Recent content by pkerr

I can tell from your avatar! Have a GREAT winter!

Ahhhh.... much more clearer now as to why it's not JUST width. Thanks!

I've got a 3 yr old pair of Recons (78 under foot). But I'm looking to go wider while still retaining the ability to hold an edge. Most of my skiing is on the hard pack here at out little hill. I get out west twice a year for about 6 days each trip. The Recons worked pretty well last year...

Good point...

Thanks... I don't get enough powder days (just luck into them when I do get them) to justify a specialty powder ski so I have to go with finding a good "all mountain" ski. Heck a few years ago 85 would be considered a fat boy. Now it's the new mid fat. Thanks for the info.

Well yeah O.K. if you never ski in bounds and are a hip deep, back country, don't get out of bed unless there is at least a foot of fresh kind of skier, it would be. But for the skiing I do and the amounts of powder I run into, what makes one 85'er better or worse than another?

All the reviews I have read rate this ski pretty high except in the "float" category. It's 85 under foot yet other skis of the same width or even narrower get rated higher. Can someone explain this to me? Thanks