EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › In Praise of (Almost) Skinny Skis for Powder
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

In Praise of (Almost) Skinny Skis for Powder - Page 2

post #31 of 41

I think we sometimes forget that it wasnt that long ago that we considered 80mm underfoot to be fat and these skiis can handle most resort conditions on most days. I think we (especially non-locals) become very eager to take out the fatties at the drop of a hat (metaphor for 12" dump). When in reality 12" over a firm surace can be skied amazingly with the midfatties. But when you just blew a grand on your new fatties, and you've already skied a good many days on your mids, what are you gonna do when you get lucky enough on one of your few ski days when ANY new snow falls... ROCKERED FATTIES!!!!

agreen

post #32 of 41
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

Who are you and what have you done with Bob ?!

 

biggrin.gif

 

Ha!

 

He got old.  A regrettable but unfortunately unavoidable affliction.

post #33 of 41

My daily driver is 116 in the waist. I don't expect you to understand.smile.gif

post #34 of 41
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

 

So the REST OF THE STORY is that I went out on the same skis today in untracked boottop wind-affected dense snow and they weren't nearly as fun.  Truth be told, they weren't much fun at all.  

 

I'd have had a much better time on my Super 7's.  eek.gif

 

Makes total sense. I like the the honesty, and I like the idea, in gear appraisals, of talking about instances where specific equipment enables (or cramps) fun, as opposed to talking about what it "can do," as though it were a food processor or a cordless drill or something. (And yes, I know that chefs and carpenters have fun too. rolleyes.gif)

post #35 of 41

Bob Peters has always been a champion of narrow(er) skis, something of a paradox these days, as his home mountain is Jackson Hole. I can testify that on days when he gave me some tours, he was on 70 ish skis, one day on a Head SL. It's always warmed the heart of this eastern skier that Bob bucked the trend to very wide skis. He got the credibility and skills to back-up his beliefs.

 

My take on the OP is that there was a day when Bob selected his skis, and, found on-mountain conditions different than expected. We've all been in that situation. So, he just continued ski and had an outstanding day. Somehow, I'm not the least bit surprised! I would have expected nothing less.

 

Rock on, Bob!

post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

It's really nice to see all the civility in this thread (as opposed to the head-scratching train wreck the ski lock thread has devolved into).  Well done, everybody.

 

I really was just reminiscing about some good times skiing good powder on skinny skis.

 

So the REST OF THE STORY is that I went out on the same skis today in untracked boottop wind-affected dense snow and they weren't nearly as fun.  Truth be told, they weren't much fun at all.  

 

I'd have had a much better time on my Super 7's.  eek.gif

I've come to the conclusion that the focus on deep powder when evaluating powder skis is a bit misplaced.  Almost ANY ski rocks in perfect snow.  (I learned on K2 KVC skis back in the 1980s.)  Modern powder  skis shine when they  are smoothing out imperfections in the snow.

post #37 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

Marcus and Beyond,

 

I will post this again, because honestly it doesnt seem like you even read it, despite your "quoting it" above.  This is from my post #21 (the one you both quoted).

 

 

 

Do you just like to provoke arguments? I thought the post of yours I quoted was fine. I was totally on board with the concepts. I liked your metaphor enough to expand on it to start my own thoughts.  Nothing in my subsequent personal feelings about medium and fat skis came close to contradicting anything you said. And yet you try to wiggle some misinterpretation of your post so you can continue to preach to perceived antagonists who just don't get you.

 

You're in danger of  making me believe that a new pair of rad graphic-ed similarly performing skis would lead to more fun than $1200 of ski lessons with you after all. wink.gif

post #38 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusBrody View Post

Do you just like to provoke arguments? I thought the post of yours I quoted was fine. I was totally on board with the concepts. I liked your metaphor enough to expand on it to start my own thoughts.  Nothing in my subsequent personal feelings about medium and fat skis came close to contradicting anything you said. And yet you try to wiggle some misinterpretation of your post so you can continue to preach to perceived antagonists who just don't get you.

 

You're in danger of  making me believe that a new pair of rad graphic-ed similarly performing skis would lead to more fun than $1200 of ski lessons with you after all. wink.gif


My only point was that while many here claim I am against fat skis....I am not.

post #39 of 41

Skidude: OK, for the sake of clarity, I read your post carefully, only you're foregrounding the part about not being against fat skis (never said you were, did I?) and I was foregrounding the part where you said you were against having various fat skis in close increments of waist width. IMO, waist width is one of the more misleading stats out there. I can have three 110-115 skis with totally different missions and potentials (the DPS 112RP, the Helldorado, and the Kastle West 110 come to mind) created by very different shapes, camber, and flex patterns. I'll avoid listing three kinds of hammers, but you get the idea...

 

As far as kids and racing camp, you sorta missed the point, but perhaps I was being too oblique. I was not talking about coaches requiring Sl and GS skis. In fact, they recommend a single hybrid these days. Nor was I talking about your all caps administrators - who in the case of my club are mostly coaches, several level III's, and all former racers, many of whom are also (brace yourself) parents! eek.gif In fact, my experience is when we parents are not plotting in late night cabals to make your life miserable by pushing unwanted and antiquated ideas about gear on you, we're thanking god that the club is sane about not wanting lots of gear or chic clothing. Oh, sorry, didn't want to deflate your angry fantasies about parents. Back to the cabal...

 

No, what I was referring to was that our kids need everyday skis to practice on, especially when there are lots of brown spots and rocks like this season so far, and then a pair of SL/GS do-all's for actual races. Many kids also have or want twins because if you haven't noticed, freestyle is big among that set, even the alpine racers. So like my example of three skis for different kinds of soft snow missions, three narrow-ish skis for different kinds of kids' lift-served missions. Not that expensive, either, if you mostly invest in used equipment and hand stuff down to younger kids. And y'know what? Said kids seem to become really well-rounded skiers. th_dunno-1[1].gif

 

OK, carry on with the normal irritation...wink.gif

post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post

 

 

What I have often found (no surprise here) is that moderate new snow, especially light, is more fun on technical, more powerful skis, as is skiing steeps (I can really arc out the skis and crank tight high-G turns as long as I have moderate float).  Deeper days, chopped up crud, and especially heavy snow, I like wider boards. 

 

      ^^^^^^ What he said. This means that on many days, my favorite go-to board is less than 100mm and has no rocker, even though I ski Whitewater.

 

And my best run ever? Three feet of untouched on a pair of 78mm skis. Avalanche chute. 600 vertical feet in which I could only see where I was going as I rose up in the transition between turns. That was the only time to inhale, too. The chute had been cleared of trees, fortunately, and had been deemed stable by Those Who Know Such Things.

post #41 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post

I've come to the conclusion that the focus on deep powder when evaluating powder skis is a bit misplaced.  Almost ANY ski rocks in perfect snow.  (I learned on K2 KVC skis back in the 1980s.)  Modern powder  skis shine when they  are smoothing out imperfections in the snow.

HA!  Me too.....for years, I skied powder at Grand Targee on K2 KVC Comps!   Deeeeeeep powder!   I love the original post because it really captures my personal preference for a pretty narrow ski under-foot, even in the deep stuff!   Of course, I'm beginning to feel old.....I've noticed a considerable generation gap when it comes to skinny vs. fat.

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 › In Praise of (Almost) Skinny Skis for Powder