Anyone using all-mountain twin-tips in the East?

Hey all,

I've seen an awful lot of 80-90mm waisted twin tips on sale in the local shops-anyone using these as an all-mountain ski in the east (or west-I get out 1-2 weeks a season)? I've looked closely at the Public Enemy, Karma, Head MT Mojo and Fischer Big Stix 8.0...haven't these in a demo anywhere around here (few eastern shops figure fatter skis are worth setting up as a demo) the have a point, i suppose.

Anyway-any thoughts on the twin tips?

Good question -- I've found this puzzling, too, Liam. Even more odd are skiers in New England I've seen on fattie twin-tips trying to negotiate narrow, icy trails. They look like 18-wheelers trying to get down stairwells.

Liam, if you go to Mt. Wachusett (you might want to call first) I saw yesterday that they have a pair of Public Enemy skis in the demo shop. Not sure about the length. With the snowstorm today, it should be a good time to try 'em out.

Hehe @ 18-wheeler trying to get down staircase, funny analogy. Not sure why you'd go over 80 if you weren't skiing powder or jumping in the park.

Because some of us like to ski between these things called trees. The extra float is quite helpful.

Also, because wider skis suck less than narrower skis. You say "over 80" now, but five years ago, you would have said "over 70".

I'm not sure why anyone would ski on a ski under 70mm in waist width...

I said why would you over 80 if you WEREN'T skiing powder/chop/crud. If you are mostly skiing hardpack, there is no reason to have over 75 waist, you are just giving up edge-to-edge quickness for nothing.

Actually, you didn't say that.

I ski on skis with ~80mm waists most of the time, and much of that time is spent on quite hard snow. I think the "lack of quickness" is nearly 100 percent perceived.

I have been using the Public Ememy & loving it in 2+ inches of soft or new snow. It is 80 mm underfoot & I would not go any wider for the east.

Interestingly, I was skiing with the Egan brothers at a camp in early Feb. John was whipping around a huge (new legend pro 100+ underfoot) & loving it!

Dan was skiing a skicross ski & claimed that while US & France markets are pushing this fat ski crap, while the rest of the world is going to back to more thin carve skis

So who is correct? I thought they both were until I was at K-mart this weekend for 12 inches & only had a 68 mm ski. Normally I would be on my k2s. I loved the control of feeling the egdes & ability to carve around, even in mid thigh piles. While I think the wider skis have a place in the quiver, I would have to say that thin is in. Last year I was on a pair of Dynastars that were 88 mm in the waist & most days, even in deep snow, they were slow & helpless. So if 88 was bad, 80 seems okay/good, 68mm was great...why are companies pushing 100+ ? I think Dan was right about the hype!!!
think snow!

are you kidding?

its not the width that makes them bad on ice, its the overall stiffness of the ski. Just think about it. What is going to cut better?something that is straight and stiff, or something bent and floppy?i think you can answer that question for yourself.Personally i think anything under a 70mm waist is just a waste of time unless your making 2m turns.I feel quicker on my 80mm ski than with my 72mm ski and i am going wider than 85 for my next ski and i ski on the east coast.

I've been skiing (mostly Killington) on Rossi Scratch FS skis; 110-80-103.

Love them. They are great in the trees and actually are real good in the bumps. And to be honest, they are better on the groomed/hardpack than my mogul skis (Rossi Scratch Mogul).

I ski Pocket Rockets, went to them from Rossi Bandit XX and thus far this season the bandits have sat tin the garage. I have skied better than ever on the PR's. As for demoing they have a shop in Waitsfield that demos and sells tons of fat skis. I think its called Vermont North Ski Shop. I demo'd the PR's and loved em so made the purchase. I agree with Skiingman, you do not lose quickness at all. You gain stability and balance. I ski tight trees all the time and I actually had more trouble on myn bandits because with less float it was much more difficult to make quick turns.

Alfonse

My husband has a pair of Seth Pistols (95 mm underfoot), but he does not use them on the groomers or "old snow" because they don't perform as well as his XScreams (68 mm). The Pistols are awesome in Jay's trees and the powder. He also uses them for alpine touring when we go into the backcountry (Big Jay, etc.). And, of course, they rule when we take our Western trips too.

A lot of the patrollers at Jay have twin tips, Pocket Rockets are especially prevalent, but most do not like them when the groomers are "hard snow" or icy, or when there's no new snow. Then they switch to their carving skis.

A note: I have the Phat Luvs (not a twin tip), as do several of the female patrollers. They are 90 mm underfoot and I don't have the kinds of problems on groomers and old snow that my husband has on his Seth Pistols, though I still prefer my carving skis in these kinds of conditions. I think that extra 5 mm he has underfoot makes a big difference in how difficult it is to get them up on edge when necessary. He can do it, but it's a lot of work. He says he feels like he's skiing on spatulas when he's on groomers.

Thatsagirl

Personally, PE's have become my ski of choice over the past couple years (80mm waist), while they don't grip the ice like a race ski (or any decent ski with a 60-70ish waist) they have performed exceedingly well all around, and I consider them the best bang for the buck ski on the market. I just got new PE's (85mm waist) and will be trying them out this weekend, hopefully they'll still be as good as the originals. I also have Pistol's (95mm wasit), which I have to admit turn surprisingly well, and hold surprisingly well on the ice too (I'll be ordering the Vicious as soon as I can - yes, I like K2 skis). Now, on those icy New England days, I tend to break out my Fischers (Rx8's - 68mm in the waist I believe). I also have a fair assortment of other skis ranging from 65mm waist to 92mm waist, I just figured I'd K2's since they perform the best all mountain, IMHO.

Through my experiences, slower edge transfer is neglegable with the wider waists (if you're slow edge to edge, its you, not the ski), however, I have noticed some torsional issues with the wider skis and putting them up on edge, and I have felt the skis "fight" being on the edge, but this has only happened when exceeding 90mm waists (I have 2 pairs of skis that exceed 90mm waist).

All in all, I think it all comes down to personal preference and experimentation to determine what width waist is best for people. Being a primarily east coast skier (except maybe 1-2 weeks west per year) I find that 65ish - 85 is typically going to perform well on the east. The bigger sticks are fun though for those few "deeper" snow days and for bringing on trips.

Manus, that is definitely what my husband finds with the Seth Pistols.

By the way, we rode up the lift at Jay the other day with a gentleman who swears his PE's are the greatest all-around ski.

Thatsagirl

"Ski good or eat wood", ain't it the truth?

1080s

PR's in the east suck on day to day basis IMO, unless your only doing parks -- simply too wide. West coast skiers need to get out of this thread -- there's simply no comparing what you have day to day compared to what we have.

I like the 18 wheeler comparisson, very true especially in places like stowe in the glades that are 1.5meters wide, icy, bare, with stumps sticking out (like 2 weeks ago)

When I was out at Breck and Keystone this year during "the worst ice ever" conditions according to locals I was trying to figure out what the fuss was about -- felt like packed powder to me.

Just got back from 12 daze of Montana/ Utah w/ the PE. Really would not go any wider than 80 mm... even in all that snow. Saw a ton of folks atttempting to swing fatter boards. Only one day (after a big dump) did I want a bigger/longer ski & even on that occ. I found myself skiing firmer stuff. I guess in only my opinion, I want more than a plank out on the mtn. An 80 mm, 189 cm PE would be the ticket for me

I have a 63 mm ski (Elan HCX Hyper) and a 76 mm ski (Elan M662) and there is no doubt that the 76mm ski is slower and harder to snap edge to edge. I am amazed that people don't feel that. :

I use the M662 most days. Like it in the woods and on anything but hard pack or ice. Then I use my SLXs. Truth be told either ski would work for me on most days its just that I find the slightly less stiff 662 better in bumps, crud, and woods. Never felt I need more width in the East.

I don't, as a rule, ever "snap" my skis from edge to edge, unless I'm imitating the 1980's.

I have skied a pretty buff SL course with a pair of Metrons. They were really not anymore difficult or slow to get on edge than anything else. I was quite pleasantly surprised. I'm lucky enough to have a wide variety of stuff to ski on, and with the sole exception of skiing bumps and running gates, I have no use for anything under 70mm. I find that the 70-80mm skis are better in nearly every way. Large steering movements are certainly an exception, as are absolute brutal hard snow days.

The only sub 70mm skis I skied on this year (for an appreciable amount of time) were my race skis. Most of the time, I was on a 78mm ski, which I freaking love. (edit: for clarity, not a metron... but it ends in "on" and we jokingly call it the reckon)

Skingman:

What does the Metron measure under foot? I assumed that they were a super shaped ski. Is it a ski that could be considered all mountain?

It is a super shaped ski. Its supposed to be the "one ski does all" ski, which I say with tounge firmly in cheek. Depends on the model (9/10 vesus 11/B5) but the waist is 72-76mm or thereabouts.

They have the shape of a modern slalom ski, but wider, with a more forgiving tip and tail profile.

I encourage people to ski the longer and fatter boards here in Montana. They're the reason we have those big, long, round, skiable moguls instead of the short, square ones you find most places.

Rio

I don't buy the bump shape - long ski thing. Bump shape is a product of the type of skier that's making the bumps. In the old days it was said that anything shorter than 210 was going to cause choppy bumps. Now we are skiing 175's and causing choppy bumps. People who finish their turns or people who don't slide or scrape - even on shorter skis will not screw up the lines.

Oh yeah - and snowboarders, but I won't go there!

"PR's in the east suck on day to day basis IMO, unless your only doing parks -- simply too wide. West coast skiers need to get out of this thread -- there's simply no comparing what you have day to day compared to what we have."

I am an east coast skier, I live in Vermont. I bought a pair of Pocket Rockets and ski them every day. My other ski is Rossi Bandit XX's and I have not even looked at them since I got the PR's. I have skied 25+ days this year, maybe the first 5 on the bandits and the rest on the PR's. If PR's suck on east coast conditions I have yet to see it. If you think my judgement is skewed perhaps you should come ski in the woods with me at MRG and we will see how poor I preform on my, "too fat" skis....

Alfonse

I love the old school mentality that pegs the East Coast as a place of ice and hardpack. I ski Pocket Rockets on the East Coast (or did before i bent em) and, despite coming off a race ski, have loved every minute of them. No, they don't hold quite as well on the ice, but if you have good technique they should not be a problem.

Stowe is NEVER icy and unskiable in the trees (if you look in the right places) until mid-April.

I am sick and tired of lazy, likely unskilled, skiers criticizing my boards on the lift and on these forums. I can ski just as fast and in control on the groomed as I could on my race boards, and I'm willing to bear it on ice for the added versitility and fun when you get em in some powder.

So no, in my opinion, the fat ski revolution is not all hype, they simply provide the best trade off and most fun.

It is an all-conditions ski. The b5 and M:11 are 76mm under-foot. The Atomic web site has a nice PDF that outlines the entire line. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a better all-around ski.

Line Darksides 73 underfoot and have been using them predominately this winter. Ski on the hardpack and rip great RR turn arcs, they float well in the powder, I'm 6' 205 lbs on a 165 cm, great for quick turns in the woods. They have a upturned tail but I wouldn't call it a true twin tip for it is not sysmetrical with the tip. I hammer the crap out of these skis and they are taking everything I can give it. They won't break, trees, rocks, park hits etc. I have hardly touched my other skis Ski cross 66 dynastars, Atomic SL 11, Elan M12 for I'm having too much fun on these. But I need to break some of these skis before I can go back on E-bay again! I'll be looking at other Line products.

I'll drink to that.