I think there is a place for a mid-60 ski, a mid-80 ski, and then a fat ski.lilcliffy wrote:I am too- what is the difference in performance between the 68/76/86? Obviously the 86 would offer more float than the 68- but if you want a powder ski, why wouldn't you go even wider? PLUS- I am sure all of these skis have different camber/rocker profiles- intended for different snow conditions.I am also curious about the two Tind skis.
The 68 is intended to be a hybrid between a BC-XC ski and an "AT" ski- what about the 76/86?
I would love to drive a FT62 around some of our rolling xcD terrain here, like Mount Cardigan, the Jackson Valley Trail, etc. Good free heel lower-angle yet still exciting skiing. It would probably be a perfect fit for this kind of terrain and pair wonderfully with the Alaskas for long days of touring up and down.
Then, when the snow gets deeper or I want to go faster on steeper terrain up it up to the mid-85 ski which is now owned by my Objectives. These are great skis for harder charging in variable snow, and new snow up to 6-8" in plastic boots. After that, we're off to the races with some sort of fat ski. I need a fat ski, I know this now. Something mid-to-high 90's in the waist.
The 76 waisted ski would be a weird one for me.
I for one, have had designs on their fatter plastic-boot friendly skis like the EGGI 98 or TIND 85 (basically what my Objectives are now).