 Poster: A snowHead
|
Boredsurfing, 70mm they're Nordic Cross Country skis aren't they? I'm surprised you don't sink into the snow never to be seen again.
When shaped/carving skis were introduced and straight skis were deleted from product ranges, 74mm was seen as an all mountain ski, something like Dynastar Intuitiv 74. Good on piste, good in powder. 88mm was seen as 80% off-piste, 20% on. Anything wider was classed as off piste only.
The question is are you happy with what you can ski using your Atomic's, if you are, where's the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
My 2p: fat skis kick skinny skis in most off-piste conditions. Skinny skis kick fat skis in most piste conditions. Choose one based on how much skiing you do on-piste, off-piste, and what sort of compromises you're prepared to give. I don't think people are disagreeing here.
As I'm from a racing background and ski in Europe where the snow is usually quite hard-pack and powder days are few/far between I'd rather have equipment that lets me rip up the hard-pack and make me work more when it is soft. Were I skiing regularly in the mid-west in the US I'd probably be reaching for a wider and slightly softer ski as my daily ski as the snow tends to be softer. I'll be packing my race-stock SL skis and my LPs for my next trip and using whichever pair is warranted given the conditions outside.
I think the issue is when people who ski off-piste the majority of their time are recommending fat off-piste oriented skis to the three or four week Europe-based skier. My father's getting on a bit but used to be a BASI instructor a while ago. He skis almost exclusively on-piste in Europe, which I don't think is exactly uncommon amongst the entire skiing population. When his Atomic 9.20s give up the ghost do I advise him to get a 100mm plus-waisted ski, a 70m-minus waisted ski or something inbetween?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Spyderman,
| Quote: |
The question is are you happy with what you can ski using your Atomic's, if you are, where's the problem?
|
Two things really, They are old(ish) they will have been skied on for 15+ weeks and I may be missing something by not having wider ski's, on the other hand I might not 
These are they btw
and of course Kiwi 1 is offering his overstocks at a reduced price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Boredsurfing, the fatter the ski, the earlier the lift. I reckon 70mm should be good for about 10.30 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Frosty the Snowman, You been talking to Mouth again? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
my point is that while fat skis (or, in some circles, mid-fat at 90mm) skis lose some performance under a high end skier pushing them into high end turns (usually short), the gains they make over thin skis in areas like being more stable and easier to pivot in variable snow are pretty significant - to the extent that the wider platform allows you to do things with regards to turn shape and speed, in variable snow and especially in deep snow. Talking about torsional stiffness makes more sense when you're talking about 100mm and up skis, as they actually are more soft-snow specific.
|
DaveC couldnt agree more with you there. My laughing earlier in the thread was someone saying a 113mm wide ski holds a fantastic edge and carves well.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
DaveC couldnt agree more with you there. My laughing earlier in the thread was someone saying a 113mm wide ski holds a fantastic edge and carves well..... |
And my contention was that it could well do, assuming it's not being made to make turn shapes it's not suitable for... I've railed mine at mach looney down a rain-effected refrozen groomer and they locked in just fine. I joined this thread since the implications that a) fat skis can only pivot and b) anyone who wants a wider ski than 70mm clearly wants 110mm and is therefore dumb, are annoying. The whole "WELL MY THIN SKIS CAN GO ANYWHERE" thing is fun too, since obviously any kind of skis "can" go anywhere. I'd be so brave as to guess if you haven't found the limits of a thin ski off-piste it's because you've found your own limit first
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
DaveC, most people including me have said horses for courses... I think we agree on most things, you seem to enjoy big off piste turns, fat skis are perfect for you. I for one havent been arguing that skinny skis work great everywhere. I have Fischer SL skis for race coaching/training, Head Supershape magnums @71mm for on piste everyday, volkl AC30s' @76mm for messing around on/off and Karmas @87mm that work for most side country stuff and learning telemarking on. If it dumped down i would love to try out some fatties but they wouldnt be ski of choice in europe if i took one on hols.
IMO skis over 100mm are specialised for deep snow in the same way that an SL ski is for on piste shorts. fatties when used on piste will chatter more and be more difficult to hold edges than a narrower ski.
where we differ is that i believe most intermediate/advanced European based skiers who frequent this board get told "that fatter is better", but these skiers dont spend MOST of their time in deep snow, they probably spend most time on piste. For those people i would suggest a fat ski (+100mm) is a bad choice for all round skiing and will hold back their skills development.
perhaps i am a bit prickly but comments like yours are endearing...
| Quote: |
My 115mm 196s also carve exceptionally well... maybe you're just a bad skier.. or maybe you're confusing "carving" with "short radius carving".
|
I might be a "bad skier" but i assure you i have found and exceeded the limits off piste more than a few times  I have also managed to pass my L3 exams and i didnt use a fat ski when taking em, nor did i use SL skis.... why cause as an all round ski for any conditions they would be S**t
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 have some worms here, does anyone have a can opener?
Does being a a great fat lunk make any difference? If I should go for a longer ski, shouldn't it be proportionately wider too if I don't have damn-fool FIS rules to worry about?
A 65mm ski would be somewhere inside of my big toe, which just seems silly to me. How am I supposed to angulate that, especially if it's sinking under the weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cunners wrote: |
| Does being a a great fat lunk make any difference? |
That Hermann Maier chap is a big bloke and I don't think he worries too much about boot out, and Alberto Tomba didn't need fat skis despite enjoying his Mamma's pasta rather more than he could have done
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
And little old me on 162cm 84cm skis - it was like floating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I tried a 166cm 15.4m radius 123 / 78 / 105 Pure Spice in VT last year as a direct comparison to my own 160cm 10-16m radius 115 / 70 / 103 Wave Magic
rob@rar, suggested that fat is 95mm plus, 75-95 is a mid-fat, less than 75 is skinny.
So by that description I tried a mid fat vs. a skinny. Now as everyone knows I'm just a little old aspiring intermediate here so no expert status whatsoever. I found the Pure Spice far more difficult to get on edge on firmer piste bashed snow, but succeeded well enough to find out that it probably would still turn/ carve for me if I had the skill to make it work. However, where the wider ski came into its own was on the late afternoon slush. Compared to my own skis it powered 'over' rather than 'through' the slush and was far less effort to ski (read 'turn') than my own thinner ones in those conditions and I was left in no doubt that it would be a far better weapon in deep unbashed snow too.
I finally got to experience the much vaunted powder 'on-piste' over 1/2 term (oodles of it) and although I made my own skis function I would far rather have had the pure spice at my disposal.
I had often wondered about all this discussion over ski widths, but even with my limited experience even I could feel the difference, something I didn't expect to be able to do. I can't comment on the edge hold abilities in packed snow, but at my level the wide skis were certainly harder to ski in the harder conditions - although this could just be due to the, presumably, more exagerated action needed to rock them across their entire width and onto their edges. However, in softer conditions I am now convinced of the value of a wider set of skis, even if I don't own a pair.
Mind you perhaps my skiing is improving on these slightly wider skis. I had a pair of Rossignol Radical R9X World Cup Oversize skis in VT last year. I've just checked the specs on these 160cm 124-80-112. So even wider than the Pure Spice that I'd previously had problems with. Yet I think of all the skis that I've tried so far I liked these the best. They were brand spanking new (never seen snow before) and took no prisoners with their edges, but after 10 minutes on them I started to get used to them and they were fantastic. They were lovely and stiff and were so heavy they crashed through all sorts of snow conditions, and they also held an edge wonderfully - under protest I took them down a red on a ice like surface in atrocious wind conditions that had blown the loose stuff away when we had run out of other options. In the finish I put my faith in the construction of the ski I was on and its new edges and I have to say they didn't let me down.
The only other comment I have re: fat skis is when folk talk about 'fatter' skis how important is the length. Surely the ski is relatively wider if the length is shorter?
If I ever need another pair of skis a pair of the Rossignols is on my list
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Nnngggghhhh
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Hurtle, more fibre needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| skimottaret wrote: |
DaveC couldnt agree more with you there. My laughing earlier in the thread was someone saying a 113mm wide ski holds a fantastic edge and carves well..... |
And my contention was that it could well do, assuming it's not being made to make turn shapes it's not suitable for... I've railed mine at mach looney down a rain-effected refrozen groomer and they locked in just fine. I joined this thread since the implications that a) fat skis can only pivot and b) anyone who wants a wider ski than 70mm clearly wants 110mm and is therefore dumb, are annoying. The whole "WELL MY THIN SKIS CAN GO ANYWHERE" thing is fun too, since obviously any kind of skis "can" go anywhere. I'd be so brave as to guess if you haven't found the limits of a thin ski off-piste it's because you've found your own limit first |
A couple of points, a)I can't find where the suggestion that fat skis cannot carve is  Edge hold has very little influence on a skis ability to carve if the snow is soft.
b) anybody who chooses a wider than 70mm ski wants a 110mm, again I can't find that either.
"WELL MY THIN SKIS CAN GO ANYWHERE" Who said that? I ski skis at 75mm for all mountain use, hardly ''THIN''
I know where my technical limits are. Why would I buy a ski whose limits I could exceed? Yes, the ski is better than I am, but I ski within it's target user band.
As an aside, I notice you said that you use your 90mm skis for exams. Have you managed to pass your CSIA Level 2 yet? If so well done, only I wasn't sure when you were taking it. I assumed you hadn't, as I only saw you working in the Creche and Bunny Slope with ankle biters.
On the BASI courses that I have attended, there were a few people who turned up on 90mm ish skis, they found it impossible to achieve the required level of technical standard on piste using such a wide ski and subsequently, 1 person hired some alternatives, the other fortunately had another set with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
| On the BASI courses that I have attended, there were a few people who turned up on 90mm ish skis, they found it impossible to achieve the required level of technical standard on piste using such a wide ski and subsequently, 1 person hired some alternatives, the other fortunately had another set with them. |
I'd support this. On my BASI 3 (sorry, Alpine Level 2), there were 3 people on the course who arrived on Volkl Karmas / Matras. None of them achieved the required level of piste performance until they changed their skis. It was "suggested", rather than insisted upon. It was "suggested" that I might want to change my poles - it made a huge difference.
Spyderman, I know what you're trying to say in your comment about who DaveC is teaching, but (not being funny) it's not a great basis for debate - otherwise we descend into:
| sps89 wrote: |
| I would guess "my ability" is quite a bit higher than you, im bored of arguing with braindead gapers who dont understand anything and ski once and year. |
territory. And we're all above that. Well, all except for sps89 who doesn't seem to have a clue who they're talking to.
For my one penneth worth on this whole subject, I'm in the sports car / 4x4 camp.
Both are fine on the road. The sports car can probably be pushed more on the road, but the 4x4 is probably more comfortable to be in. The 4x4 is far better off-road. Really skilled drivers could take a sports car off-road, but it's far harder than taking a 4x4. You could take both on a test track, but you'd never get the performance of a sports car out of a 4x4. If you're really skilled you might make a good fist of it, but equally, if you're really good, you'd get a heck of a lot more out of the sports car.
There's a real problem in all of this in "thin" versus "fat". Is "thin" under 90mm, 80mm, 75mm, or what...
Like many people have said, it's horses for courses, but I would make the observation that...
I've owned some Missions and some Supershapes, both with the same sidecut radius. Both can be carved cleanly if the turn radius is at the sidecut radius or above. BUT, the Supershapes are far easier to influence into having a shorter turn radius and carving it cleanly. Equally, the Missions are far easier to hang out onto a longer turn off-piste.
Well, at my skill level anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| Nnngggghhhh |
In the absence of a 'rag stuffed in mouth' smiley.... Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haha, you can take any car on the road the question is will it sink in the mud when you take it off road.
I think that the true test is the amount of adaptive technique needed to take the skis onto the opposite scale of their program. ie, will a BC Navis require a different set of technical skills when taking it from the offpiste and then onto the piste. The answer there, no. Do you need to a different set of skills to take a Doberman SLR from the piste and then ski it off the piste, then the answer is a big fat yes. (unless you're still skiing like a knobber from the 80's).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| unless you're still skiing like a knobber from the 80's |
I'll get my coat then
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
A couple of points, a)I can't find where the suggestion that fat skis cannot carve is Edge hold has very little influence on a skis ability to carve if the snow is soft.
b) anybody who chooses a wider than 70mm ski wants a 110mm, again I can't find that either.
"WELL MY THIN SKIS CAN GO ANYWHERE" Who said that? I ski skis at 75mm for all mountain use, hardly ''THIN''
I know where my technical limits are. Why would I buy a ski whose limits I could exceed? Yes, the ski is better than I am, but I ski within it's target user band.
As an aside, I notice you said that you use your 90mm skis for exams. Have you managed to pass your CSIA Level 2 yet? If so well done, only I wasn't sure when you were taking it. I assumed you hadn't, as I only saw you working in the Creche and Bunny Slope with ankle biters.
On the BASI courses that I have attended, there were a few people who turned up on 90mm ish skis, they found it impossible to achieve the required level of technical standard on piste using such a wide ski and subsequently, 1 person hired some alternatives, the other fortunately had another set with them. |
Well, generally for an all-rounder I'm talking 90mm ish, but anyone arguing how rubbish wider skis are immediately jumps to 100mm+, which isn't really a very fair way of arguing since I totally agree that once you're above 90 it's getting a bit specific. My other point is that thin skis have all sorts of limits compared to fat skis in different areas, but they're easily ignored, while thin skis virtues over fat are happily trumpeted.
I can't be bothered to re-read my posts, but I'm pretty sure I said I'd much rather ski my 90mms but unfortunately pretty much have to ski carvers on exam type stuff (due to this type of predjudice etc).
My CSIA2 in Feb got cancelled unfortunately - not enough on the course - though I've had strong feedback that I'm good for it, and I've been working on 3 related stuff for a while now. You saw me on Family Weekend though, which was a total gong show. All hands on deck and everyone on kids that weekend, pretty much. I generally get level 4 ish kids (so bear etc) outside of ski and play, and my regular 4 year olds are turning into little rippers now - but whatever. People still have to do the daycare stuff even with their csia3 occasionally. If you want to try and be a bit petty then I'll point out I'm not the guy crusing round with a BASI pin/jacket on holiday
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and I skied 30cm of blower today and got a solid two hours of faceshots. On my fat skis. Nerr
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I can sympathise with DaveC & our departed friend.
Reading this thread there does appear to be a 'tone' from BASI bunch that 'narrow skis are the only way to do it'. Interestingly, although I get nothing like the snow time that you guys get per season it appears to me that many here who are dissing on piste wide ski performance have never actually tried any true 'performance level' wide skis. By this I mean skis that are not only wide underfoot but that are also both longitudinally & torsionally stiff & that are tuned as a piste ski - not the wide but soft 'traditional' powder ski of just a few years ago.
In my last few weeks of skiing I've learnt that off piste is were all the fun is (not that piste skiing isn't fun it's that there's too many people around most of the time) & that's were I've been concentrating my technique development, mostly with Warren Smith & his team. The one thing I learnt really quickly is that I will never have the skill, experience & mileage to be able to ski narrow skis off piste so I need all the help modern equipment can provide. And that's were the big skis come in. Basically Parlor & SZK were right all the time 
I've been taught by a number of the top name BASI ski schools & it's interesting that when I have an off piste lesson the instructor will usually rock up on his GS skis or something not much wider. The instructors also usually have a racing background & have little knowledge of the latest 'kit' & are very conservative in this area. You meet up with Warren & his guys & they're all on big skis & understand the technology behind them. Why? Because as DaveC has said, a 'performance' wide ski is waaaaay easier to use than a narrow ski in the crappy variable cruddy, crusty, windslab & porridgy off piste snow that we have in Europe most of the time - getting to use them in deep powder every now & then is just a bonus. And the technique & drills that Warren teaches for wide skis are all learnt on piste before they're taken off piste.
I've had some great piste skis in the past (5 Stars, SXB5's, MB5's etc) & there's no way I could ski them off piste like my 104mm underfoot HSFR's. I've also skied the 92mm FR a lot & the reason I went for the 104mm was there was no real difference so I went for the extra float & stability. But my FR's are great fun on piste too & I'm quite happy skiing them on piste all day.
Technology in the area of 'all mountain' skis is moving at a rapid pace as that's were the market is as they allow mere mortals like me to get around the mountain & have fun. Tomorrow my new planks will arrive: 196cm & 112mm underfoot for float & stability, carbon fibre construction for low weight but high stiffness in both directions for performance & 40cm of tip rocker so that they ski shorter on piste but will blast through anything off. This is the future, try 'em before you knock 'em!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
| Tomorrow my new planks will arrive: 196cm & 112mm underfoot for float & stability, carbon fibre construction for low weight but high stiffness in both directions for performance & 40cm of tip rocker so that they ski shorter on piste but will blast through anything off. This is the future, try 'em before you knock 'em! |
115mm, I'll have you know (Same ski that I've mentioned and am ridiculously in love with, although not particularly mentioned by name, the revelation that is the PM Gear Lhasa Pow)
But yeah, glad someone else sees it my way. Some of the old guard in the ski school here are still skiing on their race skis in the off-piste gnar, and they do it well - but it's a lot of hop turns and very old school, which is kind of what the skinnies demand, and the big limit that I'm talking about. Not that they don't have fun or don't totally kill it - but they could do soooo much more if they took fatties out for a spin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
Reading this thread there does appear to be a 'tone' from BASI bunch that 'narrow skis are the only way to do it'.
|
sorry jon but where do you get that from , what i have seen written by the "basi bunch" all advocate horses for courses, select a ski for the conditions you generally ski in and one that gets you the most enjoyment....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
DaveC, PMGear's website says "Dimensions: 140-112-122, 196 centimeters long" but if I get an extra few mm for free then all the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
| I've been taught by a number of the top name BASI ski schools & it's interesting that when I have an off piste lesson the instructor will usually rock up on his GS skis or something not much wider. The instructors also usually have a racing background & have little knowledge of the latest 'kit' & are very conservative in this area. |
Surely that's not a case of attitude but more a function of what else they're likely to be doing for the rest of the day with other people? If you are taking 2 lessons of early intermediates and 1 of off piste in a day, you're going to take the skis that make the majority of your lessons easier - and their level it's no skin off their noses to spend a couple of hours in powder on thinner skis than they might choose if they were going to be in powder all day?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
I can sympathise with DaveC & our departed friend.
Reading this thread there does appear to be a 'tone' from BASI bunch that 'narrow skis are the only way to do it'. |
Not from me, mate. I'm very firmly in the horses for courses camp. I'm simply trying to give the best advice I can based on my own experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| I think that the true test is the amount of adaptive technique needed to take the skis onto the opposite scale of their program. ie, will a BC Navis require a different set of technical skills when taking it from the offpiste and then onto the piste. The answer there, no. Do you need to a different set of skills to take a Doberman SLR from the piste and then ski it off the piste, then the answer is a big fat yes. |
I disagree. I do think you need to make adjustments when you take a ski out of its "natural environment" unless all you're doing it trying to replicate what it does best on it's home turf. So yes, ripping big lines down steep, untracked powder on a pair of Doberman SLRs will require different ways of driving the ski compared to do short radius turns on hardpack, but doing neat powder S turns won't require such a big technique change. Equally, doing a seamless blend of short and medium radius turns on hardpack on a pair of Black Crow Navis will require a big change of technique compared to how you manage those skis off piste, but doing longer radius turns on piste will require less technique adjustment.
But that's not a controversial observation is it? You also have to make adjustments to technique when you're trying to do short radius turns on a GS ski, and similarly long radius turns on a slalom ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like to ski fast in deep powder. I can with 100+cms skis, I can't with -70cms skis. I don't think it's my ability. I think it's more to do with the Laws of Physics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| chris wrote: |
| I like to ski fast in deep powder. I can with 100+cms skis, I can't with -70cms skis. I don't think it's my ability. I think it's more to do with the Laws of Physics. |
Not that I'm recommending skinny skis in deep snow, but before fat skis were developed do you think nobody skied fast in powder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, not as fast as they could if they had had modern fat skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
. Next Friday if the snow is boiler plate I shall mostly cry 
