 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| @davidof, I think the OP's already gone some way down the route of addressing his problems, from this earlier post |
she has certainly gone
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Come for the ski advice. Stay for the dysfunction. Or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| 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. |
Hello! It’s in the thread title “BACK SEAT”!!!
And do a curl-F to count the number of times the various “tip” out of snow was mentioned in the many posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| abc wrote: |
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
Who, exactly, are you arguing with, that is suggesting leaning back as a valid powder technique?
|
Hello! It’s in the thread title “BACK SEAT”!!!. |
As a recognised problem, not somebody saying it's how it should be done.
| abc wrote: |
And do a curl-F to count the number of times the various “tip” out of snow was mentioned in the many posts. |
You're still completely failing to understand that keeping the tips up, especially with rocker skis, is in absolutely no way the same as leaning back. That's kind of the whole point, how to keep your tips out of the snow without falling into the trap of thinking that leaning back is a good way to achieve this.
You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that wide skis and rockers to give the extra float to, among other things, keep the tips up without leaning back, is a bad thing.
Quite bizarre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I have meandered through this thread for several days. Nobody has mentioned the word confidence. Skiing off- piste, Variables (in BASI speak) is the ultimate test of ones technique. More importantly the individuals belief that the technique works. In any stress situation it's natural to "shy" away from a hazard, a punch being thrown, over the handle bars on a bike etc.
Perhaps it is the most frustrating part of skiing, knowing you can do something but the snow, pitch, light simply nibble away at your confidence resulting in a back -seat ride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rogerdodger wrote: |
| .....Nobody has mentioned the word confidence.... |
I totally agree about confidence, commitment etc
In fact from the previous page.....
| Weathercam wrote: |
| ......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.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
Who, exactly, are you arguing with, that is suggesting leaning back as a valid powder technique?
|
Hello! It’s in the thread title “BACK SEAT”!!!. |
As a recognised problem, not somebody saying it's how it should be done.
| abc wrote: |
And do a curl-F to count the number of times the various “tip” out of snow was mentioned in the many posts. |
You're still completely failing to understand that keeping the tips up, especially with rocker skis, is in absolutely no way the same as leaning back. That's kind of the whole point, how to keep your tips out of the snow without falling into the trap of thinking that leaning back is a good way to achieve this.
You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that wide skis and rockers to give the extra float to, among other things, keep the tips up without leaning back, is a bad thing.
Quite bizarre. |
What’s bizarre is you reading what wasn’t there! 
Go ahead and keep on arguing with the phantoms. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
[quote="abc"]
| BobinCH wrote: |
However, going all the way over 100mm don’t necessarily gain much of anything a 90-95mm skis don’t have.
|
You really want to keep denying science?
It gives you more float. 112 even more. If you’re riding backseat that will things easier irrespective your weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure how I missed your use of the word confidence @Weathercam, I can only assume my meanderings were not overly diligent.
People generally ski in the "back seat" because that is where the subconscious tells them is safe!
It is not an easy thing to break down, building confidence in any way , will help move any skier further forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| phil_w wrote: |
I think that bit about "use the same techniques off-piste as on" is key.
Deep powder just ... exposes technique flaws which hardpack doesn't.
Those flaws ought to be visible on piste too, mind, so they are likely easily addressed in that more controlled environment. |
I think this is right. Balance in variable snow is critical and that centre of boot thing is important. Yes, on piste you do a little fore and aft, especially when carving: but when i was learning to ski off-piste I found that making sure I had pressure on my shins (flexed ankle rayher than leaning forward), a good athletic stance and a real focus on being on the middle of my boot worked wonders. It means you can be pretty adaptive with your skiing on variable snow.
Skis do make a massive difference, as do where the bindings are mounted on them. Frankly my fat skis have a more central binding than my piste skis, which leads to a much easier time of things on steeps and irregular stuff. And the skis themselves are long, wide, forgiving and just make things easier, punishing mistakes less than something like a Brahma (old Whitedot Preachers for most days, and very rarely, DPS Spoons for big days. The latter are unsuitable on piste, but a dream in deep powder.
On piste lessons really do help - you wouldn't be wasting your time at all.
Edited: I missed the whole fight! Wow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
However, going all the way over 100mm don’t necessarily gain much of anything a 90-95mm skis don’t have.
|
You really want to keep denying science?
It gives you more float. 112 even more. If you’re riding backseat that will things easier irrespective your weight. |
|
I reject pseudo science. Wouldn’t a 200mm plank be even more float? Why aren’t you riding one? Why stop at 112 or even 120?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
However, going all the way over 100mm don’t necessarily gain much of anything a 90-95mm skis don’t have.
|
You really want to keep denying science?
It gives you more float. 112 even more. If you’re riding backseat that will things easier irrespective your weight. |
|
I reject pseudo science. Wouldn’t a 200mm plank be even more float? Why aren’t you riding one? Why stop at 112 or even 120? |
I didn’t…
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Good lord, these are monsters.
Now please switch the binding to touring, find a wide enough skin, and enjoy the climb!
I used to accuse my kit of being the reason I couldn't enjoy the downhill. And while I pretty much know it's really my technique (in non groomed snow), but have now realised that fatigue plays a lot too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@patrick!, Something along these lines....
121 underfoot with a shift binding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
My complete quiver (yes, I’m a DPS fanboy ), and I have toured on all them at some point. I nearly always carry skins off piste, as they expand your options and having a ski you can skin on can be a life saver.
Left to right underfoot, 100, 112, 112, 120, 124, 138, 148
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Mildly curious, what's the performance difference between the 138s and the 148s?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
More generally I am now bookmarking this thread to show my wife such that she might be more accepting of my own "problem"
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| patrick! wrote: |
Good lord, these are monsters.
Now please switch the binding to touring, find a wide enough skin, and enjoy the climb!
I used to accuse my kit of being the reason I couldn't enjoy the downhill. And while I pretty much know it's really my technique (in non groomed snow), but have now realised that fatigue plays a lot too. |
You may laugh but there is a poster on here @PowderAdict, who has setup his Spoons with Tech bindings and tours on them 
They are insanely easy to ski powder on, but require a bit more attention in an icy couloir  |
Well quite. Personally I ski powder very enjoyably on my superguide 88s but would not want to be in an icy couloir (or even traversing steep neve) on skis >110mm.
For adventurous ski touring/ski mountaineering the trade off of fat skis makes no sense for me. That's probably what you don't see fat skis in high mountain refuges (at least I haven't when I've been there). I was in the Conscrits hut when it was full in March and my WD R108 186cm were comfortably the biggest skis there. I wouldn't use them for that sort of trip again. |
I also do most touring on an 88mm ski but due to the weight and touring efficiency. On the down I’d always much rather have a wider, beefier ski. It is harder to ski fluently in 3D snow on a narrower rig as it’s a less stable platform with more tendency to catch edges etc. Jeremie Heitz tours skis the toughest faces in the Alps fluently on a 190cm 109mm Scott ski. He is 170cm and weighs less than 70kg’s. Sam Anthamatten, the famous Zermatt Mountain Guide and another shorty, tours on the Faction Agent 3 at 106mm. Most mountain guides skiing every day with slow clients will want as little fatigue as possible so will prefer a light, narrower setup but they’ll all ski better on a wider platform.
And taking this back to the OP struggling in the backseat, a wider, more rockered platform should be even more of a benefit than to a stronger skier with better balance and technique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gorilla wrote: |
| Mildly curious, what's the performance difference between the 138s and the 148s? |
The Spoon is the ultimate pure powder ski from DPS, 190cm 158-148-151mm, no turn radius quoted and full rocker with around a 40cm flat section under the bindings, they are just under 2Kg per ski so very light for the size. They will float in anything more than 15cm/6” of soft snow, and can be thought of as the skiing equivalent of a powder snowboard (they have a larger surface area). You ski them with a neutral centred stance and despite their size you can pivot them with your ankles, making them brilliant for skiing deep powder in trees. The short running edge makes them surprisingly usable when returning back to the lifts on piste, rather like giant blades. Where they handle badly is refrozen chopped up crud, boiler plate, and high speed traverses where you get the equivalent of a tank slapper as the tips/tails alternatively grab and release.
The Lotus 138 predates the Spoon by a few years, 192cm 140-138-139mm, no turn radius quoted and full rocker with around a 50cm flat section under the bindings, they are just over 2Kg per ski. Compared to the Spoon the Lotus is a hard charger, being slightly heavier, stiffer, and more directional. I say compared to the Spoon, because they are a superb powder ski in their own right. The Spoon is the ultimate evolution of the Lotus concentrating on the powder side of things. The Lotus 138 according to DPS was developed after five seasons of Alaskan R+D, so it suits steep high speed skiing better than the Spoon.
I always take 2 or 3 pairs when I go skiing, and it depends on what type of snow I’m expecting. In Japan I've skied on the Spoons everyday all day when lift served. In Europe I’ve taken them and they've never left the ski locker on occasion as there was no new snow. If I could only take one ski it would be the Wailer 112 or Lotus 124, but since I can I take more than one I do. On a couple of days I've started out on the ‘narrower’ skis, but found the conditions so good, I’ve returned to the hotel to swap to the Spoons. Obviously I wouldn’t take both the Spoons and Lotus 138 on the same trip, as the overlap is too great.
When the conditions are right I’ve never skied anything like either of them, as they completely change the experience of skiing in deep snow  (as @BobinCH can confirm for the Spoons at least).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@PowderAdict, omg, those Wailer 112's look positively anorexic in that company 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PowderAdict wrote: |
My complete quiver (yes, I’m a DPS fanboy ), and I have toured on all them at some point. I nearly always carry skins off piste, as they expand your options and having a ski you can skin on can be a life saver.
Left to right underfoot, 100, 112, 112, 120, 124, 138, 148
|
This post requires its own thread so as not to upset @abc, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| KenX wrote: |
| @PowderAdict, omg, those Wailer 112's look positively anorexic in that company |
It’s all relative, my ski progression once I became dedicated to powder skiing went Head Monster 88 (88mm), K2 Comback (101mm), Line Sir Frances Bacon (115mm), then my first DPS Wailer at 112mm. The last time I skied anything under 100mm was 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
But i that last pic the snow hardly merits anything fat does it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
| But i that last pic the snow hardly merits anything fat does it? |
That was the skin up to get to the powder on the other side
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| BobinCH wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
| BobinCH wrote: |
However, going all the way over 100mm don’t necessarily gain much of anything a 90-95mm skis don’t have.
|
You really want to keep denying science?
It gives you more float. 112 even more. If you’re riding backseat that will things easier irrespective your weight. |
|
I reject pseudo science. Wouldn’t a 200mm plank be even more float? Why aren’t you riding one? Why stop at 112 or even 120? |
I didn’t…
|
Snap! Great skis for the right conditions. Mine are going to Revelstoke with me, soon...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
