 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
NO pumping is needed. And I find a relatively heavier ski (ie not pin bindings) much easier to control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Having a bit of room in the toe box is not a bad idea if you are ski touring. Beware the alpine boot fitter supplying ski touring boots. However you need to be sure your toes won't bang around when you are skiing so it must be possible to tighten the clips to hold the foot securely, at least while actually skiing. If I think about my ski touring boots even though I have some room around the toe box my foot is secure even without the clips done up, I could ski without touching the clips. If you can lift your heel and have 1/2cm of space below your foot there seems to be a boot issue. Maybe your boots packed out? Maybe the shell is too big? I'd find a friendly boot fitter in Annecy if you can or someone in the club who knows their stuff.
As for you technique, maybe post a video? It is hard to tell what the issue is from a verbal description. The pumping up and down sounds like a coping strategy. I agree with most of what has been said above. I have lightweight ski touring gear and can ski as I would on piste in powder or spring snow. Breakable crust requires some adaptation. Crud, especially refrozen crud, is less fun in lightweight gear as the ski will get knocked around a bit.
Can I also ask how ski fit you are? I know sometimes the issues are due to people being unfit or not ski fit.
Another thought, large rucksacks can pull you into the back seat. Keep kit to a minimum when touring - none of the randobeard kitchen sink approach.
WRT to instructing.
The French rules are clear. If you are instructing for remuneration you need to be a fully qualified alpine ski instructor with a carte pro. If you are voluntary you can do what you want; however you would still be liable if there is an accident so people operating within a ski club will either be a qualfied professional ski instructor hired by the club or qualified via the FFS system and have liability insurance. The main people who are circumventing the rules are "club coaches" from outside France who bring "club members" to France. Okay the French rules are overly restrictive.
The FFS is the equivalent of snowsports england etc. and the qualification levels, I, II etc are broadly similar. However I would expect an alpine instructor who has grown up in the alps and been to ski club herself to ski well. At one of the local ski clubs to me they put the members through the Eurotest at 18 if they are up to it. However I would suggest that the actual L1, L2 qualifications are below those of professional L1, L2 associations as defined by the ISIA.
The CAF Annecy is a big CAF with an alpine section and they seem to use FFS instructors for alpine lessons, not rando beards.
I would say that the vast majority, like 99%, of ski tourers around Grenoble, at least, cannot ski. As said above it is all stem Christies and some pretty out of date technique. The big issue is they never ski on piste and probably learned to ski through touring. If you go on the CAF or FFME ski tour leader courses the instructors are always telling the pupils to do lessons and do a lot of lift served off piste to get their standard up.
That said, the rise in popularity of ski touring has brought in some freeriders who ski very well but they are rarely to be found in clubs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Weathercam wrote: |
My OH off-piste skiing was so much better when she went from 90 to 106 , she actually initially had some 115 powder skis, and I think this gave her the confidence to ski deep snow, now she skis the Pagoda Tour 106's all over the place!
|
This ^
Biggest single difference to your enjoyment will be swapping out those black pearls for some soft tailed, rockered 100mm + skis. I’ve seen it so many times…
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| Weathercam wrote: |
My OH off-piste skiing was so much better when she went from 90 to 106 , she actually initially had some 115 powder skis, and I think this gave her the confidence to ski deep snow, now she skis the Pagoda Tour 106's all over the place!
|
This ^
Biggest single difference to your enjoyment will be swapping out those black pearls for some soft tailed, rockered 100mm + skis. I’ve seen it so many times… |
Black Pearl has rockers.
I’m the same weight as the OP. I suspect similar height too (given similar boot size). I found too wide skis hard on my knees. We short skiers just don’t have the leg length to spread sideways.
Further more, for us light weight skiers, “float” is never an issue. And with our (lack of) height, “platforming” really isn’t an issue either. So up to some point, extra width is lost on small skiers.
Having said all that, 82mm is really far too skinny for off-piste. Going to 90-95 could be beneficial. Just don’t go crazy on width. Moreover, Black Pearl is a soft ski. I found it being knocked about in less than ideal snow conditions. Hire some stiffer & wider skis to test them out before buying.
Last but not least, perhaps counter-intuitive, I found longer skis feels smoother in rough conditions. Let’s face it, longer skis have longer sweet spots regarding for-aft balance, hence more forgiving to minor back-seating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| Weathercam wrote: |
My OH off-piste skiing was so much better when she went from 90 to 106 , she actually initially had some 115 powder skis, and I think this gave her the confidence to ski deep snow, now she skis the Pagoda Tour 106's all over the place!
|
This ^
Biggest single difference to your enjoyment will be swapping out those black pearls for some soft tailed, rockered 100mm + skis. I’ve seen it so many times… |
Black Pearl has rockers.
I’m the same weight as the OP. I suspect similar height too (given similar boot size). I found too wide skis hard on my knees. We short skiers just don’t have the leg length to spread sideways.
Further more, for us light weight skiers, “float” is never an issue. And with our (lack of) height, “platforming” really isn’t an issue either. So up to some point, extra width is lost on small skiers.
Having said all that, 82mm is really far too skinny for off-piste. Going to 90-95 could be beneficial. Just don’t go crazy on width. Moreover, Black Pearl is a soft ski. I found it being knocked about in less than ideal snow conditions. Hire some stiffer & wider skis to test them out before buying.
Last but not least, perhaps counter-intuitive, I found longer skis feels smoother in rough conditions. Let’s face it, longer skis have longer sweet spots regarding for-aft balance, hence more forgiving to minor back-seating. |
DPS 112 RP and she’d be laughing. Afraid your 90mm skis aren’t going to cut it. There’s rocker and then there’s rocker 
My kid is 155cm and 45kg’s and steals his mum’s 168cm RP’s because they’re so easy
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Mon 29-01-24 1:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| Weathercam wrote: |
My OH off-piste skiing was so much better when she went from 90 to 106 , she actually initially had some 115 powder skis, and I think this gave her the confidence to ski deep snow, now she skis the Pagoda Tour 106's all over the place!
|
This ^
Biggest single difference to your enjoyment will be swapping out those black pearls for some soft tailed, rockered 100mm + skis. I’ve seen it so many times… |
Black Pearl has rockers.
I’m the same weight as the OP. I suspect similar height too (given similar boot size). I found too wide skis hard on my knees. We short skiers just don’t have the leg length to spread sideways.
Further more, for us light weight skiers, “float” is never an issue. And with our (lack of) height, “platforming” really isn’t an issue either. So up to some point, extra width is lost on small skiers.
Having said all that, 82mm is really far too skinny for off-piste. Going to 90-95 could be beneficial. Just don’t go crazy on width. Moreover, Black Pearl is a soft ski. I found it being knocked about in less than ideal snow conditions. Hire some stiffer & wider skis to test them out before buying.
Last but not least, perhaps counter-intuitive, I found longer skis feels smoother in rough conditions. Let’s face it, longer skis have longer sweet spots regarding for-aft balance, hence more forgiving to minor back-seating. |
DPS 112 RP and she’d be laughing. Afraid your 90mm skis aren’t going to cut it. There’s rocker and then there’s rocker
My kid is 155cm and steals his mum’s 168cm RP’s because they’re so easy |
I, on the other hand, found 100+ skis uncomfortable.
Off piste isn’t always powder. There’re also refrozen crud one has to deal with from time to time. Putting 100+ skis on edge puts more stress on the knees, more so for shorter skiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Annecienne, …sorry bit late to this party/thread.
This might help.
My problem is in my head. My piste technique is now good; thirty years of refining it, around 8 weeks’ skiing each year. But I still freak out and go all rigid the first point I make a transition from piste to powder. I just haven’t done enough powder skiing and the moment I dive off the side I have it in my head that I have to ‘CHANGE TECHNIQUE’ I just get all nervous and ski like a debutante. It’s just not automatic. And that’s a nightmare for competence.
Remember Dreyfus
Unconscious incompetence - the startling point, don’t know what you don’t know
Conscious incompetence - begin to be aware of problems
Conscious competence - can do it but have to think it all through
Unconscious competence - automatic and responsive
For the Grom, he just hurtles everywhere making the transitions with no problem - for him everything has been automatic since about age 7. The way for it to become automatic is a combination of the right technique and sufficient practice.
It’s exactly the same with mountain-biking. I was doing stuff yesterday at high speed which I had to thread carefully through a few years ago. Yesterday I was mighty quick through it all and was thinking about music and life when I was doing it, rather than technique. Unconscious competence. And this is relevant…my riding partner had a big off at a corner in the forest - really high speed whack to the ground - yesterday he was on good form and really quick - until we approached this corner, when he went all rigid, shouted AArgh and rode it like a twit. 100m later he was riding at full tilt through loose turns…
..all in the head.
I now try to keep my head intact by doing many frequent small 100m excursions to stop ridiculous ‘freezing up’ when I go off piste…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| ... Further more, for us light weight skiers, “float” is never an issue. And with our (lack of) height, “platforming” really isn’t an issue either. So up to some point, extra width is lost on small skiers. ... |
Sidetrack... As an ordinary weight snowboarder (so "light weight" compared with most folk these days) I also don't care about float, but I've been trying to think about why that is.
Back in the day snowboards for powder were big, but then so were boards for high speeds. Whilst that's still true for speed snowboarding, at less than race speeds on piste, modern short boards with the right flex properties work great at any speed. Length isn't what it was.
With snowboards, width makes side-to-side balance easier, although you don't want to go wider than your boots need, if you expect to ride hardpack at all. That's clearly not the same for skis.
But... "float" presumably comes from surface area in both cases. More surface area -> planing at lower speeds. The down sides being... you maybe need more force to turn the thing(s), so less manoeuvrable? Low speeds are a problem for novices I think, who don't read terrain well and maybe don't have the balance skills needed when the board(s) unstable at low speed.
If you had two sets of skis with the same flex properties ("stiffness") but different surface areas, the larger surface area would give you... a little more acceleration at low speeds, maybe a bit more stability at speed, with the trade off of less manoeuvrability.
Why do light weight skiers care less about surface area. If f you weigh half as much as the big folk, do you need half the surface area they need?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I'm not familiar with your ski model and how much rocker they have at the front, but I found the front rocker makes a big difference to keep the tips up off piste.
I learned off piste many years ago on 200cm x 60mm skis, then on 170cm x 67mm carvers which were hard work if the snow was heavy, so I got some 181cm x 95mm skis which were better but still had a tendency to submarine unless I kept my weight back due to a modest front rocker.
Last year, I bought some 177cm x 110mm skis with a much bigger front rocker and these have been a game changer in heavy offpiste, allowing me to ski in a much more balanced position without the worry of submarining and exiting via the front door.
I'm 90kg, so 110mm underfoot is probably the same level of "float" as your 50kg on your skis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| Weathercam wrote: |
My OH off-piste skiing was so much better when she went from 90 to 106 , she actually initially had some 115 powder skis, and I think this gave her the confidence to ski deep snow, now she skis the Pagoda Tour 106's all over the place!
|
This ^
Biggest single difference to your enjoyment will be swapping out those black pearls for some soft tailed, rockered 100mm + skis. I’ve seen it so many times… |
Black Pearl has rockers.
I’m the same weight as the OP. I suspect similar height too (given similar boot size). I found too wide skis hard on my knees. We short skiers just don’t have the leg length to spread sideways.
Further more, for us light weight skiers, “float” is never an issue. And with our (lack of) height, “platforming” really isn’t an issue either. So up to some point, extra width is lost on small skiers.
Having said all that, 82mm is really far too skinny for off-piste. Going to 90-95 could be beneficial. Just don’t go crazy on width. Moreover, Black Pearl is a soft ski. I found it being knocked about in less than ideal snow conditions. Hire some stiffer & wider skis to test them out before buying.
Last but not least, perhaps counter-intuitive, I found longer skis feels smoother in rough conditions. Let’s face it, longer skis have longer sweet spots regarding for-aft balance, hence more forgiving to minor back-seating. |
DPS 112 RP and she’d be laughing. Afraid your 90mm skis aren’t going to cut it. There’s rocker and then there’s rocker
My kid is 155cm and steals his mum’s 168cm RP’s because they’re so easy |
I, on the other hand, found 100+ skis uncomfortable.
Off piste isn’t always powder. There’re also refrozen crud one has to deal with from time to time. Putting 100+ skis on edge puts more stress on the knees, more so for shorter skiers. |
What skis? What radius?
I have 2 reconstructed ACL’s and my daily driver has a 112mm waist (but 15m radius). You are missing out ruling out skis above 95mm for off piste
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
I'm not familiar with your ski model and how much rocker they have at the front, but I found the front rocker makes a big difference to keep the tips up off piste.
|
My first rocker skis were 190 Salomon Czars. with an outrageous 620mm of front rocker and a very noticeable upward angle where it started. I loved those skis - they really forced you to keep your weight well forward, especially on piste. Even a small amount of front-rear weight variation at speed could have the rocker engaging or disengaging with the snow surface, with hilarious results.
They gave up the ghost a while back and were replaced by the Rocker2, with a 122mm waist instead of the previous 112, which are still my ski of choice for powder or crud, despite them having lost lost their top layer of plastic. One of these days I'll try a more modern ski, but you know, if it ain't broke...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
I have 2 reconstructed ACL’s and my daily driver has a 112mm waist (but 15m radius). You are missing out ruling out skis above 95mm for off piste |
Quite right. I've had several knee surgeries, including an ACL reconstruction together with leg straightening by putting a wedge into the femur to reduce pressure on the inside nodule of the knee joint. Pretty sure I need another arthroscopy to clean up the recurring ostoearthritis build-up which I'm always aware of and took my out for a couple of weeks last season after a slight tweek when I was waiting for a bus.
Anyway, contrary to popular opinion, I have never found that even switching between my 67mm slalom skis and my 122mm ones makes the slightest difference to how much knee pain I suffer. So yeah, I would definitely agree that just because of knackered knees one should not automatically dismiss the wider ski without trying them out first.
And I've also taken beginner lessons on my fat ones - they're really not that difficult to ski with precision on piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just to get back on topic, the OP is ski touring... with the CAF, not on the FWT so she would be looking at a touring oriented ski - typically around 3kg the pair with bindings and somewhere in the 85-95mm without excessive rocker and not too long as many ski touring routes in the Annecy area end on paths or in the trees. My feeling is that it is not the skis that are an issue but technique and boots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@davidof, I think the OP's already gone some way down the route of addressing his problems, from this earlier post
| Annecienne wrote: |
@Chaletbeauroc, well I went for a ski at the weekend and tried a few techniques (thanks YouTube) concentrating on fore/ aft. It's definitely me and not the boots. I was skiing my light rando skis which I find ironically easier to ski compared to my piste ones, but possibly because if you're exhausted they're easier to control as they're lighter.
Now to learn to ski the piste skis off piste as a real test of technique (along with some private lessons). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
It seems that a lot of posters take no account of the size & weight of the OP, saying her 82mm skis are too skinny.
A very crude weight/(length x width) calculation for the OP when applied to my 90kg, would put me on 125mm skis, is this too skinny for offpiste?
Whilst I have no trouble doing hip on the snow carves on my 110s and find that they are no slower from edge to edge than my 76mm piste skis, 100mm+ for a 156cm/50kg skier is going to be hard work
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
I have 2 reconstructed ACL’s and my daily driver has a 112mm waist (but 15m radius). You are missing out ruling out skis above 95mm for off piste |
Quite right. I've had several knee surgeries, including an ACL reconstruction together with leg straightening by putting a wedge into the femur to reduce pressure on the inside nodule of the knee joint. Pretty sure I need another arthroscopy to clean up the recurring ostoearthritis build-up which I'm always aware of and took my out for a couple of weeks last season after a slight tweek when I was waiting for a bus.
Anyway, contrary to popular opinion, I have never found that even switching between my 67mm slalom skis and my 122mm ones makes the slightest difference to how much knee pain I suffer. So yeah, I would definitely agree that just because of knackered knees one should not automatically dismiss the wider ski without trying them out first.
And I've also taken beginner lessons on my fat ones - they're really not that difficult to ski with precision on piste. |
The pistes were hard this weekend. I saw not a single skier on skis>100mm who managed to be carving precise turns. Did see some on appropriate equipment managing it.
I skied two days on my 108mm skis. One day on my FIS SLs. Night and day difference. Obviously. Wide skis are great but to say they aren't a disadvantage when skiing precisely on piste in firm conditions is simply wrong in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@jedster, I didn't say they were not a disadvantage, only that my personal experience shows them not to be worse on my knees.
And that it can be _possible_ to be precise enough to teach beginners (i.e. at low speed on shallow non-icy slopes) with them, not that they were the ideal tool for the job. But if I've got a powder afternoon lined up and a lesson in the morning it's a pain to come back down to swap skis, so...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| You are missing out ruling out skis above 95mm for off piste |
I’m only “missing out” on knee stress!
Mind you, my knees still got all original parts, which I intend to keep it that way. 
Here in the US, all we do is ski off piste! Pistes are to link up off pistes or to work on technique.
I’ve tried many skis of different construction and width. 100+ skis are a waste for a 50kg/160cm skier. Never mind the extra weight to drag up the hill duck legged.
That’s not to say some of them don’t have certain characteristics advantages in their construction that aren’t found in skinnier skis. But typically, such construction are available on skis wider than 90mm
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| You are missing out ruling out skis above 95mm for off piste |
I’ve tried many skis of different construction and width. 100+ skis are a waste for a 50kg/160cm skier. Never mind the extra weight to drag up the hill duck legged.
|
My boy doesn’t think so but he probably skis very differently to you
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| You are missing out ruling out skis above 95mm for off piste |
I’ve tried many skis of different construction and width. 100+ skis are a waste for a 50kg/160cm skier. Never mind the extra weight to drag up the hill duck legged.
|
My boy doesn’t think so but he probably skis very differently to you |
Your “boy” obviously doesn’t have 60 years to find out what knee stress is, yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@abc, my OH is 70 and skis DPS 106 and is a lightweight too!
A week or so ago I managed to get my daughter to ditch her 90's and go Scrapper 105's and she was skiing off-piste so much better and with loads more confidence, almost taking "speed is your friend" too far 
She then mistakingly took the 90's out again and pranged herself, so blood wagon job after we got her back to the piste.
I really should edit all the clips of her skiing off-piste so others can see how she progressed, from short turns to skiing a more freeride line, though has me shouting turn, turn, turn, which she said really helped!
So quick edit and the video link below, left out her initial short slow turns - and it's a good example of how wide skis can give you that confidence.
https://youtube.com/shorts/yNX57I7LBFg?feature=share
Now lets see some of @abc, charging
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Tue 30-01-24 16:57; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know you like to show off whatever you’re doing on here, @Weathercam.
And I got the feeling you’re of the opinion “if it isn’t on video or Strava, it didn’t happen” from your many request of such “evidence”. You’re free to think that way. But no, I don’t stop to film when I’m having fun. It’s a distraction.
I also don’t have a Strava account. No plan to ever have one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
From your previous posts, You came over as boastful and vain. You even solicited admiration of your “beastiing yourself”. You’re the only one I know of who repeatedly accused other snowheads who didn’t post photos that they’re lying about what they did. So I never bother to open threads of your “exploits”. Nor do I give a toss about your opinion.
I hate it when people taking selfies while ski/bike. I dont want to ski/bike with people who wants to stop to take pictures/video frequently. If that makes you wonder if I ever biked or skied at all, be my guest! I’ve been to multiple snowhead bashes, I don’t need no stinking videos!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| .....Nor do I give a toss about your opinion..... |
Wow for someone who does not give a toss, you do get quite vitriolic,.
The whole point of the video* was to show how a relative newbie to off-piste skiing managed to ski far better using speed as her friend, using wide skis, rather than narrow skis, which when on narrow skis saw her skiing slowly and turning more into the hill.
And then you can't take a little gentle banter thrown at you, even when you've been so dogmatic?
*And we used that afterwards to show her how she was skiing well as motivation, hence I said I'd do a quick edit of the various vids we took
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
If you haven’t been throwing those “gentle banter” each and every time you run out of arguments with anyone and everyone, I would have been able to take it as such. But instead, you hide behind those “banter” in order to throw insults at many others time and time again in the past. While I don’t give a toss to your opinion of me, that doesn’t stop me from pointing out your passive-aggressive pattern.
As for your so called argument, I’m glad you’re admitting fat skis are really more a crutch for unskilled skiers who have no interest (or the time) to improve their technique. Moreover, you were also conflating speed with skill. A common misconception. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| You are missing out ruling out skis above 95mm for off piste |
I’ve tried many skis of different construction and width. 100+ skis are a waste for a 50kg/160cm skier. Never mind the extra weight to drag up the hill duck legged.
|
My boy doesn’t think so but he probably skis very differently to you |
Your “boy” obviously doesn’t have 60 years to find out what knee stress is, yet. |
No idea where and what conditions you ski in, but skiing predominantly off piste in soft snow, I cannot understand how you can think that a ski with more float can add knee stress. If you want a ski to make boilerplate easier then it’s a different story but that is not what most people buy a touring ski for. The biggest knee stress I see is people leaning back on skinny, straight skis to try and get their tips out of the snow in order to turn. It’s both tiring and highly demanding on the knees. On the contrary a ski with enough, rocker, float and side cut will make this movement significantly easier. The DPS Wailer 112 RP has been so successful precisely because it addresses this common issue. Tour versions exist in 90, 100 and 112mm lengths that I can guarantee the OP would prefer to those Black Pearls. I’m sure other similar cheaper models also exist.
While you might not like his style, @Weathercam provided similar evidence from his wife/daughters experience.
So you stick to narrower skis if you need your ski to compensate for your weak knees and boilerplate snow conditions but don’t proclaim a ski over 95mm is pointless for a light skier as this is clearly not true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Trying to get the tips out of the snow is a mistake anyway. You turn in the snow. Just bank the skis and they'll come round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Weathercam wrote: |
| you can't take a little gentle banter thrown at you |
There are a few things that everyone who says anything like that has in common.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
Your “boy” obviously doesn’t have 60 years to find out what knee stress is, yet. |
No idea where and what conditions you ski in, but skiing predominantly off piste in soft snow, I cannot understand how you can think that a ski with more float can add knee stress.
|
Quite so. I think the perceived wisdom of wider skis hurting the knees is based on the idea that they generate more of a sideways or twisting moment by being further away from the axis of the leg. Which is true, as far as the physics is concerned, but I don't believe, based on my own experience as already mentioned, that this actually translates to more knee stress or pain, even when, like me at the moment, there's a considerable weakness (no meniscus and bad osteoarthritis on the inner node of my left knee) on one side of the joint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| snowball wrote: |
| Trying to get the tips out of the snow is a mistake anyway. You turn in the snow. Just bank the skis and they'll come round. |
Well yes, but when you're haring across chopped up powder at a vast rate of knots the last thing you want is the ski tip digging into the snow. It's not about the turning, it's about keeping the ski above the surface.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| snowball wrote: |
| Trying to get the tips out of the snow is a mistake anyway. You turn in the snow. Just bank the skis and they'll come round. |
Well yes, but when you're haring across chopped up powder at a vast rate of knots the last thing you want is the ski tip digging into the snow. It's not about the turning, it's about keeping the ski above the surface. |
That’s what front rockers are for. No need to do anything to “keep the tip out of the snow”. Certainly not by leaning back.
| BobinCH wrote: |
No idea where and what conditions you ski in, but skiing predominantly off piste in soft snow, I cannot understand how you can think that a ski with more float can add knee stress. If you want a ski to make boilerplate easier then it’s a different story but that is not what most people buy a touring ski for. The biggest knee stress I see is people leaning back on skinny, straight skis to try and get their tips out of the snow in order to turn. It’s both tiring and highly demanding on the knees. On the contrary a ski with enough, rocker, float and side cut will make this movement significantly easier. The DPS Wailer 112 RP has been so successful precisely because it addresses this common issue. Tour versions exist in 90, 100 and 112mm lengths that I can guarantee the OP would prefer to those Black Pearls. I’m sure other similar cheaper models also exist.
|
See above.
It has nothing to do with the width. It has to do with the ski’s OTHER characteristic.
The skis you like so much all has huge rockers. They also happen to be wide. The width may even be appropriate for heavy skiers. But for the lighter skiers, they’ll be fine with the narrowest of those model! Say the 90mm one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Weathercam wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
......
As for your so called argument, I’m glad you’re admitting fat skis are really more a crutch for unskilled skiers who have no interest (or the time) to improve their technique....... |
Well done you've just managed to insult most of the better skiers on the forum who ski off-piste a lot, many who live all the season in the mountains
The vast majority of skiers when it comes to learning to ski off-piste who are only on a week's holiday, unless they go to Japan, they are highly unlikely to score perfect conditions.
If they do get the right conditions then it is far better and easier for them to use a wider ski to maximise their short window of opportunity and then with the bigger ski can float and understand what it takes and progress far faster than if they've been on a narrower ski?
And then as your technique gets better, you can ski, should you so wish on a smaller ski.
But who am I to debate such a subject with you, as you are so obviously more experienced and proficient than most on here who ride wide skis |
Those “better” skiers are way heavier than the OP!!!
Though I don’t live in the mountain year round, I do live in the mountain in the winter. So yes, I ski a lot. Moreover, I don’t need partner or guides to ski off-piste, thanks to the North American resorts (high cost pass notwithstanding). So much of my skiing is done off-piste. Pistes are only use to get from point A to point B. Or on really poor condition days, to work on technique.
And if you even bother to read the OP’s post, she skis off-piste a lot too. So your so called argument of 1-week a year skier doesn’t apply to her. There goes your excuse to justify offering such inferior advice!
Just because someone can ski well doesn’t mean they know how to teach. Or how to choose equipment. Just because it works for one individual doesn’t mean it suits everyone else. Internet is full of well-meaning advices from skilled practitioners that completely miss their target.
| JayRo wrote: |
| Weathercam wrote: |
| you can't take a little gentle banter thrown at you |
There are a few things that everyone who says anything like that has in common. |
One being they don’t “take” those “banter” half as well as they “throw” them out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@abc, seem to remember you offering advice to me about XC skating a good few years ago - but let's not go there
My lightweight OH was testing women's touring skis at a recent ski test and most were >95's must be a Euro thing then?
This thread was rapidly becoming a discussion about the width of skis, and classic SH thread drift, so my 1 - week analogy was more in that context as opposed to the OP which I'm sure most here realised.
And the good few times I've skied in Colorado piste skiing was pretty prevalent, as the inbounds off-piste was tracked out so quickly, and then as for Vermont.....
And just out of interest what is the mountain where you live?
Off out now on my new steeds trying to scope out potential Spring snow touring lines Galibier way, and that is when you can ski <95's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Weathercam, …well it seems to be pretty short-tempered in New York and with a great deal of assumptions…
Weathercam…
Don’t stop posting your exploits.
Don’t stop providing advice based on deep and extensive experience.
ABC…
Your cortisol levels seem dangerously high.
It’s not good for the vibe on here or the zeitgeist.
Thoughtful discussion - yes
Aggressive character assassination - no
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| snowball wrote: |
Trying to get the tips out of the snow is a mistake anyway. You turn in the snow. Just bank the skis and they'll come round.
|
Well yes, but when you're haring across chopped up powder at a vast rate of knots the last thing you want is the ski tip digging into the snow. It's not about the turning, it's about keeping the ski above the surface. |
That’s what front rockers are for. No need to do anything to “keep the tip out of the snow”. Certainly not by leaning back.
|
Who, exactly, are you arguing with, that is suggesting leaning back as a valid powder technique?
I mean, 20-30 years ago maybe, but I haven't heard anyone credible, certainly not in this thread, suggesting such a thing.
You seem to be interested only in setting up strawman arguments, disagreeing with pretty much anything that anyone credible suggests, while completely failing to justify your own position that... actually, I'm not sure I really know, nor care, what you're trying to say.
Edit: Unless you're just assuming that 'keeping the tips up' is the same as leaning back. Oh dear.
Edit2. Does anyone have first-hand experience of the K2 Catamaran or the Atomic Bent Chetler 120 waist skis? I'm in the market for a new off-piste ski and these two are both in stock for around chf600 including bindings at an outlet shop in Basel, so I'm wondering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
