 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Rishie wrote: |
Yes, but technique and balance comes from doing. And doing. And doing correctly. Which requires fitness. Most of us mere mortals need to work on our technique. And I we can get some help from good equipment along the way, then why not? Following this argument, wearing warm gloves would be bourgeois nonsense.  |
My opening post was about learner skiers using wide skis on piste. Good technique doesn't come from doing and doing the wrong thing. Wide skis will help in deep snow but they won't do much to help your piste technique . If your piste technique is badly flawed you are going to struggle offpiste. Using your glove analogy - it's like using oven mitts to put your ski boots on.
Some skiers (irrespective of nationality) will come up with every excuse in the book to buy more equipment and not take instruction. Others will invest money on instruction and time on the snow (even if they can only get to a Snowdome). People can make their own choice but it's clear who will be the better skier in the long run and who be able to enjoy all types of terrain on one pair of skis. The better skiers will also be able to ski really demanding terrain on wider skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
DB, Rishie, I think your argument presupposes that you were towser's tackle on skis earlier in your life, I don't think it applies if you were not i.e. I think you have to have been pretty fit at some point to get the relevant experience and thus to gain technique. Once you have been there, then technique can sustain you later in life. I don't believe it works the other way around.
I think we have all seen local's skiing some pretty dodgy hand me down kit and still making it look pretty damn good, let alone the crusty ski instructors effortlessly skiing the five season's constant use old freebies. Having done the Vallee Blanche in 210cm GS skis I can tell you for a fact that fitness comes a poor second to having a tasty set of lightweight parabolics. You can do it on the GS - but it ain't always fun and it ain't pretty. Viva le correct kit for the job!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
RattytheSnowRat,
When I started skiing in my late 20's I was boxing training 3 times a week and mountainbiking / hill walking on top of that. I muscled my skis all over the place, it was knackering. All the overweight unfit skiers could get down the runs better than I. It wasn't until going for lessons and doing a lot of balance exercises that it became much easier. Up until the start of last season I was skiing offpiste on 76mm wide skis. (now on 87mm when it's soft) I ski mainly with Austrian friends who started skiing in their early childhood, I'm far from the weakest skier in the group. The Valle Blanche looks flat, the easiest run is a red run isn't it? I'd easily do that on my 76mm wide touring skis. But as I keep saying it's the use of wide 100mm + by learner skiers on-piste that makes them look like all the tackle and no talent because it does nothing for their skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
RattytheSnowRat, I see a quite a lot of people who aren't at all fit but are still clearly benefiting greatly from training. They just have to stop much more frequently and ski for shorter periods. Doubtless if they were fitter they could keep training for longer (no point training tired) in many situations and could get a lot more out of it (and enjoy their skiing more!) but they are nevertheless slipping past the fitness issue. Doubtless also that good technique makes up for poor fitness more than good fitness makes up for poor technique.
However, there is a limit to how good they can get as high level skiing pure and simple requires at least reasonable fitness, and at this level I'd certainly agree with you: you have to have been fit at some point to have developed really high level skiing skills.
Addendum: My tuppenny's worth - to ski well (doesn't matter if this is on or off piste) requires good basic technique. Good basic technique is best learnt where it is generally easier to ski ie on piste. Piste skiing is most easily done on proper (reasonably narrow) piste skis. Improving the basic technique that will lead on to good all terrain performance is therefore best not done on any skis that might be considered fat. Gaining off piste experience is best done on skis that will confer an advantage in the conditions, and often these will be fatter skis. However, fatter skis are generally more difficult to ski properly (and practising skiing poorly isn't helpful if chasing technical improvement), so a trade-off exists between how much benefit is obtained from the extra width due to the snow conditions v. how much the skier will be held back by not yet having the skill to ski the wider skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I think there is some truth in the idea that pretty ordinary Brit skiers quite often go and buy skis where similar standard French skiers rent. I suspect that is to do with us living in a more consumerist culture.
I don't see that many beginners/early intermediates on >90mm skis though.
I do see quite a few people who would probably consider themselves to be at least advanced skiers, skidding around horribly on-piste on fat skis. I'm sure they are just using the piste to get between the off-piste bits. It could be that they are just being very lazy (opposed to lacking the skills) but I don't really get it, may as well try to carve, it's good practice.
Related question - what is the big advantage from going up from 100mm to 120mm? I mean I really have to do something pretty stupid to dive a tip on my prophet 100s. Admittedly there are some situations when I actually have to think about getting my fore-aft balance right etc to manage a trough or something but take this too far and arent you just on autopilot all the time? Doesn't it make you really sloppy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| jedster wrote: |
| Related question - what is the big advantage from going up from 100mm to 120mm? I mean I really have to do something pretty stupid to dive a tip on my prophet 100s. Admittedly there are some situations when I actually have to think about getting my fore-aft balance right etc to manage a trough or something but take this too far and arent you just on autopilot all the time? Doesn't it make you really sloppy? |
not sure it's an advantage most of the time so much as a different feeling. i have had some 120mm skis for a few years which get dusted off from time to time. not the most versatile but when the snow is deep and you can see where you are going the surfy feeling is pretty cool
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
Related question - what is the big advantage from going up from 100mm to 120mm? I mean I really have to do something pretty stupid to dive a tip on my prophet 100s. Admittedly there are some situations when I actually have to think about getting my fore-aft balance right etc to manage a trough or something but take this too far and arent you just on autopilot all the time? Doesn't it make you really sloppy? |
Surf.
The feeling is (at least) as different as 80mm skis compared to 100mm. Changes the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those of you with 115mm + wide skis - how often do you get to use them and would you use them on piste ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
There have only been 4 days this season that I have not used my 110s (maybe a 30 day season) I think it depends what you look for in a day of skiing, I get bored after a couple of hours on piste these days..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DB wrote: |
| Those of you with 115mm + wide skis - how often do you get to use them and would you use them on piste ? |
This season I have used:
65-75mm : 5 days
90-100mm : 4 days
100-115mm : 34 days
120mm+ : 4 days
The 100-115mm (HSFRs, Legend Pro XXL and WD Preachers) I use on piste quite happily, but if I was fairly sure that I was only going to ski piste, then I would take 65-75mm
The 120mm+ only get used on real powder days (like tomorrow  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
DB, I don't own any skis under 100mm so yes I ski them all the time. There is a big difference between what those skis look like though and waist width isn't really the biggest factor in their differences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| DB wrote: |
| Those of you with 115mm + wide skis - how often do you get to use them and would you use them on piste ? |
110 to 115 has been my daily driver for at least the past 4 years. That means it gets used all the time. If I was only skiing on piste I'd choose something skinnier but I can't think of a single trip where that's ever been the case. There are days e.g. after a hard refreeze where I spend the majority of time on piste but then if I've packed a soft snow ski as my spare I just have to suck it up. I've never been so frustrated as to need to rent a specialist piste ski.
Why do it this way - rental shops have crap loads of generic piste skis but when it comes to soft snow skis choice is often uninspiring and when they do have the good stuff often will not carry in full lengths - opting for overshort skis for the rental punter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We certainly have more tackle than talent, but wow, what a selection of tackle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| DB wrote: |
| Those of you with 115mm + wide skis - how often do you get to use them and would you use them on piste ? |
I ski on 110 every day and I do use them on piste when getting to and from the off piste. I also use them on piste when I'm doing drills.
I don't think 115 would be any different (depending on the shape, of course).
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Thu 28-03-13 11:18; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Zero-G, Do you have wider shin guards for gates?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Cynic, what's a gate? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| DB wrote: |
| Those of you with 115mm + wide skis - how often do you get to use them and would you use them on piste ? |
quite rarely. i regret not taking them on at least one trip this season
i would use them to ski a piste to get back to a lift happily enough. i certainly would not use them if i thought I was going to be spending any more than a small proportion of my day on hard snow. the 120mm skis I have actually have decent edge grip and are torsionally stiff but they also have a 40m turn radius and skiing fat skis on hard pack hurts my knees!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Camber camber camber camber
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Zero-G,
Do you shout "timber" every time you change edges ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
People shouldn't get so hung up about width under foot as there're plenty of other things that make as much difference to how a ski skis either on the hardpack or in the soft snow. IMHO flex (longitudinal and torsional), sidecut, shape and arguably length have more of an effect. Massive difference between the 112mm Katanas I was skiing last week and Horizon's 112mm DPS in the same length or my wife's 117mm Automatics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Sideshow_Bob, totally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Automatic is a poor mans Rossi, next years SOLE 7 from Rossi could finally be the do all answer you are looking for. katana is a fast aggressive charger, DPS seem nice, not ridden any, drilled loads, from that point of view, Rossi still have it. Just waiting for White Shot to make a copy of the S7 and boom! Plenty of happy Punters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
DB, something like this:
http://lineskis.com/skis/influence-105-1213
IMO you want a cambered ski with a decent sidecut and a bit of tip rocker in that sort of ski. The shorter Automatics would be a good choice for an even wider ski as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad I deleted "in before CH20 mentions the S7" out of that post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
DB, something like the W112 wouldn't be bad. i bought mine because at the time they took the general idea of the original Rossi S7 and improved on it in a number of areas, while also being light enough to tour with. The new generation of S7s seem to have been tweaked so maybe the DPS don't have huge advantages now unless you are interested in specific characteristics of those skis (light weight, carbon feel and torsional stiffness)
anyways, the cool thing about the W112 is that the sidecut and torsional stiffness make carving on firm pistes a hoot. they don't deal with real hardpack as well as a dedicated piste ski, but they are extremely versatile
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
meh, We symmetrically tested the Atomics vs the Super 7, you'd never in a month of Sundays buy the Atomics, unless you wanted to save 30 euros and end up with a dog. Rossi Titinal, Atomic Tinfoil, is a generous way of putting it. Personally I can't ski the S7, been on the squad and super 7 all season, got left with a pair of S7's, mounted them and am now riding them at -3 just to get them stable, end of season though, legs are a bit, rem firmer, actually managed more ski day this year than the past 4 combined, there is LIFE at the end of the tunnel!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CH2O, I'm just being speculative so defer to you guys who have been on both. The chances of ski testing here are exactly zero, we don't even get proper iTunes access FFS! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
meh, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Just found this and thought I'd share - wow ! someone (wasn't me, honest) was having a bad day .....
http://unofficialnetworks.com/dps-wailer-112-gear-review-71859/
| Quote: |
Sadly, they don’t live up to all the hype.
And here are my greatest hits of what I don’t like about these and every other full rocker, super fat, ultra progressive “game changing ski” out there:
- Their wide point is close to 450mm down from the tip of the ski. That huge width so close to your foot puts an incredible amount of stress on your knees in all but the most blower pow
- The tails, while better than the S7’s, promote sh&tty ski position and bad technique, so you spend most of your time in the back seat looking like a tool
- Too fat. What? Too fat? Yes, you morons. Why do we ski pow? To float? If you want to float, get a snowboard. I want face shots. Floating on top and ending up in a leaned back, ACL-ripping-snowplow position is not my idea of a good time
- Carbon fiber – great for helmets but brutal on your back. Too much responsive bounce. Even the hybrid had little to no dampening, which makes for a ski that feels like it needs ritalin
- They are great for landing drops. Really? I’m sure that’s a requirement for all you pro huckers out there but for me, I like to actually ski most of the time. And so far, landing the odd drop has been pretty easy on any ski in deep snow.
- They’re light – BULLSH^T. Compared to what? Any ski that f'king big is never gonna be light. I don’t care what you make it out of.
Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with wider skis. Let’s face it: skinny skis have gone the way of the Blackberry. They’re hard work, don’t have any float and weigh a ton for what they are. So width is fine. But making a ski that can’t decide if it likes the water or the snow is ridiculous.
Don’t let the hype of “progressive” design take you to Neverland. A little early rise, with an otherwise traditional shape that’s anywhere from 103-108mm underfoot is great. But reverse camber, full rocker, and the back and forth sidecut of so many of these newer fat skis is plain stupid. |
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Thu 28-03-13 13:12; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
CH2O, interesting, bit of thread drift but as the missus loved the Atomics she borrowed for a couple of days - even tho they were much longer and wider than her normal ski (179cm compared with the 93mm 163cm Auras - women's Manta, she's 5'7 and 60kgs) she found them much easier to ski and much less demanding in the soft stuff both on and off piste and was considering buying a pair. How do you think the Rossis are better? She'll need ~180 so Super 7 is sadly out and I think the S7W may be too soft. Tinfoil refers to torsional stiffness or longitudinal? Trying to steer her away from the DPS 112 else it's going to get expensive - any other suggestions for what to try?
Oh and FML, mounted with Sally 916 LABs the 191 Katanas are seriously heavy and damp (and a PITA in moguls). Going back to the Mantras (with same bindings) felt like going back to matchsticks underfoot. First time I've skied a rockered ski and took some getting used to on piste, no real start or end to the turn, just rock 'em over until the edges bite then release the angle and the turn is finished. Could've maybe done with something a little softer/lighter and less demanding given our guide was going batsh1t fast all day every day and I'd had three months off exercise (bar two week's skiing) with a broken wrist, but boy, when you got the right snow conditions - not totally bottomless - they could seriously rip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Sideshow_Bob, the atomic profile is the same as the Rossi, give or take a few millimetres, the build of the Rossi is way better, next years offering being awesome. She'll not fell too mush difference, given the info regards skiing aura, the Rossi has the closest build quality to it, without the demands.
Mate, don't laugh, I ski everything that's mine with marker squire, feel the difference in weight, changes your endurance on skis such as the katana. Everything else feels like its got helium in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
jedster, it's possible to skid horribly and to skid not so horribly. Imo anyone skidding horribly on fat skis probably isn't an advanced skier, though admittedly I've never skied on full rocker reverse sidecut reverse camber etc etc type fats.
dulcamara, are you an experienced racer turned off-pister? If so I'd imagine that your skill level is probably in the small minority of skiers, so I'd hazard that your situation and perspective are possibly not going to be directly applicable to even the average person who considers themselves primarily off-piste skiers?
Sideshow_Bob, obviously lots of other characteristics of skis greatly affect their feel, but width is important both in itself and in being arguably the most important indicator of the intended purpose of the ski, thus indirectly of some of these other characteristics, so more important than most. Plus it's clearly evident and not subjective, hence its rightful prominence in such discussions.
Anyway, unless I'm mistaken, what this thread is about is people who a) don't have good basic technique and b) don't ski primarily (>50%, be honest) off piste, benefiting from skiing fats as their daily ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
DB, some people prefer a more traditional shape. nothing wrong with that - i think maybe I do on balance! the reviewer would come across as a bit more credible if he just said that rather than stating a number of "facts" which are clearly opinions (eg - the shape forces you into the backseat - I've never noticed this) or demonstrably wrong (they are clearly light - maybe heavier than dedicated rando skis but 3.5ish kg for the pair in a ski this size is light)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
dulcamara, are you an experienced racer turned off-pister?
|
gonna nip that one in the bud right now, before someone who has seen me race (like that philb bloke) pipes up and mocks me... I have seen gates before, experienced racer I am not!
But I have never been an exponent of fat skis and i think you are right, the majority of skiers wont benifit from running out and buying a pair of big fat skis, they're essentially gonna hold your hand in nice deep powder and mess up any technique you had when things get harder or sketchier!
In my humble opinion 90-100 is a nice, allround waist, wide enough to float (unsless you is proper fat), and narrower than your boot for gripping and changing edges when needs be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
dulcamara, have to agree, despite selling well over that regularly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dulcamara, next season, ahhhh, next season, new clothes, season pass and a quiver, 64, 96, 105 and 117. Can't wait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| Sideshow_Bob, obviously lots of other characteristics of skis greatly affect their feel, but width is important both in itself and in being arguably the most important indicator of the intended purpose of the ski |
Problem is it's taking over all other considerations and is the only thing people harp on about ignoring everything else. Equally-wide underfoot skis can have vastly different tip and tail widths and overall area. I'd almost prefer something like Armada's area-based marketing, perhaps for a fixed length of ski, as a better indicator of how/where/when the skis could be used. On hardpacked piste my 97mm Mantras ski a lot closer to my 65mm GS sticks than an 89mm Mission or 87mm Lord, but by the 'width' system I should be skiing the latter two. In fact, as a former racer (for certain definitions of racer) turned off-pister who detests slipping/sliding any part of the turn on piste, despite packing them almost every trip my slalom skis have seen only two days use in the last eight or so weeks, of which about 40% of the time was spent on 'piste bashing' days, so versatile I've found the Mantras, and if you go back a few years on here you'd find back then I rivaled under a new name for fervent support of the use of thin piste skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Arno,
Yes I took what he said with a bucket of salt, just thought it funny how he got all worked up about a ski.
Maybe the better solution for lower level skiers who want to get offpiste would be to go for two pairs of skis. 1 = piste ski for developing skills on non-powder days. 2= a soft wider powder ski that helps them stay a-float at lower speeds in the power. OK if traveling from the UK carriage is an issue but they might be able to save the weight of one pair of bindings by using quiver killers. If they already have the wide skis then renting a narrower ski on icy days is a pain in the neck of an extra cost but probably the best thing to do if they want to improve their skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
ahhhh, next season, new clothes, season pass and a quiver, 64, 96, 105 and 117. Can't wait.
|
Oh yes! do as i say, not as I do! have now started saving, Yellow and blue is so 2011, next year I'm thinking All Pink onesie, stay ahead of the trend! Arlberg pass, nice and expensive plus im sure I will need more skis in a few months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
