 Poster: A snowHead
|
Are 90mm+ waisted skis really any good on piste or is it just hype?
I ask this because I skied on some Head Mojo 90s all yesterday. Whilst i found them fine in softer snow I really struggled to carve them on hard snow especially lower gradients. Fattest things i'd ever skied before were around 75mm. The mojos are very forward mounted as standard so its possibly just this messing with my old school technique.
Does it just take time to get used to fatter skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I don't think fat skis are that good on piste when compared to a dedicated piste ski. I have a pair of Volkl Karmas (90mm) and they are hopeless on piste compared to my slalom and GS skis, and poor even when compared to my Elan Magfire 12s (76mm).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Obviously compared to a dedicated piste ski they won't be as good, however I disagree with Rob that they are "hopeless". I have no issues skiing my Missions on piste, even in very hard icy conditions.
I'm not one who wants to take >1 pair of skis on a holiday with me, so I'm prepared to put up with mid fats not being "as good" on piste, for the superior off piste performance, and also superior performance when the pistes are slushy/cruddy/cut up and even with lovely soft slushy moguls 
You do have to work harder to them onto their edges.
regards,
greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
kitenski, He did say hopeless campared to his GS and SL skis.
I think at the end of the day most mid fats or fats (remember that can range from about 75mm - 125mm underfoot. Anything over 125mm enters the mega fat realm) are not suposed to be great on piste but it's a trade of for being able to do everything to that particur ski and skiers requirements thus the term all mountain ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
My Missions (89mm) are better for carving even in hard conditions than my old Blizzard B52 fun carvers. Admittedly the Blizzards are not race skis but I was perfectly happy with them before I got the Missions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I much prefer skiing my Gladiators (92mm) than my slalom salomons. Although this is probably due to the fact that the radius is alot bigger on the Glads.
I'd love to try some 188 Fischer true GS skis. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
rob@rar, But "HOPELESS on the piste by comparison?" I want to put it to the test. You know where the SH meeting hut/Apreski thing is? And just below there's a weird telecabin? Then there's a piste off to the right, goes down to Meribel i think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These days it's simply not enough to just look at the boot-centre width of the ski. You have to look the entire design and construction - dimensions (tip, middle, tail), stiffness, flex pattern, turn radius, torsional rigidity etc. I use Rossignol B-Squad in 184cm as my everyday ski. Although they are 100mm underfoot, they have incredible hold on ice - at least partly due to their stiffness (flex and torsionally). Another ski with similar dimensions but that is softer - especially in the tail - just won't hold as well.
As mentioned by others above, it's all about trade-offs (biggest challenge with the B-squads is that they are pretty miserable in larger bumps). Yet, personally, I don't think I will ever ski anything narrower than 90cm (or just shy of that) again. The soft snow performance is worth whatever extra effort needed is needed on-piste.
If you are looking to "step up" to something a bit bigger, I would suggest that you try the Atomic Snoop Daddy (88cm waist), Head i.m. 88 (88cm), Rossi Bandit 84 or Dynastar Mythic Rider (88cm). (what's with the 88cm anyway??  ) ... unless of course you're looking for a twin-tip but that opens up a whole other can of worms. 
All that said, your issues with the Mojos may have been the mounting. The standard mount point on many twinnies are a bit forward so the ski will work better for jumping , jibbing and skiing switch. To make the ski grip on hard pack, you may really need to get down low in your stance (your legs will burn ). Alternatively, to make the skis work better for more all-mountain use, one can move the bindings back 1-2 cm. If your ski-shop knows their stuff, they should be able to give specific recommendations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
citizenbird, welcome to  You ski at the 'bird?
My everyday ski is 112mm underfoot and it carves really really well. Not silly tight, ankle breaking turns, but still rail track carves... maybe it's just a technique thing? Or change your expectations?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| rob@rar, But "HOPELESS on the piste by comparison?" I want to put it to the test. You know where the SH meeting hut/Apreski thing is? And just below there's a weird telecabin? Then there's a piste off to the right, goes down to Meribel i think? |
Yes for me, although that may say more about my abilities than the ski's I've been doing a lot of piste performance drills over the past 10 days, mainly on my Magfires but spent one day on the Karmas. They just didn't feel stable at speed, I couldn't get them to to arc tight turns and compared to my Rossi 9S there is no pop coming out of the turn. Don't get me wrong, I like my Karmas as a good all-round ski (it's what I used for most of last season) but I can't get them close to the performance level that I can get from my slalom skis.
Don't know that piste, but happy to compare notes. I think kiwi1 is bringing next season's VIST race skis - should be a good comparison with some fatter things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
scottishskier, I personally think that for most skiers, most of the time, buying fat skis is a useful indicator that the person is a decent prospect to buy their own genuine London Bridge. Oddly enough, I have one remaining one available that you can buy if you like. They look great in the average garden.
Parlor's 112mm ski will not carve as well as my 67mm race ski. If it did, they'd be skiing fat skis in World Cup. And, err, they're not.
Parlor is also a poor example as he lives in Verbier (or damn close) and skis off piste most of the time.
So maybe you're asking the wrong question? 90mm skis won't be as good on piste (typically) than a ski designed for pure on piste experience. BUt if you mostly ski off piste then you will be more prepared to compromise on piste performance.
Personally, I prefer to compromise off piste performance as I can easily compensate for that with technique. Whereas when I have to ski on piste I want something that will be fun...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I have just dumped (not literally) a pair of 'all mountain' skis for some Volkl piste carving skis. These things are the veritable badger's nadgers. Why was I messing about with those soft noodly things anyway?
Mind you, as far as width goes there's a difference of about 2cm. I'm inclined to think it's all about stiffness. Ooer missus etc. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Depends on what your "piste" is like too.
Icy hardpack?
4pm spring super slush?
Beautifully groomed mid winter afetr a few cm refresher?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
scottishskier, as everyone has alluded to it depends on how good you are and what you ski. More skilled = more able to get a fatter ski to do more on piste. But even the most skilled can't get a fat ski to do what a slalom ski can do on piste (hence as DM says WC skiers aren't skiing fat skis!).
If you're primarily a piste skier, my thinking is probably should stick to max of mid70s and imho (sorry folks) anything more than 80mm is just silly. Obviously as the proportion of genuine off piste increases this no longer holds true.
The other thing that I think matters, but no one else on this site seems to, is that your weight needs to be thrown into the equation too. If you weigh a lot you need more area underfoot to support you in deeper softer snow. This is delivered by increases in both length and width. If you're lighter than average and still skiing a ski of equal length to others of your height, you don't need such a fat ski to get the same support as a fat guy.
Last but not least consideration is use of skis. It's my impression that most holiday skiers aren't very good at using their skis. If people're just going to skid'em about it's not so important how fat they are - no real issue to do short skidded turns on fat skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I am with rob@rar, i have Karmas and they are no where near as nice to ski on piste as my old K2 recons at 78 underfoot..
also agree with slikedges, for holiday skiers who only get a few weeks a year anything over 90 is not well suited for typical EU skiing conditions IMO..
I would dump my karmas if i had a chance...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I have written elsewhere already that no way my monsters are as good on piste as they are off. One needs loads of speed and free space to enjoy them on piste. They grip, but require hard handling.
When you take them off piste, they crush, slush, float, cruise what ever and under almost any conditions. There they are brilliant, strong and fun - and require hard handling. I guess with 100+mm underfoot you should seriously consider piste to be just the necessary transit zone between various off-piste areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Last week I did exactly the same development drill (the blender) on the same piste, in approximately the same snow conditions with approximately the same aptitude for skiing. On one of the days I used my 90mm Karmas, on the other day my 76mm Magfires (it would have been nice to compare with my slalom skis but I don't have them with me). The difference between the two skis was dramatic: the Karmas were almost impossible for me to do carved short radius turns and in long radius turns they felt very unstable at speed no matter how well I was engaging the edge from early in the arc. They just weren't stiff enough to hack the speed, and made me feel very nervous of pushing them. In medium range turns the Karmas were OK, so I suppose if all I was doing on piste was slightly skiddy medium radius turns they would be just about OK. But all that was in comparison to a 76mm all-purpose ski not a dedicated piste ski like my Rossi 9Ss which would embarrass the Karmas without any doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
rob@rar, "blender" is that like the funnel drill?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| rob@rar, "blender" is that like the funnel drill? |
That's right, we're using it a lot, especially for very long runs where we can play around with rate, range and distribution of movements to get a good feel for what works and what doesn't. So called because you are constantly blending your turn shapes, except we have renamed the drill "Brenda" after a funny misunderstanding between the group and our Trainer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, only a few days to go doesnt sound like you are having much trouble though 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
skimottaret, hope not. Had an awesome day today, skiing variable snow on steep and gentle terrain. spyderman was right about the stuff the Trainer is making us do - way tougher than I was led to believe, but brilliant for development. It is having a profound effect on my skiing - I think I'm making more changes in these two weerks than I have done in the last 10 years 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, great to hear, at the midpoint i was really concerned but by the second wednesday felt it was coming together.. keep enjoying it and dont let the last days examined runs get to you if you dont have anything to prove at that point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
skimottaret, trying to keep calm about it, although it does get a bit tense towards the end of the course. Not much feedback about how well/badly we are doing, which I hope is a good sign. Did the written 'test' today - for some reason I didn't know there would be one so was momentarily phazed by the notion!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
get yourself a pair of movements, - pretty stiff and love blasting about all over the shop, great on piste performance for such skis, though you do need to give them welly to get them going, so it definitely helps if you're fond of a pie or two
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Trainer on this course is on a pair of movement sparks. I'd is an awesome skier and said he is having to work hard to get around the skis limitations for short radius turns. On his day off this weekend he used his Stockli GS race skis. It's always about what compromises you are prepared to make, and that's a very personal choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
rob@rar, Rossi B2's used to be his ski of choice. I hope he gave you all of the answers to the written test
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I don't understand what all the fuss is about? My 100mm work fine on piste. My 68mm feel a bit more agile but not much better. But as I never take either up to very high (45+mph) speed I will never know how either ski performs at that level. I'm always amazed how the average skier can claim the difference in modern ski performance, anyway. I lent my sister-in-law (very intermediate skier) my Missions (89mm) for piste use yesterday, and she thought they felt very similar to the 68's she'd used the previous 4 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
chris, have to say I'm amazed when people say they can't tell a difference when using the ski in the way that it was designed to be used. Maybe they aren't using them in the way which gets the best out of their performance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
rob@rar, I agree with you. A stiff carving ski feels completely different to an all mountain ski to me - and the all mountains I've tried haven't been particularly wide. I think if you're skidding and sliding your skis then you won't ever tell the difference between a carving and a fat ski.
My carving skis (waist 68mm) have coped ok with off piste this year, but I think I would like a pair of off piste skis as well. I don't think one ski can do everything, unless you're not bothered about carving at speed on piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Lucky for Manufacturers there isn't a ski that does everything well. So you either buy a ski that does one thing really well and put up with it being poor a other things, buy more than 1 set, or put up with a compromise "all mountain" ski, that's OK at most things, but doesn't excel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I'm with rob@rar on this. I really can't get excited by fat ski performance on piste. My Monster 82s are great in soft snow, powder, crud etc and reasonably good on piste providing I stick to medium and long radius turns. I have to work them hard to carve short radius turns and they're not great in bumps. I've heard they have good edge hold on ice too, but luckily I haven't had to find out yet. I'm seriously thinking about getting another pair of dedicated piste skis for groomed hardpack. Something along the lines of Head Supershape Magnums. That kind of thing. I don't care if it's not cool to have narrow waisted skis anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've only tried 2 skis in recent years - I had Dynastar Contact 9's which have a 12m turning circle and gripped like hell on piste, making amazing carving easy. These are more of an 80-90% piste design though and I noticed this off piste to a degree.
More recently I decided to go for more of an all mountain ski - which happens to be pretty fat, but with reinforced sides to hold a perfect edge [according to the literature anyhow!!]
My new skis are Radical Freerider's (175) and though it took me a while to get used to them and realise that due to their 'fatness' they need leaning over a lot more than my previous Dynastars ............ once I realised this I found they do actually carve well too - all be it with a larger radius, simply by the design.
http://www.radical-sports.co.uk/products.html read the bumph ........... I think they're pretty spot on - and extremely light in the process which is nice too.
Nig
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
