EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 120mm plus fat skis - your thoughts?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

120mm plus fat skis - your thoughts? - Page 2

post #31 of 42

Spin, I wish I could live in your world, where no one of any value skis on lift served, it's always puking snow, and anyone who isn't on seriously fat rockers is antiquated, stupid, or biased. Probably all three. The weird thing is that I've skied every major resort in the United States, many in Canada, and a few other odd places like AK, France, Italy, and Switzerland, and I've never seen that world of yours. Even when I go off over the other side, or hike to chutes, or go off into OB trees. Even when I'm with some locals. I keep seeing these amazing skiers, for sure, and a few are on big rockers but more (gasp) aren't. Fact is, they're often on all kinds of Spin-Incorrect skis. And what's worse, they don't seem to even worry that much about how outdated their gear is. I mean, who cares about that Jackson Hole Air Force guy; he's on old XXL's. Get a rocker, loser! Or that idiot at Chamonix on Mantras. Just because he has a chopper filming him, what does he know about real skiing? Mantras are for gapers. And when I see shots of Davenport wasting his talents on FX94's, or Olsson doing GS, it's just well, you know, sad. Knowing they could be sooo much happier on Praxis Pows or Toons. 

 

Meanwhile I feel like the guy who got to Oz just after Dorothy had left, and everyone was drifting away home. But that's OK, I'll keep looking.   snowfalling.gif


Edited by beyond - 9/13/12 at 11:37pm

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #32 of 42

I like putting on a pair of RTM 84mm ski's and just ripping it up,  I like my Gotamas just as much and they float really nice,  Tried a fatter ski but it really just seemed like overkill.  But THATS ME.  

post #33 of 42

Oh, and for the record, not a hater: I would not buy a powder ski that didn't at least have early rise, I bought the first year Lhasa Pows, the first year S7's, and besides the S7's I also currently own Night Trains, 112RP's, and Olympus Mons. (Yeah, have to do some selling soon.) 

 

And for those here who think that TGR's a safer house for your fatty fantasies than Epic, consider this quote from a recent review: "The next stage of the rocker evolution is seeing narrower waists, more directional, set-back shapes, and more gradual rocker rise in the shovel..."

 

Eg, the days of the kind of skis this thread is asking about are numbered. "Modern" isn't a trajectory toward ever fatter and more highly rockered designs, it's a movement away. eek.gif

 

post #34 of 42

yeah, Honestly the concept of using different ski's- not just difference widths here is frustrating. the mindset is antiquated and shows a misunderstanding of ski design and intent. Not sure if that's a failing of the industry or just the result of the casual skier not wanting to learn or understand. its easier to just criticize.  Hey i love a fat-ass ski on fresh and I do have plenty of days on untracked light snow so its something I do get to use but I also have my share of no-fresh early AM crunchy to mid-day soft so ski's that accomodate that range are also useful to me.

post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Oh, and for the record, not a hater: I would not buy a powder ski that didn't at least have early rise, I bought the first year Lhasa Pows, the first year S7's, and besides the S7's I also currently own Night Trains, 112RP's, and Olympus Mons. (Yeah, have to do some selling soon.) 

 

And for those here who think that TGR's a safer house for your fatty fantasies than Epic, consider this quote from a recent review: "The next stage of the rocker evolution is seeing narrower waists, more directional, set-back shapes, and more gradual rocker rise in the shovel..."

 

Eg, the days of the kind of skis this thread is asking about are numbered. "Modern" isn't a trajectory toward ever fatter and more highly rockered designs, it's a movement away. eek.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

yeah, Honestly the concept of using different ski's- not just difference widths here is frustrating. the mindset is antiquated and shows a misunderstanding of ski design and intent. Not sure if that's a failing of the industry or just the result of the casual skier not wanting to learn or understand. its easier to just criticize.  Hey i love a fat-ass ski on fresh and I do have plenty of days on untracked light snow so its something I do get to use but I also have my share of no-fresh early AM crunchy to mid-day soft so ski's that accomodate that range are also useful to me.

 

 

^^^^^
Its interesting that the concept, at least in my ski world, is more about the funshape, flex than it is about the waist width. 
Phil and I had this discussion last night concerning the Kastle LX82 to the Blizzard Viva 8.0.  The LX82 is wider, but its more of a carving ski while the 8.0 is more of an all mountain ski.  
Shape, flex, build......those factors weigh heavily on a ski performance. 
post #36 of 42

I love my 07 praxis pows in deep stuff and I ski alot of deep days, but the skis performance in narrowly focused and often doesn't do very well at things that I expect a powder day ski to do well and I don't mean carving hard pack. A 112RP give up almost nothing in untracked snow and does alot better when I have to traverse to find my powder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

 

 

^^^^^
Its interesting that the concept, at least in my ski world, is more about the funshape, flex than it is about the waist width. 
Phil and I had this discussion last night concerning the Kastle LX82 to the Blizzard Viva 8.0.  The LX82 is wider, but its more of a carving ski while the 8.0 is more of an all mountain ski.  
Shape, flex, build......those factors weigh heavily on a ski performance. 

 

 

Yep, I am noticing that dialed in flex, rocker profile and width all play a part equally. 1cm of waist width is very over rated part of a skis performance. 


Edited by tromano - 9/14/12 at 8:24am
post #37 of 42

Voices of reason and logic....  thank you.........

post #38 of 42

WRT the Dutch, the Lewis & comment about monoskis.

 

I am reminded of the snowboards where boots are clipped in side by side, rider faces front of board. When these skis get to maybe 240mm wide, you'll have a hybrid ski-board? Could be pretty nifty.

post #39 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

I love my 07 praxis pows in deep stuff and I ski alot of deep days, but the skis performance in narrowly focused and often doesn't do very well at things that I expect a powder day ski to do well and I don't mean carving hard pack. A 112RP give up almost nothing in untracked snow and does alot better when I have to traverse to find my powder.

 

Exactly why I sold my 195 Praxis Powders after getting hooked on the 190 DPS 112RPs.

 

But then I found the 196 Moment Governor/Bibby Special.  

 

The Moments come even closer to matching the Praxis in soft snow, trading a small decline of maneuverability in the trees for lower knee torque in soft-on-hard conditions. And on firm snow, the flat pintail (vs rockered tail), lower rocker profile in the tip, and significantly longer running length -- 174cm vs 149cm, or more than 10" for a ski that's only 6cm longer -- leaves the 112RPs far behind.  (The 112RPCs may split the difference somewhat, but they're in very limited production and quite expensive.)

post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by emerth View Post

WRT the Dutch, the Lewis & comment about monoskis.

 

I am reminded of the snowboards where boots are clipped in side by side, rider faces front of board. When these skis get to maybe 240mm wide, you'll have a hybrid ski-board? Could be pretty nifty.

I have about 20 days on a monoski (Back in the 90's)i, ultimate powder weapon, and powder bumps,,,, OMG Epic    Almost bought a TT Hammer from snowshark but just couldn't pull the trigger.  

post #41 of 42

Hmmmm. Waist is a dimension, smooth is a dimension. What is the 3rd dimension?
 

post #42 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

^^^^ This. 

 

Besides, 120 under foot is overkill for someone my size.  

 

 

honestly not really....

 

 

115lb 5'5 skiing on a 120mm 178cm skis with load of rocker. wolf creek with 20 inches of new that was blasted by the wind.

 

 

 

even in really deep fluffly snow some one this light on a ski that big will still go in.

 


Edited by Josh Matta - 3/17/13 at 7:44pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion

Gear mentioned in this thread:

EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 120mm plus fat skis - your thoughts?