 Poster: A snowHead
|
Eeeeezy now!
Greetz to y'all, first post here n'all that, hope youre all having a good season so far...
So im looking for i guess whats called a good mid-fat ski. Im 11st and about 5'10 and ski pretty hard, fast and aggressive on piste but i want smt that will work off piste too.
Im off to St. Anton in Jan and ive got a lesson with pistetopowder, the girl there said smt with 82mm underfoot would be great but imho that would be way too fat for ripping up pistes which at the end of off the day, is what ill be doing 90% of the time.
Ive had my eye on the Head Monster iM76 (119/76/105) and the Volkl AC3 motion (117/72/103) for a while and ill prob end up with one of them, has anyone ever used/owned/demoed either of these models? The AC seems too skinny to be considered a mid fat but if i believe the marketing blurb then its perfect for what i need...yet im really struggling to believe a few mm here and there makes such a whopping difference...
Bah...so confusing! And am i just being a dumbski or, with the exception of the epicski forum, is there absolutely jack 5h1t on the web for good ski reviews...?
Cheers guyz n'gals
Shiva
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
but imho that would be way too fat for ripping up pistes which at the end of off the day, is what ill be doing 90% of the time.
|
This is where you're wrong. Something like a blizzard 8.1 or 8.7, magfire 82 Xti, AC30 and AC50 are all great piste ski's.
I see little use for a 7x mm ski these days.
You mention you want to go more off piste but still cling to your 90% piste profile and fall back to a skinny 7x mm piste ski. If you pick a good 8x ski, you'll find you give up nearly nothing on piste and gain a lot off piste.
ps: amusing how you mention EpicSki, you should really read up a bit there. I don't think I've ever seen a sub 80mm ski recommended there. Pretty much every 'one ski quiver' question these days gets a 82-90mm (east coast) or 90mm+ answer. Not to mention that one of the topics recently over there should hold your profile+answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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'm in the iM82 and there is nothing they can't do on-piste if you're strong enough. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Im off to St. Anton in Jan and ive got a lesson with pistetopowder, the girl there said smt with 82mm underfoot would be great but imho that would be way too fat for ripping up pistes which at the end of off the day, is what ill be doing 90% of the time.
|
I've been really suprised how good modern mid fat skis are on piste, I think its more important that the overall stats suit you. I have a pair of K2 Xplorer (128, 84, 112) they are suprisingly good on piste, with a decent amount of float in powder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
The difference between my regular slalom ski (65mm) and my 'mid-fat' (Elan Magfire 12, 76mm) is huge for on piste performance. No matter how well I ski I don't get the same response out of the Elans as I do out of the slalom ski. I've skied the Head Peak 76 (this season's replacement for the Monster I think) but only indoors and I thought they were even worse for short radius turns. I therefore don't agree with the advice that going up to 80+ won't sacrifice piste performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Cheers for the interesting feedback guys!
I dunno why but i was just working on the assumption that 80mm + would comprimise piste performance but you seem to be saying otherwise...im not a big guy and i just imagined that 80mm+ would be too much for smooth edge to edge carving.
I'll get over to epicski and see what i can find...
Cheers fellas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| shiva_71 wrote: |
| I dunno why but i was just working on the assumption that 80mm + would comprimise piste performance |
It does, in my experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you compare it to a 67mm SL ski which you only do SL type turns with, agreed.
(The new magfire 82 xti (82mm) actually has a bit smaller radius than your 12 (76mm).)
Piste performance is more than small SL turns imo. Anyway, obviously you're going to give up something if you compare it to a ski with which you can barely float (exaggeration, I know) in powder.
Would you recommend a 67mm SL ski to someone who wants to venture more in offpiste but keep piste performance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Vorda wrote: |
| Would you recommend a 67mm SL ski to someone who wants to venture more in offpiste but keep piste performance? |
No, I think something 75 - 80mm would be about right (that's what I ski on most of the time), but I was simply putting a differing opinion to that expressed that an 80+ ski would not significantly compromise piste performance (shorts or longs). IME it compromises that performance significantly. Performance from edge to edge, pop out of the turns and short radius abilities are all compromised, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I see little use for a 7x mm ski these days.
You mention you want to go more off piste but still cling to your 90% piste profile and fall back to a skinny 7x mm piste ski. If you pick a good 8x ski, you'll find you give up nearly nothing on piste and gain a lot off piste.
|
Can someone please explain what the above quote is referring to, I don't understand the bit about 7x and 8x
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
7x = 70-79,
8x = 80-89
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
stoatsbrother, Ahh...Thanks that makes more sense I was reading it as 7 times and 8 times Duhhh....... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Can someone please explain what the above quote is referring to, I don't understand the bit about 7x and 8x
|
I think he means 70 something mm and 80 something mm underfoot width, if that isnt confusing too!
The Volkl AC30 according to the website is for "advanced to experts" which im not 100% sure about regarding my own level, also it says 50/50 on/off piste which again is pushing it a bit...
I guess i could demo stuff in St. Anton which would be fine but im kinda on a budget of say 350 euros max and im not overly optimistic ill find smt in this price range.
But thanks guys, it seems that i should be heading closer to 80mm than 70mm so that narrows the hunt a bit...just a thought tho, why is this whole subject always 100% about the underfoot width, surely wider tips and tails increase total surface area of the ski and thus give more float in powder...?
Tschuss!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
So by the above description my new chrissy presents are mid-fats - they are 123-78-105, my others were 121 / 73 / 103. In terms of geometry there seems little difference (though I do know the new ones will likely be a fair bit stiffer, they are also 8cm longer), will 5mm underfoot make a huge difference in how they ski? I have held both pairs up against each other and I must admit there is not a huge physical difference between the two skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| will 5mm underfoot make a huge difference in how they ski? |
Not a major difference I don't think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Megamum, not really very fat. Ski instructors & Gate Junkies might see them as being so... 
Unless you really are committing to Off-Piste and powder should be fine though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
stoatsbrother, Nope no committment to either  though I guess if I ever needed to its good to know that they would cope. What I am hoping is that they might have the characteristic I noticed when tried some skis from Elans Spice line in a test - the skis were heavier and wider than my Wave Magics and made skiing slush and heavier mounded up snow much easier. The Wave Magics, tended to get chucked round on it, but, the heavier wider skis almost seemed to cut/bash through it and came into their own in making that sort of surface, which I had found awkward beforehand, far easier to ski. If the new skis have similar characteristics this would be good news I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Megamum, what are your new skis???
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| The difference between my regular slalom ski (65mm) and my 'mid-fat' (Elan Magfire 12, 76mm) is huge for on piste performance. No matter how well I ski I don't get the same response out of the Elans as I do out of the slalom ski. I've skied the Head Peak 76 (this season's replacement for the Monster I think) but only indoors and I thought they were even worse for short radius turns. I therefore don't agree with the advice that going up to 80+ won't sacrifice piste performance. |
Agreed, however I don't think you loose that much more piste performance going from a mid-high 70mm ski to a >80mm ski. My everyday ski is the Magfire 10 and I have also skied the Magfire 12 quite regularly. I have hired Elan SLX slalom skis for a week and they were so much more fun than the Magfires on piste. I am now skiing Volkl Karmas (88mm) and Icelantic Pilgrims (90mm) as my main ski and I think the difference between the Magfires and the SLXs was more than between the Magfires and the Karmas or Pilgrims which are fun on piste as long as there is fresh snow. The only time I don't like them is if there has been no fresh snow and the pistes are very hard, then they're just boring. So if I wanted something to help me off piste I would buy something around 80-90mm and then use something superskinny for on-piste days
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
shiva_71, Elan Magfire 78 Ti in a 168cm
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
lynseyf, I don't disagree with any of that (I also have a pair of the Elan SLX slalom skis and the Karmas, and the fattest skis in my quiver are a pair of High Society Freerides which are 92mm IIRC). I think it's best to choose a ski which is suitable for the majority of what you will be skiing - going fat will compromise piste performance, going skinny will compromise off-piste performance. Aim for a ski which will minimise the compromises you have to make, and perhaps hire something completely different when the conditions demand it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lynseyf, going back to the OP, he did say he'd be ripping up the pistes 90% of the day...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I must admit I'm always surprised when folks say that they even get on with some of Kiwi_1's Icelantics on piste - they always look huge underfoot to me (regardless of model) and def. off piste weapons to my un-initiated eye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| lynseyf, going back to the OP, he did say he'd be ripping up the pistes 90% of the day... |
He's a bit confused it seems.
| Quote: |
| but i want smt that will work off piste too. |
| Quote: |
| ripping up pistes which at the end of off the day, is what ill be doing 90% of the time. |
First figure out what exactly you want to ski in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| I must admit I'm always surprised when folks say that they even get on with some of Kiwi_1's Icelantics on piste - they always look huge underfoot to me (regardless of model) and def. off piste weapons to my un-initiated eye. |
I ski 173 Icelantic Shaman which have a 15m radius and are unbelievable on piste (for a fat ski). No comparison to my 67mm waisted slalom ski of course, but as long as you are a solid skier technically and not a weakling, they're super fun for carving groomers between bowls.
shiva_71 my mid-fats are 08/09 im82's. If you're strong enough you can do any radius turn you want on piste and they LOVE to carve medium/long radius. As for off piste I skiied 35c's of fresh on them only a few days ago and they performed admirably. Shame about the graphics this year though... green was much nicer, not that this should alter your decision of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
shiva_71, If you only want a fatter ski for a one day lesson why don't you just hire something for one day?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks again guys for your thoughts and feedback...dont really know much about the Elan Magfire line but seems like it could be another one to add to the list, i recall the Nordica Hot Rods got great reviews a few years back too.
Alexandra, yeah that would seem preferable to making a hasty purchase wouldnt it? Ive emailed Jennewein in St. Anton to see if they stock any of the models im interested in...
| Quote: |
He's a bit confused it seems
|
Not really mate. Im a strong, aggressive intermediate who wants a ski that will help me get a feel for powder more than a GS/SL ski would. Im no more confused than anyone else looking at mid fat skis.
| Quote: |
First figure out what exactly you want to ski in the near future.
|
Ha, what i want to ski, and what i will actually ski arent neccessarily the same thing are they? And thats the whole point of a versatile mid fat isnt it?
Cheers!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Alexandra, fwiw I thought that was an excellent suggestion too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I have absolutely no faith in the whole x% groomers y% not groomed. Unless you're making 3 turns on a groomer and 1 on the boundary it's not really a relevant stat. My take on the whole mid fat thing is that they're just going to be worse than a carver on piste and worse than a 90mm waist off it. May as well go 90mm+ and just realise they won't behave like a SL ski on piste, they'll still turn like skis tend to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Hi
I have the head Monster IM78 ski's in 178, im 5'11 and 14 stone. Have no problems on piste with them and have used them in shin deep (top of the boot) powder also with out any probs, deeper POW than this and obviously a dedicated FAT pow ski would be more fun and would make life easyer. But hey these types of ski's are not made for real backcountry, more piste based and the odd excursion off piste just off the piste to shred some fresh lines when the times right after a fresh fall. and for this i find them perform faultless for this job.
Hope this helps
DJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| May as well go 90mm+ and just realise they won't behave like a SL ski on piste, they'll still turn like skis tend to. |
How is that good advice is a person knows they are going to spend more time on piste than off piste by a big margin, even if the precise percentages are a moot point? When you were looking for a relatively skinny ski for your CSIA exams did you follow that logic, when piste performance was an important issue for you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
May as well go 90mm+ and just realise they won't behave like a SL ski on piste
|
Or alternatively, may as well go 75/80mm and realise they wont behave like a 100mm fatty chops off piste...?
| Quote: |
they'll still turn like skis tend to.
|
Yeah, i cant help thinking all this fuss about a few mm is "reinventing the wheel" so to speak...
| Quote: |
these types of ski's are not made for real backcountry, more piste based and the odd excursion off piste just off the piste to shred some fresh lines when the times right after a fresh fall
|
Yup thats hit the nail on the head and it seems there isnt really a bad word to say about the Monsters for this.
Vorda, thanks for the link bro, looks like Blizzard, Dynastar and Elan should be added to the list!
Cheers guys
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| DaveC wrote: |
| May as well go 90mm+ and just realise they won't behave like a SL ski on piste, they'll still turn like skis tend to. |
How is that good advice is a person knows they are going to spend more time on piste than off piste by a big margin, even if the precise percentages are a moot point? When you were looking for a relatively skinny ski for your CSIA exams did you follow that logic, when piste performance was an important issue for you? |
Well, I did follow that logic - still haven't figured out that one, but I know for sure it won't be >75mm. OP mentioned he's not looking for a skinny ski, my contention on the issue is that the 75-85mm ish "all mountain" skis are a bit of a dead bracket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| my contention on the issue is that the 75-85mm ish "all mountain" skis are a bit of a dead bracket. |
For a one ski quiver in typical European conditions I'd say it's a pretty useful category if you intend to mix piste and a bit of off-piste. It's the ski which I think minimises the compromises you have to make. If you're skiing what I assume to be typical Rockies powder I'd probably go 85-95 and accept that on well pisted slopes the performance would drop like a stone, but I'd probably be skiing lots more powder and variable snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, i guess 75 - 85mm is exactly that, a comprimise, a jack of all trades and we know what is said about those!
I dunno, i lived in Innsbruck for 3 seasons and did a lot of skiing, that affords you a lot of time to go looking for powder stashes, and if i spent two hours traversing crud and windblown crust only to get lost in a forest then no big deal, id still have x weeks/months to ski....now im down to a week and a few long weekends, im not prepared to waste time looking for nice powder which is why i know ill be on piste most of the time...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shiva_71, Try them before you knock them. If you want to ski more varied terrain but want to stick with a one-ski quiver then the mid-fats might suit. I do however disagree that <80mm is mid-fat (I encountered a chap last winter who tried to tell me his 72s were mid-fat). I also disagree that you can't carve/rip up the piste with them. You'll see plenty of the epicski people "ripping" the piste in 90mm plus! Perhaps it's just an EU thing to stick to skinnies... 
I also believe it's mental that you email the rental place asking if they've got x or y ski. Assess the situation when you get there - if you'll be skiing feet of powder get something really fat - don't mess around with mid-fats. I love my mid-fats for day-to-day conditions, but on a really big powder day I'd rent something fatter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Last year I rented some Salomon Lords and couldn't believe how good they were on and off piste - so I bought a pair. Fall-line ski of the year last year - check out the review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monster 82s work pretty well on and off piste. Requires good technique on piste though to work them well and short radius turns are not their strong suit. I think of them as a detuned GS ski on piste and if you can't ski on them in the back country you really shouldn't be out there. Hard to beat for a one quiver setup IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
good luck.