Wider dh focused ski reco, stinx, piste etc.

[mca80]

Since we have no snow I have been shopping and researching, hoping if I buy enough skis maybe it will cause it to snow.

Looking for something for deeper snow primarily downhill lift served or down and skin up, very little traversing needed. Have never used an active binding. Will mostly be using Alico Ski March so whatever this stiff leather boot can power, possibly plastic Crispi XP if I get a liner that fits. I am 5'4" (162cm), weight varies a lot, fat right now at 160lbs but I was 135 two winters ago. Realistically I should be 145 with adquate exercise in the fall. No need for super steep or technical terrain, just want to get the surfy feeling if and when we have deep enough snow for it and my Nansens (56mm waist) aren't enough. Have read a lot of good things about old K2s and read the female versions are softer flex which may be beneficial for me at times, so thats what I was looking for, though I am not sure if these are wide enough for deep powder. Any thoughts?

1. K2 Shes Piste Telemark Skis 160 Voile 75MM Hard Wire Bindings Women Backcountry | eBay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/285595643115

2. K2 World Piste Telemark Skis 174 cm. Targa G3 Bindings NICE! | eBay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/166475281698

3. K2 Telemark She's Piste 174cm Women's Tele Skis w/ G3 Targa Bindings, Leashes | eBay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/394562338259

4. K2 Telemark She's PISTE Tele 9 women's skis 174cm Rottefella CHILI tm bindings ~ | eBay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/144968215109

5. 174 cm K2 Shes Piste Telemark Skis - Minty! | eBay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/115565603186

6. K2 Heli Stinx Women's Telemark Tele Skis 170 CM No Bindings | eBay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/285234157055

7. K2 Super Stinx 166cm Telemark Skis-no Bindings Included | eBay
https://www.ebay.com/itm/174983964972

[Montana St Alum]

World Piste with G3's was my first set up. Pretty nice. I believe the WP is 78mm underfoot, so not a lot of float. I liked the Work Stinx at 88 underfoot a bit more for Utah. It has more float. I think I'd look at 88 and up just because of that.

I got rid of the WP's long ago, but still have the WS as a decoration on the wall with some other skis.

If you can find some Rossignol S3's on sale (second and third from the left), I think that's a much better ski but they're 98 underfoot, so I'm not sure how they would pair up with whatever boots you have in mind.

[spopepro]

@mca80 what’s your powder ratios like? I think that matters a lot for ski recommendations. Here in cali what we call powder is like 1:8-1:12 precip to snow ratio. Occasionally we will get a colder storm, but even our pow is kinda heavy, so 80mm underfoot works fine. If you get softer stuff you might want something wider than those k2s. Without personal experience, I think you could ski a 90-100 underfoot ski with leathers provided you really were only using them in soft powder conditions.

Today on 84mm:

[fisheater]

I have a pair of Ski March boots, and I can ski my Tindan which is 86 mm underfoot with them in ideal powder. In anything else I prefer plastic.
I think mid-70’s underfoot is nice for the Ski March for most resort skiing.

[EvanTrem]

Those World Piste or She's Piste are pretty good.

Driving any of those is going to be so-so with Ski March boots. I would say snap up some of these older tele skis with Chilis/Targas/Hardwires and then see how it goes with the leather boots.

You can always poke around and see what you can find for a plastic boot. I think it will really change the way these ski. Some old T2s, T3s, T4s, Excursions, or just whatever is cheap will be really so much better than leather.

[mca80]

@mca80 what’s your powder ratios like?

Oh man, there's so much variability in the snow here due to being on the lee side of Lake Superior. Depends on air temp, lake temp, how much lake ice, whether the storm is lake effect or from a different direction (from Wisconsin/Minnesota south of the big lake) etc. Last year with the warm temps and very little lake ice we had some really heavy snow. However most storms are average to light density in this area, usually 10 to 20" SLR, with upwards of 40 to 50 at times albeit infrequently for it to be that dry.

Yeah I figured if sticking to real powder I could perhaps use leathers for up to 90 or 100, but don't know. Might look for several cheaper used skis and experiment. Can always re-sell if I find I don't need or want.

[mca80]

This may be a stupid question, but how does the duckbill stay in these bindings without pins and clamp? Also, will leather boots work with the Cobra? And what are those bindings like? Would a rossi powderbird be a good ski for my purposes? And is 160 too short for me?

[Montana St Alum]

This may be a stupid question, but how does the duckbill stay in these bindings without pins and clamp? Also, will leather boots work with the Cobra? And what are those bindings like? Would a rossi powderbird be a good ski for my purposes? And is 160 too short for me?

I don't know of any way to keep the duckbill in the binding without either pins or a heel piece that keeps forward pressure on the boot to hold it in place.

I think 160 is a bit short for the application you have in mind. It looks like the Powderbird is 83 underfoot. There are some reviews online. If you want something that has floatation you do need a certain amount of ski surface area to make that happen. If you are reducing width for ease of turning in leathers, I'd guess you would need to increase length to compensate, but you'll have to judge that yourself based on the conditions you are interested in skiing.

You don't need floatation in 4" over a groomer, but once you get over about 6" it probably becomes more important.

[mca80]

Yeah so you can't ski them without the heel piece. How well can you traverse in such a binding? And will such a binding (cobra r8, g3 targa, etc.) be too much for an old stiff leather boot or will it work ok?

I understand the need for surface area, just don't know how much, especially if I get down to a reasonably healthy weight of sub-140, which would mean less ski is needed to support that weight. Last year I had two opportunities to ski roughly 6" new powder atop groomers, in NNNBC and Alpina 1600. The 190 Nansen (76-56-66) was do-able but not nearly as fun as the 180 Kongsvold (edgeless, 96-66-85), which floated better and had a more playful surfy feel in those conditions, and I didn't miss the edge most of the time because I wasn't going down to the more consolidated stuff underneath. I had no issue running blues with either setup, which is as steep as I really want go at this point anyway. So the point being, it's my understanding that in truly deep soft snow the snow acts as resistance thereby helping initiate turns and allowing for a much wimpier boot. The question is, how much? 120-83-110 is significant width over the Kongsvold but I would think with stiffer leather plus cable/hardwire it shouldn't be hard at all to drive such a ski in these conditions. Maybe even look for something 90s underfoot and stay with the short length? Keep in mind I am only 162cm tall. Or a really long 180s-ish Shes Piste or other 70/70s underfoot? Thanks for your input. At this point it's questionable we have a ski season allowing anything but rock skis.

[Montana St Alum]

So far, in this thread, I'd go with what everyone other than me says. They have advice specific to what you're asking.
But this is objective specific. I'll ski 185's that are 116 underfoot for big powder days and a 164 Rossi at 80-ish underfoot to learn to carve. I'm 5'8" (173cm) and 160 pounds (72Kg). I'm content to ski the tiny little Rossi's in 4-5" on a groomer and it's actually really fun. As it gets deeper, heavier, more windblown, I'll go up in size.

This ski/binding/boot choice should target the specifics of what you want to accomplish, rather than looking for a "quiver of one".

Pick a narrow set of conditions and objectives and that will narrow down your choices.