complaining that it was heavy. (Tours of 8 miles round trip in the adirondacks). Also the ski is durable has heck. My Jaks are already all scratched and her's are like brand new.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Dromond View Post
    This can't be right: http://www.bentgate.com/bewoskibyka.html

    Company Ski Length Dimensions Weight (Grams) Weight (Lbs)
    Karhu Wm Bertha 165 134-100-125 3485 7 lbs 11 oz
    Karhu Wm Bertha 172 134-100-125 3365 7 lbs 7 oz
    Sounds right to me. Bertha has a metal top sheet. Yeah, there's lighter skis out there but only a few lighter 100mm waisted skis. A bit of permaballast on Anita's skis is okay because she (ultrarunner, iron athlete) kicks my ass up the hills these days.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Steve View Post
    Sounds right to me. Bertha has a metal top sheet. Yeah, there's lighter skis out there but only a few lighter 100mm waisted skis. A bit of permaballast on Anita's skis is okay because she (ultrarunner, iron athlete) kicks my ass up the hills these days.
    The shorter ski is listed as heavier - or I am blind. One or the other. Overall is seems reasonable for the ski. Sounds like a good ski partner

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Dromond View Post
    The shorter ski is listed as heavier - or I am blind. One or the other. Overall is seems reasonable for the ski. Sounds like a good ski partner
    Oh, I see. Duh

    Yeah, she's a great skiing/climbing/wilderness travel partner. It's all good until the nest building instinct kicks in or she otherwise starts acting like chicks sometimes act.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Steve View Post
    Oh, I see. Duh

    Yeah, she's a great skiing/climbing/wilderness travel partner. It's all good until the nest building instinct kicks in or she otherwise starts acting like chicks sometimes act.
    Hey man, just build the right nest. I had a vague such conversation last night. It involved Seattle of all places. You could have it worse

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Dromond View Post
    Cool ski. Too big for the intended purpose.
    Look at the running surface/effective edge and the weight before you dismiss it.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,575
    Quote Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark View Post
    Look at the running surface/effective edge and the weight before you dismiss it.
    Alright. I can't seem to find the weight numbers, but the effective edge does seem pleasingly small. That doesn't negative the leverage that a 112mm waist has on someone who is 5'6" when they are sidehilling on a firm spot. It does look like a very nice ski.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    6,895
    170cm Pika weighs 7.35 lbs for those interested.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,575
    Quote Originally Posted by NPG View Post
    170cm Pika weighs 7.35 lbs for those interested.
    That is damned light for the size. No doubt about it.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Eburg
    Posts
    12,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Dromond View Post
    Hey man, just build the right nest. I had a vague such conversation last night. It involved Seattle of all places. You could have it worse
    My nest for the past 9 years. Our nest for the past 2 years. NB instinct is under control for now.

    Back to the Berthas, I was impressed how well she turned and traversed the steeps on supportable crust and melt-freeze boilerplate in the trees we encountered on a backcountry trip two weekends ago. Better all-around ski than I had expected for 100mm waist. I just checked out the Phat Luv, which looks like a good choice too, a bit more pintailed than the Bertha, which is cool, similar <20m tight radius.
    Last edited by Big Steve; 02-10-2009 at 04:59 PM.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Dromond View Post
    That is damned light for the size. No doubt about it.
    Yep. And I'm only 5lbs heavier than your gf, ski the 180 ruby's tele, and they ski really short.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by Dromond View Post
    The shorter ski is listed as heavier - or I am blind. One or the other. Overall is seems reasonable for the ski. Sounds like a good ski partner
    Actually, that is correct. The core in that ski is Paulownia with maple stringers, but the percentage of maple (which is heavier) in the 165 is higher. I did a double-take when I saw our numbers last year, but yeah, it's the only ski where that happens.

    As for the Bertha, that would've been the first ski I suggested, but then I saw the lengths you were looking at. On second thought though, the effective edge length of the 165cm Bertha is 2cm longer than the 158cm Jil, because of the twin tip. If the weight difference between the two isn't a deal-breaker (light vs superlight), then I say Bertha all the way. For fun skiing, it's one of the best skis we make. As Big Steve said, very stable and confident in powder, carves hard snow well with a deeper sidecut... just all-around easy to ski.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •