 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Bennyboy1, 115mm plus is fat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
From the variety of responses it sounds to me like personal preference plays the biggest part, and actually the selection of ski width isn't that critical for spring skiing, just avoid the extremes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
The extremes tend to be the most fun though an FIS SL or GS would have most grip on early morning frozen corduroy. Just be hard work all day if the sun is out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@gorilla, thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I'm opting for 100mm waisted Atomic Vantages as opposed to Head Titans for our 12 day trip. The Vantages are much more fun and that's what it's all about for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Bennyboy1, as you can probably guess from this thread, that question is entirely subjective. Some of a more mature vintage would say anything over 70 is fat, others think that anything under 100 is skinny. As in gymnastics scores, you should always discount the two extremes. Ask anyone sensible and they'll say 100% piste skis are up to 80, all mountain skis between 80-95, anything above that is generally considered fat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Dr John, all mountain definitely goes up to 100.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @Dr John, all mountain definitely goes up to 100. |
Doesn't that depend a bit on what size you are? (  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Dr John wrote: |
| @Bennyboy1, as you can probably guess from this thread, that question is entirely subjective. Some of a more mature vintage would say anything over 70 is fat, others think that anything under 100 is skinny. As in gymnastics scores, you should always discount the two extremes. Ask anyone sensible and they'll say 100% piste skis are up to 80, all mountain skis between 80-95, anything above that is generally considered fat. |
good summary IMHO, just waxed up my 76mm skis for next week, although looking at my R.98s I've not used yet!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Help.
Going to Courmayeur for three days with my 17 and 20 year old sons. The days are: one on piste, one Vallee Blanche and one to try out touring. The ski shop have 97, 99, 106 and 115 on offer.
We are good skiers but haven't skied spring snow before (usually go at Christmas) and usually ski slalom or GS skis. We are being treated to a guide for the Vallee Blanche and touring days by my Mother in law so want to make the best of it.
Having read this thread I am now more confused than ever! Any advice will be gratefully recieved.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@banksi, if you're hiring, you could hire a different pair on each day? Though I suppose there could be a problem of availability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Hurtle, size or weight?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@banksi, are all those widths with touring bindings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @Hurtle, size or weight? |
I said size to signify height and/or weight. And because I am 'small'. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
We are all between 5foot 9 and 11 and weigh between 65 and 75 kg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@kitenski, I believe so
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Hurtle, sounds like a very good idea. I am concerned about being on the piste on skis that will be so wide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@banksi, personally I'd go 97 then, too wide and you may find them tricky on touring tracks if they are wider than the existing track!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@kitenski, Thank you. That is very helpful and makes sense to me.
Will now try to talk a 17 year old ski nut down from 'But all the extreme skiers on youtube are on much wider than 115.' I won't even try to ask for advice on that! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| banksi wrote: |
Help.
Going to Courmayeur for three days with my 17 and 20 year old sons. The days are: one on piste, one Vallee Blanche and one to try out touring. The ski shop have 97, 99, 106 and 115 on offer. |
I'm prepared to bet that that would be: Dynastar Cham 97, Salomon QST 99 and Rossignol Soul 7 (the 115 could be anything).
I'd probably go with the QST99, but the Soul 7s are oh so fun...
Def wouldn't go for 115mm for spring touring, especially if it's your first time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@clarky999, Wow - Dynaster spot on. Also DPS and K2 or Whitedot.
Thanks for the reassurance to avoid 115.
Really looking forward to trying touring but nervous.
Thanks for the help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| banks wrote: |
| Will now try to talk a 17 year old ski nut down from 'But all the extreme skiers on youtube are on much wider than 115.' |
That is exactly the problem with the "fat is good" brigade and fashion over practicality. My mate last week, after not skiing for 5 years, read a bit on t'internet (including this esteemed website) and came away was utterly convinced he needed to hire 105's. End of day 1, after skiing like Ray Charles all day and some gentle prompting from me, he stomped off to the hire shop and came back with some 80's. Que 5 days full of grins and giggles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In response to the OP I would take my Rossignol Zenith's which are 78mm underfoot, freshly sharpened and waxed. Bought them as an "all mountain ski". Mainly use them on-piste but they're really good fun off piste too.
Unfortunately I only have one touring ski which are Volkl V-Werks Katanas (112mm underfoot). Bought them primarily for Japan but have been using them in varied conditions in Europe too. They do the job in spring conditions but would prefer something smaller/narrower/lighter. The ski crampons bend a bit due to being so wide which feels a bit worrying. Don't really enjoy them on-piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
That's not the fault of the fashion brigade that's the fault of self -awareness in the dormant skier (who is effectively a non skier after 5 years.)
There is a pretty big caveat that should be read in which is - be aware these are fairly crap on hard groomers, they aren't for developing technique, if you can't/don't develop large edge angles you really shouldn't etc etc. It's no different from any specialist kit - I know sod all all about golf clubs or tennis racquets but I suspect you can have power or touch with a whole bunch of stuff in the middle which doesn't excel on either dimension but doesn't require such advanced skills to get touch out of a powerful driver or a strong serve out of a finesse racquet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| musehead wrote: |
In response to the OP I would take my Rossignol Zenith's which are 78mm underfoot, freshly sharpened and waxed. Bought them as an "all mountain ski". Mainly use them on-piste but they're really good fun off piste too.
|
I loved the Z9s that I hired a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Dr John wrote: |
| Ask anyone sensible and they'll say 100% piste skis are up to 80, all mountain skis between 80-95, anything above that is generally considered fat. |
Anyone sensible? gee thanks
I read this as simply what you think.
I disagree with your breakdown but don't consider myself extreme, am somewhat sensible at times.
FWIW i frequently ski 106 as my all mountain / spring conditions but for a full off piste day will go wider (i.e. go 'fat').
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| essex wrote: |
| Dr John wrote: |
| Ask anyone sensible and they'll say 100% piste skis are up to 80, all mountain skis between 80-95, anything above that is generally considered fat. |
Anyone sensible? gee thanks
I read this as simply what you think.
I disagree with your breakdown but don't consider myself extreme, am somewhat sensible at times.
FWIW i frequently ski 106 as my all mountain / spring conditions but for a full off piste day will go wider (i.e. go 'fat'). |
Exactly - not really taking account that the manufacturers are punting (for adult males) skis up to 85 wide as piste focused and rarely mention powder as an application under 100. We could of course do a whole other thread on the Powder fallacy and how off piste and powder skis are not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I ski 108 all day long on/off piste and 138 powder ski for big days, skied 90 ish all-mountain (or rather fat slalom imv) hire skis on blue ice at Christmas and felt like Marcel Hirscher...I'm sure I looked nothing like him though, but couldn't believe how they railed on piste in ice. It was the first (and last) time I went into a ski shop afterwards and actually thought "I might just buy a set of these for an odd ice day", then came to my senses and went for a beer instead. 108's are easily narrow enough for me, in 15 years I've only had the need to go narrower than 100 that once. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
Ask anyone sensible and they'll say 100% piste skis are up to 80, all mountain skis between 80-95, anything above that is generally considered fat.
|
A modern 100-110 ski (let's say something like an Atris) is less compromised on hardpack than an 85mm ski is in difficult conditions off piste. If an all mountain ski is one that's optimised for conditions across the whole mountain then what's an all mountain ski these days?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@gorilla, There's 2 "all mountains" - the true all mountain I would suggest it what you are advocating - can do almost everything and doesn't suck too badly at any of them. But you literally have to mean skiing all the mountain with a bias to getting of groomer wherever possible not just all the groomers.
The ski company marketing "all mountain" is a kind of flattering term for "we know you're mainly going to be on groomers but want to do a bit off the side or maybe every once in a blue moon the odd day with a guide". They then bias them toward piste performance with a couple of tricks in width and shovel profile etc to give them some versaility.
Weathercam's guide buddies on their 90mm skis are I suspect on them because i) they get them for free, ii) they have the talent to work them anywhere, iii) Are skinny enough to go uphill without excessive penalty , iv) they don't want something that will let them down e.g. on a very icy traverse or wind polished couloir and v) probably can't be arsed dicking about with different skis on a tools not jewels basis. So that's probably the one ski to rule them all category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
My all mountain skis need re-drilling for my new boots, so it's 68 or 110. I'm keeping a very close eye on the weather forecast 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Very British 1st World problem. French friend I ski with does everything on a 10 year old pair of Rossignol piste skis (and even older rear entry boots) and is twice the skier I am. She's highly amused by how many pairs I have. Fairly typical I think. For what it's worth I love carving slush on my Fischer Progressor 900s. Perhaps there's a gap in the market, specialist spring skis (for the UK market only) 😁
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Claude B wrote: |
| Very British 1st World problem. French friend I ski with does everything on a 10 year old pair of Rossignol piste skis (and even older rear entry boots) and is twice the skier I am. She's highly amused by how many pairs I have. Fairly typical I think. For what it's worth I love carving slush on my Fischer Progressor 900s. Perhaps there's a gap in the market, specialist spring skis (for the UK market only) 😁 |
Equally I've skied with locals with such a one ski quiver e.g. a Swiss banker someone knew who definitely wasn't short of a penny and had lovely Stoeckli skis and he couldn't really keep up with us Brit hacks in some deeper but not that fluffy offpiste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, i think you are missing the uphill point. and the all descent point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I find anything 250+mm is good but you only need one of 'em and have to stand on it funny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@musher, 68?!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I swear by my 78mm Head Peak 78 from which I bought in 2010 at the time was a renamed first generation Head Monster ski - which was widely regarded as one of the best them
all-mountain skis. I think it's best feature is the stiffness which is just right.
It sails through slush / crud / chop / brown snow very well and nimble enough for quick turns. Goood enough on morning freeze and easily manage a few inches powder (if we are lucky in spring).
I was in PDS on the weekend and surprised by the number of what seemed to be. millennials (cool outfits?) on super wide twin tipped skis but with no style, mainly too fast, straight and struggling to stay on top of the ski. Clearly on the wrong equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| The extremes tend to be the most fun though an FIS SL or GS would have most grip on early morning frozen corduroy. Just be hard work all day if the sun is out. |
Taken my Rossi F12s out for some 'Manchester', yes they are 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.
|
| Ozboy wrote: |
I was in PDS on the weekend and surprised by the number of what seemed to be. millennials (cool outfits?) on super wide twin tipped skis but with no style, mainly too fast, straight and struggling to stay on top of the ski. Clearly on the wrong equipment. |
Alternately nothing to do with the skis and everything about their skill level and style (unless we are talking Park rats doing that backseat straightening thing on easier pistes).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Ozboy wrote: |
I was in PDS on the weekend and surprised by the number of what seemed to be. millennials (cool outfits?) on super wide twin tipped skis but with no style, mainly too fast, straight and struggling to stay on top of the ski. Clearly on the wrong equipment. |
Alternately nothing to do with the skis and everything about their skill level and style (unless we are talking Park rats doing that backseat straightening thing on easier pistes). |
Perhaps but going "too wide" when you don't have the necessary skills does make it harder to learn how to use your edges and go edge to edge IMHO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
