 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| sps89 wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| sps89 wrote: |
| whereas it is true to say that a 75mm (skinny) ski will not handlw any deep snow. |
Really? |
Imo yes really. |
I can get by with my 76mm skis in properly deep snow, and I've skied with a few decent skiers who ski deep snow with great flair on slalom skis. What did people do with deep snow before fat skis were developed? What about all the old Warren Miller type films where there's plenty of people skiing bottomless powder on sub-70mm skis? CGI special effects perhaps? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Round and round and round you go Always the people sticking to their carving guns that are first to say that thin waists ski off piste "perfectly well", but will never accept that fat skis ski groomed "perfectly well" in the exact same sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| sps89 wrote: |
| I didnt say skiing in waist deep snow on skinny skis was a physical impossibillity |
but earlier you wrote
| sps89 wrote: |
| it is true to say that a 75mm (skinny) ski will not handlw any deep snow. |
Big difference between those two statements, IMO. Perhaps your first claim about skinny skis being unable to handle deep snow was just badly worded?
I have no doubt that fat skis make it easier to ski in deep snow. To the same extent I have no doubt that fat skis are less effective on piste compared to a dedicated piste ski. I just can't see what's so controversial about those two opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| Always the people sticking to their carving guns that are first to say that thin waists ski off piste "perfectly well", |
Not me. I've always said that fat skis are more effective off piste and skinny skis are more effective on piste. My argument is with those people who say fat skis are equally effective on piste as skinny skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| DaveC wrote: |
| Always the people sticking to their carving guns that are first to say that thin waists ski off piste "perfectly well", |
Not me. I've always said that fat skis are more effective off piste and skinny skis are more effective on piste. My argument is with those people who say fat skis are equally effective on piste as skinny skis. |
I would say that some fatter skis are 90% as good on piste as skinny skis, whereas skinny skis are considerably less effective in deep snow.
I still feel that 90-95mm skis handle VERY well on piste and VERY well in deep snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| sps89 wrote: |
| I would say that some fatter skis are 90% as good on piste as skinny skis |
I don't agree with that, especially if you're comparing a 65mm slalom or GS ski being skied hard, with a 90mm+ dedicated off-piste ski. Even at my modest ability levels the differences are pretty obvious. With the off-piste dedicated ski edge to edge agility will be significant compromised, torsional stiffness will reduce the ability to hold an edge at speed, a lack of longitudinal stiffness will mean its difficult to load the front of the ski and you won't get much rebound to pump the ski out of the turn. You'll just have reduced performance all round, way more than 10% of the performance of the dedicated piste ski, in my experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
I have no doubt that fat skis make it easier to ski in deep snow. To the same extent I have no doubt that fat skis are less effective on piste compared to a dedicated piste ski. I just can't see what's so controversial about those two opinions. |
Nothing's controversial, but they're not equally true statements. Taking two well-known skis here - a 65mm 13m-15m (length depending) radius carver like a Fischer RX8 then compare a Scott Mission/Punisher with it's 90mm waist and 13-15m radius. Both can carve equally tight radius, the only difference is the slower edge change - which really isn't a big deal. I think saying that's as big a disadvantage as much more hookiness when trying to pivot in variable snow and much less float in deep snow is misguided to say the least. The subconcious equal relationship of "thin ski good on piste, bad in pow, and vice versa for fat skis" in all of these arguments leads to the uninformed dogma that fat skis are harder to turn and carve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
I have no doubt that fat skis make it easier to ski in deep snow. To the same extent I have no doubt that fat skis are less effective on piste compared to a dedicated piste ski. I just can't see what's so controversial about those two opinions. |
Nothing's controversial, but they're not equally true statements. Taking two well-known skis here - a 65mm 13m-15m (length depending) radius carver like a Fischer RX8 then compare a Scott Mission/Punisher with it's 90mm waist and 13-15m radius. Both can carve equally tight radius, the only difference is the slower edge change - which really isn't a big deal. I think saying that's as big a disadvantage as much more hookiness when trying to pivot in variable snow and much less float in deep snow is misguided to say the least. The subconcious equal relationship of "thin ski good on piste, bad in pow, and vice versa for fat skis" in all of these arguments leads to the uninformed dogma that fat skis are harder to turn and carve. |
x10 and since when does a fatter ski= not stiff.
A Prophet 90 or mantra (Daves ski and mine) have layers of damn metal in them, compared to the foam core of most Salomon models these days.
A fatter ski can have the same turn radius of a thinner ski and for 90% of people the slight difference in speed edge to edge will make so little difference but will make skiing variable, cruddy and deep snow 10X easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
Perhaps its "my ability" which mean i can ski on larger skis on piste and "your abilty" means you cant.
Sick of this forum, ADMIN DELETE MY ACCOUNT.
I wont be logging on ever again. Bye.
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much  on Thu 5-03-09 1:46; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
DaveC, guess we'll have to disagree then. I think the edge to edge speed/agility is a big deal (illustrated nicely by GrahamN who I quoted earlier), and if you're skiing at speed or with power the lower torsional stiffness of a fatter ski will be noticeable. I was persuaded that this is the case last season by a BASI Trainer who could hapily ski short radius arc-arc turns on his GS skis (r=27m) by loading the ski early in the turn and getting big edge angles, but was unable to ski the same shape turn on his Movement Sparks (r=18m) so had to pivot the top of the turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| 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.
Perhaps its "my ability" which mean i can ski on larger skis on piste and "your abilty" means you cant.
Sick of this forum, ADMIN DELETE MY ACCOUNT. |
Missed your medication this morning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| sps89 wrote: |
| I wont be logging on ever again. Bye. |
Cheerio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
| sps89 wrote: |
90-95mm is all mountain, people seem to refuse to believe that larger skis STILL HAVE EDGES AND STILL CARVE. Why wont fat skis "hold an edge"? They still have edges!  |
Ever heard of 'Torsional stiffness'? Also think about where the pressure is applied to the ski, in relation to the edge, with a narrow ski and a fat ski.
Why don't WC racers ski on fat skis on icy pistes?
Fat skis will still carve if the snow is soft, but they won't hold an edge on hardpack anything like as well as a narrower ski.
For your information as well as skiing the Stormriders, I also ski Dynastar 8800 which are 88mm underfoot, also Dynastar Omeglass which are 65mm underfoot.
Believe me an 88mm will not hold an edge like a 65mm on hardpack.
The 88mm is easier to ski than the 75mm in 'Deep Snow' but it still copes just fine. There's nowhere where the 8mm can go that the 75mm can't.
The key words are 'Easier' not 'will not handle' Maybe your ability will not allow you to ski anything less than 90mm in deep snow.  |
Ugh, the "why don't WC racers ski fat skis" is such a pathetic argument. C'mon. Torsional stiffness is an attribute more common in thinner skis but not unknown in fatter skis. Your "easier" and "will not handle" is an argument that fits in any slot too, it's like a scrabble blank tile. If I was bloody minded enough (and it sounds like a few people actually are, from the always funny bi-annual threads), I could take snowblades anywhere too and make the same argument.
I think a more relevant point is I don't think many of us are WC ski racers, or even racers. I think a fair few more dabble off-piste. Plus, condesending repetition of a point that no-one's actually arguing is just a bit embarrasing, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Blimey, wonder if erica2004 knows what she unleashed. And this isn't even BZK. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| Torsional stiffness is an attribute more common in thinner skis but not unknown in fatter skis. |
I might be mistaken, but isn't a general characteristic of skis designed for deep snow that they are a bit softer so you can more easily flex them (making it easier to pressure them into an arc when skiing deep snow)? I appreciate that, just like piste skis, there is a spectrum of ski stiffnesses, but on average I thought that fatter skis were less stiff than skinny skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| 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.
Perhaps its "my ability" which mean i can ski on larger skis on piste and "your abilty" means you cant.
Sick of this forum, ADMIN DELETE MY ACCOUNT.
I wont be logging on ever again. Bye. |
I found this post of yours:
| Quote: |
Hey guys.
Im going to Fernie for a month starting on 28th December. Im looking to hire skis from 'a company' but need some advice.
Ive got around 3-4 weeks on snow in Europe and can ski red/blacks with 'some' confidence but skiing in Fernie may push that level a bit higher and i know ill be spending quite a bit of time off-piste by the end. I need some all mountain skis which can cope with Fernie powder (deep i hope) and off-piste conditions but arent a complete mess on piste as well. Basically a 50/50 ski, i dont really know how much time ill be on/off piste yet so im after versitility.
http://www.edge2edge.co.uk/freeride_ski_hire.html
The choices are above, they are all the same price so no need to bother there but i need to know if anyone has any specific opinions. Im looking at the Salomon x-wing tornado, Atomic crimsons and Scott Neo but i dont really know.
If it matters im 6'2" and about 85kg.
Thanks! Razz |
I think for a now 7-8 week skier, you should find out a bit more about the people whose ability you criticise. Sounds like your 4 weeks in Fernie has turned you into an expert in deep snow, shame there really hasn't been that much of the 'legendary powder' this year has there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
LMAO!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, snowHeads Gold. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
I think for a now 7-8 week skier, you should find out a bit more about the people whose ability you criticise. Sounds like your 4 weeks in Fernie has turned you into an expert in deep snow, shame there really hasn't been that much of the 'legendary powder' this year has there? |
I'm pretty sure he's a CSIA2 now, no idea when that post was from, but whatever - I think it's more the typical Brit know-it-all attitude that set the bloke off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| ... I think it's more the typical Brit know-it-all attitude that set the bloke off. |
Sorry to see you sink to a comment like that  This is about opinions not facts. It's a shame that these can't be exchanged without making personal criticisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Well, it's pretty pervasive around here and I'm not going to pussyfoot around if I'm going to be a dick too. Frustrating to bother making points eloquently and fight a corner that's happily misrepresented to have people rock up on page 3 and make such astute observations as "racers dont ski on fat skis".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
and I'll happily admit the timestamp on that confuses the crap out of me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
DaveC, comments like that made sps89 look pretty foolish. I'm sure you're better than that, so I think nicer all round to stick to the substantive argument rather than trying to score cheap points...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Spyderman wrote: |
| sps89 wrote: |
90-95mm is all mountain, people seem to refuse to believe that larger skis STILL HAVE EDGES AND STILL CARVE. Why wont fat skis "hold an edge"? They still have edges! |
Ever heard of 'Torsional stiffness'? Also think about where the pressure is applied to the ski, in relation to the edge, with a narrow ski and a fat ski.
Why don't WC racers ski on fat skis on icy pistes?
Fat skis will still carve if the snow is soft, but they won't hold an edge on hardpack anything like as well as a narrower ski.
|
DaveC, it was a simple analogy used in answer to a statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Well, anything to not look foolish - I'd hate to lose face
Anyway, simple analogies aside, 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.
I guess I could just say BUT PRO FREERIDERS DONT HELISKI IN ALASKA ON SL SKIS!!!1 HAVE YOU HEARD OF REVERSE CAMBER? Seriously though, in the context of being a pretty solid skier already which I know you both are - do you really need all that much help from your ski in zooming groomers? Obviously my home resort gives me bias here, given that the only groomers I really ski when freeskiing are en-route to fun stuff. I quite like blasting around on my GS skis from time to time, but it's the last ski I'd have in my quiver and the first I'll drop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
DaveC, Using a dedicated piste ski (which for me means a race department slalom or GS) isn't about getting extra help but about having fun with a capital F. So that really should read "about having Fun". If I'm on piste with my mid-fats (about 90mm) the skiing is dull, lifeless, soulless. No zing, no zip. But with my piste skis the whole experience just comes alive. I'm challenged; sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail, but I always do it with a smile. My whole point is that people who spend a large proportion of their time on piste are going to miss out on that experience if they take the advice that fatter is better because they are more effective off-piste (which I fully accept) and just as good on piste (which I don't accept).
| Quote: |
| Obviously my home resort gives me bias here, given that the only groomers I really ski when freeskiing are en-route to fun stuff. |
. And I think that's a sensible position for you. Skiing on piste is not a core part of your experience, so why miss the opportunities for fun that a fat ski will give you off piste. But for somebody who is just dabbling with off-piste is going to spend maybe 80 or 90% of their time on piste, and minimising their fun for such a large proportion of their holiday seems a terrible waste to me. As I said a long time ago, horses for courses and the humble advice I offer here is based in that principle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Have you tried something wider but still stiff? The kind of zip and zing is what I found skiing LPs and Prophets - I love the rebound and energy I get from them. Just wondering if that's the kind of effect you're talking about from race stock skis. I don't doubt that a race stock stiff ski does better than a midfat stiff ski (and we don't need a tangent re-doing this thread either!), but it's interesting.
I'd of thought for someone wanting to spend 80-90% of their time off-piste, something 90mm is likely a good bet if you're going to own one pair of skis - mainly because if you've dipped that toe into 10% off piste it's something that the person is likely to get more and more into. People uninterested in off-piste at all obviously don't need to bother, but I do think wider skis have their own benefits even on groomed runs - especially as they get choppier/bumpier/slushier/whatever - when they lose their cordroy. Lightning fast edge change isn't the be all and end all, even if it is a large factor for groomer zooming.
Don't get me wrong, btw - I probably spend half my time on pisted runs and half my time off, if you averaged it out - I'd guess my 3 options for skis get about equal time on them (for the record, my quiver is RX9s, Prophet 90s, PM Gear Lhasa Pows). I'd almost definitely upgrade my RX9s to race stock something-or-other if that wouldn't make snowplowing an back bottom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
DaveC, I've not skied a very wide range of fat skis (the list includes Stockli Snake BC, Movement Thunder, one of the Icelantic models, High Society Freeride, Volkl Karma and maybe a couple of others) and none of them has been much above 90mm. I'd guess that none of them were particularly stiff, although to be honest one of the things I liked about these skis were their relatively soft flex (compared to a race ski, for example) which meant they were quite easy to make tight turns in trees and didn't take a lot of energy to bend into an arc for skiing in deep snow.
For a one ski quiver I've suggested a ski around the 80mm, perhaps a little narrower or a little wider depending on your preferences, so I don't think we're in a completely different ball park if you think 90mm is a good bet. But then I agree with you that we're really talking about mid-fats in that kind of width, rather than 'proper' fat skis which I'd say start around 95-100mm wide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DaveC, My choice of the Stockli Stormrider off road XL, was based on exactly that criteria, wider but stiff. A wider GS Race Ski (75mm) A ski that would still rip any piste, hold on the hardest of hardpack, but still be more than capable anywhere on any mountain. It does it for me and plenty of others feel exactly the same about the Stormrider.
I haven't found it's limits either on or off piste.
Generally as you know skiers in Fernie ski much wider skis than in Europe, indeed fat skis being sold in the shops there don't even get sold in Europe. What is called icy pistes there isn't anything like what Europe/East coast Canada experience, so for you your 90mm is probably comparable to my 75mm as to what it will do given the local conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Is there a width definition of fat? (Cue jokes from the Lardies) My Atomics are 70mm under foot (ifirc) which when they were new was fatish now they are too thin for off piste /powder / deep snow ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Boredsurfing wrote: |
| Is there a width definition of fat? |
No I don't think so. I tend to think that at the moment fat is 95mm plus, 75-95 is a mid-fat, less than 75 is skinny 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
