We're going to La Plagne in March and I'm hoping to do some of the Oxygene Steep and Deep days. Because of family factors (small kids etc),we'd like to use Rental Republic who will bring the skis to our chalet. I've asked them about suitable skis and they have Atomic Affinity Storm or Atomic Rivals.
Now as far as I can see both of those are 83mm underfoot. I think I was expecting something wider, but to be fair I really know very little about all-mountain skis. Do people think these'll be suitable (aka make my life easy )
If not, any suggestions as to where else to rent in Plagne 1800 and what to ask for? I'm a small, light lady, the wrong side of 40 but determined to push myself a bit before I get the wrong side of 45.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
83mm isn't that wide. But if you are small and light they could actually be a surprisingly good choice. My 15 year old daughter followed me all over the mountain skiing a 85mm 160 twintip (Salomon Knight) with no rocker. I was a bit surprised how well she kept up on that ski and the only time she complained was in a few shallow stretches with deep powder. She didn't develop enough speed to avoid bogging down. I had 115mm 188 rockered skis (Rossignol S7) so much to her annoyance I had enough float to get through. She has 8 years of racing, skis about 50 days a year and weighs about 65kg. And now keeps bugging me for a pair of pure powder skis....but for all-mountain work with a mix of powder, wind-blown crust, crud, trees and transitions on piste etc etc I think she would get out her trusty 85mm twintips.[/code]
@swoafs, I'm a small, light(ish) lady too, and my 85mm Dynastars are just fine off-piste, in crud, in slush, and even in powder (not that I've experienced all that much powder.) They are rockered, though. I'm no expert, but would guess that @hyperkub is right to say that width is OK for an all-mountain ski.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
They will definitely be suitable, but assuming you're used to normal hire skis - which I assume these days are mostly 73-78ish mm - your possibly won't notice all that much difference. If you're hiring something purely to go offpiste with, I'd consider looking more 90-100mm to maximise fun and make your life easier. And also 'cos why not?
83 is more than adequate IF you claim you can ski (powder). This whole "off piste" uber wide ski insanity is just that.........., insane.
Check out these bygone codgers on 66mm (that's sixty-six millimeters for the hearing impaired) underfoot old timer skis struggling with off piste....................
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
If you are intermediate, it definitely helps to be up around 98mm; it did for me.
After all it is free
After all it is free
You can ski 'in' powder on any width of ski, but what you really want to do is ski 'on' powder. By which I mean floating in the powder layer, you don't touch the snow base under the powder.
Yes, back in the eighties I know people skied powder on 210cm slalom skis, with sub 70mm waists, but the people I know, now ski on 110-120mm waist rockered powder skis, because they are so much easier and much more fun.
However, a steep and deep course is likely to include more than pure powder, so a freeride ski with around 100mm would be good. It also depends on how easily you 'learn' to use new/different skis.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
But are the people you know on 110-120mm skis small light ladies? As I pointed out, my daghter had little trouble on 85mm keeping up with me on 115mm. She doesn't weigh as much as me and skis with more grace and less power. So she doesn't need such a big ski. We are looking at around a 95mm ski for her, but that will be a deep powder ski for her. For all-mountain 85mm seemed pretty sweet. In the trees she was a lot more nimble then me although I won out in the deep stuff. She also had it easier on piste transitions. 115mm is more work on hard snow. I cheat by just ripping big GS turns but you have to have the confidence to ski pretty fast if you take that approach.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
83mm is fine for a small light lady. In deep powder you may want a wider ski but 83mm should be fine as an "all mountain" ski.
Also..........if you do end up having a deep powder day why not ask the rental shop to swap them for a wider ski? many rental shops will let you do that.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@alex99, +1 for what Alex said.
However ....
My skis are 82mm and although I am not a lady, it's not like I am the 6'5" and weigh 20 stone, they do a good job.
You don't (probably wont) want to go in a deep pow as it makes it a lot harder but so long as your aware of your ability you should be fine on most areas on or around the pistes and lifts.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
@alex99, reading between the lines these are the widest skis this particular rental company have. I could certainly use another; it's just the convenience aspect. I think that the 100mm suggested by @Powderaddict would be easier in the deep; it's just the versatility and the extra effort involved in getting them that I'm weighing up.
@hyperkub, I'm about 59kg, so a bit lighter than your daughter although nothing like her ski mileage. I definitely wouldn't say that power was my MO (let's be kind and say that I'm more about Grace and technique ). And it's also a good point about transitioning to piste because I need to spend my afternoons skiing with my wee ones.
@pedantica, that's really good to hear, thank you. I'm guessing that on a 3 hour course we are unlikely to be venturing into the depths of back country so crud etc will almost certainly feature.
As for off piste on 210 skinnies, isn't that just awesome. I love watching the "legs together and bounce style".
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
As a self confessed on-piste hooligan I probably shouldn't comment on off piste but here goes.
Skis don't really "float" in powder, they plane like a waterski, it is the shape of the ski moving not just the size, so the size you need depends on weight, ski shape and surface area and speed. You get surface area from width and length and the rocker shapes are designed to make the ski plane easily. A big lump like me is nearly twice your weight and "all mountain" for me would mean 85-90mm so I don't compromise the on piste crud etc too much. The extreme powder boards are made;
1. For deep backcountry powder (read Canada, Japan) although that would be a touring set up for real backcountry
2. So fashion victims can cruise around blue pistes looking like backcountry heros complete with airbags, harnesses etc
Your width underfoot can be less than I would need. 85mm sounds plenty for all mountain, what will make as much difference is having a reasonable length and an all mountain shape and flex. Some other SHs will know if the skis mentioned are suitable, soft flex would be good, especially for a lighter skier.
I also first ventured off piste on 210s in about 1980. I didn't look like the vid though! Just accelerate straight to the scene of the accident then spend hours finding said skis and more happy hours trying to get them back on again in deep snow.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@swoafs,
Quote:
I'm a small, light lady
I think that is important. I suspect you'll find that they give you plenty of float. You could easily be 20% lighter than an average bloke so skiing something 20% narrower than we might recommend him to be on for an off-piste biased all mountain ski is perfectly reasonable.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
equinoxranch wrote:
83 is more than adequate IF you claim you can ski (powder). This whole "off piste" uber wide ski insanity is just that.........., insane.
Check out these bygone codgers on 66mm (that's sixty-six millimeters for the hearing impaired) underfoot old timer skis struggling with off piste....................
Bygone is the right word. Yeah they have skill, but as you can quite clearly see the skis limit them to skiing like my grandma. Bouncy bouncy slowly slowly.
It's all about the surf!
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
PowderAdict wrote:
You can ski 'in' powder on any width of ski, but what you really want to do is ski 'on' powder. By which I mean floating in the powder layer, you don't touch the snow base under the powder.
Yes, back in the eighties I know people skied powder on 210cm slalom skis, with sub 70mm waists, but the people I know, now ski on 110-120mm waist rockered powder skis, because they are so much easier and much more fun.
However, a steep and deep course is likely to include more than pure powder, so a freeride ski with around 100mm would be good. It also depends on how easily you 'learn' to use new/different skis.
This.
Also it's laughable how so many people (especially people who confess they nothing about it ) still think fat skis only belong in Japan etc. One a 20cm day in the Alps 120+ is more fun as on anything else you'll still be skiing the base and getting no sensation of actually skiing pow.
And yes, they're fine on piste and hard snow.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@swoafs, Mrs Ski is a 9stone and a bit, she has K2 Gotbacks 100mm underfoot, 170 or therabouts long. They work fine for everything, and especially the soft.
@clarky999,
Quote:
Also it's laughable how so many people (especially people who confess they nothing about it Laughing ) still think fat skis only belong in Japan etc. One a 20cm day in the Alps 120+ is more fun as on anything else you'll still be skiing the base and getting no sensation of actually skiing pow.
Last week my Tele-mounted Mantras (90mm ) were floating fine in less than 20cm. Just sayin'
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@ski, then either you weigh less than a McDonalds burger, had a super smooth base, very dense snow or ski fast enough that you should be in films.
I still found a few tree stumps this morning with 135mm and 20-30cms.
I think there can also be a difference in perspective. For me, the actual sensation of skiing isn't the primary goal for me if I am off piste. For skiing sensation give me a hard piste and a GS course, because nothing can compare with throwing a stiff world cup GS ski into a tight turn that you will only manage if you dig deep and give it all you have.
So to be honest I don't care much if I am floating on 20cm powder or skiing on the underlying base. It's cool for me either way, what matters to me is exploring the mountain.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Quote:
One a 20cm day in the Alps 120+ is more fun as on anything else you'll still be skiing the base and getting no sensation of actually skiing pow.
that's a bit harsh - you got the sensation of skiing powder on old skinny skis in 20cm, just a different one. If you are skiing old school short swing powder turns you get to feel the floaty powder thing for part of every turn even if you also feel the firm base at some point too. If powder is only fun if you never feel the base then sure - your comment stands. I don't feel that way though. And if I'm at the top of a virgin powder field that I know is going to be tracked out pretty soon, I don't necessarily want to get down it as quickly as possible - depends whether I can beat the hoards for a second run. I may well decide to leave my big GS swoops for later when the hill is cut up.
All I know is that, with a choice each day from 70-something to 135mm from my faaaar too big quiver, the 118mm+ skis get 80+% of the action every season, whilst the 100mm and below gather dust.
I'll leave it there rather than de-rail the thread anymore - sorry OP!!
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Quote:
the 118mm+ skis get 80+% of the action every season, whilst the 100mm and below gather dust.
Given I haven't yet skied anything wider than 100mm I am in no position to tell you that I disagree
If this monster dump happens at the end of this week then I might get around to trying some early in Feb. My problem is inertia, I think it would be fun to try something new but when my own skis are paid for and don't require me to cut in to bar time to hire a pair, I get lazy.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Quote:
All I know is that, with a choice each day from 70-something to 135mm from my faaaar too big quiver, the 118mm+ skis get 80+% of the action every season, whilst the 100mm and below gather dust.
Exactly.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
@clarky999 no need to apologise; all really informative stuff and grateful to everyone for contributing! Definitely making me think I should have at least one day on some fat skis just to see how I find them.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Quote:
Definitely making me think I should have at least one day on some fat skis just to see how I find them.
I tried 100mm+ for the first time this year and loved the Rossi Soul 7. I know that is nearly cliche now, but they are fun and still handle really well if there isn't actually as much powder as you hoped for when hiring them the day before.... which is usually the case in my experience.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
This is probably not terribly useful, but width is not the only thing that determines how well a ski will perform off piste. My 89mm Whitedot Ones are pretty good off [iste, my 95mm DPS Cassiars are pretty poor. But the skis are designed for different things...the shape and design of the Ones allow them to skim along quite nicely, the shape of the Cassiars makes them hooky and unstable in powder.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
What are the dps skis designed for?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@jedster, granola eating rich people.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
jedster wrote:
What are the dps skis designed for?
High speed carving on piste. Broadened from the 85mm version to give them a bit more ability in powder. Doesn't work - I posted a review thread in this forum.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@meh,
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
meh wrote:
@jedster, granola eating rich people.
And that too. Although I've always preferred lightly sauteed poor person for my breakfast. Granola's a bit, you know, common.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
As a tool for learning (I assume from your question that this will be your first off piste experience?) I think they'd be fine.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
All depends what the snow is like. My knees were not thanking me for skiing wide skis off piste on hard snow at the weekend... I know for a fact that my old narrower skis would have been more forgiving on the ageing legs
Someone should make a ski length to skier mass table for identifying the ideal piste/off-piste mix and therefore ski width calculator. Shouldn't be too hard with enough data points and people's experiences...
FWIW - I'm 160 lbs ish, 5ft 10 and I bought 95mm because I was mostly piste-centric (now less so, hmmf), and I heard the magic number for off-piste was "no less than 98" so 95 will hopefully suit me fine. The ski design I bought lends itself well to floating even if there's only a few inches [source: Blister Gear Review said exactly that; "never touched bottom" on a non-epic day].
From the sounds of it, you want to try something 90 minimum, in order to really see what all the fuss is about, off-piste. Maybe even 100+ to be on the safe side. They may flap around a little on piste at speed, but you should have a whale of a time if you get any deep stuff.
Please let us know how you get on.
PS - I found the online "pre-book" rentals to be a con: they get your money then give you normal skis; the fat skis are too expensive for the local renters to want to give them to you [because the online brokers sell them so cheaply]. Either a) find a mid-range price outlet [do NOT go to the cheapest you can find, regardless of what models they say they will offer you] or b) just rent when you get there. A quick call to your hotel or your accomm should be able to hook you up with someone they trust to look after you (I guess). Else a search on the forum here may lead you to some clues (searching on resort name and "rental" or "hiring" etc)...
Modern fat skis don't tend to flap around at speed anymore unless they are really, really soft and heavily rockered. You get a lot of variety in skis between 90-115 underfoot these days. That said 83mm will work fine but I'd suggest the OP rent much fatter skis if the snow is good just to see what the difference is.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I have been taking my new 120 rockered skis on piste and still been having high speed turning fun, even bumps have been good. But in both deep powder and cut up forest lines they have been amazing.
I also took my 67mm slalom skis off piste and had fun on those, but they were much harder work. I'd say 90 to 104mm skis would make getting into off piste easier and be less tiring, I skied for years on 98mm all mountain skis as my only ski, also used them for touring.
After all it is free
After all it is free
This is not meant as a troll, nor in any way personal.
When I was in Canada a couple of years back it seemed to me there were a lot of people on fat rockered skis on piste, presumably linking up the off piste sections available. They were mainly travelling at speed looking very comfortable and casual, but the vast majority of them were essentially sideslipping at speed. Probably one in fifty had their edges fully engaged and were carving. Has anyone else noticed this?
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
@rogg, yeah lots of people will lazily ski the boring bits, saving their legs for the interesting skiing and there are also lots of intermediate skiers who would probably still be side-slipping on thinner skis as well. The aim of skiing AFAIK is not necessarily to carve everywhere.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
clarky999 wrote:
Also it's laughable how so many people (especially people who confess they nothing about it ) still think fat skis only belong in Japan etc. One a 20cm day in the Alps 120+ is more fun as on anything else you'll still be skiing the base and getting no sensation of actually skiing pow.
And yes, they're fine on piste and hard snow.
The few times I have been skiing genuinely light powder I've had loads of fun regardless of what I've been skiing which has included 70 something underfoot carvers. The times I struggle off piste it is usually in deep, heavy and quite often skied out slightly older snow. I find skinnier skis just get caught up and are a lot more work, it's harder to vary your turn shape and make sudden changes in direction and you feel all the variations in the snow. People always talk about float as well but the only time I can remeber me sinking, and it being a problem was when there was a couple of feet of new but heavy snow and very, very bad vis. I wasn't confident skiing fast enough to not sink as I couldn't really see where I was going and I was skiing pretty low angle slopes due to the ton of new snow so I kept sinking and literally coming to a stop. Sinking in very light powder or on steeper slopes isn't as much of a problem.
The times you really need fatter (and rockered which is much more important IMO) is when the snow is a bit crap, not in superlight Japow. If you ski a lot the chances of you skiing pretty crap snow are fairly high so fatter rockered skis are eminently sensible for anyone that wants to have fun in all sorts of snow, bar ice.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
)
). And it's also a good point about transitioning to piste because I need to spend my afternoons skiing with my wee ones.
) were floating fine in less than 20cm. Just sayin' 
