 Poster: A snowHead
|
Couldn't agree more Arno, but let's not overplay just how good they really are on-piste. If you took Kramer's view literally, you'd think they could do everything equally well on and off piste.
It's also worth remembering that you are allowed to go off-piste occasionally using piste skis. Some of them are quite good at it too, but it would be unreasonable to say they don't lose something 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
I'll be truly astounded if they can match a pair of Volkl Allstars or Head XRC 1200s or any other top line piste ski. It's all horses for courses, I just think some people are getting carried away with their claims of on-piste performance from what are clearly big fat powder skis. If the Missions really are that good on-piste, then the true "1 quiver beats all" ski has finally arrived. Or at least we're told it has. I'll have to demo them later this season and see if it's true  |
I think that is what all of us who've tried them are saying. I've used big fat powder skis, and although the Missions ski as well as them off the piste, on the piste they're in a totally different league, and certainly don't feel as if you're making a compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
My fat skis are 98mm underfoot. Sure, they don't perform on piste in the same way as a 68mm waisted ski does, but they hold edge well and can turn on a sixpence - I skied bumps on them in Austria last year, although rather more by taking a wrong turn than because I thought it would be a blast!
They're an '03/'04 model (Line Mothership Ti) so I'll be interested to see if newer skis perform better all round or if indeed they have become more specialist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
spyderjon, this one ski quiver thing has never really caught on with you has it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Kramer wrote: |
I think that is what all of us who've tried them are saying. I've used big fat powder skis, and although the Missions ski as well as them off the piste, on the piste they're in a totally different league, and certainly don't feel as if you're making a compromise. |
Have you actually compared them to a pair of current top line piste skis? Your claims are pretty bold. If you're right, all sub 70 mm piste skis will die out very shortly. There's no point in having them if they can be matched by a 90 mm freeride ski that you can use for everything with zero compromise. It would seem that fatter skis are improving dramatically regarding their on-piste performance, which is a good thing for those looking for a 1 ski solution (including myself). But then the latest crop of piste oriented skis are astounding in their own right. They're just not considered cool anymore
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
uktrailmonster, I tried Salomon Equipe 2Vs last season, and I did really enjoy them, and I tried some Atomics (can't remember which) the year before, and yes they do feel like they're on rails when you're carving them, however to me, the Missions really aren't that far behind, and certainly aren't so far behind that I feel that they adversely affect my enjoyment of skiing on piste, in fact I think that they're slightly better than my old B2s.
All the reviews in the mags say a similar thing, no one is surprised by how good they are off-piste, the revelation is how good they are on it as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kramer wrote: |
| ... in fact I think that they're slightly better than my old B2s.. |
 I liked my old B2's on piste (other than on rock hard snow) so that's pretty impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uktrailmonster, Is it the ski or the skier, i would imagine there are just a few guys here in Cham' who could leave you standing on your 70mm, whilst they get the lift back up to meet you on their 120mm. It's all about familiarity, yes a 70mm ski will, on the same skier, make left to right transissions quicker than a 100mm ski, but once the ski is on that edge, if the sidecut is the same there will be no difference and left to right transission accomodates speed and reaction of the skier. Time to move on and up, afterall, we all drive cars with power steering nowadays, don't we? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Only slightly better than your old B2s. So that's hardly astounding is it
Still sounds impressive for a fat freeride ski though. I'll put the Missions on my shortlist along with Head IM82s for my next do-it-all ski. Only thing that puts me off wider skis is that I really don't need them for 95% of the time and I do feel I'm losing some overall performance as a result. I'm not having any serious issues skiing off-piste on narrower skis (73 mm at the moment), but there is the odd time I'd appreciate something fatter. If I try the Missions or IM82 and really can't tell the difference on-piste to my IM72s, I'll be buying them for next season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| uktrailmonster, Is it the ski or the skier, i would imagine there are just a few guys here in Cham' who could leave you standing on your 70mm, whilst they get the lift back up to meet you on their 120mm. It's all about familiarity, yes a 70mm ski will, on the same skier, make left to right transissions quicker than a 100mm ski, but once the ski is on that edge, if the sidecut is the same there will be no difference and left to right transission accomodates speed and reaction of the skier. Time to move on and up, afterall, we all drive cars with power steering nowadays, don't we? |
Ah yes, that old cliched chestnut... There's always someone who can beat you unless you're the undisputed World Champion. Even then there's probably someone lurking around who's better but couldn't be bothered to enter the competition. I'm nowhere near that good, but I can tell the difference between a 70 and 120 mm ski thanks.
I'm not aversed to evolving technology, I'm an engineer and make my living from it after all. Your idea that all skis with the same sidecut will perform the same when on edge is a bit simplistic don't you think? What about construction, torsional rigidity, damping, etc, etc. It's only time to move on and up when something is genuinely better, not just when marketing people tell us it is. Fatter skis are obviously getting much more versatile and offer great all round performance for people who actually need it i.e those skiing in deep powder often. Since most average skiers don't ski bottomless powder on a daily basis, in fact even at all, you have to question what they are getting from very fat skis other than an ego boost. Perhaps that's a good enough reason by itself? Or do you think they're actually better for all types of skiing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uktrailmonster, I'd love to steer this decussion onto, construction, torsion etc, however looking at the thread title, it's about differences between fat and thin. So here i think were talking about edge to edge speed, something that is so subjective. Edge to edge speed needs a constant, something we don't have in skiing, however angleation is an important point maybe worth you attention here when talking about pist performance. My comments about familiarity are base on the fact is ski so called fat skis 90% of the time, last year towards the end of the season i took out my G.S. skis for a burn and i had no idea where the edges were, i found it difficult to ski straight and had to keep the ski hard on one edge or the other, so in short i felt better and more confident skiing my fat skis on piste than my G.S. skis.
Physics, Maths and Engineering don't figure here! Most skiers suffer from emotional problems before the physics kick in!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, so you're saying you've now forgotten how to ski on GS race skis as a result of tooling around on big fat surfers? Is that really a good thing? Maybe it's irrelevant if you're skiing better and not intending to go back. Reminds me of the viewpoint taken by the guys over at realskiers i.e they actively discourage people from learning or coaching on fat skis. They go as far as stating that fat skis prevent skiers from making any further technical progression. I can see their point, but they seem a bit extreme in their view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Realskiers !!!! oh no not the PMTS guys, they are the Jehovah's witnesses of skiing.
I could spend a lifetime trying to do perfect turns on the piste but to be honest I'd rather have fun in the powder = fat skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| DB wrote: |
| Realskiers !!!! oh no not the PMTS guys, they are the Jehovah's witnesses of skiing. |
LOL, and the fat ski on the piste brigade are the clowns
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
uktrailmonster, The Clowns are the guys with a big smile on their faces. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
>> Only thing that puts me off wider skis is that I really don't need them for 95% of the time
I think you've answered your own query here! For me, I'd prefer to be more off piste than on, wether it's perfect powder, chopped up, spring or anything apart from breakable crust, hence I wanted a ski that was more focused at off piste, but would still be fine on piste.
Cheers,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
SZK makes a good point -
what is going to be faster on a hard piste - a narrow cap/monocoque ski or a mid-fat race-stock type sandwich construction (compare say a salomon consumer "race" ski with a stockli stormrider XL)? I've not done the comparison properly but I do know that the stocklis absolutely rail turns on hard pack.
I'm a little agnostic on this topic really - I'm not sure I get a huge benefit from really fat skis over mid-fats in the boot to knee depth snow that counts as a good powder day in Europe. I've only skied B3s and Apache Chiefs amongst fatties though so I may just have been on the wrong ones (both felt a bit dull compared to stormriders).
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| DB wrote: |
It's not what percentage of my time is spent offpiste, it's what percentage of my total enjoyment from skiing is there. If the snow is really hard/icy I can rent race skis anywhere - the reverse is not always true for fat skis, esp on a powder day. |
I'm only playing devil's advocate on this thread. I'm not into all-out race skis either really. But for me personally, the compromise is still around the mid 70s width. I find this width fine in knee deep powder and superb in anything less. If I was spending more time in truly bottomless powder I'd be looking at something a bit wider. I'd particularly like to demo Head IM82s and Scott Missions to see how they compare with my current IM72s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think in that DB,
| Quote: |
It's not what percentage of my time is spent offpiste, it's what percentage of my total enjoyment from skiing is there.
|
Has hit the nail on the head, I may only spend 5% of my time off piste but get 95% of my pleasure from that.
Just checked and I have been skiing on 76 waisted skis for the last 2 seasons, Elan M666's. Only time I needed wider was in waist deep damp snow with only a slight slope on it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dypcdiver wrote: |
I may only spend 5% of my time off piste but get 95% of my pleasure from that.
|
Looks like you need to spend more time off piste then
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| But for me personally, the compromise is still around the mid 70s width. |
That's what my old B2s were at 74mm. I found them great on piste, and that they worked pretty well in powder, although I am quite lardy (103kgs), and I probably skied them too short at 176s. For me the Mission is an even better compromise, in that I seem to have gained quite a lot, without (seemingly) having lost anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kramer,
at 103kgs your B2s were massively too small for powder skiing. Surely you also overpowered them completely on-piste too. How long are your missions?
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
DB, The reason many people only use 1 pair of skis (me included) is for logistical reasons. For me it's nothing to do with ego, hype or skill level. It's simply because I can only easily transport 1 pair around the world. So it might as well be an all-round pair. I just accept the compromises and don't pretend they're truly awesome in all conditions. That's where the hype usually comes in surrounding "all-mountain" skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uktrailmonster,
Please go out and try some Elan M666's if you only can carry one pair, beware thought they are bl**dy heavy. I have attended several ski test days which gave me the chance to try 20+ pair of skis in identical conditions on piste, some pure carvers others GS and also the odd pair of SL's. The Elans were not a compromise, their edge hold and quickness from edge to edge was only beaten by one pair of SL's. Not what I expected before I started. Off piste they are exceptionally easy to use. I started my offpiste skiing on 205 Blizzards nearly 40 years ago so feel my technique is probably reasonable. The Elans are a true All Mountain ski (did I mention the twin tips for the park) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
jedster, my Missions are 183, the longest size that they make. I didn't have too many problems with my Bandits, I bought them when I wasn't such a competent skier as I am now, and when the shop offered me the choice between the 176s and the next size up I confidently stated that I didn't go off piste very much (Doh!), and that I'd have them in the shorter size to make them easier to turn on the bumpy black runs that I enjoyed skiing at that time. In hindsight I bought them too short, but to be honest on the piste they worked fine, although off piste they were a bit old school, tending to sink without trace whenever I stopped, and definitely making it harder than it needed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Kramer wrote: |
| jedster, my Missions are 183, the longest size that they make. I didn't have too many problems with my Bandits, I bought them when I wasn't such a competent skier as I am now, and when the shop offered me the choice between the 176s and the next size up I confidently stated that I didn't go off piste very much (Doh!), and that I'd have them in the shorter size to make them easier to turn on the bumpy black runs that I enjoyed skiing at that time. In hindsight I bought them too short, but to be honest on the piste they worked fine, although off piste they were a bit old school, tending to sink without trace whenever I stopped, and definitely making it harder than it needed to be. |
That's exactly the same thinking that led to me buying the 176's as well, I'd tried the 182 at the first PSB and they just felt a little long on the glacier. I don't do off piste and I'm only just getting into skiing black runs so they felt the right choice for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
uktrailmonster, I agree with you that a specialist ski will do better in a specialist discipline, that's why they exist. But the benefits of the specialist race skis are really only of relevance if you are actually on a racecourse, and then it's way more than just a question of width - I personally was rather on edge (pun intended) running GS courses on slalom skis, and of course trying to do a slalom course on GS skis or the kind of off-piste-oriented skis we're talking about here would be a bit of a nightmare (but primarily because of length and/or sidecut rather than underfoot width).
However we're not talking specialist skiing here, but recreational skiing (however competently done), and not heading through terrain where your path is specifically designed to be on the limit of the ski's capabilities. At the last PSB I tried the Missions on boilerplate, along with Atomic and Fischer GS skis and some other 90ish mm skis. While the Atomics were clearly capable of more on-piste performance than the Missions, a rather poorer edge tune meant that I could get just as much, if not more, on piste out of the Missions which would hold some ludicrous edge angles - and I'm very rarely accused of skiing conservatively . Except on the hardest of pistes I'd be happy taking them through a GS course, but I'd be less happy taking a GS ski into soft or choppy crud. BTW, I also tried some Head SuperShapes, which I thought the worst of the lot, and had way more fun on pretty much all the 90ish waists than on those. I also tried the iM82s at the EoSB (totally different conditions of course), didn't care for them particularly much (although they were a bit short), and would say that they are nothing close to the same league as the Missions. If I had a criticism of the Missions it would be that they were maybe just a bit too twitchy for proper big mountain skiing (not that I've really got to that level myself yet). They struck me as the ideal all-rounder. When my current 78mm off-piste/touring/allround skis die, I will certainly be looking at going fatter and these or their descendents will be near the top of the list.
Maybe part of the perception difference is weight - what weight are you? At 90+ kg I've taken slalom skis a small way into some firm off-piste and while just doable it was a pretty unpleasant experience, whereas the current crop of 90ish mm skis can be made to have real fun on boilerplate piste if you drive them hard (although I concede that glacier ice is very definitely not their forte ). But if you're 60kg then there's probably not much need to go much above a 60+ mm wide ski  .
If you never go off piste, then your one ski quiver is a specialist piste ski. But if you want to do something of both you have to get something that makes a fair job of both, i.e. a fattish ski appropriate to your weight. It's pointless heading off into the deep stuff if you don't have a skis that can cope with the conditions - you'll have a nightmare. I currently ski about 30% on piste and 70% off-piste/backcountry, so for me a fattish ski is the solution. Similarly because of the logistics, I have never yet taken my slalom skis onto the snow as I've never had a full week racing on snow (like DB I have better things to do when there's a proper amount of snow around ), and want a one ski to do it all, or hire for the rare occasions when a specialist is required.
cwelsh, think very consciously about putting your inside knee into the turn (as if you are riding a motorbike) and placing your little toe onto the snow and it'll all come fine. Don't and it won't .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
GrahamN, I'm close to 90kg, but I still find mid 70s width just fine in all but truly bottomless powder. Perhaps it's because I was brought up on narrow 80s skis? Powder skiing is certainly a lot easier today, even on what are now considered narrow skis. I'm currently using Head IM72s as my everyday ski, which I think are excellent. When I come to replace them I will consider something slightly fatter, but only if they still feel lively enough on piste.
It seems that many people who make the transition to 90+ mm width skis seem to lose their ability (at least temporarily) to ski properly on more race oriented kit. I'm not sure that's a good thing, but probably not important for most people. I still enjoy the occasional blast on more racey skis, so I'd be a bit disappointed if I lost that feel. I still see fat skis as something to roll out specially for big powder days, rather than as an everyday ski. Although I can fully understand using them all the time if you absolutely need them for the big powder and can only carry 1 pair of skis.
Anyway, my only point in this thread was to say that fat skis (ie 90+ waist) are not always the best compromise all over the mountain like some people suggest. It just depends on how much deep powder skiing you actually do and/or how good you are at it. Personally I do very little bottomless powder skiing, maybe 2 or 3 days per year if I'm lucky. The rest, maybe 25 days or so, is either on-piste or in less deep off-piste. So for me it's hard to justify a 90+ width for my everyday ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
the fatter the ski, the less likely you are to hit the bottom, so six inches can feel bottomless
i do wonder how many fat skis uktrailmonster has tried. my fatties (i reckon) will outperform all but top of the line piste/race skis because they were built in the race-room and have a super-g sidecut. on the rare occisions i go on my skinny piste skis, they feel pretty squirrely unless the snow is really firm and I am turning them the whole time. getting the piste skis on edge is easier but once you're there, the width is pretty irrelevant
the place my fatties lose out most is probably moguls - the width doesn't help, but it's as much the length and stiffness which makes them difficult (plus I suck at moguls anyway)
at the top end, fatties are getting more and more specialist. no-one's going to pretend that spatulas or any of the reverse sidecut skis are great on piste (I reckon even Parlor would admit they are "managable" at best) but there's a big difference between them and conventional sidecut skis up to say 110mm underfoot
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I think that once you try a pair of the newer generation mid fat skis, it changes your outlook towards where you want to ski anyway IMO.
uktrailmonster, I do agree that if someone is going to ski mainly on piste, then Scott Missions and their like are probably wasted on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Kramer wrote: |
I think that once you try a pair of the newer generation mid fat skis, it changes your outlook towards where you want to ski anyway IMO.
|
Well they certainly make off-piste more accessible for intermediates, which is a good thing. I like skiing pretty much everywhere, always have. A new ski isn't going to change where I ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Arno wrote: |
on the rare occisions i go on my skinny piste skis, they feel pretty squirrely unless the snow is really firm and I am turning them the whole time
the place my fatties lose out most is probably moguls - the width doesn't help, but it's as much the length and stiffness which makes them difficult (plus I suck at moguls anyway)
|
It's comments like that which put me off fatter skis for general use. I don't find specialist piste skis particularly squirrely (more responsive) and I'm getting better each year at moguls (but still suck if they're too hard!). I also find off-piste relatively easy the odd time I do rent fatter skis, probably because I ski a fair bit off-piste on slightly narrower stuff. Honestly IM72s are not so bad off-piste
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uktrailmonster, ultimately, it's down to personal preference. i recently bought some skis for touring which are 82mm underfoot. i've only skied them once but they felt really great and responsive on piste. there was a time (not very long ago) when I would have thought they were a bit fat and not expected to get much of an edge at all. i do think width underfoot is a bit of a red herring. sidecut and construction have at least as much influence in how a ski performs on piste
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 my recent tour of Western Canada I'd say sub 70mm skis are pretty much a dead donkey outside of rental fleets there. Huge numbers of people on ex CMH Volkl Explosifs etc plus Mantras, Gotamas, Seths etc. You still get some very classy old school guys skiing 2m Renntigers with aplomb but the non-race piste ski would appear to be a dying breed among the locals at least. I suspect many people also have a proper GS or slalom ski in their quiver though.
However Europe & the average Euro holidaymaker is a different kettle of fish....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
. You see I've not got caught up in the fashion hype nor am I feeding my ego with wide skis, I'm just using the piste as a way of training for real skiing. 