Feedback for a 2nd pair of skis

[northwskier]

Hello, I consider myself an intermediate but fairly new rider, 6'0" 155lbs. I switched over from snowboarding and am really enjoying skiing.
I bought a new pair of Rossignol Experience 76 Ci Skis with demo bindings on closeout and they have been great to continue learning on and not need to rent.

I'm looking at buying a 2nd pair of skis that are wider. More all mountain focused.

I ski at Tamarack and there continues to be at least some new snow almost every time we go. They do not seem to groom until there is no new snow, so it is not always smooth.
There was 6" of new powder (a tad heavy) on Sunday and I really struggled. I initially had problems with one ski being grabbed (even in a straight line) and pulled off to the side which would turn me around and cause a fall. I progressed by getting forward more and trying to keep the skis in control. I never really seemed to "float" on the powder though, it seemed like a fight all day... and I am sure this is mostly due to experience but I think wider skis would also help?

So I narrowed down to two choices but would like feedback 1) if I should be buying another pair, and 2) if these are reasonable choices. Both seem to have about equal feedback on Evo, etc. I can buy either ski in a lightly used 2020 demo for about $475 (maybe less).
I know these are slightly different and the QST being narrower might be better for groomers and trees/powder?
1. 2020 Rossignol Sky 7 HD (98mm waist) 172mm
2. 2020 Salomon QST 92 177mm

Thanks.

 

[DanoT]

If you are buying a used demo ski, then insist on demoing before buying.

When skiing powder you can encounter changing snow consistency. This is likely what happened when it felt like one ski was being grabbed. When this happens, throw all of you weight on the ungrabbed ski while pulling the grabbed ski back under your centre of mass. The main idea with powder skiing is to not sit back, or be too far forward, just perfectly centred over the skis, if possible.

Once you get the hang of powder skiing, it is the easiest snow to ski in.

 

[northwskier]

I should clarify these are online so I would not be able to try them first. I will check and see if Tamarack has either of these for me to rent for a day.

This was the deepest powder I had skied in so far, and it was far from easy. I continue to enjoy learning though.

Thank you for the feedback about how to try and recover when one ski is grabbed. Interesting comments about the varying snow consistency as well. The snowpack underneath was also likely not smooth so bumps and variations under there may have had an impact.

 

[David Chaus]

If you ski at Tamarack, then stop in at Greenwood’s Ski Haus in Boise. They will have a good selection of skis that work well for the snow and terrain you are skiing, and you can try some demo skis. Or you can try some demo skis at the rental shop at Tamarack, or Gravity Sports in McCall. Thing is, I can make suggestions, but that’s usually based on what skis I have tried and liked, and I am not you. You will get a sense of what you like after trying a few pairs.

 

[zircon]

No experience with either or where you ski, but you're looking way way too short for you. I like short skis and if I were your height I'd think those were short. You'll want something around your height (or slightly longer) if you want them to float.

 

[DanoT]

@zircon , I gave your post a like but while I agree that the 172cm ski is short, the OP weighs 155lbs. so even at 6', as a progressing intermediate a 177-180 is a good length, imo.

 

[zircon]

@zircon , I gave your post a like but while I agree that the 172cm ski is short, the OP weighs 155lbs. so even at 6', as a progressing intermediate a 177-180 is a good length, imo.

That's fair. Especially for the QST 92 which is narrow enough and by all accounts solid enough to perform on hard vs the Sky 7 which is a soft snow ski.

OP, for context, I'm a 5'5" (with shoes on) and ~125lb advanced-ish poser and most would recommend me a 172cm Sky 7 if I was looking.

 

[Magoo]

I think for Tamarack a Ripstick 96 would be perfect skis since you don't weigh much. I got on a sky two years ago and wasn't impressed at all. The QST might be great at Bogus but for Tamarack it is to hard snow biased IMO.

 

[northwskier]

@zircon I have struggled trying to decide on a length... I would like it to remain playful and turn well for an intermediate skier. Some charts only by height suggest much longer, but by weight are in the range I listed above. Some also suggest "sizing" up due to the shorter contact points of a rockered ski?

@Magoo thanks for the feedback about the QST maybe not being a good match for the snow type at Tamarack. I don't know much about Elan skis but the details seem like a good fit so I am intrigued. I did read the Sky was changed for 2020 so I don't mean this as a way to dismiss your feedback but I wonder if some of your concern was addressed?

 

[Magoo]

The sky I got on was before they changed the tip so maybe it changed some of the feeling but I just didn't feel confident on them. A Rustler 9 might even be a really good Tamarack ski. For your height weight it sort of puts you between the 172's and the 178/80's. I'd rent a 178/180 ski in the 90's with tip and tail rocker and just see if that is for you. I'd bet for soft snow you'd wonder why you ever thought of going shorter.

 

[zircon]

What they mean about "size up" due to the contact points... A heavily rockered ski of equal length to your existing skis will feel a lot shorter and more pivoty. Good for tight spaces, can get a little scary if you like to go fast in a straight line. I own a 164cm Blizzard Rustler 10 (on paper exactly my height). They're great at low speed in trees, which is exactly why I wanted them. If I lived somewhere with open spaces, I'd want the next size up.

IMO ski size charts are useless—the weights they list always seem high relative to the associated heights so people like you and me in the mid-to-low "normal" BMI range get left out. Even if your height and weight match in the same boxes, they seem to recommend lengths that would make sense with full camber but maybe aren't ideal with tip and tail rocker. What size are you Experience 76s? That might help us get an idea of where you're coming from.

You'll definitely want to aim nearish your height, maybe up to 5cm shorter because as @DanoT said, that's appropriate for a progressing intermediate. Be prepared to sell them and size up fairly soon depending on how much you ski. You need to decide what you want to do with this ski. It sounds like you have groomer duty covered, in which case I would stick with longer and more rockered for soft snow. You really do need something longer than 172cm for this application. I'd agree in the 177+ range.

 

[François Pugh]

You should get a longer length than what you are thinking of.

 

[northwskier]

Oh I forgot to list the size of my Experience 76s, they are 170cm. They have been excellent for learning on.
I also accidentally wrote mm instead of cm on the lengths but I think you knew what I meant...

@zircon Exactly, I have a ski that works well for me on groomers so I am looking for something in the soft snow.

Ok, it sounds like on Saturday I should see what Tamarack has for demo skis that are rocker/camber/rocker, 90-100mm width, 178/180cm length and try them out to see how the length and rocker style feel. The runs here are not what I would consider wide open spaces.

 

[ski otter 2]

Demo is best, for sure. So many good options. And only you can tell for you.

If you persist in shorter lengths, you will probably develop a shorter turn style of skiing. A quicker turning and/or more careful style, probably. An option. But.....

Rustler 9 sounds like a good option. Not as floppy as the Sky 7. Great on both groomers and powder bumps. The Rustler 10 also, esp. if for softer snow.

The 90 to 99 width is very versatile, but it will get fairly difficult for an intermediate somewhere at around 5" or so - depending on the ski.

If you are interested in a Sal Qst, and you will retain the Exp 76 for "old snow" days, why not at least demo (on a soft snow day) the Qst 99 and especially the Qst 106? That ski would work as a second ski, in any soft snow up to powder of any type and depth. It's a ski you would never outgrow, probably - and good for an intermediate on up. An easy ski to learn powder skiing with, and yet good for any depth soft snow with most any skiing style, including crud afterwards. You are not that short and lightweight: go longer if it's a soft snow ski. It is much more stable fore-aft, and in soft snow will be easier to adapt to, not harder. Honest. The 181 might be ideal in that ski, not the 174.

The Sky 7 sounds good, since it is so crazy easy to throw around; but only if you are skiing at moderate speeds, since that ski will get tossed in crud at speed; but, please, at 180 (a soft snow and soft snow bump/tree length - more versatile, in terms of speed), rather than 172 (more short turn and old snow bias - and slower)

(Note: I'm 5'10"/150 on a good day. And I'd be on at least that long myself.)

 

[northwskier]

I have been waiting for some fresh snow to rent demos, but there was a free demo day on Sunday so why not try a few!

I tried the QST92 in 177cm, and Ripstick 96 in 172cm (180cm were already out) and then 180cm. I did not like the QST, it was harsh in the crud, but they also had a lot more use so maybe the tuning was not very good either. The Ripstick was smooth and very quiet, they were nice. I thought the 172cm was easier to ski. They do not carry Blizzard so I was not able to try the Rustler 9. I was going to try the Sky 7 just to compare but ran out of time, the lift lines were long on the holiday weekend. I also ran out of time to try the Ripstick 106.

It is hard to find history of typical spring sale pricing... is $450 for 2021 Ripstick 96 180cm a good deal or should I wait until spring?
Rustler 9 is the same price but I would hesitant to buy without trying them.

 

[DanoT]

It is hard to find history of typical spring sale pricing... is $450 for 2021 Ripstick 96 180cm a good deal or should I wait until spring?

I don't know if $450 is a good price but other factors to consider besides price is size availability come spring, especially with popular models.

Also paying more now is offset by getting to ski the ski now instead of next season.

 

[northwskier]

That's what I was thinking... if the absolute lowest price right before they sell out (maybe missing out and ending up with nothing) is $375 for example then I would be happy paying this now and skiing this season.

 

[DanoT]

@northwskier, you know what Warren Miller would say about doing it now vs when yer year older.

 

[Delicious]

PNW skier here as well. Similar body type, 5'10" 147. I'm afraid that a 90mm ski might feel a bit redundant in a 2 ski quiver with your Rossi in the sense that neither ski will turn you into a pow-slayer. I suggest a rockered 100mm ski in a length similar to your height. The 100mm option will provide clear delineation between your 2 skis, AND give you a tool with which to learn deep snow skiing. A 90mm ski is not going to be any more fun on the firm stuff than the 100mm. The 100mm WILL be more useful than the 90mm in the gnar.

 

[Magoo]

I knew you'd like the Ripstick 96. It is a great ski for this area with plenty of float with your weight for all but the deepest of days. $450 is a great deal (I haven't seen them below the $649 yet) it won't get much cheaper than that come March or even this summer if any are left. I say grab it now and mount it. We have storms coming and you can enjoy your new skis while the snow is good.