 Poster: A snowHead
|
| kiwi1 wrote: |
No skiing is wasted skiing my friend but point taken. 
|
I suppose, but even with something as wonderful as skiing there comes a point when doing poorly executed skidded turns down nothing steeper than a gentle red becomes a little tedious if you do it for long enough. It's not the skiing that I considered wasted, but the opportunity I had for lessons but was too stupid to realise it would be better for my skiing in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
IMO if you have poor/no technique you cannot possibly be in control, regardless of skis or where you're skiing. Off topic. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| veeeight wrote: |
easiski, Someone was quizzing me about the explosion of popularity of fat skis on the slope the other day.
One of my colleagues likened it to the explosion of popularity of SUV's and 4x4's in London. It is (was) fashionable, gave a perceived view of safety, and went up kerbs great. Once a handful of people had them, everyone had to have a Chelsea Tractor.
Oh, And all the big mountain greats, pros etc. - Mostly they are all ex-racers. |
You are are in Whistler blessed with the specific conditions that many fat skis are designed for so this should hardly be a surprise to anyone. When you get a new group for a clinic and its a powder day do you seriously hope everyone pitches up with their 165cm or shorter slalom skis so you can all perfect your technique or do you actually smile when everyone has 180cm+ fatties so you can hoon around a bit? Be honest.
I'm sure there is a bit of fashion about them but then race bred guys & girls can generally ski anything on anything so I'm not sure that the slalom ski in 2 ft of fresh is a standard we all need to be held to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
FastMan, What's up over with you? How's LT getting on? No news - hopefully is good news! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
When I signed up for the Extremely Canadian camp in Whistler, the main thing that I was told was to turn up on fat skis. Similarly with the Dave Murray downhill course, when it had snowed lots everyone was taken to the Atomic tent to get sugar daddies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the EC lot (and having coached EC I speak from a point of knowledge) - it's more about the flex, rather than the girth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Sweet! You whatsitsteering yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprex - have to ask FastMan....
I just TRY very hard to do what I'm told....
When I get closer to doing as told I ski better 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Nice.
I kind of gave up on Nastar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I'm a newbie.... it still holds some challenge for me...
I want a Platinum... but don't think I'll make it this year as I have to shed a bit over a second...
atm I am working on balance drills and learning to drive some race stock GS skis that want to go FAST!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It holds quite sufficient challenge for me as well, particularly in VT or western sets but, since the venue cutback this year, down here its mostly an exercise in slush and rut coping, staying warm with 30 other people in the start hut, and then finding something else to do on the runt hill since you've just blown all day to make 4 400 foot runs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
From another forum, posted Sat April 7:
+++++++++++++++++
Fat Skis ARE a crutch:
We were lucky enough to catch 8-10 inches of fresh snow at Loveland on Thursday. All three of us were skiing our Head Super Shapes (66mm underfoot). These skis are not necessarily designed for powder. It was amazing to watch H and M ski these in some very difficlut, windbuffed conditions and maintain perfect form. I generally ski 96mm skis in these conditions and I was having more than my share of problems in the more difficult terrain and conditions. Again it goes back to having the BPSRT, and without it, difficlut terrain is not going to be fun.
Fat skis make it so much easier, but in reality they enable a skier to get through more difficlut terrain with poor technique. This makes it very easy to reinforce poor technique and inefficent movement patterns.
Notice I didn't say that Fat skis suck!!!
Ski pow with Carving skis, and ski all the most difficlut terrain. When you can ski it flawlessly with speed control, you won't need powder skis, but you certainly won't be reinforcing poor technique with them.
Lastly let me say that I have never seen anything like Loveland in April with Fresh snow. There was no one on the mountain. We skied totally fresh lines the whole day, and there was plenty left at the end of the day. I am used to Squaw where it is totally tracked out by 10:30.
++++++++
Fat skis often tend to get you through more difficult terrain in crud, powder, but they are a cheater and can really take you down the deadend track. Lot's of really fast bad skiers on difficult terrain out there are doing nothing but strengthening there bad habits. The real test of solid technique is being able to ski everywhere with SS type skis, 66mm, mid waist width.
+++++++++
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Aren't Head Supershapes a crutch in that they make carving too easy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
veeeight, from an instructor's point of view, 90% of the skier on the slope could ski with better technique and should take more lessons. But from the skier point of view, there's a balance between learning and enjoying what one just learned. And for many, just sliding around and breathing fresh air was all they want for their holiday.
I might add most of them do NOT crash into other skiers and left without saying sorry.
With regard to powder & fat skis, the problem got much worse. If there's only one storm and you know it's going to disappear by noon, do you want to spend the morning taking a lesson with your 66mm ski? Or just hire a 90mm plank and have FUN in the soft stuff? Or at least show up at the class with the fat planks!
When adults strap two planks under their feet, there's a certain childishness in the whole affair. Rational need to be over-taken by a certain (hopefully measured) amount of recklessness. How many children WANT to go to school anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Thats an interesting point (re SS's being easy). You would imagine so, wouldn't you! I was fooled for ages.
The SS has one of the smallest sweet spots I've known for a pair of skis. If you're on it, the ski just works. However just a fraction off and the ski feels like the worst thing ever.
Observers will observe the skier hanging on, trying to get back over the top of the ski, if you're at all caught back in a carve.
It's got a soft shovel, still tail. If you're not on your game, you'll be loading up the shovel and the tail will spit you out. Especially in the steeps, and in the bumps.
Sure, most people can make this ski look good on the groomers. It's off the groomers where it will cane you if you're not on top of it. It's not particularly forgiving in tough terrain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
abc, there is no snobbishness or elitism meant in my post.
I still stand by the title of this thread. At no point did I ever say or imply that fat skis are completely wrong.
Horses for courses.
For me fun=relaxing=speed=minimal muscle effort=using the kit correctly=good technique=sound basics=learnt properly.
Fat skis don't prevent the fatigue and muscle burn that I see people fall into on a fun powder day, so if you're done after 2 hours, and I can prolong my enjoyment and fun the rest of the day, I know most people would benefit from better technique, rather than fatter skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
veeeight, I didn't imply elitism of the instructors.
I merely points out why, although most people KNOW they could benefit from more lessons, yet many of them rather just HAPPILY slide around casually on the blue and red.
| Quote: |
I know most people would benefit from better technique, rather than fatter skis.
|
Most people would probably benefit from BOTH?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I refer the honourable gentleman to the title of my thread and first post. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How can you cheat at skiing?
"Sorry Sir, your smile is too big, you must have been using Wide skis, now go to prison!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I reckon that the best use for fat skis is on breakable crust - 8-10" powder shouldn't inconvenience anyone who can ski even vaguely well - regardless of the ski. the ability to float over the top of the worst though - that's worth the cheat. However I differ from veeeight, in that I don't care much for speed, so a big turning fat ski is wasted on me anyway. We seem to be rehashing previous posts now, so I'll shut up! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 used to brag about how long their skis were, now they brag about how wide they are 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| People used to brag about how long their skis were, now they brag about how wide they are |
And some people have got truly monster ones
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
Thats an interesting point (re SS's being easy). You would imagine so, wouldn't you! I was fooled for ages.
The SS has one of the smallest sweet spots I've known for a pair of skis. If you're on it, the ski just works. However just a fraction off and the ski feels like the worst thing ever.
Observers will observe the skier hanging on, trying to get back over the top of the ski, if you're at all caught back in a carve.
It's got a soft shovel, still tail. If you're not on your game, you'll be loading up the shovel and the tail will spit you out. Especially in the steeps, and in the bumps.
Sure, most people can make this ski look good on the groomers. It's off the groomers where it will cane you if you're not on top of it. It's not particularly forgiving in tough terrain. |
so... is having a ski which is that demanding help someone improve their technique?
I think you're giving very confusing messages here. At one point you say fat skis are too soft (a gross generalisation in itself) and then later say that some skis are too stiff for improvers. The thread title creates an implication that skinny skis help you learn, but then we hear that some are too stiff, some are very demanding etc.
Isn't the real message: choose a ski appropriate to your ability and the types of skiing you like to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Isn't the real message: choose a ski appropriate to your ability and the types of skiing you like to do?
|
But that implies NOT following the latest fashion: very fat skis.
Not everyone is capable of doing that (not following the latest fad).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll stick to my original thought.
Ski on what makes you happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
A fitter and better conditioned skier will be happier regardless of ski waist size or technique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Arno wrote: |
I think you're giving very confusing messages here. At one point you say fat skis are too soft (a gross generalisation in itself) and then later say that some skis are too stiff for improvers. |
Yep noticed that too.
My 93 mm-waisted Tankers are much stiffer than my previous Nordica Beast (73 waist) and some Volkl slalom skis I tried on this month.
The Head Monsters I skied this year (89mm or 92 mm, something like that), ditto.
I'm in the camp of 'ski the skis that you enjoy'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Ski the skis you enjoy, certainly.
Wider skis introduce some interesting force dynamics. They return more torque to the foot and ankle than a thinner ski, since the edge is so far off to the side of the centerline of the foot. As a result, there are different forces up the leg, and they may respond better to a different technique. As a result of the edge location being offset, they are less precise than a thinner ski, but this may be good in some situations.
I know that skiing my 72mm wide Mch 3 Powers last week at Vail in the heavy spring slush was a lot more work than it would have been on my 84mm wide Afterburners. But, the ABs are software, too, in addition to being wider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'll throw another variable in to the equation which I think affects how a wider ski handles on piste, namely whether riser plates are fitted or not.
My own experience on my M:EX's, Crimson's & hire Sugar Daddy's, all with rail mounted Neox's was that it made them more user friendly on-piste (easier to get on edge) than ski's I've tried that were mounted flat - which are B2's, B3's, Karma's, Mantra's & Sugar Daddy's.
And don't get me started on binding position
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Let's get real here. Fat skis float more in deep snow and crud, which can be useful at times. There is no other fundamental benefit as far as I can see (unless you count posing value). The usual argument put forward by fat ski advocates is that you gain more in off-piste than you lose in on-piste performance. A dubious argument in my view, but possibly valid for some of the best mid-fats out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| Most people I see on 100mm+ skis seem to my eye to be at least reasonably competent skiers so aren't they entitled to make their own choice? |
The vast majority of those good skiers will also have several pairs of considerably thinner skis in their arsenal. I doubt there are many serious skiers out there who exclusively ride around on 100+ wide skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my everyday ski is 112mm, my piste ski is 130mm.
does that make you all gay?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uktrailmonster, Come to ski in Chamonix for a while.
My everyday skis are 98 and they are not big by the standards of this valley - well amongst the people who live here and ski 70 + days a season. Most people that I know here ski on 100+ skis all day, every day and in all sorts of conditions and bizarre as this may seem to you, the vast majority of them are pretty decent skiers. But you probably know this already and are just fishing
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
I think you're giving very confusing messages here. At one point you say.....
|
Nope. That particular post was in direct response to your query about SS's being a crutch in making carving too easy.
AFAIK I haven't given any contradictory messages, I did say in the OP that stiff skis/boots are not suitable for beginners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Arno wrote: |
| Isn't the real message: choose a ski appropriate to your ability and the types of skiing you like to do? |
So this isn't true then? Hmmm? Hmmm?
I have to admit that if I go for a lesson, I don't go on fat skis. OTOH, I don't go on any old skinny skis either
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
