66 to 90 ....score!!!!

[Ron]

For those who are new to wider skis, you need to understand that a wider ski doesn't just make it a powder ski. To the contrary, there are so many skis with different applications.  Powder skis are just that, designed and intended for powder, there are some ski's like an Argos or even a Gotama that although are 101 & 105 underfoot, they really are not powder skis, the 94 is not a powder ski either; it's a great soft snow, all mountain ski. You have to understand that the flex, torsional stiffness, taper and other factors go into the skis performance envelope. Be careful to not just look at the width of a ski to try to determine it's float; to me, this is not all the factors that need to go into finding a powder or soft snow ski. In fact, judging a ski soley based on the underfoot dimensions is wrong. It's not just about theorectical float. You may find a narrower or wider ski fits your needs best.

[Gary]

Phil....thanks..... Alice is a 22.5....it would nice if she could try Lola's new babies!

Good point Ron....the problem for most who just want a two ski quiver, getting that perfect powder ski good for handling powder shin high up might be having to spend the bucks on that 3rd ski.

Width underfoot does equate to certainly some level of float...that in relationship to the tail and tip orchestrate the performance orientation of that ski. There are as you pointed out better skis for the powder specifically. Maybe on those days where it's knee high and above, having that soft wide under foot powder ski specific is the "bomb".

I know that anything 90 and above for me would be an all purpose powder ski......with the caveats that it's 1) not to stiff 2) allows me to use my ski skills to work the ski without it working me and 3) it's versatile enough to ski powder early morning and handle the broken crud and skied off on the way back to the Mangy Moose for their Nachos and a (short) beer!

As you wisely pointed out, finding a narrower or wider ski to fit the bill for how, where and in what the intended use of the ski (your needs), sure helps make skiing the light fantastic a true pleasure.

And it's all about the pleasure, the ease of use (versatility)....but mostly...it's about the FUN FACTOR!
G

[Ron]

I agree, the average skier looking for a 2 quiver setup should not be buying a powder ski for knee-high and above in that case. Two feet of powder is rare unless they live in Utah or other high snow accumulation area but if they do live in those areas, they wouldn't be the average skier.  They would be much wiser to buy an all mountain ski that would better meet the needs of their typical conditions rather than buying a ski that tended to be designed for real powder conditions. I would say that person would be better suited to renting on that rare occasion. Case in point was Steamboat's 2 foot dump last week was one of the biggest in a long time. Even with last years record snows, it only dumped 2 feet once or twice all season. It's a personal preference thing but boot high which is about a foot of snow is a lot. The person choosing a one or two ski quiver needs to assess where and what they will be most likely to ski and buy accordingly. Realistically speaking, I have a two quiver setup at this point, the SS mags for hardpack and the Icelantic Nomads for everything else.  My emphasis is on a ski that will provide excellent float and crud and broken snow abilities so I wanted a softer flexing but torsionally stiff ski with a wider footprint. In this case the Nomad is 140-105-130 but with the unique design of the Icelantics it works for me. If I skied mostly east coast, I don't think this would be my 2 quiver setup. Your Pilgrim would be a much better choice for me as it really is a GS powder ski, a true hybrid. For you, the Pilgrim is perfection! It should be the "Gary"....  My only real concern is when I see folks buying a ski for powder just because it's wide. It often leads to a mistake.

[Gary]

I concur....agree...a nd nod favorably yes to all you masterfully stated!

Now let's get out there and find some more 2 foot freshies!


G

[SnowHot]

FWIW, I can nearly put all of my skis in storage with the exception of my F17 and Bro Softs.
At my weight and skill level, those two will cover me in most, if not all skiing I experience from Michigan to Summit county.


I'm thinking of a mid fat to cover the area between the 66-99, but since I'm waiting for Ron to take the leap so I'm not feeling like such a gear ho, I'll wait on taking that plunge.

Now, Ron, what do you suggest that I buy for that middle range

[Ron]

hmm, soft bros and 17's??  Do I know you?? I think I do...........

[SnowHot]

hmm, soft bros and 17's??? Do I know you?? I think I do...........

I thought you knew that you know me, but I guess you never knew what you knew.  eh?

[Ron]

I know......