Paging the ladies ...

[scoober]

Cool. Thanks AG. We'll look into the Phat Luv for sure then.

[basom]

pretty different flex patteren between the phat luvs and prs from flexing the luvs in the shop (i own prs). prs have softer tail and stiffer under foot.

both skis are wicked light.

you don't have to do any thinking to ski on a pr, they are the most user friendly ski i have ever tried. point and shoot, no issues in the tight spots or short radius, thats what they excell at. super easy on the groomer, easier to turn than the nancy G3's i have (74 in the waist) and i would be on the pr's every day over the g3's the last three years, and i ski in the east coast.

[altagirl]

Then when she's ready to add something new again you can look even bigger - BS106, W105s, Explosiv, Gotama, etc... (I have BS106 for that).

[altagirl]

pretty different flex patteren between the phat luvs and prs from flexing the luvs in the shop (i own prs). prs have softer tail and stiffer under foot.

both skis are wicked light.

Yeah, phat luvs do have a fairly stiff tail, but I like that. They're not noodles - just easy to ski. I'd really like to demo them back to back and see how different they feel. But... that might be a while.

[The AD]

The Burnin' Luvs are on the list because LAN likes the cause behind the T:nine series, and is maybe a little intimidated by the width of the Phat Luv's (along the same lines as the PR). I wish there was a T:nine with a waist of 80-85mm, because I think that would be the choice here.

So how about the Apache Recon, or better yet last year's Axis XP (which you may be able to find cheap)? Women seem to really like this ski from the reviews I've seen. They're 78 mm waist.

Granted it isn't as pretty as the Phat Luv

Also, LAN can't use her "doesn't want to ski alone" excuse. She should know there are enough Seattle maggots out here that she can always find a ski partner if she wants one.

[britney]

for similar dimensions to the phat luv (120-90-110) but lighter weight (and prolly more flex), consider the LINE celebrity. i think they are another company with a worthy "cause," and this is their first women-specific ski. and a full twin-tip. (see page 88 of the new powder for a write-up).

i agree with others who have said that even for your first off-piste ski, under 90 cm waist is not enough in WA.
-b

[LAN]

Okay, here I am in my massive burrito induced coma.

I suppose to understand what type of skis I'm looking for, I should illustrate my skiing style. I love to ski, period. While I used to be much more aggressive (faster, steeper and hucking myself/yard sales), I think my skiing style has mellowed out. My ideal skiing day is a gorgeous, crisp winter day, when the sun is out, making things a big slushy (although I don't mind whiteouts by any means). I like to just point the tips down and cruise. I've never been much of an off piste girl (aside from the occasional jaunt off the groomed stuff), but that doesn't mean I won't expand my interests as I continue to evolve as a skiier.

What I'm used to in a ski is something that can handle any condition and any type of skiing. My "old" Rossi women's skis are comfortable in both Cascade Cement/ice, slush and powder. I've never felt freaked out on them or out of control. Mind you, they're a pretty stiff (huh huh, I said "stiff") ski.

I suppose I'm looking to jump up to a better, newer, more advanced ski. As far as how phat, I'm not sure yet because I've never skied on them. I looked seriously at the Phat Luv last year, and almost bought them in the heat of the moment, but the waist was so darned intimidating to me, so I passed them up. I think what scares me the most is jumping up to a phat ski and not having it feel as comfortable as my old skis. The good news is that I have strong legs, so I don't think phat skis would get away from me too quickly.

I definitely have some searching to do, that's for sure. Scoober thinks I should get the Phat Luv, so we'll see what happens.

And as far as skiing with maggots. I think I have maggot-related social anxiety disorder. Weirds me out.

[altagirl]

Demo them. I'd be shocked if you found a 90mm waist difficult to ski after a few runs on anything other than serious ice. Even on our Alta version of icy days, I can rail turns on the Phat Luv on groomers. They have a nice sidecut (more sidecut than my other skis) and behave well. And I think once you give a 90ish ski a chance you'll decide that that dimension IS what you want for an all-around, do anything ski. 105+ ends up being your specialty ski for deep days. And whatever skinny ski you want for groomer only ice days. Give it a shot.

[SLCFreshies]

If 90mm seems too much, then you could try some skinnier skis in the mid-80mm range that are good all rounders, like the Volkl G4, R:Ex (or whatever this year's equivalents are), and their ilk. They are stiff and can lay trench on the groomers like a race ski. They can also handle off-piste stuff easily. They are NOT bump skis, and they do NOT float much in the light deep stuff. But they sound like the kind of ski that is good for the variable conditions you describe.

[Lynx]

<super loud announcer through a megaphone> STEP AWAY FROM THE 1080s </super loud announcer through the megaphone>

its sounds like you aren't considering them anymore anyway. . but i will tell you. . . . i raced in college. ....and thats it, i didnt grow up racing, just skiing since i was 3. I demoed the 1080 and thought i was going to break the thing in half, so if you used to race. . . iw oudl stay away unless you want a super light park specific ski.

in the same day i demoed the g4. I woudl describe them as STUPID FAST. so if you're finding you are more in cruiser mode these days than race mode, you may not want those either.

the PRs were my first fat skiis after my race skis. the transition was pretty much non existent. maybe it felt weird a little the first run to have wide skis... but then it ruled. The side cute made them carve similar to what i was use to in my race skis and they did the nice 90mm floaty thing in the pow. you should have ZERO issues going into a 90mm waisted ski. in fact, i will give you the "Re Guarantee" that you will love it!

that said. . . the PRs are soft, so from what AG has said about those phat luvs, go get you sum! i think -i- want some now

and next year you will undoubtedly want to move up to a fatter ski circa 105 like everyone else suggested. it seems to be the natural progession. (i am on the W105 now). don't fight the natural progression! if i had the money i'd buy longer AND fatter this year. the end.

[LAN]

Last night we went and looked at the Phat Luv's and the Burnin' Luv's. I'm kind of leaning more towards the Burnin' Luv's, but again, I'm intimidated by the waist on the Phat's. Decisions, decisions ...

[altagirl]

DEMO something 90ish before you buy another skinny ski. Seriously.

[ulty_guy]

DEMO something 90ish before you buy another skinny ski. Seriously.

agreed. i was amazed how easy it was going from a 70mm ski to an 88mm. just to add even more confusion, try the dynastar little big fat (avail. in 158, 168, and 178). very easy ski, but a bit more bite than a PR, and you can find them for very cheap. i use it for AT, but it has no problem laying down trenches when it's not too icy and that's even with touring binders.