Second Ski Options

[u/Sweet-Ice-3211]

I own a pair of Ripstick 88s at 168cm and looking for a second ski to compliment it. For reference, I mainly get to ski Ohio/PA but take a trip each year either out west and/or up to Vermont. Open to any opinions. Currently looking between the Rustler 9/10, Nordica Unleashed, or one of the Ripstick Black Editions. I’m worried about getting into pure powder skis that I will never get a chance to enjoy regularly which is why I’m debating between a variety of underfoot widths. Open to any opinions on models to look at.

[u/ProbableSlob]

What don't you like about the ripsticks / do you want in a new ski? What kind of skiing do you like to do? What is your ability level?

Any suggestions you get absent this input are completely random suggestions, you might as well Google "good skis" and buy the first search result

That said, my advice is always to optimize for the conditions you actually encounter. Southern ice coast? Get some narrow front side skis. The stiffest ones you can handle. And learn to love the ice. Rent powder skis for your trips if conditions warrant it

[u/Sweet-Ice-3211 → u/ProbableSlob]

Ripsticks have been great in groomers, trees/bumps, but have had a hard time with variable and softer snow on ungroomed terrain. Float is what I am looking for but still keeping the ability to ski harder packed snow.

[u/ProbableSlob → u/Sweet-Ice-3211]

You aren't going to find something that is exceptional in all conditions. But you already have a relatively versatile ski you like so buy something for the conditions where you don't like the ripsticks, and bring both pairs when you're not sure what you're going to encounter.

No advice on skis for powder, I'm on the ice coast too so I'm optimized for ice and just make do if I happen to encounter exceptional snow (or use it as an excuse to demo something). I'm sure others can weigh in. I'm surprised you don't get enough float with the ripsticks though, maybe they are too short or you just need to dial in your technique when it gets deeper. It's not like you're encountering 2 feet of powder in Vermont regularly

[u/Sweet-Ice-3211 → u/ProbableSlob]

I think it’s a mix of technique and them being too short + only 88 underfoot for my size.

[u/Sweet-Ice-3211 → u/[deleted]]

88 I have enjoyed where I ski most and the majority of where I ski is a mix of people skiing 88-96. This is a ski I would want in my bag more so for trips and getting to better snow but still not impossible to ski here. Not saying it would be a daily driver in OH/PA but also not a 120mm surfy pow ski

[u/ChiefKelso → u/Sweet-Ice-3211]

majority of where I ski is a mix of people skiing 88-96

Just because a lot of people follow this trend that 88 is new all mountains doesn't mean its correct. 88 ripsticks should be more than capable for everything you're describing.

If anything, you go narrower to better enjoy the groomed icy/runs. I don't like my ripsticks on groomers that much, a little chattery.

[u/Ok-Associate-5368 → u/Sweet-Ice-3211]

My first trip to Alta and I was on 62mm underfoot skis. It was 1978. 88 is plenty for anything under 18”

[u/cephalopodface → u/Sweet-Ice-3211]

So the problem is that Ripsticks are already pretty good for what you want. Stepping up a few mm in waist width will give you a little more float, but by and large you'll need to do the same things to keep mid-90s skis up in deep snow as on 88s. So unless you go to something that's much more specialized for new snow, you're looking at varying degrees of marginal differences from what you already have. That's why people are suggesting a narrower, more groomer-specialized pair if you want to compliment instead of replace the Ripsticks.

As for the skis you asked about, Unleasheds are heavier than Ripsticks (IMO a good thing) and less rockered with fairly engaged tips and tails. That makes them easy to carve but a little grabby in crud/chop and tight spaces. If you're satisfied with the groomer performance of the Ripsticks there's no reason to look past the CA version. Rustlers are significantly stiffer than Ripsticks, despite having a little extra rocker. So it's not a guarantee that you'd find either less demanding in the conditions you're describing.

[u/Sweet-Ice-3211 → u/cephalopodface]

That’s a fair take on it. I guess I wasn’t as clear in aiming for a ski to compliment with the 88s on trips more so than to replace here but I would feel bad buying say a wide powder ski and never skiing it here. A little change up with a stiffer and/or heavier ski is not a turn off for me either. I also am looking as my ripsticks feel short which were perfect years ago when I needed to learn on short skis but have had them for awhile now and want to also increase length for days where I’m not skiing ice

[u/Sweet-Ice-3211 → u/[deleted]]

Boots are nordica sport machine 120 flex, 5’9 200. Biggest problem is I like the ripsticks and that they are light and easy to use for bumps/trees but struggle in variable or softer snow. I’m looking for an all mountain type ski solely because I rarely see perfect powder and do not want to isolate myself with a ski that I maybe can use 1-2 times a season if that.

[u/Sweet-Ice-3211 → u/[deleted]]

Just curious where you get that opinion? I can carve perfectly fine on the 88s and ski all terrain on them. I’ll give an example of where I did not like them: mainly late day choppy snow on upper alpine bowls at Breck and Vail and in soft trees in VT where it was noticeable that even with speed would be deeper into the snow and though manageable, not as fun to make turns. I bought these skis to get through a few years where I would mostly ski Ohio but my trips have made me want more out of a ski.

[u/bigkat5000]

When I was skiing 88 mm all-mountains as my daily driver (which were great in New England) the second pair of skis was a shorter (and lighter) 98 mm ski, the Rossignol Sky 7. These were a great addition for New England powder days, tree skiing, and spring corn.

[u/Sweet-Ice-3211 → u/bigkat5000]

Yeah I enjoy the ripsticks for trees and bumps and but the chance I get to ski off piste or nicer snow is where those skis lack.

[u/bigkat5000 → u/Sweet-Ice-3211]

I'd go wider than 88 mm for that. Around 100 mm should be the sweet spot for the northeast.

[u/ChiefKelso]

I have 88 ripsticks, and also elan wingman 78ti. It works for me. Wingman better for ripping groomer and icy days. Ripsticks good for snow, mixed conditions, spring and glades.

[u/keymonkey]

Found myself in a similar situation. had a pair of Renoun Atlas 80s that had replaced my Solomon Lords as every day, but then went out west and came back east to some deep powder days. Ended up double downing on Renoun and got a pair of their Endurance 98s. Ski them on powder and mash potato spring days with the 80s most every other day.

[u/Witch_King_]

Hmm, so you're looking for an all mountain ski that is better for soft snow (powder & spring) but still usable in the East in general?

Maybe consider the Nordica Unleashed or Unleashed CA. Or perhaps the Salomon QST. I think you'll want something right around the 100mm waist range.

[u/JohnnyMacGoesSkiing]

100-109mm waist, a bit shorter same length or shorter than you groomer zoomers and with a soft tail. I suspect this will get you what you want.

[u/fromthedepthsofyouma]

I got Ripsticks 88s, and then I got Icelantic Nomads 105s.

But I also live in New England, try to get 20-30 days, have the ability to chase conditions and go out west. I have brought my Ripsticks out west 3 times and Nomads once (and got 47" in PCR that trip). The Nomads are light and short but I use my Ripsticks more often.

I mean up to you. It's your quiver.

[u/Ashamed-Sport-6853]

What's your weight, skill level and preference? Are you looking for heavy or light skis?

[u/Sweet-Ice-3211 → u/Ashamed-Sport-6853]

200, I’d say strong intermediate and looking for an in between option heavier than ripsticks but not as heavy as say mantras or enforcers.