Cascade Powder Skis

I just picked up a pair of Hippy Stinx on tramdock.com for 190 bones, Read some reviews, seems like these may work in the pow. New skis and that snow report from Red Lodge has got me foaming at the mouth.

I realize that this is an old thread, so sorry for dragging it up, but it seems really relevant to my "issue," and I figure that a lot of people will get an email when I post this, and what I need is opinions!
I recently got a set of Salomon Lord's with Marker Baron's. I bought then for All Mountain use, but I find that they aren't very good in powder. I weigh 200lbs, and they are 128/88/116 and 185cm long. In today's off-piste near Baker, the fresh stuff was 8" or so deep, and I felt like the skis sunk too much and it was too hard to scrub the tails and get that surfy feeling. The feeling I'm going for is the feeling I get when skiing my Salomon Rocker's, but less floaty and more edgy in low-pow conditions. The Lord's want to carve too much (and do a great job), but in order to ski the pow well, I have to go fast (which necessitates good visibility, which is somewhat rare here...).
I was thinking about detuning the rear edges more, but I think the skis have a tad too much sidecut to really float or turn fast in deep stuff. I want a ski that is like a downsized version of the Rocker, but is lighter and narrower and is still fun on groomed runs and hard snow.
Is there any hope for the Lords, or should I be shopping for something else?
On a side note, since I'm new to BC stuff, are you supposed to be able to glide on skins?

I'm really thinking about a pair of Voile Asylums....116mm underfoot and weigh the same as my Havocs. Check em out. Seems pretty tourable and really fun for the soft stuff.

I bought then for All Mountain use, but I find that they aren't very good in powder.  I weigh 200lbs, and they are 128/88/116 and 185cm long.  In today's off-piste near Baker, the fresh stuff was 8" or so deep, and I felt like the skis sunk too much and it was too hard to scrub the tails and get that surfy feeling.  T

Your skis seem to have more sidecut than you would want in a powder ski, but the problem would more likely be that they would be a bit squirrely rather than difficult to turn. What I mean is that they would tend to not track straight when it is your wish that they did, in powder, that is. I can't imagine that the state of your edges would matter at all in 8 in of powder.

Also, just to add my two cents to the wide ski debate, while I am sure that surfing in the top inch of a fresh 24in snowfall is a very pleasurable experience, I rather like getting my knees and waist down into the stuff. If I wanted to stay on the top of that 24, I could just as easily ski the 2in of powder that covers a newly groomed slope for that experience. I don't like to porpoise, just like to feel the powder on my legs. So the question I leave with those that insist that wider is better, just how wide is optimal? If 119mm under foot is good, then why is 130 not better? 150? Are you trying to gain that snowboard feeling? Don't like to have to clean the snow out of your bindings? Actually, just kidding. I think that this is one of those very personal issues.

Alan

Well, 130 or 150 would be pretty unwieldy if snow wasn't soft all the time. A ski with a waist of 95-110 is still easily manageable on firm or spring snow. Those voile's seem sweet so long as they hold up. i think the best fit for me was to find a ski that's long enough and wide enough that allows me to not have to sweat my way down the hill cursing and swearing as i get tripped up by my own two feet, I also don't like having to sit back in my boots as I try to get the skis to avoid tip dive. So that brought me to where I'm at today, as well as maintaining an everyday ski that can rock the hardpack just fine(not that I like that sort of thing). I'm speaking for a ski that's good for inbounds, and isn't always the right balance for weight with out of bounds. that voile would be a great balance for out of bounds so long as you don't need to put ski crampons on it

Can't resist talking about skis.
Have a look at the new Rossingol S7's these have rocker, sidecut and fattness. Recent report from a few of my buddies say these rock for pow and the hardpack to get back back to the lift.
Only suitable for resort and sidecountry use though  IMO, too heavy for touring other than a quick sidecountry hit.

If you want a fat powder( by my definintion more than 102MM) ski that you can tour on then IMVHO you need to start thinking about a carbon  laminate ski such as DPS Walier 105mm, PM Gear Lhasa Pows or even the Dynafit Manaslu. ( bit narrow as a powder ski but a great ski). You need the lightweight to make it tourable.
The 105mm waist is Ok on corn and hardpack but obviously you do give up some carveabilty on really hard conditions.

I've been skiing on Spats( an acquired taste), DPS lotus 120's ( 120mm)and DPS Wailer(105mm) and the most versatile waist I have found that allows Ok touring and good powder performance  and spring performance is 105mm.
Although the weight of the 120's are as light as most touring skis, the skins weigh a ton as does the big boot needed to drive them and they tire you out on long tours.

Above 105mm , you are going to give up on tourability and hardpack performance.
Even with a superfat ski you do not glide on the top to the extent the previous poster was implying.I skied superfat all last week and got plenty of face shots and never saw my knees on some runs.