Skis that the T4 will push around with little protest

[Woodserson]

I'm really digging my re-digging into the mid-70's waisted skis, the old midfats of the late 90's and 2000's.

Right now I'm rocking a pair of 184cm Rossignol Big Bangs with a 74 waist and they are pretty sweet and right around the most amount of ski I can punch down a hill in most conditions with confidence in the T4.

I think the Karhu Ryder at 109/74/101 would be another good option that would take well to the T4.

I think a mid-80 waist would work too if I got down to the mid 170cm range, but this is speculation on my part.

Trying to keep the skis nimble, light and fun on a T4 without having to upgrade the boot. Wouldn't mind dabbling around since they show up for sale at relatively bargain prices. What skis do you remember/suggest? I'd like to exclude rocker-skis as that's another ball of wax.

[lilcliffy]

Wish I could help you more with this...I am interested in this as well, because I am looking at bringing my T4s out of the closet...

I found it interesting that Nils from Altai thought that the 174cm Kom was almost too much for the T4...

[StormyMonday]

I don't have T4s to test but my trusty Tua Mitos (70mm) with Mountaineers do pretty well with Excursions in the right terrain. They're 185s, would like a little shorter for trees but still love them.

[lowangle al]

I never skied a T-4 but going by my experience with stiff old school leathers on Vectors I think they would work with even the fattest ski in powder. On hardpack I don't like skis fatter than the mid 90s with T-2s for tele turns.

[fisheater]

The beefiest boots I own are T-4's. I have a used set of Hammerheads coming my way. I am going to mount my old 1999-2000ish Volkl Vertigo G-21. It is a gray colored ski. It was a softer flexing version of a slightly detuned racing ski that was also called Vertigo, but it was yellow. The yellow one was popular with most of the other instructors (I taught kids to make stem christies. It got me out and paid for skiing back then), but the yellow one was not suited for me. Just like my gray ski that didn't quite fit in, I was also not quite in the mold. I did clinic with some really good skiers. On man formerly headed the ski school at A-Basin, but engineering brought him back to Michigan. I wonder what those clinics I was at for free would have cost as semi private lessons? That was without the beer BS session afterwards.
This ski is a 188, 114-70-93, back in the day before I knew better I thought it was a pretty good powder ski. It also handled the groomed well. I guess my natural groomer turn is just an oversized slalom turn, I really never worked on carving big edge crater making turns. My local area had a short 45 degree headwall. I split my time between that and the regular black run. Back then I skied to get ready for my western trips. I do know that it was a great Utah ski in the day. and we didn't ski groomed in Utah.
The bindings have not arrived, and I have no natural snow. I am actually more excited to take my son to the local bump, and ski the USGI and leathers. I am really curious if I can handle them on what should be some hard refrozen base. I also wonder if I can get the wax right, to get the kick and glide going on refrozen granular. I understand it is difficult without klister, but I do not have any klister yet. Looking forward to my next outing.

[fisheater]

I never skied a T-4 but going by my experience with stiff old school leathers on Vectors I think they would work with even the fattest ski in powder. On hardpack I don't like skis fatter than the mid 90s with T-2s for tele turns.

Al, I think there are a lot of skiers that would not be comfortable riding Vectors and leathers , even in powder. I did get a few powder turns on my new leathers and 112's. I am sure glad all you guys talked up leather boots, I am really enjoying them. Nice to see you back on.

[StormyMonday]

The beefiest boots I own are T-4's. I have a used set of Hammerheads coming my way. I am going to mount my old 1999-2000ish Volkl Vertigo G-21. It is a gray colored ski. It was a softer flexing version of a slightly detuned racing ski that was also called Vertigo, but it was yellow. The yellow one was popular with most of the other instructors (I taught kids to make stem christies. It got me out and paid for skiing back then), but the yellow one was not suited for me. Just like my gray ski that didn't quite fit in, I was also not quite in the mold. I did clinic with some really good skiers. On man formerly headed the ski school at A-Basin, but engineering brought him back to Michigan. I wonder what those clinics I was at for free would have cost as semi private lessons? That was without the beer BS session afterwards.
This ski is a 188, 114-70-93, back in the day before I knew better I thought it was a pretty good powder ski. It also handled the groomed well. I guess my natural groomer turn is just an oversized slalom turn, I really never worked on carving big edge crater making turns. My local area had a short 45 degree headwall. I split my time between that and the regular black run. Back then I skied to get ready for my western trips. I do know that it was a great Utah ski in the day. and we didn't ski groomed in Utah.
The bindings have not arrived, and I have no natural snow. I am actually more excited to take my son to the local bump, and ski the USGI and leathers. I am really curious if I can handle them on what should be some hard refrozen base. I also wonder if I can get the wax right, to get the kick and glide going on refrozen granular. I understand it is difficult without klister, but I do not have any klister yet. Looking forward to my next outing.

Forget knowing better, if you think a 114-70-93 is a good powder ski, then it's a good powder ski. I happen to agree, speaking as one of the geezers who had a short skis suck bumper sticker on my Datsun...

[Woodserson]

I agree, I had a pair of skis that were 108-76-100, 190cm. Mounted boot toe at CC and with the nice 'fatter' tail they ripped hard. They were quasi-custom, super unique at the time (2000).

So I just bought a pair of Karhu BC 100s in 172 for mega cheap. I'm going to drive those with the T4s and see how that works. Strictly powder in the woods, I don't think it'll be problematic.

Karhu Kodiaks... those should work too...

[phoenix]

Most... if you know how to ski.

[bmike-vt]

I agree, I had a pair of skis that were 108-76-100, 190cm. Mounted boot toe at CC and with the nice 'fatter' tail they ripped hard. They were quasi-custom, super unique at the time (2000).

So I just bought a pair of Karhu BC 100s in 172 for mega cheap. I'm going to drive those with the T4s and see how that works. Strictly powder in the woods, I don't think it'll be problematic.

Karhu Kodiaks... those should work too...

I pushed Karhu Kodiaks around - borrowed from a friend for a few runs. Was in my T4s. I had trouble with them - all technique oriented though. I was coming from skiing Epochs for 2 seasons with 3pin cables... the T4s did fine, but I kept pointing myself uphill on the Karhus, quickly engaging the skis (my Epochs are 185s, and seem to take forever to initiate a turn), and the width had me catching the wrong edge occasionally.