 Poster: A snowHead
|
Megamum, ....time to come back in, having watched with interest the mild drift into mogul-talk...which is on-topic I think (for all those who worry about thread discipline...) ... casting my mind back I remember the 2002 snow+rock catalogue, which had Salomon 1080 Moguls - skis with almost no waist whatsoever, if I recall correctly; and this link refers to them - lots of interesting retro-talk about specialist bump skis...
http://www.epicski.com/t/91897/best-specialty-mogul-skis
I remember thinking at the time (ie 2002) who on earth in the leisure bracket would want more than one or two pairs of skis? and now I take a look at the skis in the garage (and under the bed, and in the wardrobe, etc etc) and all the skis I've sent to the skip in the sky....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
actually....thinking of 'skip in the sky', I feel another thread coming on.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| Oh, dear, I didn't realise a simple question would be so controversial. I know it is not necessarily the case, but I tend to associate a narrower waist with a smaller turn radius and I associate moguls with needing smaller radius turns, hence would my narrower skis with their smaller turn radius be easier in moguls. However, it seems it is not that cut and dried. |
I thought the same, but I got jumped on from all sides!
As the experts gleefully pointed out, you don't carve on moguls. I never thought of that and was well and truly corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
valais2, You've been at the Fendant haven't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
under a new name, drat...the game's up....where's that corkscrew....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wayne wrote: |
OK skir67, thread drift alert
It really is a REALLY bad idea. There is absolutely no reason to GS a bumps field EVER.
Whilst it may show that you can do it, it also demonstrates (to the student of anyone asking you to do it) that the instructor/assessor has run out of ideas on either assessment criteria or lesson themes. In which case either a talk to the ski school (if on holiday) or a meeting the Trainer’s supervisor (if on a BASI course) would be the correct course of action.
What is the primary consideration of running any lesson – SEL (in that order, always), zipping a bumps run runs contrary to the “S”. OK on BASI course the E may be missing (waiting for the puns) but the S and L should still be there.
We all fall over now and again in the bumps, but we still do em, as their fun. They challenge your ability in many of the skills involved in more sedate skiing, but at a much faster rate – in fact it’s a truism that people can’t ski bumps because they can’t ski. The ability to ski a good bumps line at an appropriate speed is a good demonstration of overall ability.
But bumps fields are dangerous places if taken at an inappropriate speed. The undulations in the terrain mean that any fall at a high speed will almost certainly result in a higher risk of serious injury that if the same incident had happened in a more appropriate testing area.
I say again. A student or assessee should NEVER be coerced into GS’ing bumps. If you want to do it on your own, fine go for but don’t encourage others to either in a lesson or assessment.
I have some mega pictures of me (taken by Mrs_W) hucking some cliffs (nothing bigger than 5m - coz I'm a wimp), should I use this is a lesson to teach people how to absorb a drop? No. I will guarantee that some BSI trainers can huck maybe 10, 20 or even 30m, but just as something can be done, doesn't mean it should be. Back in the day I was on a course with Dave Renuf and he had the habit of doing back flips with a 360' of the edge of the piste (coz he could and it was fun), but he would never bring this into the assessment criteria, as the risk of a broken neck was just unacceptable. It’s the same with GS’ing bumps. 99% of BASI's (L3 & 4 and even some 1 and 2') can do it, but should it be taken into account if you can’t (or choose not to)? |
If you can GS a bumps field then why not, it's fun? People do it, just as guys jump off very big cliffs, because they can do it. I once watched a guy in NZ straight line a moguls comp course because he could do it and he obviously thought it would be fun (he didn't win though  ). I didn't at any point suggest I would use this in a lesson, but that's mainly because there's a tiny,tiny percentage of skiers who can do it well enough for it to be safe, and yes I understand SEL or SET or whatever you wish to call it, it was one of the first principals of ski teaching I was taught over 20 years ago. And without E there is unlikely to be L.
I don't agree either that the instructor/assessor would have run out of ideas, it's just another way of being versatile on skis. Also you could be doing GS size turns but without the same level of speed as you would take on a non-bumps piste, or the bumps could be small with lots of soft snow in the troughs. There really are so many variables in snow, speed, line, bump size, bump shape, prevailing weather, performer mentality and level that ruling something out blanket fashion shouldn't be an option as long as its safe for those concerned.
If you were coaching high end athletes then perhaps you could safely do this, but as always it's about what's appropriate for the person you're working with. Certainly more or less no holiday skier would be able to do this safely as they just don't get enough time on skis to get to and maintain the necessary skill level and skiing related fitness. But a coach working long term with a high end performer is another thing potentially.
Please note that after my comment about GS'ing bumps I put in a couple of smileys, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Piccadilly, OK. so I get the bit about not carving them, but surely any ski designed with a smaller curve radius will be easier to turn (in any way), thans one which displays opposite tenedancies, whether carving or not, surey this would apply with moguls?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't see the earlier thread so I find this interesting, not repetitive. I also got the subject straight off---must be something to do with the type of crossword one likes. (simple ones in my case )
What is fat ?? I am on rossi S86 (178) and they are just great (86mm underfoot) . The makers call them 50/50 piste and offpiste and I agree. I previously had those excellent Atomic B5 (probably a bit short at 170 , 124/76 mm underfoot ) and I can carve and change edge nearly as quickly on the Rosis. The B5 let me sink a bit too much but I wonder if that was because they were short. No.... I remain convinced that the Rossi dimensions are just fine. Ski ability is still needed and I ski mostly off piste but can enjoy a good blast on piste or in moguls on the Rossis.
What dimension does Snowball use for his off piste, may I ask? And I wonder if Picadilly had my skis and they were the ones he didn't like ? And I see mine come within the recommended sizes by Mike Pow yet he says that was for groomed runs. I would have the Atomics if it were purely piste. Indeed my even earlier Atomics, 10/20s, were just wonderful on piste and I also did hundreds of miles off piste with them (108/70/99) . But it was harder work, I think. Anyone want to buy them as they are still in the garage and in fine order.
The thought that it was more interesting on the narrower ones hadn't struck me. The present ones are just easier and I have bought the sales line that this is what it's about.
But I won't go back.
Nor do I wish to go fatter . I tried Sentinels (93mm) and found them cumbersome so that confirms my current stance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Only just realised this is a 3 page thread...a bit behind the pack again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Farley Goode wrote: |
I didn't see the earlier thread so I find this interesting, not repetitive. I also got the subject straight off---must be something to do with the type of crossword one likes. (simple ones in my case )
What is fat ?? I am on rossi S86 (178) and they are just great (86mm underfoot) . The makers call them 50/50 piste and offpiste and I agree.
And I see mine come within the recommended sizes by Mike Pow yet he says that was for groomed runs. |
The dimensions I quoted earlier and which I recommend to my students are for a ski that is suitable for both the piste and powder of Hokkaido - 125-135 mm in the tip, 75-85 mm in the waist.
If I were to instruct in Europe then a larger waist profile of 85-95 mm may well be the go for improving skiers in typical European ungroomed snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Farley Goode wrote: |
I didn't see the earlier thread so I find this interesting, not repetitive. I also got the subject straight off---must be something to do with the type of crossword one likes. (simple ones in my case )
What is fat ?? I am on rossi S86 (178) and they are just great (86mm underfoot) . The makers call them 50/50 piste and offpiste and I agree.
And I see mine come within the recommended sizes by Mike Pow yet he says that was for groomed runs. |
The dimensions I quoted earlier and which I recommend to my students are for a ski that is suitable for both the piste and powder of Hokkaido - 125-135 mm in the tip, 75-85 mm in the waist.
If I were to instruct in Europe then a larger waist profile of 85-95 mm may well be the go for improving skiers in typical European ungroomed snow. |
I think that's quite a good point actually - I'm assuming you have lots of lovely light soft snow as a base, under the new day's new snow? Presumably much nicer and easier to deal with than, say, 20-30cms on top of hard-set chopped up mank, which is fairly common over here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| Piccadilly, OK. so I get the bit about not carving them, but surely any ski designed with a smaller curve radius will be easier to turn (in any way), thans one which displays opposite tenedancies, whether carving or not, surey this would apply with moguls? |
I find that a ski with a deep very aggressive sidecut (tip and tail) really really wants to make turns of it's sidecut radius, as the sidecut is 'catching' and coming into play more, particularly on stiff high-performance race skis. It's *relatively* (for a less-strong skier) harder to release the ski and get it to pivot into shorter turns, as the sidecut will engage more readily. Of course this is also the brilliant thing about these skis, in the right places.
I find a ski with a less aggressive sidecut/larger turn radius more willing to pivot very small turns without the sidecut wanting to engage you into a turn of it's prescribed size. Of course a good skier should easily be able to ski whatever size turns they want without trouble.
Case in point, although the Dynastar Sultan 85s were much better than the old Legend 8000s everywhere else (including carving on piste, despite being wider), the L8ks were a lot better in the moguls - I put this down to their mellower sidecut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Piccadilly, I am not sure discussion here can be described as "gleeful" people sharing there experiences and correcting some misconceptions. It's an interesting topic and everyone is or has been in the same boat when it comes to equipment choice. Truth is that there is no ski that would do everything equally good, and when some ski characteristics can be helpful in one type of terrain/conditions, it can actually be an impediment in other terrain/conditions. It doesn't mean that you need to change skis as your day progresses or need to own ten pairs, but understanding ski limitations will help to overcome them by adapting technique. Point is that money spent on lessons/courses generally yields better returns than money spent on another pair of skis especially when the choice is either one or the other.
Megamum, No, this is not true everywhere, only where the small radius of a ski is a factor, sometimes carving turns are not optimal and actually less sidecut can make skis easier to turn as tips and tails protrude less and therefore are less hooky. Small radius is a factor where the ski has to run up its edge length before the next turn can be made, but you turn in a different way and much sooner on moguls in any case, so smaller natural curve won’t help you. Also not everywhere on a piste you need or want to turn as much as smaller radius skis may demand. Generally you can bend 15m radius skis to make a tighter turn, but if you want a larger turn you can’t make it on 10m skis, because skis will want to turn before you do. Anyway, don’t overthink your equipment. 10m skis won’t make turning on moguls easier than 15m skis. If you are planning to start skiing bumps this ski season, the same time next year you will have a better picture of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Just to get back on the topic of the OP, am I the only one who finds it odd that some people who ride skinny boards are so defensive about it?
As someone who prefers wider skis, I can tell you that I am part of a very, very small minority in Europe. Every time I go to the Alps, the vast (and I mean really vast) majority of people are riding chin-high carvers as they have been for a number of years. Many of them are people on rentals, but a large number are people who own their own gear and still prefer narrow waists. It's the few on wide(ish) skis who stick out. We are a slowly growing group, but in some resorts even the people on old, straight skis still outnumber us. So, why is it that the carver lovers are the ones who create threads as if they're part of some vanishing minority whose way of life is being threatened?
You are a part of the overwhelming majority. Almost everyone likes what you like. No one gives you funny looks on the lifts or makes snide remarks about your gear. The footrests on chairlifts are wide enough for both of your skis to fit (you don't have to leave one foot hanging). The ski racks on cable cars are specifically designed with your skis in mind (you don't have to split them up and use the snowboard slot). Pistes are groomed to make them ideal for the type of skiing that you like to do.
Please stop complaining about how a handful of people are threatening your overwhelming majority. Just ride what you like and enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| cerebralvortex wrote: |
| Please stop complaining |
I'm not complaining, I'm observing. I don't care what other people ski on, and I don't feel under pressure from those people who prefer wider skis. Horses for courses and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Farley Goode wrote: |
I didn't see the earlier thread so I find this interesting, not repetitive. I also got the subject straight off---must be something to do with the type of crossword one likes. (simple ones in my case )
What is fat ?? I am on rossi S86 (178) and they are just great (86mm underfoot) . The makers call them 50/50 piste and offpiste and I agree.
And I see mine come within the recommended sizes by Mike Pow yet he says that was for groomed runs. |
The dimensions I quoted earlier and which I recommend to my students are for a ski that is suitable for both the piste and powder of Hokkaido - 125-135 mm in the tip, 75-85 mm in the waist.
If I were to instruct in Europe then a larger waist profile of 85-95 mm may well be the go for improving skiers in typical European ungroomed snow. |
I think that's quite a good point actually - I'm assuming you have lots of lovely light soft snow as a base, under the new day's new snow? Presumably much nicer and easier to deal with than, say, 20-30cms on top of hard-set chopped up mank, which is fairly common over here. |
Spot on (for most of the winter).
Thankfully
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| never summer wrote: |
| Point is that money spent on lessons/courses generally yields better returns than money spent on another pair of skis especially when the choice is either one or the other. |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| I'm not complaining, I'm observing. I don't care what other people ski on, and I don't feel under pressure from those people who prefer wider skis. Horses for courses and all that. |
Skinny skis are the horses dancing to Phil Collins medleys with plaits in their manes. Fat skis are the wild mustangs. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
rob@rar, and that's why you're not creating threads about how "everyone" is on fat skis and how you're "the only one" who likes narrow waists. Nor are you creating threads about fat skis being a fashion statement or a complete waste of time, and you're not writing posts accusing people on wide skis of being the equivalent of MAMILs or teenage posers.
In other words, my comments weren't directed at you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| cerebralvortex wrote: |
As someone who prefers wider skis, I can tell you that I am part of a very, very small minority in Europe. Every time I go to the Alps, the vast (and I mean really vast) majority of people are riding chin-high carvers as they have been for a number of years. Many of them are people on rentals, but a large number are people who own their own gear and still prefer narrow waists. It's the few on wide(ish) skis who stick out. We are a slowly growing group, but in some resorts even the people on old, straight skis still outnumber us. So, why is it that the carver lovers are the ones who create threads as if they're part of some vanishing minority whose way of life is being threatened?
|
My experience in the resorts I've worked and played at in N America and Hokkaido, Japan is the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Pow, that's why I said "every time I go to the Alps." I'm sure things are different in resorts with a lot more ungroomed terrain and more frequent snow storms (as I saw in Revelstoke).
Last edited by After all it is free  on Tue 30-10-12 12:17; 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| cerebralvortex wrote: |
| Mike Pow, that's why I said "every time I go to the Alps." |
I can read thanks. I was offering an alternative viewpoint.
And perhaps therein lies the answer.
The 'typical' conditions in Europe suit a more piste oriented ski and the 'typical' conditions in western US and Canada and Japan suit a fatter waisted powder oriented ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| cerebralvortex wrote: |
| In other words, my comments weren't directed at you. |
That might well be true. I was simply adding my experience to ensure the debate didn't get polarised by the "pros" and "antis" which is so often the case touchstone issues like ski width.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
I can read thanks. I was offering an alternative viewpoint.
And perhaps therein lies the answer.
The 'typical' conditions in Europe suit a more piste oriented ski and the 'typical' conditions in western US and Canada and Japan suit a fatter waisted powder oriented ski. |
My post wasn't about which gear is suited to which conditions or a commentary on what skis people should be using. I am familiar with different conditions in different places, and I'm familiar with several different types of skis (enough to know what works for me, but not enough to really give advice to anyone else).
I was mearly making an observation that there are those who are part of the overwhelming majority in this part of the world at least who complain about a very small minority as if we're taking over the world and threatening their way of life, figuratively speaking. Given the various difficulties of using wide skis mentioned above, these complaints have a tendency to get annoying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough.
There are resorts (or parts of resorts) I've visited in Europe where there's at least a 50/50 split if not a tendency towards fatter
e.g. Chamonix, Engelberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| cerebralvortex wrote: |
| I was mearly making an observation that there are those who are part of the overwhelming majority in this part of the world at least who complain about a very small minority as if we're taking over the world and threatening their way of life, figuratively speaking. Given the various difficulties of using wide skis mentioned above, these complaints have a tendency to get annoying. |
That's one side of the coin. The other side are claims that fat skis are brilliant on piste, just as good as a dedicated piste ski, so anyone skiing a narrow ski is an old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud. We see both sides of that particular coin frequently on snowHeads, and my perception is that the "narrow ski skiers are old-fashioned" is probably the more common.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| That might well be true. I was simply adding my experience to ensure the debate didn't get polarised by the "pros" and "antis" which is so often the case touchstone issues like ski width. |
The whole point is that there aren't any pros and cons on this issue. Each person has different preferences, so each person should find out what makes him/her happy and go with it. If you're not happy with your choice, try something different. If you are happy with your choice, stick with it.
But whatever you choose, don't go complaining about how the whole world is against you (which is how this thread started out) or how you don't like those with different preferences (like previous threads mentioned before).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| cerebralvortex wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| That might well be true. I was simply adding my experience to ensure the debate didn't get polarised by the "pros" and "antis" which is so often the case touchstone issues like ski width. |
The whole point is that there aren't any pros and cons on this issue. |
I wasn't talking about pros and cons, I was talking about pros and antis. A definition of a pro or anti is someone unwilling to see the pros and cons of any particular ski choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
rob@rar, Didn't you get some 130 duke breaks off me? I reckon you are a secret fat ski lover! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| kesone1 wrote: |
| rob@rar, Didn't you get some 130 duke breaks off me? I reckon you are a secret fat ski lover! |
I don't have a bias for any particular type of ski other than, where possible, be on the best ski you can be for the skiing you're doing. I'm fortunate in that I have a choice of skis, ranging from 65mm slalom & GS RD skis through to 115mm wide with a modest tip rocker. The skis I'm adding to the collection this season are 90mm wide with a small tip rocker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
rob@rar, Ha. No fatties in the quiver then?  You off to Hokkaido again this year? I might be there in Feb again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| The other side are claims that fat skis are brilliant on piste, just as good as a dedicated piste ski. |
OK I'll bite. Anyone claiming that fat skis are just as good as a dedicated piste ski on freshly groomed relatively firm piste is clearly mental. They might however reasonably claim that they are "good enough (for them)".
However pistes are not uniform and when it gets churned and chopped up and springlike then while some people on their piste dominators are moaning about it being too heavy and jacking it in early it is still possible to be having fun on a more versatile ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This really is the gift that keeps on giving isn't it?
Is it snowing yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| OK I'll bite. Anyone claiming that fat skis are just as good as a dedicated piste ski on freshly groomed relatively firm piste is clearly mental. They might however reasonably claim that they are "good enough (for them)". |
'Good enough for them' is a perfectly reasonable position to take, although the argument often goes that fat skis allow you to have so much fun (which they obviously do in the right circumstances) but without acknowledging that piste skis also allow you to have so much fun (in the right circumstances). All ski choices are about making compromises if you want to ski all the mountain, and I like to see a balanced debate where the strengths and weaknesses of skis are given a good airing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| gorilla wrote: |
This really is the gift that keeps on giving isn't it?
Is it snowing yet? |
Yes and yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| The other side are claims that fat skis are brilliant on piste, just as good as a dedicated piste ski. |
OK I'll bite. Anyone claiming that fat skis are just as good as a dedicated piste ski on freshly groomed relatively firm piste is clearly mental. They might however reasonably claim that they are "good enough (for them)".
However pistes are not uniform and when it gets churned and chopped up and springlike then while some people on their piste dominators are moaning about it being too heavy and jacking it in early it is still possible to be having fun on a more versatile ski. |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
