Gear Review

5 5

Great for the East... and not bad out west either!

These skis have performed amazingly for me- whether it's on the icy headwall of tucks or surfing some fine west coast powder. Granted- they won't float your boat for a pow day in the Wasatch but for the rest of us I'm about as happy as I could be with this ski. Most of the time here on the east coast (white mountains to be specific) we're skiing some small clearing or more often a summer hiking trail. These skis are perfect here- they slice, dice, and provide snappy feedback when you need to avoid that tree trunk you didn't see until almost too late. Yet when it comes to the bigger stuff- a la Mt. Washington and the surrounding ravines- they are more than able to put a smile on your face. I skied a pair of kilowatts before this and they just felt too sloppy. This ski has snap and strength that belies it's smaller size (I'm skiing the 168s) and width. You can go down an icy left gully which would have me quaking in my dynafits on a softer ski yet still enjoy the powder when it falls. Not to mention- I've done plenty of fun resort laps on these skis and they've served just fine with their tight sidecut allowing me to carve turns my ex-skiracer self would not be ashamed of.

Responded on

For me, these skis have done well for lift service, but in the back country they are too narrow and sink in the powder. They just don't float. Also, my tele binding ripped right out of them at the end of this season.

Responded on

Thanks for the review Ibene. Was wondering what your height and weight is since I am looking at a pair of these as well. Thanks

Responded on

5'11'' 165. Got the 176s this year and find them to be stiffer and better for bigger lines but the 168s are still the best for slicing and dicing narrow lines- they're now my rock skis and perfect for tight early season skiing.