Suggest a ski/skboard/blade

After a week in LaPlagne chasing the kids through trees and powder I am need
of new skis. My 170 Carvers were great on piste, okay in 300-400 powder but
too long for some of the paths through the trees. My 90cm Blades were great
on piste, great for the trees but useless in powder. I didn't dare take the
snowboard through the trees. I've searched around and there are very few
suitable skis for my purpose. The two main contenders are the Atomic ETL
123's or Spruce Mountain 120's.(http://www.spruceski.com/120.html) The
latter unfortunaly aren't available in the EU. So can anyone recommend
something similar to these two. The criteria being 30% on piste, 30% off
piste, 20% through trees, 10% rails, leaving 10% for ICE. Something around
120cm long and at least 80mm if not 100mm wide would seem to offer the right
amount of area for powder. Twin tip would be good.
Thanks

How tall and heavy are you?

120cm is a kids ski. If you were 4'11" and 35kg I might agree, but
otherwise I think you need a longer ski (than 120cm, maybe not 170cm)..

If you want to hit the powder, a ski with a thicker waste would be better.
As for the trees, maybe you just have to adjust the way you ski because most
people wouldn't consider 170cm very long.. I have 174cm ski's and when going
through the tree's I have never once considered that my ski's might be too
long and might be holding me back.. my technique certainly, but not the
length of my skis!

"Team S-J" wrote in message
...
After a week in LaPlagne chasing the kids through trees and powder I am
need of new skis. My 170 Carvers were great on piste, okay in 300-400
powder but too long for some of the paths through the trees. My 90cm
Blades were great on piste, great for the trees but useless in powder. I
didn't dare take the snowboard through the trees. I've searched around and
there are very few suitable skis for my purpose. The two main contenders
are the Atomic ETL 123's or Spruce Mountain
120's.(http://www.spruceski.com/120.html) The latter unfortunaly aren't
available in the EU. So can anyone recommend something similar to these
two. The criteria being 30% on piste, 30% off piste, 20% through trees,
10% rails, leaving 10% for ICE. Something around 120cm long and at least
80mm if not 100mm wide would seem to offer the right amount of area for
powder. Twin tip would be good.
Thanks

5'8" and 75Kg, Although if 120cm skis are for kids what age does that make
me when I have my 90cm Blades on.




"AH" wrote in message
...
How tall and heavy are you?

120cm is a kids ski. If you were 4'11" and 35kg I might agree, but
otherwise I think you need a longer ski (than 120cm, maybe not 170cm)..

If you want to hit the powder, a ski with a thicker waste would be better.
As for the trees, maybe you just have to adjust the way you ski because
most people wouldn't consider 170cm very long.. I have 174cm ski's and
when going through the tree's I have never once considered that my ski's
might be too long and might be holding me back.. my technique certainly,
but not the length of my skis!

"Team S-J" wrote in message
...
After a week in LaPlagne chasing the kids through trees and powder I am
need of new skis. My 170 Carvers were great on piste, okay in 300-400
powder but too long for some of the paths through the trees. My 90cm
Blades were great on piste, great for the trees but useless in powder. I
didn't dare take the snowboard through the trees. I've searched around
and there are very few suitable skis for my purpose. The two main
contenders are the Atomic ETL 123's or Spruce Mountain
120's.(http://www.spruceski.com/120.html) The latter unfortunaly aren't
available in the EU. So can anyone recommend something similar to these
two. The criteria being 30% on piste, 30% off piste, 20% through trees,
10% rails, leaving 10% for ICE. Something around 120cm long and at least
80mm if not 100mm wide would seem to offer the right amount of area for
powder. Twin tip would be good.
Thanks

In message , Team S-J
writes
5'8" and 75Kg, Although if 120cm skis are for kids what age does that make
me when I have my 90cm Blades on.


170 is normal for your height. I tried the same skis in 170 and 165,
couldn't tell the difference. I'm a very un-special skier though.

Could yours be too stiff to turn easily round trees?

rec.skiing.alpine (who talk endlessly about this) say the only way to be
sure of getting the right ones is to try them. You can get a hire
package where you can keep changing them until you find the right ones.
For this, choose a resort with lots of large kit shops.

You'll also need to try them in all possible conditions...

--
Sue ];(

Blades suck for all but groomed, hard slopes though..

You suggested you wanted to do other things, so I think you want a proper
ski. 170cm sounds fine for your height/weight to me, but I'm no expert..
maybe you could go down to 160cm..


"Team S-J" wrote in message
news
5'8" and 75Kg, Although if 120cm skis are for kids what age does that
make me when I have my 90cm Blades on.




"AH" wrote in message
...
How tall and heavy are you?

120cm is a kids ski. If you were 4'11" and 35kg I might agree, but
otherwise I think you need a longer ski (than 120cm, maybe not 170cm)..

If you want to hit the powder, a ski with a thicker waste would be
better. As for the trees, maybe you just have to adjust the way you ski
because most people wouldn't consider 170cm very long.. I have 174cm
ski's and when going through the tree's I have never once considered that
my ski's might be too long and might be holding me back.. my technique
certainly, but not the length of my skis!

"Team S-J" wrote in message
...
After a week in LaPlagne chasing the kids through trees and powder I am
need of new skis. My 170 Carvers were great on piste, okay in 300-400
powder but too long for some of the paths through the trees. My 90cm
Blades were great on piste, great for the trees but useless in powder. I
didn't dare take the snowboard through the trees. I've searched around
and there are very few suitable skis for my purpose. The two main
contenders are the Atomic ETL 123's or Spruce Mountain
120's.(http://www.spruceski.com/120.html) The latter unfortunaly aren't
available in the EU. So can anyone recommend something similar to these
two. The criteria being 30% on piste, 30% off piste, 20% through trees,
10% rails, leaving 10% for ICE. Something around 120cm long and at least
80mm if not 100mm wide would seem to offer the right amount of area for
powder. Twin tip would be good.
Thanks

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:26:45 GMT, "Team S-J"
allegedly wrote:

My 90cm Blades were [...] useless in powder.

Who'd have thought!

I didn't dare take the snowboard through the trees.

Why ever not? I ride in the trees all the time.

- Dave.

--
The only powder to get high on, falls from the sky.
http://www.vpas.org/ - Snowboarding the worlds pow pow -
Securing your e-mail

Suggest a ski/skboard/blade

If the trees are any closer than 170 then your skiisa are too long.

If not, and I suspect they arent, then it is a fact of life that a
bigger, heavier person canot fit through the same gap at the same speed
as a smaller lighter person.

Either improve your technique or stop trying to follow your kids.

I'm going to see if I can try some skiboards. Something along the lines of
120cm long with 115/100/115 profile.
My 170's were just too long for following the kids through tiny tracks
through the trees. Skiboards seem more popular in the states.
It's a good job we drive as next year it looks like I'll be taking my
Carvers, Blades and Skiboard. All I need now is a snowboard to go with my
boots. Oh, and an extra couple of weeks holiday to make sure I get enough
time to play with all of them.

"AH" wrote in message
...
Blades suck for all but groomed, hard slopes though..

You suggested you wanted to do other things, so I think you want a proper
ski. 170cm sounds fine for your height/weight to me, but I'm no expert..
maybe you could go down to 160cm..


"Team S-J" wrote in message
news
5'8" and 75Kg, Although if 120cm skis are for kids what age does that
make me when I have my 90cm Blades on.




"AH" wrote in message
...
How tall and heavy are you?

120cm is a kids ski. If you were 4'11" and 35kg I might agree, but
otherwise I think you need a longer ski (than 120cm, maybe not 170cm)..

If you want to hit the powder, a ski with a thicker waste would be
better. As for the trees, maybe you just have to adjust the way you ski
because most people wouldn't consider 170cm very long.. I have 174cm
ski's and when going through the tree's I have never once considered
that my ski's might be too long and might be holding me back.. my
technique certainly, but not the length of my skis!

"Team S-J" wrote in message
...
After a week in LaPlagne chasing the kids through trees and powder I am
need of new skis. My 170 Carvers were great on piste, okay in 300-400
powder but too long for some of the paths through the trees. My 90cm
Blades were great on piste, great for the trees but useless in powder.
I didn't dare take the snowboard through the trees. I've searched
around and there are very few suitable skis for my purpose. The two
main contenders are the Atomic ETL 123's or Spruce Mountain
120's.(http://www.spruceski.com/120.html) The latter unfortunaly aren't
available in the EU. So can anyone recommend something similar to these
two. The criteria being 30% on piste, 30% off piste, 20% through trees,
10% rails, leaving 10% for ICE. Something around 120cm long and at
least 80mm if not 100mm wide would seem to offer the right amount of
area for powder. Twin tip would be good.
Thanks

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:23:18 -0000, "Team S-J"
wrote:

I'm going to see if I can try some skiboards. Something along the lines of
120cm long with 115/100/115 profile.
My 170's were just too long for following the kids through tiny tracks
through the trees. Skiboards seem more popular in the states.

That may be the case, but they're really not the ideal tool for tree
skiing. You're clearly struggling with technique if you can't get your
170s to turn quick enough, and the first thing you need to do is
recognise that this is not a limitation of the skis, but of you.

So if you can't get enough control over proper skis, why do you think
it will be easier on shorties? Sure, there's less length and weight to
turn but, even more than normal length skis, they are designed to be
carved, not rotated, in which case the length is much less of an
issue.

I don't want to come over all arrogant and badgering, but I'd really
reccommend, for your own safety, that you don't do this. Your choice,
of course, but trees hurt when you hit them. Also don't forget that
most of the 'blades don't have proper safety bindings, so if you catch
a root the ski won't come off...

Instead I'd suggest you stick with your current skis, just accepting
that by skiing slower you'll get more control and it doesn't matter a
damn if you can keep up with your kids or not.

As ever, this advice is worth exactly what you paid for it ;-)

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the Ski Club.

"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:23:18 -0000, "Team S-J"
wrote:

I'm going to see if I can try some skiboards. Something along the lines of
120cm long with 115/100/115 profile.
My 170's were just too long for following the kids through tiny tracks
through the trees. Skiboards seem more popular in the states.

That may be the case, but they're really not the ideal tool for tree
skiing. You're clearly struggling with technique if you can't get your
170s to turn quick enough, and the first thing you need to do is
recognise that this is not a limitation of the skis, but of you.

So if you can't get enough control over proper skis, why do you think
it will be easier on shorties? Sure, there's less length and weight to
turn but, even more than normal length skis, they are designed to be
carved, not rotated, in which case the length is much less of an
issue.

I don't want to come over all arrogant and badgering, but I'd really
reccommend, for your own safety, that you don't do this. Your choice,
of course, but trees hurt when you hit them. Also don't forget that
most of the 'blades don't have proper safety bindings, so if you catch
a root the ski won't come off...

Instead I'd suggest you stick with your current skis, just accepting
that by skiing slower you'll get more control and it doesn't matter a
damn if you can keep up with your kids or not.

As ever, this advice is worth exactly what you paid for it ;-)

--
Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
Ski Club of Great Britain - http://www.skiclub.co.uk
All opinions expressed are personal and in no way represent those of the
Ski Club.

I agree with Ace.