 Poster: A snowHead
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| My advice when asked about ski choice is to recommend that you are honest with yourself about the skiing that you actually do, not the skiing that you hope to do. If the snowHeads bashes that I've been on are typical (and I accept that there are a variety, from off-piste focused, to cruising the pistes), then most snowHeads spend most of their time on piste, only venturing off on those fairly rare days when there is good visibility, light, fresh snow which is largely untracked, and easy access (to and from) the side piste*. The rest of the time it is the pistes which appeal more. So my advice under those circumstances is to choose a ski which has much more of a piste bias |
I do completely get what you're saying and it is sensible advice. I think people can be idealist, sometimes even delusional, in the skis they take with them. I do have some nice off-piste tended skis, but yes it's no lie that when I am completely honest with myself and stop looking at my ski trips through rose-tinted glasses; in the average week, I would consider myself lucky if I did between 10-15% off piste. So it would make no sense that I did not take at least a set of quality piste skis with me. (Which, just to point out, I do).
But as to my wider point (scuse pun), my Preachers (and I'm not saying they represent all skis) - which you would generally assume to be an off-piste orientated ski at 112mm waist - are just so much more fun than my piste skis, on snow-topped pistes. As long as there's something for them to bed into, they're just so much more fun to me. Not better per se, but more fun in every way. And I know many people who feel the same about their mid-wide skis. Whilst they might, on paper, be aimed at better floatation in powder (and as others have pointed out, 'powder' is something we seldom really experience - the majority of accessible resort off-piste being cruddy slushy snow-vomit), they're also going to have other design elements that do lend themselves well to skiing resort off piste. I mean you get non-cambered or reverse cambered skis - which can lend themselves well to chopped up off piste. But you won't find them in narrow widths because the manufacturers just can't have that many variations of skis and still turn a profit. So all of your off-piste technology gets rolled less skis than there are possible variations, and if you want a ski with no or negative camber, it's probably going to be wide too - just because it is.
So I think sometimes we get carried away at thinking that wide skis are for powder. But realistically, whilst the wide bit of wide skis is mostly for powder, wide skis will often show other traits that skinny skis don't, which are more relevant to standard off-piste conditions and can also lend themselves well to some styles of skiing on piste too - especially where the piste is snowy and un-groomed. Not because a skinny ski can't have a negative camber, but just because you won't find one which does. And we have to remember that something being technically less suited doesn't have to be less fun. It can often be the opposite. And most of us go skiing for fun - not for technical success. So when you see people on wide skis, whilst the width may not lend itself to the terrain so well, you have to remember that there may be other elements of the set of skis which made them the user's choice. That user might well have preferred the same ski in a narrower width, but chose to make the compromise in the width rather than in something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Layne, the prolem with forums like this is that most of us don't really know each other and how we ski, I have skied quite a lot of offpiste but almost always on no more than 76mm. I rocked up for an offpiste day with a guide on the bb a couple of years ago with my 67mm skis and was told to change them for an "off piste ski" I politely refused. At the end of each offpiste run, the guide and I chatted whilst the others caught up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| dp wrote: |
| But as to my wider point (scuse pun), my Preachers (and I'm not saying they represent all skis) - which you would generally assume to be an off-piste orientated ski at 112mm waist - are just so much more fun than my piste skis, on snow-topped pistes. As long as there's something for them to bed into, they're just so much more fun to me. Not better per se, but more fun in every way. And I know many people who feel the same about their mid-wide skis. Whilst they might, on paper, be aimed at better floatation in powder (and as others have pointed out, 'powder' is something we seldom really experience - the majority of accessible resort off-piste being cruddy slushy snow-vomit), they're also going to have other design elements that do lend themselves well to skiing resort off piste. I mean you get non-cambered or reverse cambered skis - which can lend themselves well to chopped up off piste. But you won't find them in narrow widths because the manufacturers just can't have that many variations of skis and still turn a profit. So all of your off-piste technology gets rolled less skis than there are possible variations, and if you want a ski with no or negative camber, it's probably going to be wide too - just because it is. |
You've made an informed choice and that's great as far as I'm concerned. Ultimately it's about having fun on a ski holiday, so use whatever works for you best.
Nevertheless I stand by my opinion that a ski designed more for the conditions you are skiing is a better choice, regardless of your ability as a skier. I have a pair of Preachers (the Carbonlite version) and when I ski them on piste I do not ski as well as I do when I'm on my Head Rev 90s, which in turn make me a less good skier than when I am on my Dynastar Speedzone 14 Pro (using the definition of skier progression that I posted earlier). For me skiing better is more fun than skiing worse. There's a bigger difference in the changes I have to make to my skiing between the Whitedots and the Heads compared to the changes necessary between the Heads and the Dynastars, so for me I think there's something significant changes when I get much above 90mm underfoot (given that all three skis have a reasonable 'normal' geometry) when skiing on firm snow. Away from the prepared piste the situation changes and I ski better on the Heads and the Whitedots (especially the Heads, but I think a binding setup change on the Whitedots will address that).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| @Layne, the prolem with forums like this is that most of us don't really know each other and how we ski, I have skied quite a lot of offpiste but almost always on no more than 76mm. |
But you said "As I spend most of my time on piste or hard snow" so I am now a little confused.
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| I rocked up for an offpiste day with a guide on the bb a couple of years ago with my 67mm skis and was told to change them for an "off piste ski" I politely refused. At the end of each offpiste run, the guide and I chatted whilst the others caught up. |
Perfectly reasonably. I learnt to ski off piste on skinny ski's and would probably have kept up with guide too. Also maybe the other skiers were novices. It doesn't really tell us much.
But I think what I am reading is that you aware that your off piste experiences could be better and more enjoyable with fatter skis but you don't want to heavily compromise on the on piste capabilities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Layne wrote: |
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| @Layne, the prolem with forums like this is that most of us don't really know each other and how we ski, I have skied quite a lot of offpiste but almost always on no more than 76mm. |
But you said "As I spend most of my time on piste or hard snow" so I am now a little confused? |
Ive done over 80 weeks on skis over the past 33 seasons and ski 3-5 weeks each year so even if i only spend 20% of my time offpiste this year, its still a full week offpiste 
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Wed 3-01-18 17:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
Nevertheless I stand by my opinion that a ski designed more for the conditions you are skiing is a better choice, regardless of your ability as a skier. I have a pair of Preachers (the Carbonlite version) and when I ski them on piste I do not ski as well as I do when I'm on my Head Rev 90s, which in turn make me a less good skier than when I am on my Dynastar Speedzone 14 Pro (using the definition of skier progression that I posted earlier). For me skiing better is more fun than skiing worse. There's a bigger difference in the changes I have to make to my skiing between the Whitedots and the Heads compared to the changes necessary between the Heads and the Dynastars, so for me I think there's something significant changes when I get much above 90mm underfoot (given that all three skis have a reasonable 'normal' geometry) when skiing on firm snow. Away from the prepared piste the situation changes and I ski better on the Heads and the Whitedots (especially the Heads, but I think a binding setup change on the Whitedots will address that). |
It sounds like we have similar tastes anyway as when I am being very piste-centric I will tend to go to my Rev80s as opposed to my Preachers.
You're not wrong at all and I wasn't saying that. I think you're totally right that more piste-centric skis, which let you ski better, are more fun because skiing better is more fun. I think I ski better on my Preachers - but only when the conditions suit them. So that's why I take both. My Rev80s are my reliable, all-conditions piste skis* but when the snow is right and I can ski my Preachers the way I enjoy it, the experience is that much more fun for me that it's worth carrying both to resort.
I think we are saying the same thing and I wasn't disputing your point. I was just saying that sometimes wide skis are not just for skiing powder, and that some of the properties which are apparent in certain models of wide skis can lend themselves well to piste and non-powder off-piste environments... so just because a ski is wide it doesn't mean that it only performs better in powder and nowt else.
*I appreciate they're still an 80mm all-mountain, but haven't found an actual piste-orientated ski which I actually like that suits my size and weight, so being metal-core 80mm all mountains it's as good as I can get - although I do want to give some Magnum/Titans another shot at some point
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dp, I really like the Rev 90s. Versatile ski that isn't too compromised in most situations. Their weaknesses are probably bumps (although that's as much me as them I fear) and big, fast turns off-piste where they are a bit too soft. Other than that a great all-rounder. On piste there isn't a massive difference unless I'm being very demanding about how I'm skiing, but I also have a pair of Rev 105s and on-piste they are grim. For me there's a step change in how a ski works on piste when I get above 90-95mm underfoot (assuming normal ski geometry). Wider than that and the changes I need to make to my skiing are too much to be enjoyable if I'm doing more than just skiing a piste to the next off-piste pitch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Likewise love my Rev80s... to be honest I do find them a bit limited off-piste but probably because I'm very heavy and the Revs are relatively narrow. I don't find them half as bouncy as my Preachers, so it requires a bit more energy from me to bounce from turn to turn when I'm off piste, my Preachers put a very natural spring in my step which helps me get my technique right too. For me where I love the Rev80s is that they're very solid to learn into and have excellent edge hold. I took the side edge angle up to 3º and once they're on edge they hold just like piste skis.
The funny thing about my Revs (and this is entirely psychological) but every time I am thinking about them out of season, I tend to talk about them as being uninteresting, middle of the line but reliable workhorses. But actually, every time I get on them they just remind me that they're a whole lot more than that, and every week I've done with them I've spent more time using them than I expected to because for some reason I just never remember them being as good as they actually are! The only word I have for them really is easy... they just take whatever I'm skiing and make it a lot less effort than I expect it to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
People fail to factor how a skis construction comes into play as well. I've had 99mm waisted full camber skis (Liberty Morphics) that were awful due to a lack of lateral rigidity and wouldn't offer much grip on a hard piste, they were wonderful skis in the soft and slush but awful on boiler plate. In contrast my 123mm waisted rocker camber rocker Bentchetlers held an edge and would carve and engage beautifully on rock solid black pistes.
The difference, although they were wider the Bentcheltlers were far more rigid laterally. The reduced but stiffer effective edge offered a lot more grip and response to inputs. Would I have rather been on my MX88s or my SL skis? Yes as they are designed for that but I also managed to blow an edge out and had my powder skis with me and had as much fun on the Chetlers and when the pistes became softer and broken up the Chets were more than enough fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
@dp
My view isn't in anyway controversial, as it is pretty much the same as you will find on any advice website/shop website.
The area I didn't get into, which may effect peoples' choice, is weight. I'm not a physicist, but I believe a ski will float in Powder when the upward force is greater than the downward force. At 60kg, I feel quite happy off piste on a 92mm waist ski (x 180). Somebody of 100kg will probably have to go up to 120mm (x 190), to get similar float (everything else being equal).
|
That analysis sounds about right to account for my trend to ever fatter skis (forget the improvement in materials and ski design and construction) - cheaper and easier than going to the gym! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Taken as a whole, that day I was absolutely on the right pair of skis and something fatter and softer would have compromised too much my performance / fun. Be on the best ski you can, for the majority of your time... |
Or alternately be on the skis that will give you the most fun whrn conditions are most fun and use the rest of the time as skill building. I could never forgive myself if I lucked into a legit pow day and I'd only taken FIS SLs with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Or alternately be on the skis that will give you the most fun whrn conditions are most fun and use the rest of the time as skill building. I could never forgive myself if I lucked into a legit pow day and I'd only taken FIS SLs with me. |
Indeed, the risks of being on a niche ski in very inappropriate conditions cuts both ways. FIS slalom is just as much a niche ski as a wide, reverse chamber off-piste jobby.
Out of interest, how often do you pack a pair of FIS slalom skis as your only choice of planks? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“i could never forgive myself if I lucked into a legit pow day and I hadn't taken my FIS SLs with me.”
FIFY 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@tangowaggon, I suspect you’re right 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
[sigh]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@dp, My original gripe was that people were saying offpiste skis were ok onpiste but I have found so far that offpiste skis are very poor on piste, a long way behind piste skis. I have yet to really test offpiste skis offpiste but so far I have found only a small margin between the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
So your argument is that piste skis are almost as good as off-piste skis when used off piste, but off-piste skis are awful compared to piste skis when used on piste, so therefore it makes more sense to own piste skis?
Perhaps your technique and style is better suited to piste skis, and others have a technique better suited to more off-piste orientated skis, which means that they experience the opposite effect to what you experience?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I've done two trips to Tignes so far this season...
First trip I knew that I would be skiing on-piste, so I took a pair of carving skis.
Second trip I knew that I would be spending more than half the week skiing off-piste, so I took a pair of skis with a 95mm waist.
Maybe it's not so complicated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I think some of us develop our skiing based on the skis we use, rather than developing the full range of tools in our skillset as much as we should. I've tried skis with rockers but didn't get on with them finding them a bit too vague. All of my skis (Volkl Supersport, Scott Mission, Whitedot One and Preacher) have been cambered and I've never really got into the smearing that fat rockers are apparently good at to negotiate tight turns. My new R.98s have a much more modest camber as well as a much longer radius and I'm looking forward to working on this this year
I really enjoy skiing my Preachers on piste, unlike a lot of fat skis the Preachers have a significant camber and hence pop which is a lot of fun when unweighting at the start of a turn then get that magic feeling when extending the legs to lock into fast carved turns. However a problem with them particularly on icy pistes is the edge in the middle is like an out-rigger rather than more under the foot and in line with the knee, if skiing aggressively for a longer time I find this puts a shear stress on the knees which can cause a tweek or aches, and also result in losing the edge on hard ice when it's not directly under my foot. Of course the Preachers are brilliant fun in soft snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| On the rocks wrote: |
I really enjoy skiing my Preachers on piste, unlike a lot of fat skis the Preachers have a significant camber and hence pop which is a lot of fun when unweighting at the start of a turn then get that magic feeling when extending the legs to lock into fast carved turns. However a problem with them particularly on icy pistes is the edge in the middle is like an out-rigger rather than more under the foot and in line with the knee, if skiing aggressively for a longer time I find this puts a shear stress on the knees which can cause a tweek or aches, and also result in losing the edge on hard ice when it's not directly under my foot. Of course the Preachers are brilliant fun in soft snow. |
I'm glad you have exactly the same assessment as me. I absolutely love them and I find them so energetic in themselves that bouncing in and out of turns just feels so great.
But as you say, it really is like skiing a normal piste ski with an outrigger attached and with your foot that far away from the snow, I just feel on a hard piste like I am constantly waiting for the skis to fly out underneath me. It's all psychological really but I don't know anyone who skis Preachers that doesn't suffer that concern!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
Out of interest, how often do you pack a pair of FIS slalom skis as your only choice of planks? |
Shoulda done this week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
Out of interest, how often do you pack a pair of FIS slalom skis as your only choice of planks? |
Shoulda done this week. |
Bugger. Sorry to hear that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| @dp, My original gripe was that people were saying offpiste skis were ok onpiste but I have found so far that offpiste skis are very poor on piste, a long way behind piste skis. I have yet to really test offpiste skis offpiste but so far I have found only a small margin between the two. |
Try 18 inches of fresh sierra cement or cascade glop on skinny minnies then come back and tell us there is no perfomrance difference. Or even at the EoSB try some rotted out sunsoaked slope in the afternoon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Try 18 inches of fresh sierra cement or cascade glop on skinny minnies then come back and tell us there is no perfomrance difference. Or even at the EoSB try some rotted out sunsoaked slope in the afternoon. |
Indeed! Although as I said earlier, the difference cuts both ways and I'm pretty sceptical of comments saying there's little performance hit when you take very wide skis on-piste, especially if you want to make technically accurate turns using the shape of the ski to determine the shape of your turns. But isn't that want we want from our ski designers, different skis giving us different strengths and weaknesses...? Without that we'd have no much choice from a selection of not especially differentiated skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Oh I totally agree. The Preacher or its spiritual ancestor the Shaman are very versatile skis as are skis with a bit of GS dna like the old Mantra etc but even a moderately average piste performance ski will be better on hardpack or scraped groomer. The problem then becomes if you're playing the piste performance game is to ramp up the stiffnesd which then deceases versatility in bumps etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| The problem then becomes if you're playing the piste performance game is to ramp up the stiffnesd which then deceases versatility in bumps etc. |
Yup. At the risk of repeating myself (Ed: "too late"), all ski choices involve compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@rob@rar, yes Rob... this thread just seems to complain at the concept that different skis might be for different things.
Would you expect to go on a motoring forum and find people saying "I think everyone should drive a Range Rover because the Range Rover will drive nicely on the road, almost as well as the Ferrari... but the Ferrari will be socking useless off-road". I don't think it's actually a valid argument against buying a supercar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| dp wrote: |
| @rob@rar, yes Rob... this thread just seems to complain at the concept that different skis might be for different things. |
It was certainly a provocative thread title, and has currently provoked five pages of debate. I've always said that different skis do different things. We should recognise and be happy about that. Trick is to match your ski choice to the terrain and the snow that you ski (or value) the most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@rob@rar, you'd think that obvious. I think the thread title was just overly silly. After 5 pages the general question seems to be "are on-piste skis better for skiing on-piste and off-piste skis better for skiing off-piste" and I'm unsure why it ever needed a thread to answer that question...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Oceanic wrote: |
I've done two trips to Tignes so far this season...
First trip I knew that I would be skiing on-piste, so I took a pair of carving skis.
Second trip I knew that I would be spending more than half the week skiing off-piste, so I took a pair of skis with a 95mm waist.
Maybe it's not so complicated? |
Err no. No 1. I'd have to buy, store, service and potentially transport two sets of skis. No 2, I couldn't say with any degree of certainty how much time I would be skiing on or off piste sometimes even on the morning of the day itself. No 3, more often than not it's a bit of both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| dp wrote: |
| After 5 pages the general question seems to be "are on-piste skis better for skiing on-piste and off-piste skis better for skiing off-piste" and I'm unsure why it ever needed a thread to answer that question... |
Call it a snowHeads tradition, along with other perennial favourites like helmets and whether they save you from a 60mph direct hit; whether winter tyres work if you live in the UK; sunnies with helmets; is the snowplough the work of the devil; etc; etc. Without these traditional debates we'd be nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| @dp, My original gripe was that people were saying offpiste skis were ok onpiste but I have found so far that offpiste skis are very poor on piste, a long way behind piste skis. I have yet to really test offpiste skis offpiste but so far I have found only a small margin between the two. |
My experience is different to yours. Maybe I got lucky. Well in some ways it definitely was lucky because I only tried/hired some Cham 87's because the bindings on my B2's bust. I liked them so much I started looking into buying a pair. It was then that I saw they had 97 and 107 versions. Everything I read suggested the 97's would perform better off piste with little or no downside on piste. This proved correct. But maybe the difference is from day 1 I've never seen piste skiing as the pinnacle or something to focus on. I like to carve a bit, I certainly like to work on my technique. But I'm not heavily set on the idea of becoming the perfect piste skier. I want to get on the other side of the markers as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
@rob@rar, you'd think that obvious. I think the thread title was just overly silly. After 5 pages the general question seems to be "are on-piste skis better for skiing on-piste and off-piste skis better for skiing off-piste" and I'm unsure why it ever needed a thread to answer that question...
|
@dp, I agree that the title is hyperbolic but I also see loads of unrealisticly hyperbolic claims on these boards that modern >100mm skis are so good on piste that you can make the most of piste skiing on them. I think that it what this thread was reacting against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| @dp, My original gripe was that people were saying offpiste skis were ok onpiste. |
They are "ok", they're never going to be great....... Some are better than others........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
..
Last edited by After all it is free  on Fri 5-01-18 11:39; 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.
|
So, in summary...
Some contributors to this thread have big ones, and are keen to take them out as often as possible, even when it is not really appropriate.
Other contributors have small ones, and seem very keen to tell everyone that big ones are unnecessary, because they are very skilled in using what they've got.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Oceanic wrote: |
So, in summary...
Some contributors to this thread have big ones, and are keen to take them out as often as possible, even when it is not really appropriate.
Other contributors have small ones, and seem very keen to tell everyone that big ones are unnecessary, because they are very skilled in using what they've got. |
...and some can skillfully make do with only one, and a small one at that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
