EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Is 100 to wide for EC everyday ski? Opinons please
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is 100 to wide for EC everyday ski? Opinons please

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 

I just recently upgraded my old busted skis (~ 13 yrs, 64 waist) with a set of hart F17s.  Love them in the bumps but was surprised how different they skied the rest compared to my old skis with almost the same dimensions.  Decided I would get something fun to compliment them and got a great deal on some '09 Dynastar TMs (81 waist).  I haven't had them out yet but plan on doing some teaching, trees, and just general cruising around when I'm at places without decent bumps.  The other ski that caught my eye was the Surface Save/Watch Life that my shop has.  They're 100 in the middle and next to my harts, they looked like water-skis.  The guy helping me was trying to convince me that 100 would not be too wide for the above mentioned activities.  He said there would certainly be a learning curve, but hinted that I would see that even just going from the 64 to 81.

 

I ended up getting the TMs and will test them out shortly (1 here in Ontario then a week in Alberta).  If there is enough snow to warrant it I will try out some 100s there, but just curious on your general thoughts regarding a 100 EC everyday ski.

 

Thanks

post #2 of 23

I ski 96 or 95 everyday.

post #3 of 23

Maybe, maybe not.  It depends on how you like to ski.  You're going to get opinions both ways on here.  However, if you already have the Hart's and the Dynastar's, they don't have to be your everyday ski, right?  If you get a chance to demo them in your usual conditions, that'll tell you far more than a mixed bag of opinions on here will.  I know you asked for opinions and I didn't give you one.  But honestly, my opinion isn't going to tell you if *you* will like skiing them.

post #4 of 23

Personally, I wouldn't want anything wider than mid-80s for teaching or anything else involving groomed trails.  Narrower if the snow is hard.  If a wider ski is stiff enough torsionally, it'll hold, but you have to work a lot harder to get them up on edge.

 

IMO it depends on how much time you spend off-piste and what conditions you normally find there.

post #5 of 23

Unclear what you're asking, but ^^^^ what he said. Yes, you can ski a 100 mm ski back here as a daily driver. And yes, you can ski a 68 mm racing ski as a daily driver, too. If I could only own one ski for back here, it'd be a Blizzard 8.1. But as I understand your post, you already have an 81 mm ski, yes?  Then you're actually looking for something in the 98-110 range not for a daily driver, but for powder days, which means trees. So the shape and flex are more important than the exact width. I'd suggest something with rocker in front, maybe a touch in back, not too stiff, that will be supple and quick. Rossi S3's or Blizzard The Ones come to mind. See loads of the former back here, a few of the latter. Prophet 100's will work nicely if you want a more traditional shape, also popular. Dynastar Slicers are almost the same as the S3's. 

 

But OTOH, if you're asking if a 100 mm ski can replace your recently bought 81 (so you'll sell it again??), my answer would be, only if you prefer to spend much of your time in softer snow or the trees or wherever you can avoid eastern ice. It just will not carve hardpack as well. Not saying you can't carve it (BWPA posted some nice pics of railroad tracks on his Ones, although tellingly in soft groomed), or that you can't get along just fine with it by slarving and skidding hardpack, like the guys who swear by 115's, but it'll be more work than the 81. Just basic physics and biomechanics. 

 

Or maybe you're asking something different still. th_dunno-1[1].gif

post #6 of 23
It's amazing how far technology in ski design has come. Remember when the Vertigo G40 was soo wide an pretty much a powder ski or definite west coast ski. What were those, 83mm under foot? And the Explosive was just a powder ski or a ski you didn't see everyday outside of CA. Those were 95mm...

Now I wouldn't ski a ski narrower than 87mm underfoot on a groomer day and 98 would probably be my everyday ski a few days after a storm where the groomers are soft and there is still a little soft snow to be found off trail.

95 or 100 under foot used to be a sluggish tank even 6 years ago. That's not the case now. Sure they might take a touch longer to engage when rolled over but not long enough to negate the benefits that that extra width has when you want the width. Plus with Rocker in these skis now they're so easy to skid and shut down which you often need to do on those crowded narrow east coast runs. (I grew up skiing in VT, I remember) Rocker also makes skiing in bumps so much more enjoyable.

I think it comes down to personal preference but I think as long as the mountain has enough pitch and vertical there's no reason you can't ski a 98mm ski every day back east. If you're stuck on a mountain that defines it's size by the number of lift towers then you might want to go mid 80s at best, probably low 70s.
post #7 of 23

Is 100 to wide for EC everyday ski? 

 

 

It would be for me in Central VT. Where do you ski most of the time? This year has been non typical with a good deal more fresh snow than normal.

Cut off for me would be 87-88mm. And even then I'd be happier at or below 81mm....ymmv

post #8 of 23

After skiing 104 and 101 waisted skis in pretty much every condition, IMO there are too wide for a daily driver, unless you generally avoid groomed runs and bumps.  I think 95 mm waist is the optimum size for a one ski quiver.  Once you get over 100 mm you need to give them some extra angulation to get them to carve, which is possible but gets tedious, so you quickly revert to skidding them   Sure you can get a 110 waisted full rocker and make it work in the bumps and on hardpack, but you have to adopt a new style of skiing, which is certainly what the trend seems to be, but that is a whole other thread. 

 

The areas are full of people with just one pair of 100+ waisted twin tips smearing and straight lining their way through everything, so the short answer to you question is "it depends on how you want to ski."

post #9 of 23

A highly subjective decision.  I ski 72's (Supersonics) most days, but 96's (Mantras) when it's soft, like yesterday @ Killington.  If I could only ski 1 ski in the East, they'd probably be around 75-80mm.  100 is way too fat for me on the hardpack and in firm bumps.

post #10 of 23

Depends on how and what you ski, but sure you can ride a 100 everyday on the EC.  My 183 Bros would make a great one ski quiver...  If I didn't upgrade to the FAT BRO and now use a 110 most of the time.  

 

It's the indian, not the arrow fwiw.  

post #11 of 23

big-gulp.jpg

Not at all.  Different strokes for different folksrolleyes.gif

 

Seriously though, if that is all I had I'm sure I could manage just fine on it.  But, I wouldn't be as interested in chasing NASTAR plaitnum or skiing really icy days.

post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Work View Post

Depends on how and what you ski, but sure you can ride a 100 everyday on the EC.  My 183 Bros would make a great one ski quiver...  If I didn't upgrade to the FAT BRO and now use a 110 most of the time.  

 

It's the indian, not the arrow fwiw. 

 

But the wise indian uses the best arrow for the job......draw your own comparisons  wink.gif

 

arrow_parts_arrowheads.jpg

 

 

post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post



 

But the wise indian uses the best arrow for the job......draw your own comparisons  wink.gif

 

arrow_parts_arrowheads.jpg

 

 

 


I've been shopping for judo tipped skis so I wouldn't lose them on powder days.  Haven't been able to find them anywhere.

 

post #14 of 23

Comparing my own skis, I don't find the difference to be whether they like to carve or not, but rather what kind of turn they like to make.

I own Rossi B3's (178 cm long, 83 mm wide) and K2 Coombas (188cm , 105 mm).  The B3's like short, slalomy turns, while the Coombas like long, GS-y turns.  The one thing the B3's can do that the Coombas can't is give big rebound on short turns, throwing your skis underneath you at transition.

 

(I also share a real slalom ski, 165 cm long, 63 or 65 mm wide, with my son, but haven't skied them in a while.)

 

Surprisingly, I actually prefer the Coombas in bumps to the B3's.  Some of this may just be a matter of what I've become used to, since I used to love the B3s.

 

 

post #15 of 23

How do you manage to put together a 3 ski quiver with out one decent hard snow carving ski when you live in the east?

 

 

post #16 of 23

You'd be surprised how well almost anything carves if you put a 3 degree tune on it.

post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post

You'd be surprised how well almost anything carves if you put a 3 degree tune on it.

 

Not so surprised. I was tuning my sticks every week when I lived back east. This guy has mogul comp skis, trouble makers (soft park / mogul  oriented twin), and now looking for something rockered and 100 under foot? Which of those do you think he has a 87 degree edge on?

 

 

post #18 of 23
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tromano View Post

How do you manage to put together a 3 ski quiver with out one decent hard snow carving ski when you live in the east?

 

 


Was this comment aimed at me or mdf? If mdf then wouldn't the slaloms fit that bill?

 

If me then the short answer is: F17s are my intended daily driver in the East as I seek out the bumps whenever possible and they seemed solid on hardpack for the three days I used them before bending a tip (currently in for warranty replace).  TMs were a steal of a deal and intended to be used for teaching, trees, and days with marginal conditions as I don't want to ruin my $$$ harts but can't always pick and choose my days out.  If the ice conditions are very severe I can always throw on my Bauers (j/k).

 

Just had my TMs out for their first 2 days.  Handled well in heavy wet snow on Friday (had been raining all day) but were not as fun Sunday after a lot of thaw and refreeze produced very hard/icy conditions.  I'll be heading out to Jasper next week with my TMs so I'll see how they like the deeper stuff (hopefully).  I don't know how they are tuned right now, but what tune would make them a better carver on ice and is there any tradeoff in doing so (I don't jib with them)?
 

 

post #19 of 23

If the production F-17 Hart is anything like the prototypes I demo'd on Hood one spring they'll be fine for your hard snow ski.  A mogul ski with some guts, what a concept!

post #20 of 23

Me being from the east ( Ontario Blue mountain and MSLM)

I have several skis but really like my old RC4s for Ontario type skiing. This being said I didn't ski them last year at all with my bad leg as they want full time attention, If you ski hard though you want this type of ski for a daily in the east.. hard carving go fast responsive.

In the deep snow I love my Nithwards ( new to me) but having said this I had a riot with them in the hard pack at BK a couple weeks ago with the fellow bears. Now you must understand they were wayyyyyy slower to turn and definitely did not "cut an edge"but they were fun to be on . I would never unless I absolutely had to use these type of ski as a daily driver in the east.

I guess alot of it comes down to what you like to "feel " underfoot and what your expectations and abilities are.

post #21 of 23

Certainly not a definitive answer, but.....

 

I have always been a carving ski skier.  RX8's, Slalom Skis,  Fischer Progressor 8's (72 under foot.)

 

This year I bought Rossi S3's - 98 under foot, rocker with camber underfoot.

 

I have used them now both in the West and in the East.  In the East on everything from ice to groomers, to spring glades, to variable wettish snow on top of crusty, icy hardpack.  They've performed well in all conditions.   I can't say they carve as well, but the advantages they have to me are outweighing the disadvantages.  

 

One ski quiver?  Maybe not, but for now they are my go-to skis.  YMMV.

post #22 of 23


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenDiamonds View Post

Quote:


Was this comment aimed at me or mdf? If mdf then wouldn't the slaloms fit that bill?

 

If me then the short answer is: F17s are my intended daily driver in the East as I seek out the bumps whenever possible and they seemed solid on hardpack for the three days I used them before bending a tip (currently in for warranty replace).  TMs were a steal of a deal and intended to be used for teaching, trees, and days with marginal conditions as I don't want to ruin my $$$ harts but can't always pick and choose my days out.  If the ice conditions are very severe I can always throw on my Bauers (j/k).

 

Just had my TMs out for their first 2 days.  Handled well in heavy wet snow on Friday (had been raining all day) but were not as fun Sunday after a lot of thaw and refreeze produced very hard/icy conditions.  I'll be heading out to Jasper next week with my TMs so I'll see how they like the deeper stuff (hopefully).  I don't know how they are tuned right now, but what tune would make them a better carver on ice and is there any tradeoff in doing so (I don't jib with them)?
 

 


I was talking to the OP, which is you ;)  It seemed you were missing an all around groomer zoomer / firm crud / hardpack ski like a Kastle MX, Blizzard 8.1, or dynastar 4x4. Maybe the F17 is that ski, or since you ski mostly bumps, maybe its a moot point.

 

If you wan to improve the grip from your skis you can always increase the side edge bevel. That's what MDF was talking about. Go from probably 1/1 on the Troublemaker to 1/4 and you will have a much grippier ski.   The problem with lots of beveling is that you remove alot of material, this weakens the edge, making it susceptible form hits on rocks / rails. Also it might make them too grabby in certain types of snow. I really don't think doing this tune on this type of ski really makes alot of sense, but its up to you.

 

I have bought a few dynastar's in the past couple years (sultan 85 and the huge) and their factory tunes both were pretty weird (base and edge angles all over the place, not consistent). So it might be a good idea to get them stone ground at a good shop anyway even if you don't change the edge to something super agressive. $.02


Edited by tromano - 3/14/11 at 5:02pm
post #23 of 23
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the good advice, from everyone.  I will consider all of it while making future choices.  I just talked to my bro and it looks like we'll be renting a wider set at least 1 day during our trip to Jasper.  With the way the weather is I should get a chance to try it them out on some variable conditions.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Is 100 to wide for EC everyday ski? Opinons please