I got a PM from a PugSkier asking for any follow-up I might have to my preliminary review above. Figured I'd put my few comments here. Mostly they just confirm what I sensed after one day, and align well with others' remarks.
So I probably have something like 10 or 15 days on this ski now. I have come to like it a lot - a steady friend in a wide variety of conditions. Specifically it's exceptionally obedient and reliable in technically challenging off-piste terrain; my margin for error is bigger. It's also stellar as a bump ski, as several have noted - probably the easiest mogul ski I've ever been on. On groomers that are not ROCK hard, it's a passable carving ski once you adapt to it. You have to be patient on the initiation and get off it before the tail rocker kicks in, but it will hold you if you tip and trust and ski the middle. That said, it's very much on the soft-snow side of the all-mountain spectrum. I skied it in spring conditions at Sugarloaf yesterday. (See photo.) On the all-natural-snow trails like Winter's Way and Bubblecuffer it was a dream. But honestly on that heinous but ubiquitous base of manmade boilerplate that we have so much of here in the east, they were slightly weak until it got really soft. (In all fairness, I had not gone all-out with the sharpening the night before either.) I've rarely if ever been on a ski that can grip that stuff and also be genuinely easy-going in bumps, so my gripe is a bit unfair ... it's a choice I made to lean toward the off-piste side of things.
On the topic of length ... I'm still torn just like I was after my first day on the ski. It does ski much shorter than the previous (2nd generation) FX, not to mention the MX. When I'm in big bumps on steep terrain, or skiing very slowly in tight trees, the 165 is perfect for me @ 5'7" 135lbs. When things open up a bit and it's - you know - piles of sugar with marble floor in between, or any kind of really soft / cruddy snow, I wish I were on the 173, as stability at speed is not a strong suit of the 165. Pretty sure that if I had the longer one I'd feel exactly the same way in reverse, so I'm sticking with the known quantity for now, unless someone wants to make me an irresistible offer.
Who's it for: In the east, it's the narrow side of a two-ski quiver for natural terrain fans who ski places like Jay, Mad River, and (sniff) Saddleback. In the west it's for bumps and skied-out trees.
Who's it not for: High-speed bruisers, hip draggers.
Insider tip: Put a 3-degree edge on it right off the bat; it makes a huge difference.
So I probably have something like 10 or 15 days on this ski now. I have come to like it a lot - a steady friend in a wide variety of conditions. Specifically it's exceptionally obedient and reliable in technically challenging off-piste terrain; my margin for error is bigger. It's also stellar as a bump ski, as several have noted - probably the easiest mogul ski I've ever been on. On groomers that are not ROCK hard, it's a passable carving ski once you adapt to it. You have to be patient on the initiation and get off it before the tail rocker kicks in, but it will hold you if you tip and trust and ski the middle. That said, it's very much on the soft-snow side of the all-mountain spectrum. I skied it in spring conditions at Sugarloaf yesterday. (See photo.) On the all-natural-snow trails like Winter's Way and Bubblecuffer it was a dream. But honestly on that heinous but ubiquitous base of manmade boilerplate that we have so much of here in the east, they were slightly weak until it got really soft. (In all fairness, I had not gone all-out with the sharpening the night before either.) I've rarely if ever been on a ski that can grip that stuff and also be genuinely easy-going in bumps, so my gripe is a bit unfair ... it's a choice I made to lean toward the off-piste side of things.
On the topic of length ... I'm still torn just like I was after my first day on the ski. It does ski much shorter than the previous (2nd generation) FX, not to mention the MX. When I'm in big bumps on steep terrain, or skiing very slowly in tight trees, the 165 is perfect for me @ 5'7" 135lbs. When things open up a bit and it's - you know - piles of sugar with marble floor in between, or any kind of really soft / cruddy snow, I wish I were on the 173, as stability at speed is not a strong suit of the 165. Pretty sure that if I had the longer one I'd feel exactly the same way in reverse, so I'm sticking with the known quantity for now, unless someone wants to make me an irresistible offer.
Who's it for: In the east, it's the narrow side of a two-ski quiver for natural terrain fans who ski places like Jay, Mad River, and (sniff) Saddleback. In the west it's for bumps and skied-out trees.
Who's it not for: High-speed bruisers, hip draggers.
Insider tip: Put a 3-degree edge on it right off the bat; it makes a huge difference.
Last edited:
