Powder ski - which one

I am down to three units from 2003-2004:

Atomic Sugar Daddy (173 cm, 124-99-114) with 4.12 bindings
Nordica Beast 12 TT (177 cm, 124-92-116) with Marker Titanium 12
Salomon Pocket Rocket (175cm, 122-90-115) with S912TI

I am 5'10" and 160lb. Advanced in all conditions but off-piste; here I am
intermediate.
I've heard great comments about Salomon PR. I've heard great comments about
Sugar Daddies but am a bit concerned about the weight (huge plate!!!). Many
people also loved the Nordicas and they are the longest. Pricewise Nordica
is the best, Atomic very next, and Salomon the most expensive. Still, few
bucks here and there make no difference is we are talking about kick ass
slope experience.

Any comments?

Thanks!!!

"Martino" wrote

Atomic Sugar Daddy (173 cm, 124-99-114) with 4.12 bindings
Nordica Beast 12 TT (177 cm, 124-92-116) with Marker Titanium 12
Salomon Pocket Rocket (175cm, 122-90-115) with S912TI

I am 5'10" and 160lb. Advanced in all conditions but off-piste; here I am
intermediate.

AFAIK, Sugar Daddy is a noodle compared to Beasts, and
PR's are somewhere in between. Beast is more of an
extreme big mountain ski than just powder ski. You might
also consider Fischer Big Stix or maybe a Volkl G4.

Martino wrote:
I am down to three units from 2003-2004:

Atomic Sugar Daddy (173 cm, 124-99-114) with 4.12 bindings
Nordica Beast 12 TT (177 cm, 124-92-116) with Marker Titanium 12
Salomon Pocket Rocket (175cm, 122-90-115) with S912TI

I am 5'10" and 160lb. Advanced in all conditions but off-piste; here I am
intermediate.
I've heard great comments about Salomon PR. I've heard great comments about
Sugar Daddies but am a bit concerned about the weight (huge plate!!!). Many
people also loved the Nordicas and they are the longest. Pricewise Nordica
is the best, Atomic very next, and Salomon the most expensive. Still, few
bucks here and there make no difference is we are talking about kick ass
slope experience.

Any comments?

Comments? All three are much too wide. You will be on top of the snow
instead of knee deep in the snow.


Thanks!!!

You are welcome.

Lal,

I though that this was the idea: to float rather than to drag. I am not
trying to be ignorant in here but I've done lots of snowboarding in the deep
and very much liked the floating effect and therefore the speed and control.

Martino

"lal_truckee" wrote in message
...
Martino wrote:
I am down to three units from 2003-2004:

Atomic Sugar Daddy (173 cm, 124-99-114) with 4.12 bindings
Nordica Beast 12 TT (177 cm, 124-92-116) with Marker Titanium 12
Salomon Pocket Rocket (175cm, 122-90-115) with S912TI

I am 5'10" and 160lb. Advanced in all conditions but off-piste; here I
am
intermediate.
I've heard great comments about Salomon PR. I've heard great comments
about
Sugar Daddies but am a bit concerned about the weight (huge plate!!!).
Many
people also loved the Nordicas and they are the longest. Pricewise
Nordica
is the best, Atomic very next, and Salomon the most expensive. Still,
few
bucks here and there make no difference is we are talking about kick ass
slope experience.

Any comments?

Comments? All three are much too wide. You will be on top of the snow
instead of knee deep in the snow.


Thanks!!!

You are welcome.

Dmitry,

Good call on Daddy; definitely don't want noodles. Considering versatility
of the terrain in the Pac NW, Nordica might be a good call.

I also looked BigStix 8.6 but they are hard to find (in the bargain dept).
I own Volkl SuperSport 5Star and love them; will look at Volkls too.

Thx

"Dmitry" wrote in message
news:WhKad.457683$8_6.22378@attbi_s04...

"Martino" wrote

Atomic Sugar Daddy (173 cm, 124-99-114) with 4.12 bindings
Nordica Beast 12 TT (177 cm, 124-92-116) with Marker Titanium 12
Salomon Pocket Rocket (175cm, 122-90-115) with S912TI

I am 5'10" and 160lb. Advanced in all conditions but off-piste; here I
am
intermediate.

AFAIK, Sugar Daddy is a noodle compared to Beasts, and
PR's are somewhere in between. Beast is more of an
extreme big mountain ski than just powder ski. You might
also consider Fischer Big Stix or maybe a Volkl G4.

"Martino" wrote in
:

I am down to three units from 2003-2004:

Atomic Sugar Daddy (173 cm, 124-99-114) with 4.12 bindings
Nordica Beast 12 TT (177 cm, 124-92-116) with Marker Titanium 12
Salomon Pocket Rocket (175cm, 122-90-115) with S912TI

If you ever want to go on piste with the skis check out the Salomon 1080 as
well, better on-piste than the PR, and as good off.

However try before you buy if you possibly can.

regards,

greg

Martino wrote:
Lal,

I though that this was the idea: to float rather than to drag.

Nope.
First, there's no "drag" with real powder, although everything is in
slow motion.
Second powder is a three dimensional medium - staying on top makes it
two dimensional; you're giving up what makes it different and might as
well be on the groomed.
Third, boarders don't have a choice - they can "float" (as you say) on
top of the powder but can't really do anything different.
Fourth, a few years ago intermediate skiers saw basically intermediate
boarders have fun in the powder and figured they'd just make skis wide
enough that intermediates can ski on top of the powder without putting
the effort into learning the thrills of deep powder skiing, and wide
skis were born. Wide skis are a fine crutch for those who don't aspire
to 3D deep powder skiing; on the other hand they inhibit 3D deep powder
skiing, if that's the goal.

I am not
trying to be ignorant in here but I've done lots of snowboarding in the deep
and very much liked the floating effect and therefore the speed and control.

Hey everybody -
does anyone have an online source for the Jackson Hole Week 9: January
27, 2002 video of the week, titled "the perfect storm?" Jackson Hole
doesn't seem to have it online anymore; I have a downloaded copy as a
..mov and reviewing it now it does illustrate in it's first half exactly
why a snowboard fails to extract maximum quality from deep snow; and in
it's second half reveals the benefits of deep snow for the skier. I'm
going to mail it to Martino, but the rest of you might like to review
it, if we can find it online?

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:51:01 -0700, lal_truckee
wrote:

Martino wrote:
Lal,

I though that this was the idea: to float rather than to drag.

Nope.
First, there's no "drag" with real powder, although everything is in
slow motion.
Second powder is a three dimensional medium - staying on top makes it
two dimensional; you're giving up what makes it different and might as
well be on the groomed.
Third, boarders don't have a choice - they can "float" (as you say) on
top of the powder but can't really do anything different.
Fourth, a few years ago intermediate skiers saw basically intermediate
boarders have fun in the powder and figured they'd just make skis wide
enough that intermediates can ski on top of the powder without putting
the effort into learning the thrills of deep powder skiing, and wide
skis were born. Wide skis are a fine crutch for those who don't aspire
to 3D deep powder skiing; on the other hand they inhibit 3D deep powder
skiing, if that's the goal.


Strong points, but honestly, how's Martino going to find a set of 215s
these days? ;-)

Just curious,
bw

"lal_truckee" wrote

First, there's no "drag" with real powder, although everything is in slow motion.

What? Have you ever been in more than a foot of fresh untracked
stuff? You'll simply get _stuck_ in it if you don't have enough flotation.
And digging out is one of the most UN-fun things to do, especially
with skis and poles that you can simply loose in the snow. I'm not
even talking about being in the trees where making quick turns is
absolutely essential, and if you don't have the leverage of a wider
ski/snowboard, you simply won't make it.

Second powder is a three dimensional medium - staying on top makes it two dimensional; you're giving up what makes it different
and might as well be on the groomed.

Sorry, but this is pure BS. You will _never_ have enough flotation to
make skiing or riding powder 2-dimentional. Even my 180lbs
friend on Head Monster 103 (yes, that's waist width and they are 195cm
unbendable titanium rails) was not floating all the time in waist-deep
freshies at Baker last season. In fact, he had the most fun out of all
of us because he could do the same things with much less effort (well,
except trees).

All that you get with less surface of your ski/board is having to work
_much_ harder to jump out of the snow to turn.

Now, I will agree that a 2-meter snowboards and wide 2-meter skis
are more suitable for truly unlimited snow and steepness that is only
found via helicopter or snowcat. But a dedicated powder tool, be it
a snowboard or skis is a great thing to have, because those few
powder days in the season are the ones you will be day-dreaming
about next summer (well, that is if you don't kitesurf

Third, boarders don't have a choice - they can "float" (as you say) on top of the powder but can't really do anything different.

How good a boarder are you to say that? Have you seen good boarders
SURF in powder? Have you seen the shape and size of Burton Fish
powder snowboard?

The dynamics of a snowboarder in powder is of course a bit different,
but the essence is the same - you'll have to work your way up and down
to be able to turn. And on a smallish board you'll just never be able
to pop up enough to rotate (DAMHIK).

"Dmitry" wrote in message
news:sPVad.353257$mD.212845@attbi_s02...

What? Have you ever been in more than a foot of fresh untracked
stuff?

I've been in powder deeper than I am tall, standing still.

You'll simply get _stuck_ in it if you don't have enough flotation.

That's just not true. When you bend your ski on the "downweight" you simply
ride that reverse camber bend back to the surface.

I'm not
even talking about being in the trees where making quick turns is
absolutely essential,

Not true. Quick turns are NOT essential even in tight trees. You (I) just
look enough turns ahead so that quick turns are my choice if so made.

and if you don't have the leverage of a wider
ski/snowboard, you simply won't make it.

You are insane. You must be one of those that the shaped, wider stuff is
made for. Those of us that take/took the time don't need that stuff.

Second powder is a three dimensional medium - staying on top makes it
two dimensional; you're giving up what makes it different
and might as well be on the groomed.

Sorry, but this is pure BS. You will _never_ have enough flotation to
make skiing or riding powder 2-dimentional. Even my 180lbs
friend on Head Monster 103 (yes, that's waist width and they are 195cm
unbendable titanium rails) was not floating all the time in waist-deep
freshies at Baker last season. In fact, he had the most fun out of all
of us because he could do the same things with much less effort (well,
except trees).

I skied Baker in the 80's on my 207 GS skis. Probably more surface area than
on the training skis of today, it's just front to back not side to side.

All that you get with less surface of your ski/board is having to work
_much_ harder to jump out of the snow to turn.

Jump? Have you ever skied?

Now, I will agree that a 2-meter snowboards and wide 2-meter skis
are more suitable for truly unlimited snow and steepness that is only
found via helicopter or snowcat. But a dedicated powder tool, be it
a snowboard or skis is a great thing to have, because those few
powder days in the season are the ones you will be day-dreaming
about next summer (well, that is if you don't kitesurf

Third, boarders don't have a choice - they can "float" (as you say) on
top of the powder but can't really do anything different.

How good a boarder are you to say that? Have you seen good boarders
SURF in powder? Have you seen the shape and size of Burton Fish
powder snowboard?

Good boarder? Is that a dead boarder? It's the only one I know of.