 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I very rarely see anyone doing pure carved turns, which in a way is a good thing given the speeds you tend to achieve!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@jbob, I think that tangowaggon might have the tiniest obsession about carving! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| jbob wrote: |
| I very rarely see anyone doing pure carved turns, which in a way is a good thing given the speeds you tend to achieve! |
Exactly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
I think the definition of a carved turn is very precise. The turn is creating by tipping the ski on to its edge, with no intentional or unintentional skidding / twisting of the ski during the turn, and no intentional or unintentional pivoting of the ski at the start of the turn to point it in a new direction. Carved turns need to be linked cleanly, rolling off one set of edges, and tipping the ski on to the new set of edges without any twisting. The result is that the ski travels purely along its length, leaving sharp tracks in the snow.
|
Good definition Rob but not sure about this
| Quote: |
| Carved turns need to be linked cleanly |
. I think you can ski a single carved turn that isn't linked. Or interchange between some turns with a pivoted initiation and some with a pure tipping initiation as piste conditions/space/traffic requires. On a black run or a steeper red I will often do that - aiming to carve as many turns as possible but backing off when prudency requires. Isn't this kind of blending of techniques to respond to conditions what more advanced skiing is all about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
I very rarely see anyone doing pure carved turns, which in a way is a good thing given the speeds you tend to achieve!
|
You don't have to go really fast if you carve short turns with an unweighted cross under transition in which you land on the new outside edge some distance from the fall line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
oh but coming back to the OP - I'd be impressed to see someone pull that off on >100mm waist skis!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Grandma Sunshine wrote: |
| @tangowaggon, I would agree with you that most people most definitely do not carve even when they think they are. |
Agreed, I think it's quite rare to see skiers do lots of cleanly linked, carved turns, and almost never on anything steeper than decent blue. |
Phew! I thought I might get some flak for saying such a thing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@jedster,
| Quote: |
Isn't this kind of blending of techniques to respond to conditions what more advanced skiing is all about?
|
I hope he answers in the affirmative, since that's what he's been teaching me for some years! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Grandma Sunshine wrote: |
| @tangowaggon, I would agree with you that most people most definitely do not carve even when they think they are. |
Agreed, I think it's quite rare to see skiers do lots of cleanly linked, carved turns, and almost never on anything steeper than decent blue. |
Phew! I thought I might get some flak for saying such a thing |
Yebbut you were saying it as though it were a bad thing, whereas it is in fact, or can be, A Good Thing. Unless, of course, they don't actually what they're doing at all, or - in my case, since Grandma Sunshine is on the thread and has legitimate views on my skiing - they're just lazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| On the rocks wrote: |
| This thread has been up a full hour and a half and nobody's mentioned Whitedot Preachers yet! 112 under foot, traditional camber and around 16m (depending on length) radius. Carve like demon on piste and great in the deep and fluffy. Just don't take them on ice pistes! |
This. I ski my Preachers on piste, largely because they are better than many of the piste skis I have tried and owned. I sold off the last of my piste skis last season, if I really need a narrow waist ski I can always go and rent one, but it has never come up as a thing. The only time I ever end up on narrow skis now is swapping with mates (most of which are now skiing Preachers anyhow) so they can have a go on my beloved skis.
Important, there was a world of difference between the Preacher and the Carbonlite version I tried. The carbonlites went back after 1 hour, I hated them, the normal ones you'd need a crowbar to separate me from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| @jbob, I think that tangowaggon might have the tiniest obsession about carving! |
Right so what the thread should have really been called is "are all wide skis not really the best choice for carving?" - because if it had been that I think there would be no dispute.
But because something is not the best choice for carving, I don't think that makes it inherently "rotten" for all things on-piste!!!
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Wed 3-01-18 12:40; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dp,
| Quote: |
Right so what the thread should have really been called is "are all wide skis not really the best choice for carving?" - because if it had been that I think there would be no dispute.
But because something is not the best choice for carving, I don't think that makes it "inherently rotten" for all things on-piste!!!
|
not sure that, as a lazy intermediate skier, I should be commenting at all, but FWIW I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@dp
My view isn't in anyway controversial, as it is pretty much the same as you will find on any advice website/shop website.
The area I didn't get into, which may effect peoples' choice, is weight. I'm not a physicist, but I believe a ski will float in Powder when the upward force is greater than the downward force. At 60kg, I feel quite happy off piste on a 92mm waist ski (x 180). Somebody of 100kg will probably have to go up to 120mm (x 190), to get similar float (everything else being equal).
You argue that people don't necessarily get A.M. skis because they're versatile...and then go on to describe how versatile they are. Anyone who goes into EB/S&R, will almost certainly be told the strengths of these skis.
If I covered every eventuality, my posts would be even longer and more ponderous than they already are. You can use a knife as a screwdriver, and may even prefer it (Lady F does, much to my annoyance), but it doesn't make it the better choice.
The best thing is always to test a load of skis and pin down what suits...but the vast majority of holiday skiers don't have the time and/or inclination.....so giving the low-down on how the category of ski is designed to be used, seems logical to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
My view isn't in anyway controversial, as it is pretty much the same as you will find on any advice website/shop website.
|
I'm not accusing you of being controversial or wrong. I am just saying that far too many people - shops and websites included - try to generalise ski choices far too much.
| Quote: |
You argue that people don't necessarily get A.M. skis because they're versatile...and then go on to describe how versatile they are. Anyone who goes into EB/S&R, will almost certainly be told the strengths of these skis.
|
Sorry when you said versatility I thought you meant for use on and off piste. They are versatile for day to day skiing and deal with all conditions. In fact often I think 'All Mountain' is less accurate than perhaps 'All Conditions' which would actually describe better the reason that most 76-84mm all mountain skis are good middle-of-the-line choices for casual skiers and rental shops.
| Quote: |
If I covered every eventuality, my posts would be even longer and more ponderous than they already are. You can use a knife as a screwdriver, and may even prefer it (Lady F does, much to my annoyance), but it doesn't make it the better choice.
|
See that's where we are different - and like I said I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just saying that in my view, ski choice is way more complex than waist widths and whilst yes - they do tend to follow design trends, there is no hard and fast rule that a ski for a particular purpose needs to be - or even should be - a particular width. Different people have different interests and that's all there is to it. On piste I have some 80mm 'all mountains' which I use sometimes, but wherever possible I use my 112mm 'all mountains', and the ski width doesn't generally let them down.
| Quote: |
The best thing is always to test a load of skis and pin down what suits...but the vast majority of holiday skiers don't have the time and/or inclination.....so giving the low-down on how the category of ski is designed to be used, seems logical to me. |
Absolutely. For most people who aren't in a position to test skis, I don't doubt that your advice is mirrored by most shops and websites and gives the casual buyer a general starting point to work by. I never suggested any less. But as people develop their interests, learn to ski better, and do have the opportunity to demo stuff... then the rules will get bent further - without necessarily using a knife as a screwdriver. It's just human nature that experience leads people to discover things they like and that changes the boundaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@BertieG, she sums up carving quite well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@BertieG, do you know if she does lessons? I could have that voice tell me my skiing is s&%t all day and not get bored of it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@dp, I think underneath all, we may not be too far away. I think that where our experience may differ, is down to (treading very carefully here), our very different body builds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@tangowaggon,
| Quote: |
Incidentally, the that was lecturing about carving, wasn't dp
|
Haha, I had been wondering just that! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
... not sure about this
| Quote: |
| Carved turns need to be linked cleanly |
. I think you can ski a single carved turn that isn't linked. |
I suppose, in some sort of drill like a J Turn. But if you are doing more than one turn and they aren't cleanly linked by rolling from edge to edge then by definition at least some of those turns will not be carved.
| jedster wrote: |
| Or interchange between some turns with a pivoted initiation and some with a pure tipping initiation as piste conditions/space/traffic requires. On a black run or a steeper red I will often do that - aiming to carve as many turns as possible but backing off when prudency requires. Isn't this kind of blending of techniques to respond to conditions what more advanced skiing is all about? |
Yes, agree entirely. I'm not trying to say that cleanly linked, carved turns is the pinnacle of skiing. It's just another tool in the toolbox (although the required precision means that, IME, it's the tool that most skiers struggle to acquire). IMO the mark of skier progression is to increasingly use the shape of the ski to create and manage your turns, relying less and less on twisting or skidding the ski as your default move. On some kinds of snow & terrain that might mean you have the skill to carve cleanly linked turns; on other kinds of snow and terrain that might mean that you can bend the ski in the snow so the natural shape of the ski creates the turn that you want; on other kinds of snow you can stay in a bump line and follow the line of the ski directly through the bumps rather than slowly ascend the nearest bump and put in a significant twist on the crest; on other snow it might be that you can balance and grip enough with the outside ski that it minimises the sideways skidding on polished snow or ice. For most holiday skiers I think a sensible aim is to have is a good grippy (but not carved) turn, with an absence of a unintentional pivot at the start of your turn, as your "home base" turn. You should have the ability to use that home base turn in a variety of corridor widths, on / in a variety of snow conditions, on a variety of terrain. To achieve that you need to have good skills in how you blend the steering elements together, you need to have good control of timing changes, and control over rate, range and direction of your movements. There's no doubt that ski design will change how the ski works with the snow, sometimes making it easier to use the shape of the ski in any given conditions, sometimes making it harder. It seems sensible to me that it's best to be on a ski that makes it easier to ski well in the conditions that you mostly ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| It seems sensible to me that it's best to be on a ski that makes it easier to ski well in the conditions that you mostly ski. |
Sensible if your aim is to improve your skiing. Worth saying that the consequence of skiing fat skis poorly on piste is some ugly skidded turns, where as the consequence of skiing narrow skis poorly in deep snow is a succession of falls, lost skis and for many a rapid descent to exhaustion. So I can see that some quiver of one skiers who don't take many lessons might be better on a pair of skis that are too wide for the majority of their skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Oceanic, surely the consequence of being on the wrong ski is less fun that you might otherwise be having?
I’m not anti-powder ski, I have a small collection of them and like them a lot. But if I’m going to be skiing 90% of my week on piste they won’t be the skis that I take with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dp, just goes to show you’ve got to get down and dirty if you want to carve fat skis. Wish I could ski mine like that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
I’m not anti-powder ski, I have a small collection of them and like them a lot. But if I’m going to be skiing 90% of my week on piste they won’t be the skis that I take with me.
|
@rob@rar, That is one of the most sensible things written on this thread and I would guess covers over 90% of the people who have contributed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Matrski, absolutely is. But I think that basically the situation is that a lot of people go on holiday and would love the opportunity to ski off-piste if conditions are right, but they recognise that conditions are so unpredictable that they may not have that opportunity and spend all week skiing pistes.
So the debate for the average casual skier is... do you:
- Take some piste skis with you and hire fatties if the weather is right
- Take some piste skis with you and also some fatties in case the weather is right
- Try to find a single ski quiver which skis both powder and pistes, well.
All this thread is really about is tangowaggon trying to solve his crisis of finding the third option. The trouble is that tangowaggon does not seem to have a middle ground available between "absolutely crap" and "carving short turns all day on the hardest of pistes"... where most people clearly accept that in taking on a ski which can handle deep powder well, they may have to make some compromise on the piste front.
Rob's post is completely sensible but since most people only get 1-3 weeks skiing per year, unless they have no interest in off-piste (in which case they're unlikely to have fat skis anyway), they're going to want to take the right kit to be able to do whatever kind of skiing they fancy once they get there and see how conditions have shaped up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| As I spend most of my time on piste or hard snow I am best off on a ski that gives me most enjoyment most of the time. |
Yes. For days when you decide to ski off-piste you can (a) hire a pair, (b) put up with the cost and hassle of hauling two pairs of skis when you go skiing, or (c) man up and ski what you got
I was skiing thigh deep cold, white smoke one morning in early December on 72mm, r=15m, fairly stiff piste skis. When the snow was untracked it was so benign that frankly any old pair of skis would have been awesome. As it got a bit tracked out it became harder work on these skis, mostly fore/aft control as I was in the snow fairly deep and crossing tracks meant significant acceleration or slowing down. For that part of the morning I would have had an easier time to ski to the standard I wanted on something a bit fatter and softer. But later that day I also skied performance longs and shorts, some stupid drills inflicted on me by my trainer and a couple of laps in a rutline. Taken as a whole, that day I was absolutely on the right pair of skis and something fatter and softer would have compromised too much my performance / fun. Be on the best ski you can, for the majority of your time...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| dp wrote: |
| ... the situation is that a lot of people go on holiday and would love the opportunity to ski off-piste if conditions are right, but they recognise that conditions are so unpredictable that they may not have that opportunity and spend all week skiing pistes. |
I think that's the key point. My advice when asked about ski choice is to recommend that you are honest with yourself about the skiing that you actually do, not the skiing that you hope to do. If the snowHeads bashes that I've been on are typical (and I accept that there are a variety, from off-piste focused, to cruising the pistes), then most snowHeads spend most of their time on piste, only venturing off on those fairly rare days when there is good visibility, light, fresh snow which is largely untracked, and easy access (to and from) the side piste*. The rest of the time it is the pistes which appeal more. So my advice under those circumstances is to choose a ski which has much more of a piste bias, and if you you get very lucky and experience those once-a-season conditions they surely it's not too difficult to rent or borrow a pair of off-piste focused skis for a day or two which will be awesome fun?
* Nothing wrong with any of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| dp wrote: |
| ...unless they have no interest in off-piste (in which case they're unlikely to have fat skis anyway) |
I don't think that's always true. There are a range of pressures which lead people to ski on inappropriate skis, IMO (and when I was younger IME). Years ago it used to be who had the longest skis in the gondola. Often now it seems to be who has the fattest with the funkiest geometry...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@rob@rar, unless of course you find that on a bluebird powder day you are not the first person to walk into the hire shop to rent some fat skis, or indeed the hire shop doesn't stock any of that kind of skis because demand is so small. I've often rented the fattest skis available in a shop and been on 80mm waist skis.
I honestly can't think of a time when I've been on the Preachers and wished for a narrower ski. Perhaps for half a second on Harikiri when I had to walk back up to search for a ski, and the edge was only just holding in the ice. Still, my philosophical view was that a piste ski would have struggled with similar conditions, and plenty of others with proper piste skis were struggling to hold any kind of edge on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Digger the dinosaur, just out of interest, in a typical week in the Alps how much time do you spend on-piste compared to skiing off-piste?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
or (c) man up and ski what you got
|
I remember begrudgingly turning up for GS training on morning on a lovely powder day to be told the snow was too slow and the powder too good for gates so were were going powder skiing. "Great, I'll grab my powder skis*" I said only to be told we were skiing on what we had and off we went. Had a fantastic morning despite putting my pole handle through my goggles during an ill fated drop off and stackign it multiple times.
*This being 2004 they were Movement Pow Pows at a mighty 92mm underfoot
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| dp wrote: |
| ...unless they have no interest in off-piste (in which case they're unlikely to have fat skis anyway) |
I don't think that's always true. There are a range of pressures which lead people to ski on inappropriate skis, IMO (and when I was younger IME). Years ago it used to be who had the longest skis in the gondola. Often now it seems to be who has the fattest with the funkiest geometry... |
I was very tempted to post something identical myself, all the years I skied on 2m super g skis when 180 slaloms would have been better, now it's who's got the fattest. At least I'm marginally less dumb than I used to be and know what I ski best on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| dp wrote: |
| @Matrski, absolutely is. But I think that basically the situation is that a lot of people go on holiday and would love the opportunity to ski off-piste if conditions are right, but they recognise that conditions are so unpredictable that they may not have that opportunity and spend all week skiing pistes. |
But just to complicate things further ( ), there's only really two types of conditions where offpiste isn't an option though: no snow (rocks) or too high avalanche danger, and neither really happen that often.
There's a whole bunch of fun to be had between perfect light powder and hard pistes!
I reckon ski style is just as important as conditions though. If you prefer making tight precise swing turns and 'working it' then there's much less advantage to be gained form going fat regardless of how deep it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
But just to complicate things further (), there's only really two types of conditions where offpiste isn't an option though: no snow (rocks) or too high avalanche danger, and neither really happen that often.
There's a whole bunch of fun to be had between perfect light powder and hard pistes!
I reckon ski style is just as important as conditions though. If you prefer making tight precise swing turns and 'working it' then there's much less advantage to be gained form going fat regardless of how deep it is. |
Agreed on all points. Once you have a realistic idea of what terrain / snow you're mostly going to be skiing, you can decide (preferably by ski testing) the best skis for how you want to ski that terrain. All ski choice is a compromise...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
There are a range of pressures which lead people to ski on inappropriate skis, IMO (and when I was younger IME). Years ago it used to be who had the longest skis in the gondola. Often now it seems to be who has the fattest with the funkiest geometry...
|
@rob@rar, On the nail again!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@tangowaggon,
First off, 76 is not wide.
Second, you won't ski better off piste until you do it lots. Sure there are times when you are tired or conditions are tough that it is a good idea to bale it out. It's meant to be a challenge but it's not meant to make you hate skiing. But if you just wait for the perfect slope/conditions so that you can 'give it a go' then you are going about it the wrong way.
Third, skiing off piste isn't massively different to skiing on piste. You may feel it is, you may feel it should be but it isn't.
Fourth, forgot the two sets of skis option. It really makes no sense. I can expand if you wish or you can just believe me.
Fifth, skiing off piste isn't just about 'powder' which is a fuzzy term anyhow. Your standard lift accessed off piste is a myriad of churn, crust, slush, heavy snow, fluff and other bits and pieces. Sometimes a bit of this and a bit of that on the same run. It's all part of the fun - well it becomes fun, after a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I spent 6 years of great fun on all round 98mm skis (my only ski), but until I bought some slalom skis, practiced on piste and had some good quality lessons I realised that I had never really got to grips with the techniques involved with controlling turns and carving. I had just been getting away with a lot of poor compensating habits. Using a tight turning piste ski on the groomed stuff really brought on my skiing and is damn good fun, but it's a rare day that I don't dart off and do a little bit of off piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
that was lecturing about carving, wasn't dp 