Let's do this! 2019-20 ski thread

Peyton00

Active Member
Parking is tight. They have lower lots and after that, its the road down and out.
I like the idea of bus shuttles from enumclaw.
 

Old406Kid

Active Member
Much the same at Mt. Spokane last Saturday. My son drove up from Lewiston on somewhat crappy roads and didn't get here until 9:15. We left for the mountain around 9:30 and traffic came to a complete standstill a couple of miles from the first parking lot. After waiting and not moving for 20 minutes I managed to get turned around and we bagged it. When we came down the Park Rangers were turning traffic around farther down the mountain.
Lesson learned so Sunday we got there an hour before the lift opened and got good parking.
 

underachiever

members only
You guys need to post your ages on your profiles so I don't feel like such a putz. :(
I took skiing back up last year after a 25+ year hiatus and found out yesterday that 15+ inches of fresh powder was no fun for this 70 year old body. I quit after 2 1/2 hours and decided that it's groomers for me from here on out.
I'm only 40 but I also resumed skiing after a 25+ year break last year and can relate to what you're saying. I still had a blast yesterday but definitely ran out of gas way earlier than I typically do. I have modern rockered skis that are 94mm underfoot. I know if I got some fatties they'd likely make it easier but I'd like to get more competent and work on technique first.
 

Young Engh

Active Member
Lesson learned so Sunday we got there an hour before the lift opened and got good parking.
Same thing happened to us on Saturday. Tried to make it up I-90. It turned into a parking lot so we luckily exited and turned around. Woke up an hour earlier and made it to Alpy before 730. We heard the news the pass closed again and felt pretty good sipping coffee in the warm lodge. The snow was heavy but really fun!
 

Wyobee

Active Member
Oh and rocker is probably the biggest innovation in skiing in the last...15 years?
Yeah, I'm still skiing on a pair of 2007, with a bit of top rocker, they are old school lammenent and heavy. What are they doing to address the weight or do you just bring them out for the powder?
 

Swimmy

I have an amazing collection of fishing shirts
WFF Supporter
Yeah, I'm still skiing on a pair of 2007, with a bit of top rocker, they are old school lammenent and heavy. What are they doing to address the weight or do you just bring them out for the powder?
My pow skis are 9 lbs and I don't really notice them being heavy. Any idea how heavy yours are?

Got some new snow and decided to meet up with some guests for a quick afternoon sesh. Showed them some classic Bridger terrain. Safe to say they were diggin' it.


 

WAS

Member
OK, I'll age myself: almost 69, 5'8" 178 lbs. Started skiing when I was 32 on Hart Javelins. Current boards are Nordica Enforcer 100s in 177 cm. Rocker front and rear and yes, float in powder, skid on groomed. BC gear Manaslu 177s with Dynafits and an '03 RMK 800 to get there--old school stuff but I don't get out that much anymore. Deep snow is getting me this year but it's a pleasant, lingering pain yet frankly, I'd rather be carving on groomed slopes with skinny shaped sticks. A lot of those runs are skied out after the first hour and my spine can't take a rough ride anymore, so fat it is and way mo' better.
 

Chris Bellows

Your Preferred WFF Poster
I'm only 40 but I also resumed skiing after a 25+ year break last year and can relate to what you're saying. I still had a blast yesterday but definitely ran out of gas way earlier than I typically do. I have modern rockered skis that are 94mm underfoot. I know if I got some fatties they'd likely make it easier but I'd like to get more competent and work on technique first.
94 underfoot is plenty fat for all but the deepest days. I only went wider maybe once or twice a season when I lived in Steamboat.

On my way back from a Japan trip on a low snow year and I only brought super fats. I made do, but my 95 underfoot skis would have been much better for the conditions we had the majority of the trip and would have been just fine for the one deep day. They would have also toured much better.
 

Old406Kid

Active Member
Do u have modern skis?
Its a nite and day experience.
These are the skis I was on yesterday in a 170, it probably didn't help that it was my first day on them.
IMG-3680.JPG
I measured hem and they're 112 at the toe, 71 at the waist, and about 100 at the tail with
"All Mountain Rocker"

They were my sons and he went to some Rossignols with a wider waist.
I won't even tell you what I normally ski on.:D
 
Last edited:

underachiever

members only
94 underfoot is plenty fat for all but the deepest days. I only went wider maybe once or twice a season when I lived in Steamboat.

On my way back from a Japan trip on a low snow year and I only brought super fats. I made do, but my 95 underfoot skis would have been much better for the conditions we had the majority of the trip and would have been just fine for the one deep day. They would have also toured much better.
I agree. So far the only day that a wider ski might have been helpful was yesterday. I’m going again tomorrow and will resist the urge to rent fatties despite the continued dumping on the mountain.
 

underachiever

members only
These are the skis I was on yesterday in a 170, it probably didn't help that it was my first day on them.
View attachment 223398
I measured hem and they're 112 at the toe, 71 at the waist, and about 100 at the tail.

They were my sons and he went to some Rossignols with a wider waist.
I won't even tell you what I normally ski on.:D
Skiing those in deep snow is definitely gonna be a workout.
 

Swimmy

I have an amazing collection of fishing shirts
WFF Supporter
These are the skis I was on yesterday in a 170, it probably didn't help that it was my first day on them.

I measured hem and they're 112 at the toe, 71 at the waist, and about 100 at the tail with
"All Mountain Rocker"
Those are fine for rippin' groomers. But if you are getting serious about skiing again and want to get off piste, do yourself a favor and invest in something a little wider. I'm sure you can find a deal on some used skis if you don't want to spend a lot of $$.

I posted this pic of my quiver several weeks ago. These range from 98-115 under foot. I view skis a lot like fly rods. You can never have too many and each serve a purpose. With that said, if I could only have one ski I'd be looking in the 95-110. That is kind of like the modern day 9' 5 or 6wt.

Would you take a 3 wt to fish for tarpon?

 

Hem

Active Member
Not true!
Clarki
There you go being a "literalist" again.
Of course it's not true. But the fundamental principles cant be argued.
I ski an Atomic Backland 132/102/123 which is barely considered fat by many. Great pow and crud ski, but not ideal for cranking over on edge.
Really liking the new Volkl Kendo 88. (129/88/111)This might be a good replacement for my really skinny Atomics from the nineties;) and better suited for general conditions.
No different than fly rods. A good caster can make any combination work but pairing gear to the conditions makes the experience more enjoyable.....which is what this part of the thread is addressing.....literally.
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top