Poster: A snowHead
|
I find myself venturing off piste more these days, and am thinking of getting a pair of skis that are wider under foot. I've always been an 80% on 20% off piste type, but find that I'm more 60% on 40% off these days, maybe even 50-50.
I don't know much about going wider underfoot, so thought I'd ask for some advice here. Right now I have atomic blackeyes, which are 86mm underfoot. I really love them, but wonder would I get more enjoyment out of something wider now that I'm spending more time off. I'm thinking along the lines of a one ski fits all - not too much of a compromise on hard pistes, but something more suited to skiing the whole mountain.
My questions are:
What is the minimum you'd suggest under foot for this type of skiing? After reading around, something in the 95-105mm bracket seems about where I should be looking. Is this going to be much of a difference from 86mm?
I've read that the wider the ski, the more stress on the knee on piste. I'd like to keep this to a minimum, as my knees are starting to show their age...
Any suggestions on skis? The plan is to try a few of pairs first, but I don't want to waste time on things that really aren't suitable.
Thanks,
M
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I have two sets
94 and 110 underfoot.
For the average two week a year skier you would be fortunate to get optimal powder conditions for more than 2 or 3 days if your very lucky.
I have learned that unless there is a foot of fresh the 110s stay at home.
94 gives so much more fun all around the mountain, and it can cope with most the mountain/weather can throw at me comfortably. No real need for me to go wider.
110 is plain hard work and knackering on piste. When you change down to 94 it is like night and day.
The move from blackeyes( I have a pair of those too) up to 100 + will be a big jump.
You need to co side rocker and running length as week as width as this can dramatically affect the skis characteristics.
Caveat is your ability level obviously.
Try and be on the best ski for the conditions that day.
Every ski is a compromise depending on what your using it for.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Get a second pair of skis? Its nice not having to compromise, you might not get much selling your current skis and if you have the new ones fitted binding inserts you can probably squeeze em in the same bag without arousing too much suspicion from airline people
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Mark2010,
I'm no equipment guru but here's my 2p worth.
Some people are quite happy blatting around on piste with what would be considered as fat skis whilst others are quite happy heading off piste on what would be considered as piste skis.
There's always a compromise to be made somewhere IMHO, and as a 'holiday skier' in Europe skiing perhaps 2-4 weeks per season you take what you get in terms of conditions i.e anything form powder to ice and everything in between. I've had a pair of Blackeye's and as a one ski Quiver they're a good compromise IMO.
I've a pair of Head Supershape Magnums and some Salomon Q98's. I feel taking both I'm well covered for a variety of conditions. Skiing 4 weeks last season it was probably a 70:30 split in favour of the Heads in terms of conditions/usage. You don't mention your dimensions but at 6'3" and 16-18 stone in powder the float the Q98's give me in the soft stuff is obvious. On piste I can carve on them but they noticeably require more effort than the Heads.
In summary I think you have a very good all round ski, a lot of it is down to experience/technique. I don't suspect you'll notice an additional 10mm, plus there's more to how a ski performs than it's width. I'm a bit of a gear whore, i.e. I buy stuff I don't really need that I don't get the full potential out of so may sound a hypocrite saying this but I'd keep the Atomics and if you get a particularly good powder day demo or rent some fat skis for the day and see how you get on with them
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
+1
I used a pair of 98s for everything for 6 years, but last year bought myself a cheap 2nd hand pair of slalom skis for when I know I will be sticking to the piste.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Mark2010, do you mean "off piste" or do you mean "powder"?
Anyhoo, like Scarpa, my main ski are Mantras at 98mm. NB I also have a full range of race skis which get used occasionally, plus racing.
But the Mantras really handle anything. I wouldn't go wider other than for powder days.
P.S. I would love to count on 2-3 powder days every two weeks. Sadly they seem to arrive on work days usually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As others have said, beware of fat skis on piste. Reviewers love to claim hat big skis are "all mountain" - especially skis like my Whitedot Preachers. They are not. Mine are great in the powder, OK on dusted pistes, and frankly average on hard piste. Yes, you can ski them on the packed stuff, bit to carve them requires really getting over, and they are definitely less forgiving and much harder on the knees than my other skis, 89mm Whitedot Ones that in good tune are much more precision tools and were used much more during the course of a whole season in France.
The Ones have been replaced with DPS Cassiar 95s, which are really a piste carver with a bit of width to cope with light powder. Much depends on the ski design too - DPS' Wailer 99, only 4mm wider, is a very, very different ski, designed for off piste and a bit of a blunt instrument on piste, like the Preacher.
Others will say it - but test before you buy, and beware of 1 minute ski reviews on Youtube. ExoticSkis.com seems to get things largely right, but even he tends to state that things are "all mountain" when they are in fact a bit rubbish on piste.
The fact is, you can almost ski anything anywhere, barring the extremes of a slalom course and proper backcountry. For a holiday skier, I would not go much above 90 if you want to spare your knees, be able to precision shorter turns, and ski bumps (the latter is a big one for me - my old WD ones, being a bit park biased! we're great in the bumps. The Preachers were a nightmare. The Cassiars will be somewhere in between)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comon guys, a 90-100mm ski is NOT hard to ski and carve onpiste and will not hurt your knees - assuming you can actually ski anyway.
OP, if you want to actually notice a difference offpiste, go for something around the 100-105ishmm. Much narrower than that and they're basically still a piste ski.
Case in point, my ex went from using slalom skis onpiste to the Wailer 99s mentioned above with dynafits. She's a damn good skier and had zero problems with high performance piste skiing. Because, y'know, she can actually ski.
If you need a slalom ski to be able to ski well on piste, and can't get a 100mm ski on edge, then frankly you need lessons. Equally bumps and all the rest.
The Mantras under a new name mentioned should be ideal - assuming you're a good enough skier to work a stiff ski with metal. I can recommend the Nordica Soul Riders as a much easier going ski that are a lot of fun on piste, 97mm underfoot. Presumably they also have a non-twintip ski in similar dimensions too.
Sorry for being blunt; I'm hungover as balls.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
clarky999, "not hard to ski" is not the same thing as "nice to ski".
And I always could use more lessons!
Sure, I can carve my 112mm skis on piste quite happily, and ski them in bumps happily too - you just put more effort in and think about things a bit more. But the fact remains it's more fun to do both on the 89mm ones. And in holiday skiing, conditions suited the narrower skis better, more of the time than the fatties that I loved on a powder day.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Sat 18-10-14 11:32; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually that's not quite true - carving 112mm skis on piste is fun as you tip yourself all the way over and really get down to it. Doesn't make them the most suitable all-rounder out there, though.
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Hey, thanks for all the replies.
For more info, I'm 6'2, 100kgs, I'd be about an 8 on the snowheads profile Ability/experience scale, with the caveat that I'd have done a little less off piste than that would suggest. A 7.5 perhaps.
I think 'off piste' is what I'm looking for rather than pure powder. I get about 4-5 weeks on snow a year, so it will be powder, crud, choppy stuff, ice, bumps, slush, and everything else you can imagine. I guess what I'm looking for is that magical (mythical?) one ski quiver.
Any opinions on the Blizzard Bonafides? They seem to be cropping up whenever I google on this subject. I'll take a closer look at the Mantras too.
My Atomics are 178cm long. Am I correct in thinking you go longer with these more heavily rockered skis?
Thanks 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.
|
If they are rockered I'd go an extra 10cm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't Scarpa that somewhat negate part of the (?marketing) motivation behind rocker, being to make the skis easier to ski on?
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Mark2010, "off piste" I personally think you want something (at least) a bit narrower than a pure powder ski. The Bonafides seem to get well written about. Last year's Mantras were apparently a bit softer, and I believe they've been beefed up again this year.
Mind you, I'm a puny weakling and don't see what all the "oooh, missus, they're terribly stiff (phnarr) and difficult to ski". However, I am a little weird. My other skis are 203 SGs which ski remarkably well, and in powder.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
for me a 90-100mm ski is a great do everything ski that I am happy to ski on any soft snow days, I hate ice anyway so not really happy skiing anything on an icy day. I went straight from 160cm 75 mm underfoot carvers to 179cm 95mm underfoot skis with no problems. I have found a much bigger difference off piste with the addition of rocker though than jumping in size. If you don't want to go fatter you could always look at somehting like the Blizzard Bushwhacker which is 88mm underfoot and rockered. personally i would go 90-105mm underfoot with rocker, you'll probably find once you have more appropriate skis you will ski much more off piste anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Quote: |
Doesn't Scarpa that somewhat negate part of the (?marketing) motivation behind rocker, being to make the skis easier to ski on?
|
Not really. Too short and too much rocker feels like snowlerblades on hard snow. The additional length only comes into play in soft snow or crust.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Yup, spot on. When using them on hard pack they ski shorter due to the contact length (if you really weight and flex them you can get more to bite in but at those speeds the extra length is desirable), but off piste the whole length comes into play. A little like having a ski quiver and pulling out some longer fat skis for a powder day.
|
|
|
|
|
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, I'm with you mate, 100 underfoot is perfectly manageable on piste, all day every day. Rule 5 applies eh?!
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
As ever I disagree, you have to be a very, very good skier to carve a 100mm wide ski on piste consistently.
Sure I can get an edge on my >100m skis on piste, but I ain't carving. Look at the turn radius of the fat skis, over 20m is going to need big wide pistes to carve.
For average euro conditions your 86mm underfoot will be fine, I'd say for Euro up to boot top/knee deep you can (with decent technique) ski under 80mm underfoot without many issues.
It's always a compromise.....
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I don't agree, my WD Rangers CL's are 28m radius 108mm underfoot and driven hard they perform just as good and carve like any slalom ski IMO, they are super stable and tram-line like any carving ski when driven, surely that's what it's about, the skier not the ski? I don't get up to pootle about on a carve ski to do miles and miles of nice rails, however use the pistes as a means of accessing other stuff, but when I'm on piste I can carve my Rangers by driving them, doesn't mean the skis won't do it
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Markymark29, a 28m ski will not turn like a 16m slalom ski.
Skied back to back while my mantras (177cms) ski much like a fat GS ski, they're nothing like as reactive as my FIS Racetiger GSs (185cms).
It's physics and geometry, innit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark2010 - I would to for something longer than 178 for your weight and hight - more like 185. Depending whether you are skiing off oiste next to the piste (and so can head back if things are tough) you might have to ski other tough conditions - eg crust, wet powder. A wider ski around 100mm helps here too.
The truth is there is no way to have a high performing off piste ski and a high performing on piste skin- you need to decide what you will do more. If you are mainly on piste and do near to piste off piste then 85mm to 90mm is fine.
Personally I have a pair of 90mm skis for such days and a longer pair of 105mm skiis for more varisble days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markymark29 wrote: |
I don't agree, my WD Rangers CL's are 28m radius 108mm underfoot and driven hard they perform just as good and carve like any slalom ski |
I find this pretty hard to believe. You should try your Rangers (a great ski!) and a proper slalom ski back to back on hard piste. I respectfully suggest that you may have a different opinion afterwards...
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Markymark29 wrote: |
I don't agree, my WD Rangers CL's are 28m radius 108mm underfoot and driven hard they perform just as good and carve like any slalom ski IMO, |
Do you think the very good folk at Whitedot would be worried if their CL Rangers performed like a slalom ski? Somewhere along the line I think they'd be concerned that their design process had messed up if that ski performed like a slalom ski.
I tested the CL Rangers last year. Was very impressed, and its piste performance was stronger that I thought it might be. It's a great ski. But in no way could I get it to perform on piste like a slalom ski or a GS ski. Now I'm the first to admit that I'm not an awesome skier, but I know how to work slalom skis and GS skis. So it's not a case of manning up and you'll make a ski designed for off piste performance somehow work on piste in the same way as a ski designed for on piste performance. For any given ability level, you will get more piste performance from a piste ski, and more off-piste performance from on off-piste ski. Surely that's just common sense?
If choosing a single ski for all the skiing you do my advice would be to be honest with yourself about the skiing you will actually be doing during the lifetime of your chosen ski, and select a pair which has the least amount of compromise in performance for the majority of skiing time. The more niche the ski is, the more it will be compromised outside of that niche. A race department slalom ski is going to be less fun in deep snow that something softer and wider, perhaps with a funky geometry. A big rockered ski is going to be less fun on pisted snow that a cheater GS ski. For a 50:50 ski I'd go for something around 85-90mm width underfoot, with a traditional geometry and the stiffness of the ski determined by weight and ability of the skier (heavier skier who likes to charge gets a stiffer ski).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re the above my point wasn't that the Ranger CL performs and has the same characteristics as a thoroughbred slalom ski, clearly the geometry and ski make up is different, my point was being made (perhaps not very well) that you can make a 100mm underfoot ski rail and carve if you drive it hard. One ski will not do all things clearly, my idea of skiing on piste is to do it when the pistes are quiet and largely to access the slack and off piste wherever possible, to this end I find a wider ski (as previously with Mantras, albeit they are more of a fat GS makeup) can perform well on piste. If I was wanting to spend all day on steep groomed pistes rounding gates I'd choose a Slalom/ GS ski I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
bear in mind also that for "off piste" in a variety of mixed conditions, most tourers are still on 80-85 cms. I'm not sure a wider ski will help on crust - but it won't help on windslab or rutted ice.
|
|
|
|
|
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, true, the wider ski will give you more chatter and a rougher ride on wind slab, rutted ice and crud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to ski suggestions. I would be looking at the Mantra, the Bonafide and probably one of the Line Supernatural series as starting points. All of those are going to do well on firmer snow and will ski well off piste in anything other than bottomless powder. Personally, I would favour a dedicated off piste ski that will not give up too much on piste rather than a mid 80s compromise that won't do either as well as a more specialist tool. If there is genuinely nothing doing then piste skis are easily rented for the day.
Regarding touring, mid 80s works well for sidehilling in firm conditions. I suspect European touring preferences are driven as by that factor and weight more than by downhill performance issues.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Agreed Mantra but if planning to tour a Mantra will be heavy due to metal top sheet, great for piste/ off piste and crud bashing. I had 2 pairs Mantras and loved them, the weight became an issue though as I wanted to do skinning etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Lots of interesting stuff here, so thanks for all the replies.
I'm flying for each week of skiing, so want to be as versatile as possible with only one pair of skis in the bag. In that regard, I'm beginning to think that I might be best off sticking with my Atomics. Having never tried anything wider than this, I was curious as to whether I'd get more all-mountain versatility from something a bit wider.
I'm going to take a closer look at the Blizzard Bonafide, the Vokl Mantra, and the Head Venturi if I can. I definitely don't want to go much wider than 100mm. I just want a ski that will give me solid performance across the mountain in all conditions, but am coming to the belief that I'm fine with what I've got!
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
98mm is the Holy Grail, only took 10 years of ear bending to get a consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Best compromise .... 98mm traditional camber, non rockered ski, no greater turn radius than 20 m ....
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
limegreen1 wrote: |
Best compromise .... |
Or alternatively, all the disadvantages of an untapered, uncambered ski in soft snow, and all the disadvantages of a wider ski on hard snow
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Arguably one of the least compromising skis I've used/owned are a pair of full on FIS slalom skis.
Awesome on piste, dial down angles for long turns, dial up for takeoff.
Anything firm you have the agility to get through anything and rigidity to deal with crud. Possibly not so recommended for breakable crust.
In the soft, except powder they just turn round anything: in powder, if you learned to ski it on 203s, then it's pretty easy.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
limegreen1, limegreen1, Turn radius of mine is 19m
under a new name, When the off piste is frozen and hard I tend to take my SLs out too, I agree, they are actually pretty versatile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scarpa, i must say, given some of my chums and how (well) they ski on anything (you know who you are ), it really isn't down to the ski but the skier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
under a new name, But you have to admit, when it's knee deep soft stuff then a fatter ski makes it all so much more fun
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Scarpa, aye!
|
|
|
|
|
|
under a new name wrote: |
Arguably one of the least compromising skis I've used/owned are a pair of full on FIS slalom skis.
Awesome on piste, dial down angles for long turns, dial up for takeoff.
Anything firm you have the agility to get through anything and rigidity to deal with crud. Possibly not so recommended for breakable crust.
In the soft, except powder they just turn round anything: in powder, if you learned to ski it on 203s, then it's pretty easy. |
+1 SLs are great fun (except high speed schuss).
I can't imagine anybody has made an SL ski with a rocker tip, but I wonder if it might help in powder
|
|
|
|
|
|