 Poster: A snowHead
|
| kiwi1 wrote: |
| uktrailmonster, Not in all cases. The Icelantic Shaman has a small side cut and has received nothing but great reviews for powder performance. They were designed for tight lines. The 161cm has a TR of 12m and the 173 a TR of 15m. |
bug! I'll have to stop making general statements in future. But you'd have to agree that most full-on powder skis are not short radius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
True as a general rule. I still like to keep it under 30m myself but this skiing lark is all about what we as individuals like. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
For the ahem "larger framed" male then wide skis are a great benefit.
|
I feel like this is a bit of a lingering misnomer - I don't see why you'd aim for skis just fat enough to float your mass. More floation = more stability, more options with your lines, more fun?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I just demo'd Mojo 90's in 186cm switching straight from old style 170cm B2's. The first couple of runs were down fairly steep reds with icy patches. After one good wipeout where I tried to flick from edge to edge a touch too quickly I learnt to gently engage the edges and let them take the line before leaning over... fantastic and a hell of a lot more stable than my old floppy Rossi's. They felt very stable and only a little slower in direction changes. Then it was onto the sides just off a black at the top of the resort (Awe in Sweden). Jeez... those things could cut through half frozen ruts and crusty patches... seeing how I am getting more and more into off piste my next skis are going to be something about 90mm underfoot, twin tipped (handy for zig-zagging through forests as well as the park)... so let the demo's begin 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Here in Whistler 85mm is NOT a powder ski, you need to get 95+ really. 85-90 can make a really nice - only own one ski - all round all mountain ski. If you want to really have fun in powder, get 95+
as for no good on piste, my Prior originals, 96mm i think, 181cm, are awesome on-piste, they don't want to turn much, but can certainly hold an edge. (very similar in dimensions and build as the volkl mantra)
you should try renting, try a different ski each day. no extra charge to do that here in whistler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| fatbob wrote: |
For the ahem "larger framed" male then wide skis are a great benefit.
|
I feel like this is a bit of a lingering misnomer - I don't see why you'd aim for skis just fat enough to float your mass. More floation = more stability, more options with your lines, more fun? |
"More floation = more stability...".
Sorry, I don't see the correlation... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wbsr, So presumably, before "fat skis" were invented, when it snowed, everyone stayed in the cafe?
Or alternatively, they just went skiing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| abc wrote: |
"More floation = more stability...".
Sorry, I don't see the correlation... |
Powder concealing moguls/hidden compressions/frozen chop/natural hazards?
Less worry about tip dive/hooking a tip?
Less requirement for speed to aid floatation = greater flexibility in choice of when to turn?
|
|
|
|
|
|
bloxy
bloxy
Guest
|
| snowbunny wrote: |
wbsr, So presumably, before "fat skis" were invented, when it snowed, everyone stayed in the cafe?
Or alternatively, they just went skiing |
My thoughts too. How did I have fun for all those years on a Rossi 4S or Force9 2S in the powder?
Sure a fatter ski is easier though.
If you are only going to have 1 (like flying to America)ski 85-90 is plenty fat enough and with a bit of shape and not too long will work well on hardpack and bumps as well. In Europe (where I can take 2 sets in the car) I use a narrower 76 wide all mountain ski in firmer conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
For the ahem "larger framed" male then wide skis are a great benefit. Over the past few years 90-100mm waisted skis have gone from being considered "extremely specialist powder ski" to quote one fairly major retailer to a general all mountain ski certainly for those who spend the majority of the time off piste. |
I have been reading this thread with interest, and as a result have purchased some new 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.
|
|
I saw some skis in shop windows that had a waste of what must have been at least 150-200. Are these jokes skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DaveC, should have just used the stiletto heels on a sandy beach explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| bloxy wrote: |
If you are only going to have 1 (like flying to America)ski 85-90 is plenty fat enough and with a bit of shape and not too long will work well on hardpack and bumps as well. In Europe (where I can take 2 sets in the car) I use a narrower 76 wide all mountain ski in firmer conditions. |
Yeah, that's about my take on it too. 183 cm x 83 mm for powder and fresh snow on piste. 177 cm x 73 mm for firmer conditions. I don't mind skiing powder on the narrower ones to be honest, but it is slightly more tiring. They're all massively fat compared to what I skied on in the 80s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I reckon that a "powder ski" is a specialist tool - and not really the same as "all-mountain" ski.
Like previous posters I used to be anti fat ski.
However I am currently skiing a 188cm K2 coomba (102mm) for off piste.
And the floatation on these is phenomenal. Superb crud bashers as well.
Yes, I could ski powder on narrower skis. And used to do so quite happily for many years.
But if you want to charge in the powder (and not make nice frenchie turns) something wider is required.
A little extra width honestly makes things much easier 
Other have said this already, but in summary....
80/90mm - all mountain ski.
100mm - (or maybe a little more!) - for a dedicated powder / off piste ski.
And dont be afraid to go an extra 10cm longer in length either!
Doug.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
"More floation = more stability...".
Sorry, I don't see the correlation... |
Powder concealing moguls/hidden compressions/frozen chop/natural hazards?
Less worry about tip dive/hooking a tip?
Less requirement for speed to aid floatation = greater flexibility in choice of when to turn? |
But in the context of already having 'enough' flotation, the above is already handled. Adding more floatation on top of that surely reach a point of deminishing return?
| DaveC wrote: |
| fatbob wrote: |
For the ahem "larger framed" male then wide skis are a great benefit.
|
I feel like this is a bit of a lingering misnomer - I don't see why you'd aim for skis just fat enough to float your mass. More floation = more stability, more options with your lines, more fun? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| abc wrote: |
| DaveC wrote: |
| abc wrote: |
"More floation = more stability...".
Sorry, I don't see the correlation... |
Powder concealing moguls/hidden compressions/frozen chop/natural hazards?
Less worry about tip dive/hooking a tip?
Less requirement for speed to aid floatation = greater flexibility in choice of when to turn? |
But in the context of already having 'enough' flotation, the above is already handled. Adding more floatation on top of that surely reach a point of deminishing return?
|
No. You get more of the benefits I listed the fatter you go. You talk like skis either float or they don't - this clearly isn't how it works. I guess calling it "float" is inaccurate anyway, since it's more how high your skis want to plane in powder vs your speed. Even Reverse/reverse Spatula-esque skis (130mm+ waists) don't literally surf on the top layer of snow all the time, but if diminishing returns applied at all then these would serve no purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| DaveC wrote: |
No. You get more of the benefits I listed the fatter you go. You talk like skis either float or they don't - this clearly isn't how it works. I guess calling it "float" is inaccurate anyway, since it's more how high your skis want to plane in powder vs your speed. Even Reverse/reverse Spatula-esque skis (130mm+ waists) don't literally surf on the top layer of snow all the time, but if diminishing returns applied at all then these would serve no purpose. |
Well put, as far as it goes. It could go on to point out that gravity weight that governs straight line "float" at a given speed is actually less than the total force on the snow in turns at the same speed (the vector sum of gravity weight and lateral acceleration weight).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| comprex wrote: |
Well put, as far as it goes. It could go on to point out that gravity weight that governs straight line "float" at a given speed is actually less than the total force on the snow in turns at the same speed (the vector sum of gravity weight and lateral acceleration weight). |
It could, but I think trying to read that gave me an aneurysm
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=25845]Fat Skis hold back learning good technique
On hardpack/ice:
1. Mostly too soft to hold an edge
2. Requires considerably more effort to get up on edge
3. Incredibly unstable at high speed
|
Have you actually skied fat skis? I'm confused. 1 and 3 are pretty much the same thing - and for 2, "considerably" more effort all depends on how lazy you are to call it considerable. 1 and 3 only apply to softer skis - I promise you I can ski twice as fast on Dynastar XXLs than I can on my 65mm carvers.
I don't disagree with the notion - if the technique you're learning is slow carved turns, I'd assume a wider ski takes more skill to ski, so may hold back people who don't understand how to adapt to them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Have you actually skied fat skis?
|
Yes. In my quiver is 68, 71, 82, 88, 105.
Fat skis are the current snake oil,
Anyone Can be an Expert Skier with Fat Skis.
Fat Skis will make you a better skier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
veeeight, you quiver seems very close. What are they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| Fat Skis will make you a better skier. |
Do you mean Fat Skis will make you look like a better offpiste skier?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| Does a ski with a 66mm waist and a radius of 40m ski better on piste than a ski with a waist of 92mm and a radius of 18m? |
Yup, and it looks like they handle 'off piste' just dandy as well .
Bode
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
Other have said this already, but in summary....
80/90mm - all mountain ski.
100mm - (or maybe a little more!) - for a dedicated powder / off piste ski.
And dont be afraid to go an extra 10cm longer in length either!
Doug. |
Good summary. I think the main argument earlier in the thread was whether or not the 100mm+ dedicated powder skis are genuinely "All-Mountain". I think not, but others disagree. I suppose it depends on whether you're happy skiing on-piste with a dedicated powder ski and don't think dedicated piste skis have anything to offer. But I think the ski manufacturers understand there are compromises to be made, hence there are state-of-the-art skis anywhere from 66-100+ waists. For me All-Mountain means 80-85 mm waist. If I could go for a 3 quiver setup, I'd probably choose a sub 70mm dedicated piste ski, an 80-85 mm all mountain ski and a 100+ mm dedicated powder ski. But if I had to drop one first, it would be the powder ski. The next to go would be the piste ski. Get the idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| Quote: |
Have you actually skied fat skis?
|
Yes. In my quiver is 68, 71, 82, 88, 105.
Fat skis are the current snake oil,
Anyone Can be an Expert Skier with Fat Skis.
Fat Skis will make you a better skier. |
From your location, I'm guessing your 82s and 88s are probably both Head Monsters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| veeeight wrote: |
| Quote: |
Have you actually skied fat skis?
|
Yes. In my quiver is 68, 71, 82, 88, 105.
Fat skis are the current snake oil,
Anyone Can be an Expert Skier with Fat Skis.
Fat Skis will make you a better skier. |
From your location, I'm guessing your 82s and 88s are probably both Head Monsters? |
Don't stop guessing there, for example:
an XRC Chip or 1200, a Chip Supershape or a Big Easy teaching ski, And a Supermojo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
