 Poster: A snowHead
|
@Drogue,
I haven't had much in the way of hire skis but when I have hired skis they are not well serviced and don't get waxed or edged between clients.
@jedster, at 18m I regard the sidecut of fhe sky7 as not enough for piste enjoyment. It's just too much radius to be able to carve on reds & blacks (confusing as big sidecut = small radius)
On piste, I'm addicted to the carve, trying to get my hip as close to the snow as possible with my legs almost buckling with the g force, this is where I have a problem with wider skis, the leverage from the width of the ski is very uncomfortable on the side of my lower leg when applying this force and the ski is almost perpendicular to the snow. Also, most wide skis have sidecuts in excess of 16m so you have to be going a lot faster to get the same lean angle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
This is NOT me but it's what I call carving and what I try to achieve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@jedster, exactly that!
@tangowaggon, if that's your priority in skiing why are you even talking about offpiste and fat skis? It's two entirely different and competing objectives.
If you want better offpiste performance you have to accept that you'll have to compromise your high performance piste skiing to some extent - or continue to do what you do now and compromise your offpiste performance in exchange for better high performance piste skiing.
There is no ski on the market that works as well in powder as a proper powder ski AND as well for short radius slalom carves on hard black pistes as a slalom ski as they are completely different objectives requiring competing - or the opposite - shaping and designs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Of course wide skis aren't the best tool for that; if all you want to do are pure carves, it sounds like you already have the right skis. Off piste skiing is much more about different techniques (and using a bit of feel for the snow) to deal with different terrain and snow conditions. Lots of sidecut is a pain in most situations off piste. You don't need sidecut to do lots of wiggly turns in soft snow because you are not using the edges to turn (that's responding to Tangowaggon not Clarky999)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
If you want better offpiste performance you have to accept that you'll have to compromise your high performance piste skiing to some extent - or continue to do what you do now and compromise your offpiste performance in exchange for better high performance piste skiing.
There is no ski on the market that works as well in powder as a proper powder ski AND as well for short radius slalom carves on hard black pistes as a slalom ski as they are completely different objectives requiring competing - or the opposite - shaping and designs. |
Agree entirely. All ski choice is a compromise. I think the best approach is to try to be on a ski which gives you the performance / fun for the type of skiing that you mostly do, and accept that in other settings that ski is not going to be the best option available. Looking for the perfect one-ski quiver which does equally well in all situations is a fool's errand IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@tangowaggon, there are reasonable compromises however.
As I said, I use Blizzard Bonafides for everything bar racing. The Mrs has Volkl Mantras.
Perfectly happy on hard, man-made pistes. Very capable in powder. But then, I thought my Dobermann SLRs were quite capable in powder.
I am quite sure that something wider might be easier in seriously deep powder, we used K2 Coombacks heli-skiing for example. And I use the appropriate ski for my once a year race.
But otherwise? I’m not even sure there is a compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Head Venturis ski like a slalom ski on hardpack, so do the mens Cham 97
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| moseyp wrote: |
| Head Venturis ski like a slalom ski on hardpack, so do the mens Cham 97 |
The Venturi 95 is my favourite "on paper " now replaced by the kore series which I found disappointing at the oktobertest .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@under a new name, it's interesting to hear that a really good skier is prepared to compromise and use one ski (so to speak) for almost everything. I would not have dared to say that at my lowly level, particularly since I neither race nor encounter much deep powder to speak of. My Scott Lunas are very pleasing in most conditions - thank you, spyderjon - not that that's much use to tangowaggon, as it's a laydeez' ski; dunno how it compares with the Mantra.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@Hurtle, I am not sure I count as a “really good skier” ... 
But I don’t find it much of a compromise, if at all. And on most given days, you are going to encounter a variety of conditions. So a capable single ski seems to make sense.
And, I can’t be bothered with having a selection on the car!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
@jedster, at 18m I regard the sidecut of fhe sky7 as not enough for piste enjoyment. It's just too much radius to be able to carve on reds & blacks (confusing as big sidecut = small radius)
On piste, I'm addicted to the carve, trying to get my hip as close to the snow as possible with my legs almost buckling with the g force, this is where I have a problem with wider skis, the leverage from the width of the ski is very uncomfortable on the side of my lower leg when applying this force and the ski is almost perpendicular to the snow. Also, most wide skis have sidecuts in excess of 16m so you have to be going a lot faster to get the same lean angle.
|
I enjoy setting really high edge angles on piste too. But I've never owned a ski with less than 18m radius. The ones I most enjoy on piste are plenty stiff with 18m radius and 75mm waist. I can bend them into nice tight carves. Including on reds and blacks. IMO if you can set really high edge angles you don't need a really short radius because you will bend the ski plenty.
I also own a pair of skis with very similar side cut, camber and radius but 100mm waist. Can also get them to carve all sorts of turn shapes provided the piste has a bit of give - getting them up to high edge angles on really hard pistes takes more commitment than I generally have!
That said, the sky 7 has a rocker (shorter running length) and will be softer than either of the above so simply won't offer the same edge grip. UANN's bonafides would be a better choice if you want a compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am very happy with my Rossignol Soul 7s. They are 180 in length but because of the rocker at the tip and tail, they are supposed to ski more like a 172 on piste, which I would say generally works. I find them superb off piste and more than adequate on piste as well.
I feel that if even if I want a ski primarily for off piste as I do, I still want something that can handle the icy narrow tracks and mogul fields etc that can occur at the end of so many off piste routes and the Soul 7s are fine in that respect. For heli skiing that would be not so much of a consideration however apart from the occasional helicopter lift in the Alps that is something that is not in my budget.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
But otherwise? I’m not even sure there is a compromise
|
There is - just may not be one you care about.
The surfy/slarvy/chuckable nature of a modern rockered powder ski really is a giggle. You don't get that with a conventional cambered ski.
Don't get me wrong - if I only had one pair of skis it would be something like yours but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy messing about on something more playful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I remember owning Salomon Super Force 9 2S skis and thinking they were the dogs balls. This guy came out on a trip with a pair of carvers and we all took the p!ss. We dubbed them spoons due to the excessive wide 'scoop' on the front. Then I got some Rossy Bandit XX's (moderate spoons) after a guide told me they were the best. He was right. For now. Then the fat ski's came out and I/we took the p!ss out of them too. As ever with some justification initially as the early models of these new breeds often stand out or a bit meh. But the justification holds. And so after my Bandit replacements (ebay B2's) had binding failures I came to rent some Cham 87's. Fatter but not excessively so. But I loved them so much... well I bought a pair of 97's. I think the B2's were about 78. So going up to 97 wide was a bit unnerving but the 87's and reviews read gave me the confidence to do it. And I've no regrets. They are short radius but they are also all mountain. They are not slalom skis. They don't "turn on a sixpence". But they don't smash the crud and they do float a bit. They aren't particularly stiff despite being heavy and having a sheet of metal in. I had a brief flirtation with some stiff Movement ski's so I know that doesn't work for me. But you still have to drive the Cham ski's. I doubt they'd work for someone with L plates on. But the moral of the story here is things do move on. You just have to find the right ski for you. But don't doubt it - fat is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| jedster wrote: |
| Quote: |
@jedster, at 18m I regard the sidecut of fhe sky7 as not enough for piste enjoyment. It's just too much radius to be able to carve on reds & blacks (confusing as big sidecut = small radius)
On piste, I'm addicted to the carve, trying to get my hip as close to the snow as possible with my legs almost buckling with the g force, this is where I have a problem with wider skis, the leverage from the width of the ski is very uncomfortable on the side of my lower leg when applying this force and the ski is almost perpendicular to the snow. Also, most wide skis have sidecuts in excess of 16m so you have to be going a lot faster to get the same lean angle.
|
I enjoy setting really high edge angles on piste too. But I've never owned a ski with less than 18m radius. The ones I most enjoy on piste are plenty stiff with 18m radius and 75mm waist. I can bend them into nice tight carves. Including on reds and blacks. IMO if you can set really high edge angles you don't need a really short radius because you will bend the ski plenty. |
You have to be a pretty good skier to do this. If I understood right, BASI 2 is showing a number of different turn radius’, but BASI 3 is influencing the radius of the turn (beyond the normal turn radius ie not just ‘park and ride’). Not that I’m interested in BASI, but the videos on the BASI website gives an idea of the standard needed to influence the turn shape. First time I saw someone REALLY bend the skis in an impossible arc I felt like someone watching David Blaine, “did that just happen”...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
You'll never find a ski that performs well at everything. When I got my Mantras I found I could ski and carve them well on hard piste, but that my wife on her Tigersharks would just leave me standing. Way it is. It was the other way round off piste of course. Now I'm on the RTMs I at least keep up with her. Having read through some of this thread I am beginning to wonder whether a set of Blizzard Bonafides might not be a good idea though... Next year maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Drogue wrote: |
Forgive my ignorance of the older skinny skis used as a comparison, but by modern wider skis are you talking about fat skis or just modern skis in general? I'm intrigued by the posts here arguing that fat skis are good on piste if you ski them right, as while I have much more limited experience than most here I've been amazed at the difference I've found in my technique skiing short-radius skis versus even more-piste-orientated all-mountain skis. In narrow-waisted skis it feels like I'm carving on rails and I can easily change carve dimensions, etc., which I've never found with all mountain skis. Is it just, as someone said, that fat skis have got better on piste to make them acceptable for a mixed day/holiday but are still a long way behind piste skis, or with different technique can they be pretty close in terms of control when carving on piste?
I'm happy to admit this may be my technique, I'm just curious. I'd like to start doing some off piste but with my previous experience I assumed I'd need two pairs of skis to combine it with a piste holiday. If better technique and better off piste skis makes it possible on one pair that would be great  |
Old school skis had (IIRC) a turn radius of around 45m and a waist width of around 62mm....off piste technique involved bouncing into a series of shortish turns...or if you were a bit more advanced, pressing your legs down through the turn and then letting the pressure of the snow push them up again, where you would change edges when flexed.....sort of like skiing over an invisible mogul.
Next (forgetting about Fatboys) came the Freeride skis of the early 2000s, which had a waist of around 70mm....my Atomc Beta Ride 11s are 107 70 98 and were considered a reasonably wide ski in the early 2000s. These allowed you to go faster, with wider turns and had very decent on piste performance....they behave like a stable GS ski.
Nothing beats a good Piste Ski, on Piste (except a race ski). Off piste, it's serviceable...especially compared to straight skis.
All Mountain skis (84 - 95mm), are reasonable On and Off, but not as good as the specialist tool....probably 60/40 On/Off
Freeride skis (100 - 110mm). These are wide enough, with a design that favours Off Piste, but are still serviceable On..probably 40/60. They will feel less reactive and slower edge to edge on Piste, than a Piste Ski. Requires decent technique to use On Piste.
IMO. When learning, you are better starting on a Piste ski, with a turn radius 12 - 14m, where you can really feel the ski working. If this is where you spend 90% of your time, then this is the ski you should use....you can always hire a wide ski on the odd occasion you get Powder.
If you find yourself Off Piste 20 - 40% of the time, go All Mountain. If you go Off as much as possibe (50%+), go Freeride.
IMO. dedicated Powder Skis are for those who spend most of the winter skiing and not really for the 1 week per year skier, who would be better hiring if they get the 1 in 10 year conditions (ie. during their week).
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Tue 2-01-18 23:07; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I hired Soul 7 skis last year and actually preferred them to my own piste skis, despite never truly going off-piste (though there was plenty of fresh snow about earlier in the day).
Sure they get a bit tiring if carving all day but I actually find modern off-piste better on crud. Trying to power through crud with stiff skis works to some extent but floating over absorbing the bounces with rocker skis I actually find more stable once you get used to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
IMO. When learning, you are better starting on a Piste ski, with a turn radius 12 - 14m, where you can really feel the ski working. |
I agree with this advice. I think basically as a starter a piste ski is most sensible as it will accentuate good and bad technique the most. By having a straight-forward, does what it says on the tin piste ski, then when stuff does not happen how you wanted it to, you can be pretty sure it's technique. As soon as you introduce other variables to the matter - like more challenging skis - it's harder, as a learner, to pinpoint whether you're actually doing it wrong or if your equipment is letting you down.
That isn't to say there isn't usually some technique involved anyway. But if the ski manifests the issue, it won't help a learner to identify their weaknesses as easily as they'll blame the equipment more liberally.
| Quote: |
If you find yourself Off Piste 20 - 40% of the time, go All Mountain. If you go Off as much as possibe (50%+), go Freeride.
IMO. dedicated Powder Skis are for those who spend most of the winter skiing and not really for the 1 week per year skier, who would be better hiring if they get the 1 in 10 year conditions (ie. during their week). |
I disagree with this. You have to get the skis which are right for you. Even if I only get to ski off piste for 5 days a year, it's going to be a lot less fun trying to work an 84mm all mountain ski. If I get 2 weeks of powder, I want it to be the best 2 weeks of my entire life so far. So I have powder skis which I know will give me that opportunity if the weather conditions allow for it.
Different skis are right for different people. I find it easy to make wide skis work in conditions they weren't really designed for. People try to be too strict and say "this ski is for this purpose and this kind of skier". Rubbish. You can find videos of people taking GS Race skis through deep powder fields and videos of people taking wideboys down icey pistes and carving them like SLs. And everything in between. Obviously design and construction of the skis do affect how they perform, but trying to classify skis by their widths and say you should buy a particular pair based on the number of weeks you ski, are totally wrong IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@dp, If what I said came across as absolutist....then this was my mistake.
IIRC. A.M. Skis are the big growth area in any manufacturers range and are becoming more and more popular with the holiday skier, precisely because of their versatility.
IMO. I was trying to advise going with the ski where you realistically spend the most time....and hiring to suit the conditions.
....though I do happen to think that you can gauge a ski's optimum suitability for certain conditions, from its waist (along with certain design characteristics). Just because certain expert skiers can ski, any ski anywhere, doesn't mean that skis for your average skier can't be categorized into those areas where they were designed to be.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Tue 2-01-18 22:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Steilhang, Bonafides have similar geometry to Mantras. Maybe even a little stiffer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m super lucky that I get to ski most weekends and occasionally in between.
How often do I ski (real) powder...?
Not. Very. Often. Sadly.
So our skis are selected for the range of conditions we usually are faced with. Rigid enough to handle ice and man made pistes, wide enough that a powder day is eminently fun.
I would note again that we both learned to ski powder on skinny skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
In my humble for 'punters' like me who ski one week at a time and have to take what they can get you only want/need one ski. And for most it will be an all mountain ski. And these days they are relatively fat. Because they can be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
IIRC. A.M. Skis are the big growth area in any manufacturers range and are becoming more and more popular with the holiday skier, precisely because of their versatility. |
I wouldn't say it's actually their versatility that makes them popular. I think people tend to think everyone buys all mountain skis because they want to ski on and off piste. I don't think this is the case for nearly all people. I think actually lots of people buy A.M skis because they're the accessible, well priced skis in the middle of the range - so for people who are not ski enthusiasts, they're the ones they get in the hire shop and the ones on the shelves on Ellis Brigham. Secondly, I think lots of people use A.M skis because they suit resort conditions. Piste performance skis are aimed at well groomed slopes, which is not always a given in resort. A lot of all mountain skis will carve well on a groomed slope but also deal well with the less conditioned slopes that might cause more piste-defined skis a challenge.
| Quote: |
IMO. I was trying to advise going with the ski where you realistically spend the most time....and hiring to suit the conditions. |
I get what you were saying, but it's not necessarily that easy. There's no guarantee you can find a powder ski you like if the conditions allow. I'm sure you agree that a ski is not a ski is not a ski. it's really not so simple, in my experience, to assume that on a good snow day you will be able to pop into a shop and get an off-piste orientated ski which actually suits you and you like. So for those of us who want to have the best possible day when it snows, taking the skis you know you love with you, is the only choice.
| Quote: |
....though I do happen to think that you can gauge a ski's optimum suitability for certain conditions, from its waist (along with certain design characteristics). Just because certain expert skiers can ski, any ski anywhere, doesn't mean that skis for your average skier can't be categorized into those areas where they were designed to be. |
That's where I disagree.
1) There's many ski exceptions to the rule (my Preachers for example are 112 underfoot but ski like something 80-88 underfoot).
2) Some people are suited to wider skis than other people.
End of the day you have to ski the thing which suits you best. I'm not just talking about pros carving up the piste on a general powder ski. I mean that I spent 3 days of the EOSB last year skiing around on my 118-waist Ragnaroks because I personally can ski them well on their edges with a lot of control and I love how they turn the slushy wet snow at the end of the day into a playground - which my narrow skis don't do. The point is I think that whilst there is typically an obvious correlation between waist dimensions and designed purpose, we are all different as skiers and if something wider is what suits you then you don't have to comply to a rule that your one ski quiver ought to be narrower.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @Steilhang, Bonafides have similar geometry to Mantras. Maybe even a little stiffer. |
Good 
Sounds like we are coming from a similar place. I also learned to ski off piste on long skinny GS skis and also can't quite see the point of using a pair of strapon pontoons in the kind of pow we get in Europe. Mantras were fine for all conditions I ever encountered. Maybe thats because I still ski powder old style thogh and not as though I was on a snowboard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
a tightly carving ski that slices straight through the piles of snow & slush is easier for me.
|
I'm with you on that. Obviously you can pivot skis through the slush but I prefer to carve it up - much more efficient. The only problem is that when you crank up the edge angles you can end up with your boot / knee smashing through piles of slush!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
I also learned to ski off piste on long skinny GS skis and also can't quite see the point of using a pair of strapon pontoons in the kind of pow we get in Europe. Mantras were fine for all conditions I ever encountered.
|
Me too - learned to ski powder on skinny skis. I also tend to ski short turns in powder - generally find the best snow in the trees and bushes - big open slopes get skied out fast.
Of course mantras are fine in all conditions - that is not in doubt. My point is that specialist powder skis can be EVEN more fun for pure powder conditions. That doesn't make mantras poor off piste! I have a pair of pure powder skis because a) I have a ski locker in the Alps and b) I got a really cheap deal thanks to Jon and Whitedot clearing stock on Snowheads! Personally I'd never bother carrying them on a plane for a trip in Europe - would always take something more versatile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
I also learned to ski off piste on long skinny GS skis
|
Incidentally, I also learned to carve turns on long skinny skis with a massive radius. I wasn't able to do it very often because I needed a big open blue run in order to be able to ski fast enough to get the ski to bend into a proper arc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| From observations on the mountains, especially the Sella Ronda, very few people actually carve their turns. |
When does a parallel turn become a carved turn? I am not necessarily disagreeing. But the definition of when people are carving is blurred. And anyway that isn't what we are discussing is it. Surely the point is many "fat" skis can now do fairly short radius turns/carving aswell as the last generation of carving ski's or even older generation skinnies.
| tangowaggon wrote: |
Personally I couldn't imagine anything worse than a fat ski for slush & chopped up piste, a tightly carving ski that slices straight through the piles of snow & slush is easier for me. I have often thought that slush is where carved turns really come into their own as smearing 10-20 kg of slush out of the way every turn is seriously hard work, the only issue is when the slush hits the front of my boot and I get a gob and nose full  |
I'm not sure I agree with this at all. Slush skis a lot like powder - the wider ski gives you more float. Do you actually carve through powder or slush? Chopped up stuff you want something big and brassy to bash through it. Light and/or skinny skis won't do that so well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
For balance none of the decent skiers round here are on less than 105mm waisted skis and most are around the 115-120 mark. Albeit there’s a big off piste bias but irrespective of powder, crust, chopped up the extra width wins every time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
Personally I couldn't imagine anything worse than a fat ski for slush & chopped up piste, a tightly carving ski that slices straight through the piles of snow & slush is easier for me. I have often thought that slush is where carved turns really come into their own as smearing 10-20 kg of slush out of the way every turn is seriously hard work, the only issue is when the slush hits the front of my boot and I get a gob and nose full |
You should really try it as that is where fat skis excel on piste. High edge angles, but forget about the edges and use the bases instead like in powder. Most fun you can have onpiste!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Layne,
A parallel turn can be smeared or carved, with an old fashioned smeared turn, the skis don't have full edge grip and slide slightly sideways in the turn, leaving a poorly defined mark on the piste like a knife dpreading butter. No part of the edge covers the same piece of snow as any other part of the edge.
In a carved turn the edge has total grip on the snow such that every part of the edge covers the same point in the snow from tip to tail, there is no sideways slippage and there are two very sharp, parallel lines left in the snow throughout the turn. As the skier increases the edge angle and puts greater pressure on the skis, the sharp lines can become two parallel ruts in the snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@tangowaggon, I would agree with you that most people most definitely do not carve even when they think they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
| Quote: |
I also learned to ski off piste on long skinny GS skis
|
Incidentally, I also learned to carve turns on long skinny skis with a massive radius. I wasn't able to do it very often because I needed a big open blue run in order to be able to ski fast enough to get the ski to bend into a proper arc. |
+1 great fun on old skinnies when the boot is mounted low on the ski and you crank them over so far that the boot hits the snow, lifting the edge off the snow and spits you into the netting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Layne wrote: |
| But the definition of when people are carving is blurred. |
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.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Wed 3-01-18 11:49; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@BobinCH,
what, racers aren't decent skiers?
If you mean off piste skiers tend to ski on off piste skis you are telling us nothing interesting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
that shall remain nameless spend 5 minutes lecturing another 