EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Is everyone going just too fat?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is everyone going just too fat? - Page 11

post #301 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

When will you people start worrying more about yourselves than starting the same thread year after year?

 

The silly "issue" remains year after year. For some strange reason. 

 

Hence, it is probably worth discussing. And maybe even worth an annual or monthly thread (though I don't start 'em anymore smile.gif).

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  the sales channel + instructional structure of the ski industry makes the rockered fatter ski thing worthy of a Harvard Business School Case Study on forces that retard progress that benefits consumers. This thing is full of everything from religious belief to ego investment to employee training costs to income disparity and ski buying cycles. The friction (and newb suffering)  created by an instructional channel that has lagged the design curve is staggering. While things are catching up, this thread itself is evidence of the slow pace of progress.

 

So as long as this bubbles around as a discussion, maybe a few prospective buyers will be pointed in a better and more modern direction than they might otherwise have been.

post #302 of 317
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

When will you people start worrying more about yourselves than starting the same thread year after year?

Nice to hear you worrying about people not worrying about themselves.

post #303 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adie View Post

Nice to hear you worrying about people not worrying about themselves.


Really?

 

In that case, I'll just go full blown retard, and suggest you are not even capable of being subjective about the topic due to your "instructor" status. It's hard to be subjective when your income is predicated on an idea of what skiing should be based upon a book written by the very people that would rather see the progression, and the resurgence of skiing stifled than give up all their ideals.

post #304 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post


Any thing is possible, and any ski might get pulled out on any day, but the WHOLE IDEA of the best skier on the mountain does not exist, especially at Squaw-Alpine. 

(I know some of those days and nobody was skiing Alpine Bowl well, just letting the skis go mostly. )

I'd agree with you 99% of the time--but when there is one run open on Roundhouse (this was before they had alpine bowl open), and about 10 people skiing it and you can see them all at the same time--well you get the point. Pray that we don't see another season like that any time soon. And his point, as I said, was irony.

post #305 of 317
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post


Really?

 

In that case, I'll just go full blown retard, and suggest you are not even capable of being subjective about the topic due to your "instructor" status. It's hard to be subjective when your income is predicated on an idea of what skiing should be based upon a book written by the very people that would rather see the progression, and the resurgence of skiing stifled than give up all their ideals.

Not really worthy of a reply.

post #306 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

 

And... that has nothing to do with me or what I'm talking about.


Sorry if I misunderstood your point - sometimes I have reading comprehension problem, I guess. Well, to each its own.

post #307 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

 

If there were a single truly simple answer to this, all these threads would not still be happening. But here is my very abridged take.

 

There is a spectrum of snow. There is a spectrum of skiers (in terms of both ability and goals). 

 

With respect to skis, one end of the spectrum is represented by "conventional" carvers of race heritage. These are evolved for hard snow. The other end by reverse/reverse skis. Or even a few "reverse/reverse/reverse" skis. These have powder/soft snow genetics. In between, you have variations on the themes - fatter carvers and sidecut rockered skis. They sort of meet somewhere in a hybridized middle.

 

In terns of skiers, you have people who have no skills, all the way up to proficient skiers. You have skiers who love high-g turns on ice and skiers who are all about the fluffy 3D.

 

But things sort of regress to the mean. Most people most places are pretty "average" in their abilities and the snow they ski. And I mean this in the context of bell curves representing populations of skiers and the snow they ski -  which I believe is the case rather than meaningful different populations. So, most skiers are probably best off on some middle of the road "all around" ski. Which in light of today's designs probably means something in the 90-110 underfoot zone. With rocker. With some semblance of early taper. Where I usually ski, probably more biased toward the 110 end.

 

This is also an important issue for beginners. Because of their needs, I think a bias toward "fatter" skis is appropriate. Skinny skis are hard to balance on - just from a standing point of view. Highly sidecut skis without rocker tend to hook up faster than newbs expect. So mitigating that is beneficial. Heck, there were a couple of instructors here a few years ago who. IIRC,  attributed their broken legs to unexpected hooking up of tight radius carvers...  So even on the development side of the skills curve, a more forgiving ski with a bigger bag of tricks than just tight radius pure carves offers a ton of benefits for new learners. Now I'm not saying newbs should be on 138 wide planks. There comes a point of diminishing returns - right tool for the job, etc. But by the same reasoning, they have no business on 70-something skis either. If I were going to take out a never-ever, I'd probably look to something in the general zone of S3-S7/S7W. Not saying those specifically, but painting a broad brush image of the kind of shape and target dimensionality. Probably with a flex pattern geared toward a beginner...

 

As usual, just my .02... but at least it is not a hypothetical .02, having spent many days under many conditions on fat rockered skis.


Thank you for your thoughtful reply spindrift.

 

I would completely agree with you if the whole point of the exercise was to bring as much people as we can to the slopes and teach them to slide down the mountain in somewhat safe and comfortable manner. My personal, and I repeat, my personal problem with that is what they learn has somewhat remote relation to the sport. Sure they have two long sticks attached to their feet. They do wear ski boots. They even use poles, sometimes even in appropriate fashion. And they get down the mountain, sometimes even without falling. It is not skiing though. Please hold your screams about who gave me the authority to define skiing. Nobody did. It is my personal opinion. Not surprisingly, however, it is shared by many people who I admire for how they ski, terrain they ski and what they are able to do on their skis. The very basics of skiing is to know how to use ski's geometry and edges to make it to turn. Everything else is secondary. Without that, regardless of how big someone's balls are and how athletic and ambitious they are, they are nothing but snow sliders or hacks.

 

Fat skis opened a lot of terrain for all categories of skiers, rocker made it easier to ski that terrain. What these skis didn't do is to make anybody a better skier.

 

Cheers,

 

beercheer.gif

post #308 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post


Really?

In that case, I'll just go full blown retard, and suggest you are not even capable of being subjective about the topic due to your "instructor" status. It's hard to be subjective when your income is predicated on an idea of what skiing should be based upon a book written by the very people that would rather see the progression, and the resurgence of skiing stifled than give up all their ideals.

Okay..... I'm a pretty liberal Mod, yet name calling, slurs & gross generalization don't have a place here. Please all consider more civility in further posting.

Remember "Kill em with skill!"

Carry on..... with content!
post #309 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow View Post


Okay..... I'm a pretty liberal Mod, yet name calling, slurs & gross generalization don't have a place here. Please all consider more civility in further posting.
Remember "Kill em with skill!"
Carry on..... with content!


The this thread, that's basis is gross generalization, needs to be locked.

post #310 of 317

If we could all afford Anton Gliders everyone would be on skinny skis, but alas, that holy grail of skis is priced out of most of our budgets.

post #311 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post


The this thread, that's basis is gross generalization, needs to be locked.

I'm not going to lock this thread, but I am going to ask that we post quality content & avoid going aggressive.

One of the intangibles that I find in all athletes is the NEED to identify with their gear!

Fwiw: Eric / exoticskis has the Anton hook up!
post #312 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfr View Post

The very basics of skiing is to know how to use ski's geometry and edges to make it to turn. Everything else is secondary. Without that, regardless of how big someone's balls are and how athletic and ambitious they are, they are nothing but snow sliders or hacks.

 

Fat skis opened a lot of terrain for all categories of skiers, rocker made it easier to ski that terrain. What these skis didn't do is to make anybody a better skier.

 

beercheer.gif

I fully agree with this but IMO I don't think a lot of people actually skiing now or thinking of trying would have a clue what you mean. So much to do these days as opposition to skiing, just sliding around a couple of days a season is enough without the emphasis on being the best you can or turn shape perfection. Just sit and watch the falling leaf approaches and laziness of so many now who will never try and be perfect. It's good that everyone is having a go, but these days like a lot of things participation is enough and for the type of person who just wants to say they ski, I agree also that probably wider skis suit this type of skier. <80 might be great for carving but that takes effort and learned skills. The "I just want to ski today, party tonight" crowd which are a hell of a lot of skiers these days, will like 80+ a lot more as it gives security, can do more with less i.e get away without being ski fit, and better 'get down the run' without crashing ability. That's what they will notice and think is fantastic, not dynamic edge control and fast transitions.

You all on here, are more traditional passionate skiers who know exactly what you like and based on that, huge guess are not mid 20s, which now as group have the power and $$ to drive trends and the skier day numbers too. Think of how the majority ski on most resorts and if very specific specialised equipment is really going to make a huge difference. Big call again but over here in NZ I'd say only 15-20% of people can actually ski 'well' and that's probably generous, snow boarding is even worse, carve, what's that? The rest are <3 days a season giving it a go types so....

 

So 'is everyone going too fat?' probably not, everyone is just going the easy average which means the middle of the distribution curve is exactly right, which is mid fats in the majority of the world's ski resorts that get decent snow.


Edited by snala - 11/3/12 at 4:48pm
post #313 of 317

Why waste time arguing, when quivers are readily available?  Everyone should buy what works for them, and call it good.  

post #314 of 317

I wonder if message boards in Europe wonder why "everyone is going too skinny"?  Seems like most of my European customers are looking for demos of race carvers!  

post #315 of 317

Went to the ski shop today and decided to look at their new flats.  Only 2 pairs under 80 width and we live in AZ where you'd be blessed by Ullr to see a powder day every 2 years.  Definitely easy to see where the trend is going.

post #316 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by core2 View Post

Went to the ski shop today and decided to look at their new flats.  Only 2 pairs under 80 width and we live in AZ where you'd be blessed by Ullr to see a powder day every 2 years.  Definitely easy to see where the trend is going.

This is one reason why anyone should care what everybody else is skiing.   If everybody else was looking to buy a good ski high performance skiing on hard snow, you wouldn't be limited to two measly pair to choose from.   Still, I don't suppose we will reach the day when It isn't possible to buy a racing ski.

post #317 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

This is one reason why anyone should care what everybody else is skiing.   If everybody else was looking to buy a good ski high performance skiing on hard snow, you wouldn't be limited to two measly pair to choose from.   Still, I don't suppose we will reach the day when It isn't possible to buy a racing ski.


Only plus were all the good "skinny" trade-ins they had on the used rack.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Is everyone going just too fat?