How much does the mountain dictate ski choice ?

[fredm8]

Hi all,
I've just finishing reading through (any I'm exhausted) the topic on are my skis holding me back.
One thought that springs to mind on the discussion about types of skis, and width under foot, is this:
Does one style of ski work better on this mountain, snow types, early season / late season etc....
I ski mainly Turoa, Mt Ruapehu NZ in the southern winter, and have spent a bit of time in Aspen for the last couple of northern winters. In NZ we get very cold wet icy conditions, which often soften during the day.
As I sold my Head ic160 @ 177 a few weeks ago, I'm now looking for replacements.
And the more I read, the more I get confused.
I have learned that a narrower ski underfoot is easier to get on edge and turn.
A wider toe allows you to ride through powder, or wet soppy crud.
Shorter turn radii are good for being able to deal with objects in your way, and shorter skis are easier to carve than longer ones.
So, I'm looking for some advice as to what skis to buy at the end of a great southern winter.

[Mac]

My ski of choice is the Head XRC Chip. I ski mostly in New England, where the conditions vary constantly. We ski anything from ice to crud to spring slop, and the XRC's handle it all. I don't particularly care for midfats, I find that they are a jack of all trades but a master of none, they can handle a variety of conditions, but don't do any one thing exceptionally well. I even use my XRC's out West, I find that they are just as good or better than most midfats I've tried in deeper snow, and are far superior on the groomers. If I lived in Utah, I would probably have a pair of fat skis for the truly deep days, but for the variable conditions and hardpack that we ski around here, the XRC's are tough to beat.

[Mac]

Getting back to your original question, it would be silly when choosing a pair of skis not to consider where you plan on using them the most. Here in the East, we ski mostly narrow, icy, twisting trails with somewhat uneven fall lines that tend to get skied off very quickly. In this type of terrain a ski like the Supershape is ideal because of it's ability to make tight turns on crowded slopes, has great grip on hard ice, and because of it's slalom ski design can be skied in shorter than normal lengths, also an advantage under those conditions. If I lived and skied in the West, and I could only have one pair of skis, I might consider a ski like the Nordica Top Fuel, that has decent carving capabilities, but with a 78mm waist can still hold it's own in deeper stuff. Of course, if you can justify having a quiver, than a pair of Supershapes and Monster 88's pretty much cover all the bases. I just find that for my situation, the XRC's can pretty much deal with anything short of two feet of fresh powder, Anything more than that and it's time to consider renting a pair of fat boys.

[Harald]

One pair of skis for me 170cm Super Shape, no trouble actually really fun in powder. If I was to get a powder ski, I would get it only for places like heli skiing, or Alaska, as powder doesn?t last more then a few runs anywhere else. I would get IM82 not the 88. The 88 if you haven?t skied it, is a handful. It is a real high speed bomb. Most skiers, ski this ski under the speed limit.

[Mac]

I'll agree with Harald here. The only powder days I had last year were in the East before Xmas (skied nine days in Utah and CO. and never saw a flake!), and I skied them all armed only with 65mm waist skis and PMTS technique and had a blast, and being an eastern flatlander, I'm far from an accomplished powder skier. That's something that really impresses me about PMTS is how well it relates to powder skiing, kind of like the "proof is in the pudding." Without it I would have been stopped dead in my tracks.