 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Another vote for the Titan. Very solid ski with good piste performance and a little bit of extra width for times when you drop off the side of the piste. Don't think it's changed much in the last couple of seasons other than top sheet graphics, so if you can find a pair from last season you might get it a bit cheaper than retail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| livetoski wrote: |
| In fact I might add that some fatter rocker skis are easier to control than, race skis, blades, even snowboards and the old 2 meter skinny skis but we do not see the same thing said about these types of skis? |
That's because the average ski punter already knows he's not a racer, blader, boarder or living in a time warp so the issue isn't going to arise.
What he doesn't know is how good (or more likely bad) a skier he really is. So he relys on the average rockered ski marketing which says, "These skis are fantastic everywhere! Anyone can ski these!" which just isn't true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
Of course I'm not saying a fat rockered ski is an ideal tool for a piste-based intermediate (or anyone skiing on ice!), but I have a hard time picturing them causing more accidents. |
So why are people still recommending them for piste-based intermediates? (incidentally is there another kind of intermediate? I don't know any off-piste based intermediates - that's an oxymoron in itself  )
The logical progression of your argument is that an intermediate on these skis will find it harder to learn technical skills and progress his ability. Therefore he's more likely to ski out of control and more likely to cause an accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
gatecrasher, Tell me about it tried 3 of the skis I did not like last year that apparently have not been changed and liked them 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Raceplate, I know plenty of intermediate skiers that ski off-piste. There's nothing that says you have to ski perfectly on piste to ski off it. It can be pretty improving. I've taken a mate touring when he'd only had five days total on skis and he coped perfectly fine. I may be mad or entirely wrong but I reckon skiing off-piste early and getting used to doing both is much better than sticking to the piste and seeing skiing off it as something mythical to attain once you've hit a certain level. Skiing a slightly wider ski with a bit of tip rocker is a perfect compromise in that situation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| meh wrote: |
| Raceplate, I know plenty of intermediate skiers that ski off-piste. There's nothing that says you have to ski perfectly on piste to ski off it. It can be pretty improving. I've taken a mate touring when he'd only had five days total on skis and he coped perfectly fine. I may be mad or entirely wrong but I reckon skiing off-piste early and getting used to doing both is much better than sticking to the piste and seeing skiing off it as something mythical to attain once you've hit a certain level. Skiing a slightly wider ski with a bit of tip rocker is a perfect compromise in that situation! |
+1 to the above.
But it does depend on where you're skiing.
I take my students off the groomed runs at the earliest opportunity, however this is much easier in the resorts I instruct / have instructed at (Hokkaido, Japan; Keystone & Park City, US; and Kicking Horse, Canada) than most European resorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| meh wrote: |
| Raceplate, I know plenty of intermediate skiers that ski off-piste. There's nothing that says you have to ski perfectly on piste to ski off it. It can be pretty improving. I've taken a mate touring when he'd only had five days total on skis and he coped perfectly fine. I may be mad or entirely wrong but I reckon skiing off-piste early and getting used to doing both is much better than sticking to the piste and seeing skiing off it as something mythical to attain once you've hit a certain level. Skiing a slightly wider ski with a bit of tip rocker is a perfect compromise in that situation! |
I agree. I did most of my BASI shadowing with a French instructor who always took her low level groups off piste in good conditions. At first I was shocked but at the same time I also wished someone had done that with me early in my skiing development to destroy the myth that it's only for experts. I now make a point of doing the same with my nephew and his school trip only experienced mates to help their development.
Still doesn't mean I'd recommend a mid-fat rockered ski to them as their first purchase 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I think it has less to do with the marketing blurb saying anyone can ski these, which as far as I can see no one actually says (seriously where is this anyone can ski it marketing happening?) and the appeal of skiing what people see as cool. All the gear and no idea stylee. People see what pros are on and buy it with no thought as to what context the pros are using it in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Raceplate wrote: |
So why are people still recommending them for piste-based intermediates? (incidentally is there another kind of intermediate? I don't know any off-piste based intermediates - that's an oxymoron in itself )
. |
There are certain sHs who would very modestly describe themselves as intermediate who are in fact very competent and tidy skiers who are more than capable of skiing off piste [cough]pedantica etc[/cough].
There isn't a universal answer to these questions because there isn't a standard british incompetent skier (copright positioniser), no reason an athletic 5 weeker who has demoed and liked a 90mm rocker ski in an inappropriate environment (snowdome) be prohibited from buying one. Wouldn't be the greatest investment for a life of groomer bashing but you can still develop skills on them.[/quote]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Raceplate wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
Of course I'm not saying a fat rockered ski is an ideal tool for a piste-based intermediate (or anyone skiing on ice!), but I have a hard time picturing them causing more accidents. |
So why are people still recommending them for piste-based intermediates? (incidentally is there another kind of intermediate? I don't know any off-piste based intermediates - that's an oxymoron in itself )
The logical progression of your argument is that an intermediate on these skis will find it harder to learn technical skills and progress his ability. Therefore he's more likely to ski out of control and more likely to cause an accident. |
Is anyone recommending them for those people? OP is only talking about 90mm, it's not all that outrageous. I really don't see that as the logical progression of what I'm saying either - the person who continually skis out of control will do it whatever skis he uses, just he'll be going faster on piste skis. If any, more likely to be cautious on fat skis with less edge grip = less accidents/less consequential accidents?
And yep plenty of other types of intermediates - no rule saying you can't leave the groomed 'til you're 'good enough.' I definitely started skiing offpiste before being able to properly carve onpiste, though all on pretty mellow terrain (luckily, as I had NO idea about avi stuff at that point!) - and on rented slalom-type skis btw (would do so again too).
Learning to ski offpiste on narrower skis will make you a better skier (could take a while if only skiing one week a year though). Skiing on something a bit fatter will quickly make offpiste more fun, but will compromise overall learning, making high performance piste skiing harder (hey, if there's an argument skinny skis make offpiste harder so you learn better technique, maybe the opposite should apply onpiste and instructors make everyone learn on fat skis so they have to develop technique rather than rely on piste equipment as a crutch  ). Depends on the person's priorities, I guess. I don't see why piste performance should always come before offpiste performance though, or what difference being in Europe or Canada makes.
All about what the individual's goals are and what they enjoy. Want to devote time to skiing better/lots of time onpiste? Go skinny. Care more about easy smiles offpiste? Get something a bit fatter. Just want to look bad-ass in the lift line? Get an enormous pair of race or r/r skis, and ski like a tool the rest of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
clarky999, OP asked for a ski for (65% piste 35% off piste), some moguls,
I'd say 70-80mm will fulfill that nicely and if they are lucky enough to get some epic conditions, hire a fatter pair for the day......
Or buy a quiver 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
How does this ski compare to my trusty I.Peak 78's from a few years back? They look relatively similar? I am referring to head titans
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Fri 28-09-12 18:52; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
clarky999, its as simple as picking the right tool for the job. Suffering with crap kit when there is better stuff for that context is just feckin' stupid not 'making you a better skier'. Otherwise we'd force everyone to learn on wooden skis before giving them the crutch of modern materials or force everyone to learn on a dry slope. What's actually true is the opposite, if you give people good kit that performs well for their skiing level in the context they are trying to learn you'll make it easier for them to concentrate on the technique rather than fighting the conditions and getting worn out by it. This attitude that somehow fat skis and rocker are a cheat or only for 'easy smiles' rather than serious skiing is macho cowdoo, it's just better kit for the context.
The difference between Europe and Canada is the amount of actual powder over there versus the very variable conditions we get over here. It's much easier to learn to ski off piste in favourable conditions than it is in Euro mank that has been horrendously skied out. Of course you need to progress to skiing mank. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
kitenski, I think the Titan recommendation pretty much nailed the OPs question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| kitenski wrote: |
clarky999, OP asked for a ski for (65% piste 35% off piste), some moguls,
I'd say 70-80mm will fulfill that nicely and if they are lucky enough to get some epic conditions, hire a fatter pair for the day......
Or buy a quiver |
I'd completley agree with that (sorry, was being a bit 'general' rather than jsut talking about the OP above) - though probably more 70-85mm (as I know the Sultan 85s would make a brilliant ski for that).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Lilledonmarco wrote: |
| How does this ski compare to my trusty I.Peak 78's from a few years back? They look relatively similar? I am referring to head titans |
Titans are much stiffer than the Peak range, and will be happy at much higher speeds than the Peak 78 would be. Think of the Peaks as skinny off-piste skis, and the Titans as fat piste skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| meh wrote: |
clarky999, its as simple as picking the right tool for the job. Suffering with crap kit when there is better stuff for that context is just feckin' stupid not 'making you a better skier'. Otherwise we'd force everyone to learn on wooden skis before giving them the crutch of modern materials or force everyone to learn on a dry slope. What's actually true is the opposite, if you give people good kit that performs well for their skiing level in the context they are trying to learn you'll make it easier for them to concentrate on the technique rather than fighting the conditions and getting worn out by it. This attitude that somehow fat skis and rocker are a cheat or only for 'easy smiles' rather than serious skiing is macho cowdoo, it's just better kit for the context.
The difference between Europe and Canada is the amount of actual powder over there versus the very variable conditions we get over here. It's much easier to learn to ski off piste in favourable conditions than it is in Euro mank that has been horrendously skied out. Of course you need to progress to skiing mank. |
I think we're actually agreeing (I may have been being a bit facetious there at times )? Or mostly, anyway. You may not have noticed in the past, but I love my fat rockered skis - not in any way trying to suggest they're not for 'serious skiing,' or for less able skiers. It IS easier to ski offpiste (with bad technique) on them though - much less physically tiring than with skinny skis (which for that reason force you to learn, or get knackered and give up). Hence why I said if someone is happy with their skiing level, but want to play offpiste more, fatter skis will make it more fun.
Not sure what/if you're disagreeing with there?
The Euro/Canada thing - plenty of powder over here most seasons IME, but since when are fat skis only for powder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| meh wrote: |
| The difference between Europe and Canada is the amount of actual powder over there versus the very variable conditions we get over here. It's much easier to learn to ski off piste in favourable conditions than it is in Euro mank that has been horrendously skied out. Of course you need to progress to skiing mank. |
Exactly.
That's why I believe people need to develop good piste oriented skills if they're going to ski Euro off-piste because half the time the tracked out off piste is no different to skiing an unpisted marked run (at least in the 3V's). I have no problem with an intermediate skiing off-piste early (I've already endorsed it earlier) but I do think a variable piste oriented ski c80mm with early rise is more suitable for learning those skills than a variable powder oriented ski c90mm with a rocker. If it were Canada I would reverse that recommendation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| but since when are fat skis only for powder? |
When you give them to an intermediate 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
ski Euro off-piste because half the time the tracked out off piste is no different to skiing an unpisted marked run (at least in the 3V's)
|
Remind me never to go ski the 3V's then!
I thought that area was massive though? Surely it can't be that hard to find good snow offpiste (not neccessarily powder, but equally if you look hard enough you can usually find some soft stuff here even a while after the last storm) most of the time, apart from in the worst snow droughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
meh, indeed, wonder which clever chap suggested that first
clarky999, there's plenty to get, you just need to know where. Check some of the reports offpisteskiing posts up for the area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| kitenski wrote: |
| there's plenty to get, you just need to know where. |
That's the problem for most people though 'cause they don't know where. Most stuff that's observable from a lift gets tracked out very quickly. And there's a lot of lifts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
kitenski, Yeah, that's what I thought!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
I think we're actually agreeing (I may have been being a bit facetious there at times )? Or mostly, anyway. You may not have noticed in the past, but I love my fat rockered skis - not in any way trying to suggest they're not for 'serious skiing,' or for less able skiers. It IS easier to ski offpiste (with bad technique) on them though - much less physically tiring than with skinny skis (which for that reason force you to learn, or get knackered and give up). Hence why I said if someone is happy with their skiing level, but want to play offpiste more, fatter skis will make it more fun.
Not sure what/if you're disagreeing with there?
The Euro/Canada thing - plenty of powder over here most seasons IME, but since when are fat skis only for powder? |
I'm disagreeing because skiing off piste on fat skis will improve your technique as you'll do a lot more of it. But yes we're mostly agreeing. The main reason most people didn't ski off-piste on skinny skis is that is really involved a hugely physical technique. It's not cheating that people can ski on fat skis and have fun, it's  empowering. Everyone should have fun in powder on piste type pitches. There is a point it will get too physical for Joe Blogs but the point of instructing is to extend that.
Ski a season in North America or Japan. Both get monumentally more snow in a better situation for it not to be poo-poo. I've grown up skiing in Europe and ski 90% of the time in complete mank so I don't mind so much. Take someone out in blower powder even if it's ankle deep and they'll be in love. The guy I mentioned earlier skied chicken head rime in a whiteout on a glacier a few months later. It sucked to start with but you got up there under your own steam. You ski the first bit exemplary otherwise its going to basically cut you up, then you exit into corn. Good craic, good adventure and everyone got home safe. poo-poo snow is still fun skiing but it requires confidence and skiing on poo-poo gear isn't going to give anyone that. The point of skiing is to have fun. To reiterate, the point of skiing is to have fun. Being uber prescriptive ruins that.
The South Park skiing sketch gets it "yer'gonna have a bad time". I grew up on skinny skis longer than I am tall. I still ski skis longer than I am tall only they are significantly wider and have a nice sidecut. I can ski on skinny ass skis offpiste but I have absolutely no desire too. I wouldn't wish my worst enemy to ski the way I did when I was learning. It's crap and pointless do that and "yer'gonna have a bad time".
TLDR; forcing people to learn on poo-poo gear means only the strong, or people that will put up with the cowdoo of skiing like you think they should will learn. Learning on the stuff that makes this sort of skiing pleasurable will get people on skis doing stuff they never thought they could.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
meh, but lets remember the op wants a 65% on piste ski
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
kitenski, none of this is addressed at the OP for sure! I stand by what I said upthread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Mr White, If skis are marketed as advanced-expert you should pass as waist width is not the only thing to look at at when choosing. Out of skis that you mentioned Scott Mission seem to be the most appropriate. They are a little wide for piste but still have ample sidecut. Or get Scott Aztec, great intermediate ski, which will let you progress. Head iTitan mentioned here is an awesome ski but might not be the best tool for you to learn and improve. Hard charger with potential to kick ass if you do things wrong - particularly in moguls where they require a very good technique if you want your ACL to stay with you. You should go for skis with more rounded and raised tail - they will be more forgiving in bumps than skis with flat square tails. Some tip rocker will help with float amd turn initiation. Both Aztec and Mission fit this description nicely. Wider ski will be slower edge to edge on piste so you will need to adapt to that but 89-90 mm is not crazy wide and given the ski sidecut it shouldn't be very difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Never skied either of those so probably shouldn't comment but a quick look on a couple of my favourite review sites suggest the Rictor is by far the better ski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
For the piste?
Then yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Raceplate wrote: |
Never skied either of those so probably shouldn't comment but a quick look on a couple of my favourite review sites suggest the Rictor is by far the better ski? |
Thanks for suggestion. There around £550 so same price as enduro and titan and sound like they could be a contender. I'm 6"2 and 11half stone would I be better with 167 or 174cm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Tried a few a couple of weeks ago at hemel form snow and rock and found that useful so yes, if im around will be up for that. Am I understanding it right that £35 covers the lift pass 3-8pm and the test equipment? Or a tenner if I already had a lift pass?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without sidetracking this thread into another long debate (1cm +/- ski width seems to be enough debate) is a flex of 80 okay for my current ability and progression bearing in mind type of skis / terrain mentioned.
I've generally used salomon boots as they seem to fit my small thin feet, and salomon quest access 80 seem like most relevant and price sensitive option at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| meh wrote: |
The South Park skiing sketch gets it "yer'gonna have a bad time". I grew up on skinny skis longer than I am tall. I still ski skis longer than I am tall only they are significantly wider and have a nice sidecut. I can ski on skinny ass skis offpiste but I have absolutely no desire too. I wouldn't wish my worst enemy to ski the way I did when I was learning. It's crap and pointless do that and "yer'gonna have a bad time".
TLDR; forcing people to learn on poo-poo gear means only the strong, or people that will put up with the cowdoo of skiing like you think they should will learn. Learning on the stuff that makes this sort of skiing pleasurable will get people on skis doing stuff they never thought they could. |
Wow, sounds like you hated skiing skinny skis, you make it sound like it was miserable! Have to say I never found that, at all - I had loads of fun learning on skinny skis, don't see why that should be any different now. I still take skinny skis out sometimes, still have fun, and feel like a better/less lazy skier when I get back on my big skis.
I'm hardly 'forcing' anyone to learn the way I think they should learn, just offering my opinion. Which remains that spending time skiing offpiste on skinny skis is good for overall ability in the long term. It pretty much necessitates skiing with more 'active legs', which becomes very important if the person wants to ski on steeper slopes. Of course this can be learnt on any skis, but skinny skis 'encourage' it more.
But we should probably stop screwing up the OP's thread. Man it's been a long summer. Not long to go 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.
|
| Mr White wrote: |
is a flex of 80 okay for my current ability and progression bearing in mind type of skis / terrain mentioned.
I've generally used salomon boots as they seem to fit my small thin feet, and salomon quest access 80 seem like most relevant and price sensitive option at the moment. |
You should see a quality bootfitter to determine if Salomon really is the right shape last for you but assuming it is...
an 80 flex is fine for where you are now but as you're relatively young and seem pretty keen I suspect you will grow out of them quite quickly. A lot of Salomon boots have a removable screw at the back of the cuff that lowers the flex by about 10 points, so you might be better off buying a 100 flex boot and removing the screw until you improve to the point where you're overpowering them - then put it back in to extend the life.
| Mr White wrote: |
| Without sidetracking this thread into another long debate (1cm +/- ski width seems to be enough debate) |
No offence, but when you've done about another 20 weeks or so skiing you'll have a better idea of what we're all getting so passionate about!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I think I'm swaying towards some Scott Aztecs. Only mentioned once in thr thread but seem a good piste biased option. Kastle mx83 and enduro 800 would definately fit the bill it seems. Thanks for all the advice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
