EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What is the ideal waist width for all mtn mid atlantic & eastern skiing?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the ideal waist width for all mtn mid atlantic & eastern skiing?

Poll Results: What is the ideal waist for All Mountain Eastern Skiing?

 
  • 18% (11)
    68-75mm underfoot
  • 62% (36)
    76-85 mm underfoot
  • 15% (9)
    86-95 mm underfoot
  • 3% (2)
    96+105 mm underfoot
  • 0% (0)
    106+ mm underfoot
58 Total Votes  
post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 

OK boys and girls.  I have created my very first pole.  I am so excited!

 

Anyway, a discussion on a Demo Day in the Mid Atlantic ski area http://www.epicski.com/t/116709/demo-day-seven-springs-pa-01-05-13 has evolved into a discussion of the proper width for an all mountain eastern ski, particuarly for the mid atantic region.

 

As a lifelong eastern skier, skiing primarily the mid atlantic area in general and the resort where that demo day was held in particular, I have a pretty good opinion on what works well where I ski.  Plus I now work p/t at a shop and am privy to what the reps say and have access to demo different skis.

 

My conclusion, based on my actual experience skiing this type of terrain is that an 80 mm underfoot ski  (+ or - 5mm) is just about perfect for 99% of the conditions we see here in the mid atlantic.  When I say "all mountain" I do mean "all mountain".  Groomers, bumps, natural snow areas, glades and just about everything else with the exception of the terrain park which requires some different ski qualities.

 

Much narrower, less than 75mm and you don't get the float you need to bust crud and heavy new snow.  Much wider and you start to lose some hard snow performance, and quickness, especially on our famous east coast powder aka boiler plate

.

My preferred weapon for my free ski days (I also race in a league) around here is  the Volkl AC30's with wide ride binding.

 

Now I do own a pair of Rossi E98's but that was purchased to be my dairly driver for my western trips.  My one experience (pun intended) skiing them here at Holiday Valley wasn't very pleasurable..  But at Mammoth and Big Sky last season they Rocked!  OTOH my AC30's were less than ideal when I took them to Vail and BC 2 seasons ago.

 

So what is your preference for mid atlantic and eastern all mountain skiing and why?

 

Pole on!

 

Rick G

post #2 of 27

I have a quiver of 6 - 3 GS, 1 SL, 1 Dynastar Legend (older) 75 waist, and 1 Kastle FX 94 (new last winter). Last year was hopefully not typical in the ridiculously low snowfall amounts, but my narrow skis saw almost all the use. I used the Kastles on an end of season trip to New England for spring skiing (more like summer with March days above 80 in VT). But I had used the Dynastars for years and their 75 waist worked well consistently for what passes for all mountain in PA or other mid Atlantic states. Most of the areas don't have a lot of tree skiing or off piste so you are talking mostly groomers,  bumps and the very rare storms dropping a few inches. Last winter, I consistently saw all sorts of people out on their  90, 100, and even wider skis having issues with the icy conditions that we found all of last winter. Can an advanced skier master many of these skis on ice and groomers? Sure, but most skiers don't. The shops here are full of skis that tons of people who will never ski trees or off piste buy that make 99% of their actual skiing worse at Blue Mountain, Camelback, Roundtop, etc. etc. I voted for the 75-85 as the eastern all mountain.

post #3 of 27

I have been avoiding this debate because clearly there is no single answer even from a single skier (unless they only ski at one ski area....maybe). But your motivation for starting this thread is fair and perhaps....with any luck...it will help change some peoples' narrow minded perspective and stimulate productive discussion or debate that may actually help some people who are more confused than ever.

 

A) First of all, why is it that most of the advice, no scratch that...opinion on this topic are from people who live and ski in the west...or at least have done so for a long time? I think their perspective of modern skis in the east is just fundamentally flawed.

 

B) Why aren't there more Eastern skiers offering their opinions on this subject? I think that part of the problem is A) above and because there are no where near enough demos of anywhere near enough skis in the East. OR...we just don't care enough and would rather just ski.

 

C) Why is all of "the east" and especially when including the mid atlantic lumped together in one basket? While it has been said before many times, Jay Peak, Stowe and many many other mountains are not the same skiing as 400' vertical mountains in Pennsylvania (chosen randomly).

 

D) As a nod to one of the participants in these forums that I respect the most...Beyond, what on earth happened to the thinking of 3 or 4 years ago that 80 something width skis were the lost width because most 98ish skis had edge hold never before dreamt of plus greater versatility. MARKETING! Everyone has 98ish skis now (well hopefully only if they are out west) so they have to be told they need something else. Yes, this paragraph is all pure sarcasm. 

 

On the other hand I do pay allot of attention to some of the reviewers on this board and it has helped allot in choosing skis because as I said before, there are not many opportunities to demo. My son who is by ALL standards a great skier, thinks all the reviews are bunk and goes totally by the dimensions, feel and flex of a ski somehow always chooses right (for him) OR maybe he can just ski on anything.

 

Now here is an interesting one... He and 3 of his friends are by far the best skiers I have ever seen in person (lets forget about pros of any sort). He skis on a Rossignol Sickle and his friends 2 Hellbents and an Obsethed. They really don't ski groomers...BUT, they do fly through very steep, bumped up, super tight trees (make that forests)....with or without snow. Must be a miracle.

 

On the other hand I do agonize over skis. Part because it is just fun and part because I hope it will help me keep up with them. See I am not that bad actually. So here are my perspectives on the skis I own: (BTW...I am 5'11, 225 pounds and I only ski groomers when otherwise I would just stay home)

 

1) Blizard G Force Supersonic, 174. Fun, easy good grip, reasonable stable. Only see groomer duty so I don't use them much. Will probably sell just because I do not use them much.

 

2) Dynastar Outland 87, 178. Bought based on the Hype here on Epic, could not demo. OK Ski, just not very exciting. For sale because: (Drum Roll) My Kastle BMX98's (178) do everything better. Smoother yet more exciting on hard snow. Definitely the Kastle's conform to bumpy terrain better and are allot better in chopped up snow even a few inches deep. I know what I said is impossible because they are 98mm underfoot but I am often told I am crazy.

 

3) DPS 112RP, 184. Have to spend more time on these. I have not yet skied them in over a foot of snow. But guess what, they are the easiest, most fun skis in bumpy trees with only a few inches of snow. Even when the troughs get icy. They bounce over loose piles of snow like a jackrabbit and generally turn on a dime. I am amazed! OK...they are not fun on flat hard snow at all and I still give the edge to the BMX98 in choppy snow, less bumpy as they just feel more powerful and planted.

 

So I am still looking for one ski to replace both my Outlands an Supersonics. Probably more psychological than anything else because I should probably just keep my Kastles nice and sharp and practice getting up to higher edge angles. But apparently that would be blasphemy.

 

I should have mentioned that I live in Quebec. I ski mostly at Orford and Sutton... Almost always in the trees and a good number of those runs would challenge 95% of the skiers here. So I am not at that 400' mountain in Pennsylvania. On the other hand I am certainly no stranger to ice...real ice.

 

So in conclusion (finally)...lets get more demos in the East, find what each of us really like instead of being told what we should like, challenge ourselves and have fun doing it.

 

Reviews and opinions are relevant especially as a starting point...But they are opinions, not absolutes!

 

As they say YMMV.

post #4 of 27

The very short version of my opinion:

 

For skiing groomers and hard/packed bumps, I wouldn't want to go wider than ~85, maybe 88mm if it's fairly stout.  Narrower is better.  Yes, you can ski groomers fine on wide skis, and even 'arc' them if you're good.  But it's SO much more work.

 

If you start going off-piste, into various kinds of crud/crust, or bumps in fresh snow... it depends.  Something up in the 90-100 range, maybe with mild rocker, will help smooth out a lot of bad snow.  But you can certainly do fine on something in the 78-88 range too.  Under 75mm tends to get real hooky in crud, at least for me.  But then again, 20 years ago everyone was skiing on those and somehow they got by.

 

I can't see going wider than 98mm on the East coast unless you're talking about a dedicated ski for the rare big dump kind of day.

post #5 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsirin View Post

I have a quiver of 6 - 3 GS, 1 SL, 1 Dynastar Legend (older) 75 waist, and 1 Kastle FX 94 (new last winter). Last year was hopefully not typical in the ridiculously low snowfall amounts, but my narrow skis saw almost all the use. I used the Kastles on an end of season trip to New England for spring skiing (more like summer with March days above 80 in VT). But I had used the Dynastars for years and their 75 waist worked well consistently for what passes for all mountain in PA or other mid Atlantic states. Most of the areas don't have a lot of tree skiing or off piste so you are talking mostly groomers,  bumps and the very rare storms dropping a few inches. Last winter, I consistently saw all sorts of people out on their  90, 100, and even wider skis having issues with the icy conditions that we found all of last winter. Can an advanced skier master many of these skis on ice and groomers? Sure, but most skiers don't. The shops here are full of skis that tons of people who will never ski trees or off piste buy that make 99% of their actual skiing worse at Blue Mountain, Camelback, Roundtop, etc. etc. I voted for the 75-85 as the eastern all mountain.

 

+1  Your repsonse is pretty much my opinion as well.  The reason for this poll and discussion is that in other threads, folks have been reccomending 90+ widths for one ski quivers here in the Mid Atlantic and East.  I usually notice that the responders are from the west which has different needs that we do.  If you have never skied our conditions and are spoiled by soft snow, you really don't understand our needs.

 

When I am talking to customers in the shop I work at, if they tell me they ski exclusively around here, I try to put them in the 76-84 max category.  Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't.

 

Rick G


Edited by rickg - 1/11/13 at 1:37pm
post #6 of 27
Thread Starter 

Alan O'neil, with out quoting your entire post, I want to say that I agree with most of what you said.  When I stated that 80mm is the ideal waist for around here, I do mean the Mid Atlantic.  If you live here and do most of your skiing here, 80-85 mm should take care of the best days here and the occasional trip up to New England or even out west.  I had absotlutely no problems on my AC30's at 80mm during a coupld of powder days at Vail / BC 2 years ago including the Minturn Mile which was mostly untracked.  Nor did I have issues skiing some of the best conditions in my life during powder storms at Mt. Bachelor and Crested Butte  4& 5 seasons ago respectively on my Hot Rod Nitrous at a whopping 77 under foot.  A few years before that I was on 70mm skis and thought they were the cat's meow!  Even on my yearly western trip.

 

I do agree that if I lived in New England my daily driver would be closer to 90.  I also believe that may skiers are flocking to the 90+ skis under the mistaken notion that they will immediately make them a better skier.  Equipment will never make you a better skier.  They will only allow you to get the most of what you already know how to do and perhaps make it easier to learn new skills.  But If you really want to get better, take a lesson or two even if it is on skinny 70-75mm skis.

 

Rick G


Edited by rickg - 1/11/13 at 1:39pm
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickg View Post

 

 If you have never skied our conditions and are spoiled by soft snow, you really don't understand our needs.

 

As an example of mid Atlantic skiing, I go some weeknights to ski at Bear Creek in PA near Allentown to train in gates. The place is mobbed at night. If you are "off piste" by anything over 20 feet at Bear Creek you are either on dirt or in the parking lot. Last winter's snow total there would have been less than 6 inches so tree skiing is not much of an attraction. The daytime temps are over freezing a high percentage of the winter and it gets cold enough at night for them to make snow which they blow on top of the ice from the afternoon melt which they grind together with the groomers. I see all kinds of skis there but almost all of the new skis are big wide ones on the feet of people unlikely to be hitting Vail or Jackson Hole too often. Rocker has also seemed to become popular there. Many of the skiers "smear" their turns at Bear Creek, but seldom on purpose.

post #8 of 27

Optimal EC range for me is 80 to 90 mm underfoot, but I'll vote 85-95 mm.

 

I ski 35-50 days a year. I live in Northern Virginia, so I ski the Mid Atlantic a lot. I do get 10-20 days a year out West. I grew up in Connecticut and have skied Vermont a lot in the past (haven't skied the Northeast in several years.)

 

I'll base my opinions on primarily the Mid Atlantic and on what I personally ski. Frankly, there is enough variation in the snow conditions at the Mid Atlantic areas (due to skier traffic and natural snowfall differences and sun exposure - Whitetail and whether you can ski the trees or not), that the "optimal" ski for me differs a *bit* by area.

 

My home mountain is Timberline, WV. I also try to get out to Blue Knob a few times a year. I've skied Whitetail a lot in the past. Also have skied Liberty, Roundtop, Seven Springs, Canaan Valley and Snowshoe. Timberline gets 180 inches of snow a year (11 year average, 9 of the 11 years have had annual snowfall greater than 150 inches.) Timberline is 3-4 hours from the nearest city, so it gets no where near the skier traffic of Seven Springs, Whitetail, Liberty, Roundtop or the Poconos or Snowshoe. It also has the slowest lifts known to man, which further minimizes skier traffic. So frankly, Timberline skis more like Southern Vermont than it skis like the Snowtime areas.

 

My current daily drivers for Timberline are Line Prophet 90's (90 mm.) The LP90 has a lot of metal in it, so it is a surprisingly burly ski for it's size with decent edge hold on ice. My previous daily drivers were the Elan 666's (~78 mm? underfoot.) My rock skis (primarily for when I ski the trees when/where the base is low) are Salomon Pocket Rockets (90 mm). About 5+ years ago, my Mid A daily drivers were Atomic SX-9's (~68 mm.)  The skis I take out West for prime-season trips are Blizzard The One's (98 mm.) I know a couple of Timberline ski instructors who use (edit: 95mm Vokl Bridges as their non-teaching prime ski - but they still love to dig out SL race skis.)

 

Except for the groomers, I greatly prefer the Line Prophet 90's over the 666's for bumps, trees, ungroomed and cut-up. At first I didn't, since they weren't as quick edge to edge as the 666's. By skiing the LP90 every day, I've gotten nearly as quick on them as I used to be on the 666's (even in the bumps.) But I can plow through variable snow so much better on the LP90's. My typical day involves more variable snow than groomed snow.

 

For fresh corduroy first thing in the AM (or for doing drills), I do prefer the 666's (or better yet, GS race skis.)

 

In the past, I've found the SX-9's and 666's to be a blast in the trees for light blower snow (boot top to knee deep.) But once the snow got exposed to sun/warmth and/or the trees/brush got tighter, the skis could be miserable compared to the LP90's or the PR's.

 

I spent all last Sunday afternoon and all day Wednesday skiing the trees on my Pocket Rockets. I missed most of last year due to an injury, but in the two prior winters I got 5-10 days each season skiing nothing but pow/trees all day. For a lot of (but not all) local tree conditions, I prefer the PR's over the LP90's. The PR's are much softer, so if I hit something underneath (stump, log, rock, etc.), they are more forgiving and suffer less damage. When the lines get really tight (pretty much uncleared trees and brush), the PR's don't need as much speed to turn (plus they are 4 cm shorter), and I can do the occasional gorilla turn at low speed to get around/under/over something. The snow on Wednesday was so heavy and wet (and starting to rot out) that anything under 90 mm would have been impossible to ski on. (Sticking my pole down, there was over a foot of base in lot's of spots.)

 

For Liberty or Roundtop or Seven Springs, most days I'd prefer something around 80 mm. For Whitetail (which get's afternoon mashed potatoes most days), 90 mm underfoot. For Blue Knob (rocking little area with the best trails - but not trees- in the Mid A), I'd say more like 80-85. Blue Knob can get pretty icy due to winds, less natural snow, and sub-par snow making/grooming, so edge hold is much more important than at Timberline. The X factor at Blue Knob is the rocky base. As a result, since I like to ski most anywhere, I never take my best skis there.
 


Edited by JohnL - 1/11/13 at 12:13pm
post #9 of 27

Place me (solidly) in the 68 to 75 waist skis category, however,I ski a 77 waist most of the time. My other skis are sub 70 waist.  My thinking is that personal preference, with respect to turn shape, plays a big part in ski selection.  I like short radius turns and am always trying to bet better edges on hard snow. I like making fast transitions through flat and wide skis just don't do it well enough, plus, my knees get cranky after a few hours on wide skis. There are many who go much straighter and may like wider skis, just not me. Why does any eastern skier want wide skis in the icy mogles we get 90% of the time? 

 

I like that the focus of this thread is on eastern skiing, and, the Epic eastern community can and should open more threads about what works on our snow. "Snow from hoses, not from heaven" (a  reversal of Grand Targhee's phrase). Agree that Stowe/MRG/Jay finds more conditions where wide skis would be benefical. We are groomer skiers ( I can hear the snears), but, not from choice. If you can't be with the one you love, love the one your with! 

post #10 of 27

In addition to the usual MidAtlantic hardback and cord my odds are far greater of spending a little time in some bumps or a NASTAR course than they are if skiing anything over 12" deep.  So, I vote sub 90 (75-85) for any MidAtlantic one ski quiver.  I will admit that a 90ish is a lot of fun in slush and slush bumps though.  Not my favorite everyday ski around here though..

post #11 of 27
Quote:
We are groomer skiers ( I can hear the snears), but, not from choice. If you can't be with the one you love, love the one your with!

 

Speak for yourself. If you have to be stuck in the Mid A, time to move away from the Poconos and closer to West Virginia. wink.gif

 

How long a drive is Plattekill for you?
 

post #12 of 27

86-95 all the way.

 

I am talking about the east east coast though, NY, VT, NH, ME, and I suppose Canada. When you start to get up north there is enough soft snow to warrant stepping up the waist widths. A true all mountain ski is 50% hard, 50% soft snow ski. User preference manipulates those percentages either way. I am definitely more geared toward soft snow. I am willing to sacrifice a little performance on piste to gain a little in the crud. It is all up to the skier and there are obviously those who would do it in opposite direction.  I would say anything within the 80-90mm range would be a true eastern all mountain ski.

post #13 of 27

Regardless of anyone's snow preferences, East Coast skiing essentially needs something that can slice the hardpack.  And for those of us on the East Coast, we know what hardpack/ice truly is.  When I was out West, I laughed my butt off at what the locals called "ice". I called that powder and frickin' awesome snow conditions.

 

In any event, I exclusively use a SL/thin carver 67mm ski to slice and dice the small local hills, always without exception.  If I go to a bigger East Coast resort, then I use a stiffer 75mm GS ski as my "all mountain", unless I exclusively want to do the bumps and trees. In that case, I have a 92mm ski that can also work for softer/deeper days.

 

Out here, nobody, and I mean NOBODY uses fatter ( >85mm) skis.  Everyone uses 75mm-86mm.  You could watch the lift line for an hour and the only people who may use a fatter (>85mm) ski are some of the park rats, and that's it.  Wide skis simply cannot handle the firm/icy East Coast conditions like a skinnier ski can.....unless of course you try to avoid all the marked runs on purpose.  People may debate that, but the proof is in the lift line everywhere here.

post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

In addition to the usual MidAtlantic hardback and cord my odds are far greater of spending a little time in some bumps or a NASTAR course than they are if skiing anything over 12" deep.  So, I vote sub 90 (75-85) for any MidAtlantic one ski quiver.  I will admit that a 90ish is a lot of fun in slush and slush bumps though.  Not my favorite everyday ski around here though..

+1

post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsirin View Post

As an example of mid Atlantic skiing, I go some weeknights to ski at Bear Creek in PA near Allentown to train in gates. The place is mobbed at night. If you are "off piste" by anything over 20 feet at Bear Creek you are either on dirt or in the parking lot. Last winter's snow total there would have been less than 6 inches so tree skiing is not much of an attraction. The daytime temps are over freezing a high percentage of the winter and it gets cold enough at night for them to make snow which they blow on top of the ice from the afternoon melt which they grind together with the groomers. I see all kinds of skis there but almost all of the new skis are big wide ones on the feet of people unlikely to be hitting Vail or Jackson Hole too often. Rocker has also seemed to become popular there. Many of the skiers "smear" their turns at Bear Creek, but seldom on purpose.

Haven't ran Nastar at Bear Creek in 2 years, but that is pretty much what I have seen there.  I ski JFBB on weekends and am always struck when I see the really wide skis, but then I know who bought the skis at Buckmans that seemed so out of place for Pennsylvania.  Two weeks ago there were mounds of natural soft snow that they groomed mid-day cause the skiers did not like it.  What are ya goin' to do?

post #16 of 27

Although I am lucky and have a short GS for early season and a 84mm for other, I did a lot of demoing in NH over the past few years. I rarely get into the trees or out on a pow day so my experience may be relevant to mid-Atlantic? Anyway for me if I had to go with one ski it would be around 78-80 width, not a tank, with camber and a little early rise... Blizzard 8.0, Nordica Sidecountry Fuel, something along those lines. YMMV

post #17 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan o'neil View Post

A) First of all, why is it that most of the advice, no scratch that...opinion on this topic are from people who live and ski in the west...or at least have done so for a long time? I think their perspective of modern skis in the east is just fundamentally flawed. Ka-Ching! We have a winnah!

 

B) Why aren't there more Eastern skiers offering their opinions on this subject? I think that part of the problem is A) above and because there are no where near enough demos of anywhere near enough skis in the East. OR...we just don't care enough and would rather just ski. Most likely we're just drowned out by the folks out west who understand what skiing actually is...

 

C) Why is all of "the east" and especially when including the mid atlantic lumped together in one basket? While it has been said before many times, Jay Peak, Stowe and many many other mountains are not the same skiing as 400' vertical mountains in Pennsylvania (chosen randomly). Ka-Ching! We have another winnah!

 

D) As a nod to one of the participants in these forums that I respect the most...Beyond, what on earth happened to the thinking of 3 or 4 years ago that 80 something width skis were the lost width because most 98ish skis had edge hold never before dreamt of plus greater versatility. MARKETING! Everyone has 98ish skis now (well hopefully only if they are out west) so they have to be told they need something else. Yes, this paragraph is all pure sarcasm. 98 is the new 88, which was the new 78. But I expect 108 to be the new 98 by next season. Check back in April when we get the "game changer" threads. 

 

On the other hand I do pay allot of attention to some of the reviewers on this board and it has helped allot in choosing skis because as I said before, there are not many opportunities to demo. My son who is by ALL standards a great skier, thinks all the reviews are bunk and goes totally by the dimensions, feel and flex of a ski somehow always chooses right (for him) OR maybe he can just ski on anything. I've embarrassed myself recently by mentioning Epic to some actual serious skiers. My favorite response was, "Was that the movie with the Titans?" People here (central VT) actually do demo a lot, get advice from friends who work in shops or race, somehow stumble along without online help. Have no clue how they do it. 

 

1) Blizard G Force Supersonic, 174. Fun, easy good grip, reasonable stable. Only see groomer duty so I don't use them much. Will probably sell just because I do not use them much. You'd like the G-Power more, or since they don't sell it here now, try the R-Power or S-Power. 

 

2) Dynastar Outland 87, 178. Bought based on the Hype here on Epic, could not demo. OK Ski, just not very exciting. For sale because: (Drum Roll) My Kastle BMX98's (178) do everything better. Yep. Smoother yet more exciting on hard snow. Yep. Definitely the Kastle's conform to bumpy terrain better and are allot better in chopped up snow even a few inches deep. Yep. I know what I said is impossible because they are 98mm underfoot but I am often told I am crazy. Yep.

 

3) DPS 112RP, 184. Have to spend more time on these. I have not yet skied them in over a foot of snow. But guess what, they are the easiest, most fun skis in bumpy trees with only a few inches of snow. Even when the troughs get icy. They bounce over loose piles of snow like a jackrabbit and generally turn on a dime. I am amazed! OK...they are not fun on flat hard snow at all and I still give the edge to the BMX98 in choppy snow, less bumpy as they just feel more powerful and planted.

 

So I am still looking for one ski to replace both my Outlands an Supersonics. Probably more psychological than anything else because I should probably just keep my Kastles nice and sharp and practice getting up to higher edge angles. But apparently that would be blasphemy. See comment above on R-Powers. Check Dawg's review of the S-Powers.

 

I should have mentioned that I live in Quebec. I ski mostly at Orford and Sutton... Almost always in the trees and a good number of those runs would challenge 95% of the skiers here. So I am not at that 400' mountain in Pennsylvania. On the other hand I am certainly no stranger to ice...real ice. No lie. Quebecoise know real ice. Super fun place to ski, BTW, if you can keep from eating yourself to death. 

 

post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

I keep reading the posts above and realize now that we are both wrong and should stop skiing!

post #19 of 27

I live in PA where we almost exclusively ski man made snow and see freeze/thaw cycles on a daily basis.   My answer would depend on your home mountain and where else you are planning on taking your "all mountain ski." 

 

For skiing in PA, going with only one ski, my ideal waist would be in the 70-80mm range.  I spent 90% of my time last season in PA on a 72mm waisted ski.  That wouldn't be my first ski of choice for VT.  But, I have several other skis with waists up to 98mm. 

 

Not all people have the luxury of having a quiver full of skis.  So I think a lot of people make a compromise and pick the ski that works the best for their skiing.  My friend skis a 90mm waisted ski in PA.  Does it make sense?   Yes, because he only has one pair of skis and that is the same ski he is taking on trips to Vt and out west.   

post #20 of 27

I currently (only) own 2 pairs of skis. My "skinny" skis are 76mm and my "fat" skis are 88mm.

 

If I only had one pair I would stay in the 80mm range.
 

post #21 of 27

"All-Mountain" MID ATLANTIC skiing?

post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan o'neil View Post
So here are my perspectives on the skis I own: (BTW...I am 5'11, 225 pounds and I only ski groomers when otherwise I would just stay home)

 

2) Dynastar Outland 87, 178. Bought based on the Hype here on Epic, could not demo. OK Ski, just not very exciting. For sale because: (Drum Roll) My Kastle BMX98's (178) do everything better. Smoother yet more exciting on hard snow. Definitely the Kastle's conform to bumpy terrain better and are allot better in chopped up snow even a few inches deep. I know what I said is impossible because they are 98mm underfoot but I am often told I am crazy.

 


Reviews and opinions are relevant especially as a starting point...But they are opinions, not absolutes!

 

Allan

 

Your comments on the Outland 87 illustrate how much influence size & weight of the skier and the areas of the mountain and off the mountain that we each ski has in regards to a  particular ski.  You outweigh me by over 45 pounds and that is most likely why the Outland 87's were not up to snuff for you. I suspect that you overpowered the Dynastars and that the Kastle's being a bit stiffer, handled your size better.  Enjoy the Kastle's!  I do not see too many pairs of the Outland 87's at Sugarbush. Lots of Cham's showing up, which just did not do the trick for me.  And SB is really a heavily populated Dynastar mountain.  But, they work great for me, expecially when going from firm to bumps to tight trees and all over the darn place.

 

 

post #23 of 27

^^^^(In lieu of quoting) : There is no question that weight plays an important factor. However at least when hand flexing, I don't find the Dynastars softer than the Kastles. I also don't find the Kastles any slower edge to edge than the Dynastars. Maybe it is just a matter of taste, what you get used to or as simple as first impressions on a day with conditions that were ideally suited to the skis.

 

In the end I just don't believe that there are all that many absolutes when it comes to skis unlike what some people would have us believe.

 

The next ski I am anxious to try is the Stockli Stormrider 95 in a 183. I like the flex and the added length might give me that extra bit of float and stability over the 178 BMX 98 in a 178. Love their Laser series...so we'll se. And yes, the Stormrider would be my Eastern All Mountain ski.

post #24 of 27

East 1 Ski Quiver:

 

Head Monster 78, or 82 (whatever their descendants are called today)

Kastle MX 78, perhaps 83 in short(er) length

Perhaps Bliz magnum 8.0

Need tenacious ice grip (for ice) and moderate width (for a bit of float off piste)

 

2 Ski Quiver:

 

Ice Skate--Fischer RX8/equvalent Fischer Progressor, or similar ski from Head, Blizzard or Kastle.  Race skis fit here too.

 

All Other Conditions EC Ski--K2 Extreme/PE, Line Prophet 90, Bliz Magnum 8.5, Atomic Nomad Crimson Ti.  Ski that can still handle ice, but that has better soft snow ability than the EC one-sk-quiver skis.  Some might like to go a bit wider than I would here.  IMO, 90 waist with a less than 130 shovel is about the width limit for an all-conditions EC ski.  One of my requirements for an all-condition EC ski is that it must be possible to zipperline tight bumps (like the seeded bumps at K-mart) on the ski.  For me, that is difficult on my PEs (85 waist, 118 shovel), and would be near impossible on skis with 95 mm waist and 130 mm+ shovels. 

 

3 Ski Quiver

 

Add whatever 95 mm+ waisted ski you want to the 2 ski quiver.  The widest ski in my EC quiver is a non-TI Atomic Nomad Crimson.  There have only been 2-3 days in my years of EC skiing that I wished for something wider. 

 

STE

post #25 of 27
Quote:

2 Ski Quiver:

 

Ice Skate--Fischer RX8/equvalent Fischer Progressor, or similar ski from Head, Blizzard or Kastle.  Race skis fit here too.

 

All Other Conditions EC Ski--K2 Extreme/PE, Line Prophet 90, Bliz Magnum 8.5, Atomic Nomad Crimson Ti.  Ski that can still handle ice, but that has better soft snow ability than the EC one-sk-quiver skis.  Some might like to go a bit wider than I would here.  IMO, 90 waist with a less than 130 shovel is about the width limit for an all-conditions EC ski.  One of my requirements for an all-condition EC ski is that it must be possible to zipperline tight bumps (like the seeded bumps at K-mart) on the ski.  For me, that is difficult on my PEs (85 waist, 118 shovel), and would be near impossible on skis with 95 mm waist and 130 mm+ shovels.

 

Spot on, and that it pretty much my quiver (Elan 666/Vokl Race ski) with LP 90. I'm lucky in that I've been able to ski the All Other Conditions EC Ski part 90 percent of the time in recent seasons. And the LP 90's are passable in the ice skate category (though I can't be as aggressive/ski as fast as I would be if on a better ice skate.)

post #26 of 27

Posted by Beyond in the thread that started this one.

 

Quote:
But this whole deal about how often it dumps is IMO irrelevant to why one owns fat skis back here. It's about float in tight trees with mild to moderate cover that don't allow speed and/or chop and crud on groomers.

 

More succinctly put than my original post on this thread.

 

My only question is the optimum width for that terrain: 90, 95 or 98. (Would depend upon the ski.)

 

In the Mid Atlantic in recent years, seems like we're getting a lot of Spring condition days, even in January. Not as many ice skating days.

 

I'm glad I don't have to regularly ski at Seven Springs, the Snowtimes and the Poconos. smile.gif

post #27 of 27

I'm from the midwest and I currently have a 72mm waist ski; however, I recently tried a couple of skis at the 80mm and really liked them. Now it may be that I'm big guy but felt more stable with 80mm. Definitely feel the 72mm is too narrow for me. That's why I voted  for the 75-80mm range.

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 › What is the ideal waist width for all mtn mid atlantic & eastern skiing?