Printable View
I am thinking of mounting up some powder plus with freerides. How stupid am I? The powder plus are pretty heavy as I recall.. but I love the way they ski the deep stuff.
I'll probably be doing just mostly day-tours on them, with maybe a few over night deals. Will the extra weight be that much of a pain in the ass to lug around on the foot?
190's or 180's? Don't know that it'd be my choice in either case but I guess it depends on how much you want to work.....no one here can make that decsion for you.
just sell them to me for cheap and buy a pair of real AT skis...
Yes. You might as well just drag some boat anchors behind you.Quote:
Originally Posted by srozing
Freerides do not cope well with skis that wide...trying to edge on hardpack will be a laugh. They'll just bend. Not to mention the PP won't fit through the ski carry loops on a lot of packs.
two more great reasons to sell them to me...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
Another thing is the width makes 'em even heavier on days where the topsheets get covered by snow every few steps. Even a relatively lightweight fat ski like my Tabla Rasas get weighed down; I can't imagine how painful it'd be with the Pluses base weight (along with the Freerides).
If you're thinking of overnights with 'em, carrying a 15-20+ kg pack as well, you sound pretty damn masochistic.
you realize i've got dibs on 190s before you, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by SafteySquad
;)
but seriously
how do you have dibs? so any pow + that is being sold has to be offered to you first because you called dibs weeks ago when no skis were being offered up for sale? meh...:nonono2:
edit: i thought you wanted 180's too. if you wanted 190's why didn't you buy marshal's a few months back when he was selling his. maybe he still has them???
because i dug the thread up, hyped all the interest, and told people i wanted to do it. i proclaim it functioning as a want-to-buy. but in the end it probably won't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by SafteySquad
they're probably 180s. enjoy 'em. thanks for the heads up on marshall's pair...i forget about them as his Iggies and DPs easily distracted me. :biggrin:
kinda pointless to be arguing about this anyway since there are no pow + for sale anyway... :rolleyes2
Last year I teled on 180 Pow+ in the BC. They were heavy but not too bad with light tele bindings (Hardwires). This year, I'm putting some old Freerides on them and using them purely for early season BC conditions (= sharp rocks). They're a blast and super stable but not much fun to tour in. Of course, everything is relative but, if I'm out there all day, lugging around that much is sub-optimal.
The freerides are more of an issue to me than the PP. If dynafit was an option for you, you could save almost 3 lbs on bindings. Even if the PP weight 11-12 lbs, they would weight the same with dynafits as a 9lb ski with freerides. Even my "light" 180 Big Stix 106s weigh 9.5 lbs and they're narrower than the PP.
Of course, if you are definitely going freerides, the PP are going to be a lot of work but probably fine, IMO, for shorter tours. Depends on who you're trying to keep up with, too!
Goldenboy rocks this as his AT set-up with style. PM him if you want some informed opinions.
As for worries about the weight... you can always be more fit, so this is sort of a non-issue unless you are of the spandex clad rando racer persuasion. He who has the most fun wins... and Powder Plusses are a lot of fun.
If you want a big ski for AT:
1. Sell PP's to one of the eager buyers above
2. Save up and buy yourself a pair of 120s or 138s
3. Be rad
I like the way the man thinksQuote:
Originally Posted by Vicious
Sorry.. they're not for sale. Once I realized how hard I can charge in deep on these they are not going anywhere. They're pretty much indestructible too, so I don't see them needing to be replaced any time soon. I had a huge gash in the base that just "stops" when it gets to the edge. Wow. I've totalled about 10 pairs of skis in the exact same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SafteySquad
180s....Quote:
Originally Posted by justcuz
It seems to me like maybe this is more work than what I want to get into. I don't see the need of making life harder than it needs to be. If I am going to buy a whole new ski for this setup then I think I will get something a little less wide under foot. This will need to be a ski that will do me for the whole season's worth of touring - I dont really want to get something that will totally suck on harder pack (IE the pp). I'm thinking maybe 90-95mm waist or so with a larger side cut, and heaps lighter. Only problem is I dont want to sacrifice stiffness. Suggestions? I really dont know much about AT skis.
Also open to recommendations: What skins should I get to put under them?
Sugar Daddies! Just medium stiffness though.Quote:
Originally Posted by srozing
the new mantras will have a 25ish radius, 94 mm waist, and are supposedly about 10% stiffer than last years, which is referenced in the "recommended skis list." They also feel lighter than last years, but my feel could be off here...I haven't held a pair of the older ones w/o bindings since december.
When my new pair comes in on warranty comes in on warranty next month I can weigh them, but if the bros don't work out i'm considering mounting them AT.
Why not buy a pair of used Explosivs from mtlion.Quote:
Originally Posted by srozing
I didn't know he had any left...Quote:
Originally Posted by irul&ublo
What exactly makes telemark skis different from alpine? I was looking at the karhu jak's, which sound boss... except they're a telemark ski.
Does anybody know how much a pair of sugar daddy's weighs? I've never ridden a pair; I thought they had a big atomic-only plate on them that would basically make it not an option.
Mantra's sound kickass.. I'd consider that for sure.
Squatch: Do you want to sell those warranty ones?
I also considered scratch BC's, but those are just wet noodles.
Telemak skis tend to be softer and lighter than alpine skis. This may present a problem for you with reguards to the jak's since you appear to dislike wet noodles.
I asked the same question, albeit about K2s, over this way. Brewski2 said that as far as he understands it, the tele skis have a little less metal. I presume that's to reduce weight and permit more flex.Quote:
Originally Posted by srozing
Interesting.. I'd like to try the Jaks on an alpine setup to see for myself.
henh.. The stuff I've read about the Jak's say they are pretty stiff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrosendahl
sorry... I picked those up to replace my 180's which are going to comish.Quote:
Originally Posted by SafteySquad
yeah, i realized. i may just have to proform a pair of 193 EHPs...:biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by ljm