 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
rob@rar, and do the piste skiers on these fat skis wear full face helmets with loads of "gnarly" stickers and their fat skis come with "beefy" touring bindings so they can "huck cliffs" without prereleasing... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Dodgy anaolgy accepted, m'lud, but in my defence it is the internets.
I just have the niggling suspicion that race skis are largely designed for racers to race on, on race courses, at race speeds, in races and that their window of no-compromise or whatever you want to call it is significantly narrower than of a decent pair of fatter skis, which means less fun to me.
This is backed up by my own experience of various hired race, SX type and race-lite skis which I mostly found very boring unless used for their intended purpose (going very fast indeed) with the noteable execpition of the not really-a-race-ski-but loosely based on GS stick Atomic R11, which went like stink but was still a hoot everywhere else, except crust.
But I am still in the context of the OP, where a HotRod-100m is still a fat ski. I do have some concern that the 110+ numbers are the Karpeil Armmageddons of the Ski World (old school hucking specific mountain bikes with about a foot of travel that could NOT practicably be ridden anywhere, now thankfully extinct)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Cunners wrote: |
I just have the niggling suspicion that race skis are largely designed for racers to race on, on race courses, at race speeds, in races and that their window of no-compromise or whatever you want to call it is significantly narrower than of a decent pair of fatter skis, which means less fun to me.
|
I wonder if that is a commentary about the skier rather than the ski? It's perfectly possible to do slow speed, skiddy turns on race skis (although a bit more tiring than doing that on skis which are softer torsionally and longitudinally) so I don't think the window of no-compromise (great phrase!) is that small. As a comparison I'd say that the window of performance of a fat ski on piste is quite small, AND it's much more difficult to get the best out of fat skis on piste. For example, I thought a comment GrahamN made when reviewing Fastman's instruction DVDs was very interesting:
| Quote: |
| ... the following day I was reminded how thin the veneer of competence can be and how much difference the appropriate equipment makes. For that day I'd hired some good slalom skis (Head iSL, 170cm - fantastic ski, great grip), but then went back to my own skis the following day (95mm underfoot, 185cm powder skis). Getting those on their outside edge and holding it was a totally different experience, and any delusions of competence were soon dispelled... |
(my emphasis). Graham's a good skier, and skis a lot on fat skis and on race skis. He can do complex drills on race skis but struggles on fat skis. If someone as good as Graham struggles to get fat skis to perform well on piste why would one or two-week a year skiers want to make their life harder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drills are what I call messing about - silly turn types like jet turns, trying to ski a piste on one leg, trying to butter a ski round from completely in the back seat (still can't) - all of this I find way easier on my 90s than I ever did on skinny skis.
But then, you wouldn't expect a butcher to use a scalpel 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| By all means sacrifice on-piste performance if you feel you need some extra help off-piste........ |
That sounds like me.
What happened to the HSFR?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Mosha Marc wrote: |
| What happened to the HSFR? |
I still have them and will be using them more or less exclusively for a couple of weeks from next week. I like them off piste, but they're pants on piste compared to my slalom skis, and not very good compared to my day-day ski (Elan Magfire 12).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, aren't they 104mm, or did you go for the girly version? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mosha Marc wrote: |
| Nice to see skimottaret and yorself taking on David Murdocks' "WC Slalom skis for owt" mantra |
DM's a much better skier than me so I wouldn't recommend WC slalom skis for off-piste if you can avoid it. There's a happy medium, which for me is around 75-80mm underfoot in a fairly stiff ski if I have to have a one ski quiver. Anything bigger or smaller begins to get a bit specialist IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
rob@rar, you might be interested to know that a couple of weeks ago the best time of the day on the Blackcomb GS course was set by a guy on 187cm HSFR's at 104mm underfoot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
| rob@rar, you might be interested to know that a couple of weeks ago the best time of the day on the Blackcomb GS course was set by a guy on 187cm HSFR's at 104mm underfoot. |
Just imagine how quick he would have been on a pair of GS skis...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I am of the opinion that it is less hard these days to make a roaring ski on-piste that is more than useful off it ..at around 88mm wide. But where do you ski...? you can turn these arguments around and if you spend 80 % plus off-piste, why not use a tool that makes you look good there...but hinders you off it. My skis are 92mm, handles ok on-piste but cramps your style somewhat on harder surfaces. The way round this will be to cook the edges another degree.
I like them off-piste a lot and am thinking of going to 99mm and 191. I expect them to make me look average down a red run ...or more average than I am already, but I will have such a hoot in deep snow which is where I like to be that I will not care so much.
If it is really boiler-plate, then I can hire a bollocking SL/GS ski... and I think I can ski them there.
For fast big turns in deep snow.... you will have to be really useful to do it on a skinny ski..... tidy little s's are another thing and a 75mm will do this for you, IMV... Cranking big turns are another thing entirely..you will really struggle for a platform and bigger is better...IMV
On Piste and hardpack.... skiiny nimble numbers with great edge hold score well.
Horses for courses........buit it is dumb to ride a big fat ski and spend all your time on red runs.....use them for what they are designed to do best and how that fits in with what you ski.
Where do you want your trade-off..???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
JT,
| Quote: |
Horses for courses
|
hmmm i sense a pattern emerging.... common sense really... IMO get skis that help you ski the type of terrain you enjoy skiing, or, get skis that help you in areas that you struggle with... or, get skis that help you do what you enjoy doing whether that be long radius off piste turns, tidy little S's, hard on piste carving, etc... or get skis that give you the biggest grin when you strap em on...
but dont blindly follow dogma spouted on a chat room and say "fatter is better man" Yes, ski design/materials have improved dramatically and wider skis are stiff enough to do a lot of what skinny skis could only do a few years ago.. but sorry a 100+ mm ski doesnt ski as good as a <80mm on piste, never will...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I do think this is a classic case of the internet complicating things.
There is no doubt that a piste ski(thin) will perform better on piste than an off piste ski(wide) and vice versa. If it was different the world cup guys n gals would be skiing fat skis for slalom, which they aren't.
However in the real world, none of us are going to ski a world cup slalom course, neither are we going to ski head high powder in 45 degree Alaskan chutes.
So as has been said, it's horses for courses. I took a pair of 165 Fischer Slalom skis and my Missions out for a weeks holiday with the family. I skied the Fischers once. They were fantastic on piste, but they didn't do anything the missions couldn't. Off piste it was very different, they were much harder to ski in soft spring snow, and I broke through the snow where I wouldn't have done on the missions.
So pick a ski that suits you most of the time. For me the Missions fulfill that. I accept skiing with my kids on blues means I will have to crank them onto the edge more, but for me that is good for my technique and not an issue. If I skid them on a blue with the kids I feel it has taught/teaches me to get them onto edge more and work harder. However if I really can't be arsed I can skid them fine and see no issue with that.
Cheers,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
depends what you define as "as good" - obviously I'm not taking a 110mm ski on exams, but I don't make weenie short radius small corridor turns when I'm freeskiing. There's enough blind dogma in assuming that fat skis "can't carve well" or "can't hold an edge" - obviously, they can - they're just not as quick edge to edge and likely have a larger radius. Bigger carved turns are still... guess what... carved turns! Pointing out they suck on ice compared to SL skis is like saying SL skis suck in pow compared to reverse camber fatties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a few years ago, 72 - 74 mm ski were considered "all mountain". My experience is that skis with a 65-66 mm waist are noticible quicker and more responsive. OTOH skis with a 72 - 74 mm waist are not really better on piste than 80 - 82 mm skis, while the latter are much better in soft snow. A 86 mm skis took some getting used to, but after a few hours was fun on piste, actually added a bit of challenge without speeding. In the end, I does very well on piste, as long as i'm not trying to keep up with the ex-racers on WC skis (and I cant really keep up, no matter the skis).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been skiing planks of 80mm+ underfoot for the last 5 years or so I guess.
I recently tried some skinny efforts at around 70mm. I was hopeless on them! The minuteness of movement required to get them on edge had me completely thrown and catching an edge all the time!
This is no argument for either design, but I'm sticking with the fatties ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
zammo, I know what you mean. I swap from 65mm to 90mm from time to time and it takes some concentrated adjustment to movements and timing before I feel comfortable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This year however, with lots of fresh snowfall, I've found fatter skis a whole load easier on piste - they push through the chopped up snow and around/over mogulled runs a whole lot easier than my stiffer Volkl piste skis. In 3 weeks skiing this year, I've not encountered a pristine piste.
Last year, I pretty much skied on my Volkls all season - we had packed pistes every where we went.
I keep thinking that I should just sell my skis and hire for the conditions we encounter - I've never really been given a 'bad' ski. Or, I need 2 pairs of skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
DaveC, Interesting to hear that you dont consider your 90's "fat" you must have some great powder in Fernie lucky you!
Good luck on your exams and if you can rip good short radius turns on piste with 115's you shouldnt have a problem. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
DaveC, I've just had my shipping advice from splat so I look forward to contributing to this thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| erica2004 wrote: |
| I keep thinking that I should just sell my skis and hire for the conditions we encounter - I've never really been given a 'bad' ski. Or, I need 2 pairs of skis. |
Oh for the good old days when the best ski for any conditions was a Rossi 7SK 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Sideshow_Bob, have you given the LPs a test run yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
DaveC, Interesting to hear that you dont consider your 90's "fat" you must have some great powder in Fernie lucky you!
Good luck on your exams and if you can rip good short radius turns on piste with 115's you shouldnt have a problem. |
Probably because 90mm ISNT fat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Arno, yep, Richmond Park
Will be taking them to Cham for the UCPA Freeride course if I ever get work to agree to giving me the time off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Ricmond Park? Are you insane?  Surely you're looking at XXL dimensions as a minimum to even THINK about that sort of terrain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
| did they plow through the frozen dogturds as if they weren't there? |
I think I'd have been better off on a pair of Big Dumps for that
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
DaveC, Interesting to hear that you dont consider your 90's "fat" you must have some great powder in Fernie lucky you!
Good luck on your exams and if you can rip good short radius turns on piste with 115's you shouldnt have a problem. |
I do feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here... I can't "rip short radius turns" on my 115s (or at least, carved clean ones). That's exactly what I've been saying. However, I can arc pretty clean medium turns with no trouble - so the edge hold is perfectly fine.
We've had a rubbish season this year in Fernie, very little snow. When we've had a little snowfall and things soften up or there's pow, I'm on the 115mm waists. Otherwise, I'm on the 90mms, or teaching on my carvers (mainly because they're lighter and don't roostertail guests!). If I'm teaching high end, I'll usually grab my 90mms. You don't need "great powder" for 90mms. You pretty much need it to be "not boilerplate ice", which I'm pretty sure it rarely is anywhere. I lived in Morzine for eight weeks and spent the majority of my time on 90mms - and that was the year you couldn't ski down the Pleney or into Les Gets since there was so little snow. This is what I mean about the stupid stigma that 90mm is a fat ski.
Anyway, I'm bored of the fat ski/thin ski thread again for a while... where's the current helmet debate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DaveC, I must say I do like my Prophet 100s a lot when there's a bit of fresh snow around, both on and off piste. But otherwise I prefer a slightly narrower ski for ripping around. But I haven't felt the need for a proper dedicated piste ski for a few years now, but I think it depends a lot on where and when you ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| skimottaret wrote: |
DaveC, Interesting to hear that you dont consider your 90's "fat" you must have some great powder in Fernie lucky you!
Good luck on your exams and if you can rip good short radius turns on piste with 115's you shouldnt have a problem. |
I do feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here... I can't "rip short radius turns" on my 115s (or at least, carved clean ones). That's exactly what I've been saying. However, I can arc pretty clean medium turns with no trouble - so the edge hold is perfectly fine.
We've had a rubbish season this year in Fernie, very little snow. When we've had a little snowfall and things soften up or there's pow, I'm on the 115mm waists. Otherwise, I'm on the 90mms, or teaching on my carvers (mainly because they're lighter and don't roostertail guests!). If I'm teaching high end, I'll usually grab my 90mms. You don't need "great powder" for 90mms. You pretty much need it to be "not boilerplate ice", which I'm pretty sure it rarely is anywhere. I lived in Morzine for eight weeks and spent the majority of my time on 90mms - and that was the year you couldn't ski down the Pleney or into Les Gets since there was so little snow. This is what I mean about the stupid stigma that 90mm is a fat ski.
Anyway, I'm bored of the fat ski/thin ski thread again for a while... where's the current helmet debate |
Couldnt agree more. Spent 5 weeks in Fernie this season and the conditions were poor much of the time with some rain in Jan followed by not alot of snow. Skied around on 94mm Mantras and had no problem. The turn radius is a little longer say 20m compared to a thinner skis 14-15m but thats just a slightly longer turn which can be modified quite easily. Can still do the short turn but its natural shape means the turns tend to be just that little longer, which most skiers might actually find easier to cope with.
The concept that fat skis "cant" be carved is moronic to say the least, whereas it is true to say that a 75mm (skinny) ski will not handlw any deep snow. As an instructor as well, I could quite happily ski 100mm in 90% of conditions, as DaveC says as long as its not boilerplate ice all the time fat skis perform on piste 99% as well imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| sps89 wrote: |
| whereas it is true to say that a 75mm (skinny) ski will not handlw any deep snow. |
Really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| sps89 wrote: |
| whereas it is true to say that a 75mm (skinny) ski will not handlw any deep snow. |
Really? |
Imo yes really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
i am guessing cause for exams you will need to demonstrate all round skiing skills in various terrain and conditions. which ski would you pick for that?
