or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 2014 Gear.....105mm and rethinking that quiver thing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2014 Gear.....105mm and rethinking that quiver thing. - Page 15

post #421 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post
Heck, I may be talking myself into life without a 98mm ski and that would really be a first (at least recently)...........biggrin.gif

 

 

 

GASP!   :D

 

anyhow, its all about the winter... every winter is different.  2 years ago there was record snowfall almost everywhere in the western US (give or take).  record december/january in tahoe, 700+" at alta/bird, records all over colorado, etc etc etc.  120mm legitimately was my daily driver 2 years ago, because i skied untracked snow 50+ days that season, and only skied a 99 waist ski ~10 days.  

 

of course the last two seasons make me want to add an 85 to my current 105 daily driver.   i have used my 120mm skis about 10 days each year the last 2 seasons.  but its not because that ski is not awesome, its just that the snow isn't there at the moment.  

 

however, all this underscores is that a 3 ski quiver on the west coast (for me: 85, 105, 120) hits all needs perfectly,and you can go ski in any condition, anywhere, no matter what the season is doing, and be really happy and have an awesome time.  

post #422 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Hence my recent thinking that the 98's are still the kings of mediocrity and the 110+ are the dream weavers. But the 85-90 's do a better job in January than the 98's and the one-ohs are more useful than the 110+ most of the rest of the time. Heck, I may be talking myself into life without a 98mm ski and that would really be a first (at least recently)...........biggrin.gif

 

Unless of course yer Daddy takes the T-Bird away...........................

 

SJ

Wow. Sea change here. Your car may freak out. But makes a lot of sense. OTOH (always a rationale for keeping skis), high 90's are nice for 1) trees wherever we are, since I have noticed a fall off in maneuverability in over boot-breadth skis, and 2) one ski travel. So reports of their demise may be limited to those who don't travel on airlines to ski, or are limited by spousal abuse to owning 2 skis.

 

Two skis. Although a frightening and barbaric notion, seems to describe most of my real life behavior. Setting racing skis aside, there's a narrow carver that rocks firm bumps and a 98 mm early rise that I use for 90% of my recreational skiing. If I could find a 1-oh that was as good in trees and on non-icy groomers, that'd replace the 98. All the others sit patiently in storage, waiting for their moment in the sun. Sort of the Island of Lost Toys...

post #423 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Lindahl View Post


How about you give me 10k and I take a 14 day AK heli trip for you. Come on man, it's not that hard to come up with a dream ski vacation!


Funny you should say that.  I'm in the middle of spending $25,000 on a ski vacation....

 

1.  Sell flatlander car, buy Audi SUV.           $15,000net

 

2.  Arrive in 2013, re-outfit gear both            $3,000

     equipment and clothing.

 

3. Temporary living expenses while              $3,000

     I buy home.

 

4.  Moving expenses                                     $4,000

 

Approx. Total                                                $25,000

 

Of course, this wlll go a long way towards covering a permanent ski vacation.   BTW, agree all serious skiers should hope for at least one heliskiing vacation.

post #424 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiSafe View Post


Haha ya see at 21, my priorities are trying to havethe biggest baddest quiver in town, So when i bring my future wife over, i can pretend to be a pro skier...tongue.gif

 

The scary part is I'm old enough to be your mother. biggrin.gif (Although, luckily, in work I'm told I look 10 years younger than I actually am.)

 

Hate to tell you, I don't think the biggest quiver is most attractive to the ladies. I think there would be an optimal quiver size and how you use it. Boys and their toys--the older they get, the bigger the toys.

 

Now I guess I'm wondering if a large quiver is attractive to men? I still can't figure out where to find the guys my age that can really ski, want to head to the mountains often, and have sufficient means to support themselves.rolleyes.gif

 

(Yes, I know, I have gone sufficiently off topic.)

post #425 of 504

It's not about how big your quiver is, but how you use it.

 

Wait, what are we talking about again?

post #426 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by rx2ski View Post

 

The scary part is I'm old enough to be your mother. biggrin.gif (Although, luckily, in work I'm told I look 10 years younger than I actually am.)

 

Hate to tell you, I don't think the biggest quiver is most attractive to the ladies. I think there would be an optimal quiver size and how you use it. Boys and their toys--the older they get, the bigger the toys.

 

Now I guess I'm wondering if a large quiver is attractive to men? I still can't figure out where to find the guys my age that can really ski, want to head to the mountains often, and have sufficient means to support themselves.rolleyes.gif

 

(Yes, I know, I have gone sufficiently off topic.)

 

I think those types of men are more common than women fitting the same description.  I know of at least one....

post #427 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Hence my recent thinking that the 98's are still the kings of mediocrity and the 110+ are the dream weavers. But the 85-90 's do a better job in January than the 98's and the one-ohs are more useful than the 110+ most of the rest of the time. Heck, I may be talking myself into life without a 98mm ski and that would really be a first (at least recently)...........biggrin.gif

 

Unless of course yer Daddy takes the T-Bird away...........................

 

SJ

 

Agreed. Hence my thoughts here earlier in this thread, the "average at everything" ski -

Quote:
Of the 98s I skied, they weren't as good on the groomers as an 80s waist ski, they weren't as good in the crud/variable as a 10X, and they weren't as fun in the trees or deep. To me, they were an average-at-everything ski. I'd rather have a one-ski quiver that was more dialed in to specific types of terrain that I normally ski rather than be 'good' at most terrain.
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Wow. Sea change here. Your car may freak out. But makes a lot of sense. OTOH (always a rationale for keeping skis), high 90's are nice for 1) trees wherever we are, since I have noticed a fall off in maneuverability in over boot-breadth skis, and 2) one ski travel. So reports of their demise may be limited to those who don't travel on airlines to ski, or are limited by spousal abuse to owning 2 skis.

 

Two skis. Although a frightening and barbaric notion, seems to describe most of my real life behavior. Setting racing skis aside, there's a narrow carver that rocks firm bumps and a 98 mm early rise that I use for 90% of my recreational skiing. If I could find a 1-oh that was as good in trees and on non-icy groomers, that'd replace the 98. All the others sit patiently in storage, waiting for their moment in the sun. Sort of the Island of Lost Toys...

For me, trying quite a few 10x's and comparing them to the BMX98, HnB, Enforcer, and Mantra, the BMX108 was the ticket (in 178cm). Stable, lively, really fun and quick in the trees, decent at bumps, and they handle groomers as well as can be expected.  

post #428 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

It's not about how big your quiver is, but how you use it.

Wait, what are we talking about again?

We were talking about stiff vs soft as well as how wide was optimal for the most pleasurable experience, uh, I mean, versatile experience, with variable terrain and surface conditions.
post #429 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by rx2ski View Post

I still can't figure out where to find the guys my age that can really ski, want to head to the mountains often, and have sufficient means to support themselves.rolleyes.gif

We don't exist at your eye level. I have a seven ski quiver, and only one of them is my BSL. You should see my 115mm Volkl's...

One of my teenage sons said the other day...after hauling his ass up to ski along with his three siblings...getting them all ready and sending them off, the youngest two with my wife...then getting myself ready and taking a conference call while they skied...his mouth full of expensive mid-mountain lunch...'it's not all about YOU, Dad' as I expressed my desire to actually ski that day at some point.

Which was funny, because he will get his, too.
post #430 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by rx2ski View Post

 

The scary part is I'm old enough to be your mother. biggrin.gif (Although, luckily, in work I'm told I look 10 years younger than I actually am.)

 

Hate to tell you, I don't think the biggest quiver is most attractive to the ladies. I think there would be an optimal quiver size and how you use it. Boys and their toys--the older they get, the bigger the toys.

 

Now I guess I'm wondering if a large quiver is attractive to men? I still can't figure out where to find the guys my age that can really ski, want to head to the mountains often, and have sufficient means to support themselves.rolleyes.gif

 

(Yes, I know, I have gone sufficiently off topic.)

 

Nope. Drive what ya brung and driv'em well. It's simple. A touring rig and some winter camping gear is a bonus though! smile.gif My favorite female ski partner is a 2 ski quiver type. She rips on both. We're not romantically involved, nor will we be. 

 

And SS, rx2ski is absolutely right. Beyond about 3-4 pairs, any woman will figure (and most likely correctly) that they're way down on your priority list. If she isn't serious skier, any more than one pair will be regarded with suspicion. 

post #431 of 504

^^^^ Well, depends on whether that woman skis. And has her own quiver. Might want to check with T.C. before making any categorical statements.  biggrin.gif

 

Can we spell "thread wander?"

 

Actually, just thought of a hole in SJ's thesis: It's developed around males. Average sized female will get same float from a 98 that average male gets from a 110. At least according to PhysicMan's calculator. So are the 1-oh's for males? Or do the women buy the 100 mm's and the men the 109.9's? 

post #432 of 504
Thread Starter 

Not tawkin' about wimmins skis here but........... The generic (albeit chauvinistic) standard for reference discussions is for unisex skis. Yeah, yeah, yeah,........whatever........... but that's the way it is. In the end, and within the broader strokes of ski design, women are just folks of a smaller stature. So, when I see a male customer of smaller stature, I don't necessarily separate him in ski categories from many of our female customers and skiers of similar stature and skill sets. A woman of proper skill set doesn't need to ski women's skis and neither would a fair number of our customers or employees that are more or less the same size. In the end, it's just one skier of a certain size vs. another skier of a larger/heavier size.

 

So in general........sure.......Joe average might find the 10-somethings to be the be-all for his needs. Jane A (who is minus 6" and 80 lbs) might find the 98'ers to work best for her.

 

SJ

post #433 of 504

Amen, brother!

 

Sigh...the LACK of active women (downhill skiers in particular) my age (my "demographic" being ages 45-62; my age...59) is MOST frustrating!

Now, in regard to "quivers"...I would prefer a "one woman quiver," and not more than a "3 ski quiver" (preferably, just one there, also).

 

My Atomic Access 171's...

(5' 8" tall, 185#'s...yes, I look like a fire hydrant in my red jacket; thus I never wear it "off-mountain" for fear of dogs and fire-trucks)

...have become my "daily drivers." I cannot believe I am skiing such a short ski.

 

I just started skiing again two years ago (skied twice in 2011 on a STP "hot deal" 2004-05?,185 Salomon Crossmax 10's..."removing" the right rear binding in a "see my user name"-typical GS "incident!"  

This farm-boy was able to repair and get the skis re-certified...  smile.gif  

They're skied occasionally now...a pretty decent groomer ski (IMHO).

In 2012, I picked up another "hot STP deal" on some 4FRNT CRJ 180's, and mounted Marker Barrons.

Somehow, I managed to survive those sticks, for a wonderful 32 days of skiing last year...actually skiing them to their potential; perhaps 3 or 4 days?? 

Yes, I "GOT WORKED" the rest of the days, and my first day out this year. Ah, to be 20 again. 

Nah, I love this age!

 

Praise God for a local ski shop (with a heart...and brains!), to put me on the Atomics!

These are incredibly versatile, stable, nimble and fun skis...groomers, crud, powder in trees ( a "luxury" this year...wa-ah!). I love 'em...

Yet, I don't feel comfortable "letting it all hang-out" on a groomer only day...

 

Plus, I am suffering a "fit of nostalgia?"

I learned to ski in 1968. on a pair of 195 Heads; then picked-up some Olin Mark IV's in 1974...then retiring from skiing in 1980; when my wife (the ex-wife, who is now like a "sister" eek.gif cool.gif...and

why the lack of "fellow nut case, female SKIERS" rant/whine) just couldn't "get into it..."

I started skiing again in January, 1986, renting (enjoying the multitude of "demo" skis I used); while introducing two young and athletic daughters to skiing (most successfully).

However,  the oldest decided to "retire" us all again...by severely breaking her back in the early summer?! 

Good news there...she fully recovered, and is an avid boarder as is her younger sister.

Sigh...I love them, in spite of their choice of "rides,"  wink.gif

 

I was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in 1990 (I perplex the docs, with my "lack of consequence;"with essentially no progression since!)...and was fortunate to attend a Heuga Center program, in 1993. Meeting Jimmie and the experiencing "Can Do" program itself, inspired me to start skiing again...thus my Kastle Carving Thesis 205's, w/ Marker M40's were purchased for the '93-95 seasons. 

Hmmm...private school and college tuition costs preempted my "ski life," once again. The Kastles were sold to a good friend...sigh!

 

Well, I just ran into that old friend...and he has NEVER skied them?? I loved those skis!

Is it foolish to consider them as a re-addition to my quiver...for those groomer only days; for just "rippin'?" 

"Romantically," (foolishly?!) I envision myself blasting the groomers..."an antique, on antique skis" (I'd probably upgrade bindings?).

Bad idea??

 

Also, "offering" myself (as "companion" to members of the aforementioned, female, 45-62 year-old, fellow downhill skier contingent reading this! 

Hmmm...shameless! Oh well...

Oh yeah, I have a "kinda fancy" four-season camper and "will/do travel!"

If you enjoy fly-fishing, mountain biking, boating, etc.; I would work especially hard at "smothering you" with gentlemanly (with a "bad-boy" edge?!) company, affection and attention!

Damn...even more shameless promotion! Again..."Oh well!"

 

Think and pray for a snow-filled Spring!

 

yardsale053

aka, Joe

post #434 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

^^^^ Well, depends on whether that woman skis. And has her own quiver. Might want to check with T.C. before making any categorical statements.  biggrin.gif

 

Can we spell "thread wander?"

 

Actually, just thought of a hole in SJ's thesis: It's developed around males. Average sized female will get same float from a 98 that average male gets from a 110. At least according to PhysicMan's calculator. So are the 1-oh's for males? Or do the women buy the 100 mm's and the men the 109.9's? 

"Thread wander?"

Sheesh! Isn't skiing a multi-faceted and wondrous sport. How can one not "wander" a little, in order to fully discuss and explore the "complete experience?"

Especially, if the discussion leads to a more satisfying, "maximum enjoyment" result... BSmeter.gif beercheer.gif

post #435 of 504

Well down under things are upside down so my perspective may make no sense or or all the sense in the world...if you stand on your head...

I was steadily and logically heading from an old school two ski quiver to a two ski modern setup working up to an 80 something carver plus a 100 plus for slackcountry then we got a poor snow season....the 80 something immediately became very tedious bouncy hardwork no fun....

Suddenly an old school race type ski was the best fun to be had ...once again...albeit reinvented as a short 72 waisted mid teens radius sport ski...

So all you fools talking of a two ski quiver based on a 90's and a 100++ take note...be grateful that there are some fab short slim cambered carvers out there for when winters bone gets mean

and lean...

Downunder things are looking up...The Moon Man is predicting record cold temperatures with snow to looooow levels...I am ordering my 100++s...and keeping my 72's sharp.

post #436 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Not tawkin' about wimmins skis here but........... The generic (albeit chauvinistic) standard for reference discussions is for unisex skis. Yeah, yeah, yeah,........whatever........... but that's the way it is. In the end, and within the broader strokes of ski design, women are just folks of a smaller stature. So, when I see a male customer of smaller stature, I don't necessarily separate him in ski categories from many of our female customers and skiers of similar stature and skill sets. A woman of proper skill set doesn't need to ski women's skis and neither would a fair number of our customers or employees that are more or less the same size. In the end, it's just one skier of a certain size vs. another skier of a larger/heavier size.

 

So in general........sure.......Joe average might find the 10-somethings to be the be-all for his needs. Jane A (who is minus 6" and 80 lbs) might find the 98'ers to work best for her.

 

SJ

In the spirit of thread wander and my last day of season yesterday, further wonder then if there are more "women's models" which are just shorter, uh, "unsex" with prettier topsheets. Eg, goodbye to the whole "women are really different so they need skis engineered for women" marketing thing. I think rebadged unisex is the case with Rossignol and Blizzard, unsure about other makers. And I've noticed that in general there seems to be less public discourse over "women's mounting points" and all that other mid-2000's stuff. If so, the 100 somethings would seem to be more useful to smaller bodied H. sapiens, as well. Or not? (Paging TC perhaps)

 

Oh, and general observation that I saw a whole buncha people this spring on 98-110 mm skis when things got toward corn and slush, nearly equal contingent of skinny bump skis, and nearly no 110+. This may reflect that spring conditions back here = big soft bumps n' piles o' corn, or it may reflect a general loss of faith in wider skis, cannot say. But oddly, the days this season I saw the widest skis around were the mid-winter days when there had been far less soft snow than the past few weeks. 

post #437 of 504

Agree with you.  I am a eastern skiier and skiied 60 days  on a 88 waist 16 m radius and the 98 waist (Enforcer) with a 19 m radius.  I use the enforcer a real lot because it likes to be skiied and the harder you drive it the better.  But on the bullet proof days the narrow waist is great.

post #438 of 504

neat to see this thread get bumped again.  

 

I have been skiing a ton of different skis in this class over the spring.  it has been really interesting to try and figure out what, exactly, the "105 class" is for, and when one would use these skis.  i can't say the below will make sense, or even be of use, so my apologies for the slightly rambling post.  just my .02!

 

first off, while waist width is an easy way to identify ski “classes”, I also think it is also a red herring that distracts away from the more fundamental root design function of the ski - aka WHY is the ski built/made and WHERE will it excel.  

 

+great "powder" skis are designed to offer power and grace in 3D untracked snow. 

+great "carving" skis are designed to offer power and grace in consistent 2D snow.  

+however, great "all-mountain skis" are NOT (imo) skis can do both 3D and 2D snow equally well.  great “all-mountain skis” are designed to translate power and grace in variable snow - maintain their composure as you cross from one snow-type to another.  

 

you can, of course, ski most skis acceptably in a range of conditions - its more a matter of the style and effort you are willing to put into the thing to make it work.  you just have to dial in your weighting, speed, turn-shape and leverage.  however, you cannot vary these factors (weighting, speed, turn-shape and leverage) mid-turn in variable snow, especially if visibility is imperfect.  

 

A truly competent all-mountain ski should behave predictably in a variety of snow conditions WITHIN the same run, rather than requiring a different style of skiing in a variety of conditions - what if you encounter broken snow, hard snow and powder all within 1-2 turns?  at the least, you would want similar feedback from the ski as you cross from one condition set to another.  you want consistency - an ability to trust the ski will track true, not deflect, and maintain your line regardless, in a predictable and consistent manner.

 

with most of the "98mm" class, my opinion is that most of these skis have their strengths rooted in 2d snow (for the waist width), and complimented by responsiveness in trees and bumps (relative to wide skis), with mild acceptability in 3d snow.  in my opinion, the very few truly exceptional 98mm skis are the ones that blend the “all-mountain” concept above as well.   

 

so this brings me full-circle back to the “105mm class".  there is additional stability provided by the increased waist width relative to the “98mm” class, which offers tracking and predictability in mixed conditions.  however, of the skis I have been on, not really many spoke to me as incredible as variable snow skis.  many seem to be shooting for the jack-of-all trades, master of none philosophy - changing the priority from 2D to 3D snow... meaning most are slightly better in powder (generally from being softer/more rockered/less cambered), with the associated sacrifices in carving ability relative to the 98mm class skis, which sort of underscores the "wide-98" comment i made earlier.  i felt a little underwhelmed with the  “variable snow” performance that i think defines the “daily driver” concept for most skiers.

 

post #439 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

 

A truly competent all-mountain ski should behave predictably in a variety of snow conditions WITHIN the same run, rather than requiring a different style of skiing in a variety of conditions - what if you encounter broken snow, hard snow and powder all within 1-2 turns?  at the least, you would want similar feedback from the ski as you cross from one condition set to another.  you want consistency - an ability to trust the ski will track true, not deflect, and maintain your line regardless, in a predictable and consistent manner.

 

 

so this brings me full-circle back to the “105mm class".  there is additional stability provided by the increased waist width relative to the “98mm” class, which offers tracking and predictability in mixed conditions.  however, of the skis I have been on, not really many spoke to me as incredible as variable snow skis.  many seem to be shooting for the jack-of-all trades, master of none philosophy - changing the priority from 2D to 3D snow... meaning most are slightly better in powder (generally from being softer/more rockered/less cambered), with the associated sacrifices in carving ability relative to the 98mm class skis, which sort of underscores the "wide-98" comment i made earlier.  i felt a little underwhelmed with the  “variable snow” performance that i think defines the “daily driver” concept for most skiers.

 

Want to strongly support first paragraph. IMO if a ski can't deal with all snow conditions we're likely to encounter top to bottom, and over the entire day, at a solid level of competency, ain't "all mountain" or I'd add, "big mountain." It's a special purpose ski, which is fine, but a different animal. 

 

As far as the second, not sure I see this as so categorical. In fact, think the incessant grouping of skis into width categories for purposes of sales, threads, reviews, and then arguing about it as if it's a real thing, seems counter to all we claim to know about ski engineering. Why?

 

First, because IMO most 100+ skis aren't carvy at all. In fact, they give up a lot in terms of carving. This is partly physics; when the ski gets wider than the boot, noticeably bad things for carving begin to pile up. And it's partly psychological habituation. If you spend all day every day on a 115, then a 100 feels really quick and carvy. It'll be your go-to on firm days. OK, but maybe that's a good moment to do a reality check with a Blizzard S-Power SL, to recalibrate what edge to edge quickness can reach, or how much more force is concentrated on the edge at the same level of effort. I say this because we often tend to rely on our memories of the last time we were on a narrow ski, rather than go get on one. And in my case, I can get used to a 100 mm ski so fast enough that it becomes a baseline within a day. But it's not. It's really fat and slow. Truth. And every 115 ever made is flat ponderous, if you move directly from a Stockli SX to one. I've had a lot of chances to test this lately, BTW, because in the same day I tended to train or race until lunch and then ski on a 98 in the pm. No such thing as a 105 carver (which has nothing to do with how well someone can carve it; a good skier can carve a 140). Time to face up to massive habituation. biggrin.gif

 

Second, IMO once you cross that carving threshold, other qualities of the ski become foregrounded. I think that flex pattern (not just a single static quality), and shape (here including both rocker and sidecut) become more relevant than float. Because float isn't really just about surface area. It's basically a function of speed, then to a lesser extent, surface area, attack angle of the shovel, and weight of the entire package pressing on the bottom of the ski. So your float won't be my float. Moreover, maybe my standards of how far into the powder I want to be are different than yours (speaking like a southern "y'all" here, not just at MO). That's a style thing. So subtract float and other qualities jump out. For instance, a 107 ski with a low swingweight, a lot of splay and a flexy forebody (the new Soul 7 apparently fills this bill) will feel a lot more like a powder ski in 6" of new snow than a 107 ski with a moderate swingweight, stiff forebody, and very little splay (the Cochise definitely fills this bill). So grouping the two together, and throwing in the DPS W105, TST, Cham 107, Head REV105, and Kastle BMX108 for fun makes waay less sense than talking about "all 68-72 mm rec racing skis," which in reality will have far less variance in their engineering. 

 

Put another way, there are 100+ powder skis and 100+ sidecountry variable snow skis, let's call them "all-mountains," and 100+ frontside crud and ice skis. All depends. Just no carvers. wink.gif

 

My .02, anyway...

post #440 of 504

beyond, i totally agree with you, especially comparing an 85 or narrower ski to a 115mm on firm snow, but i do think a lot of it has to do with what you mean by "carving".  when i am talking about the carving performance of a ~100mm ski, it refers more to "powderoy" (think glorious spring day at deer valley, aspen, etc) opposed to the opposite end of the spectrum (injected race course).  there is no way i would expect a ski wider than, say, 85mm to offer much grip or performance on true hardpack.  

 

i do think "float" is a funny word though... really you are either on plane or you are not.  "float" really is describing the grey area of not being on plane.  once you are truly on plane, you are free from the inefficiencies caused by drag against fresh snow - you can accelerate both down and across the fall line.  makes my hands shake just thinking about it.  

 

I don't really know anyone that prefers NOT to be on plane.  man is it fun.  endorphin-rush super-hero all-time-epic skiing.  HOWEVER, what people don't want is to have to do is ski a 148mm spoon when the snow does not justify it, or they don't ski in untracked snow enough to justify a ski that specialized.  

 

from there its just a matter of tradeoffs, and this is when "float" comes in - the grey area of not being on plane. 

 

i skied a pretty darn awesome day at snowbird in full nuclear 12"+ epic dump day about 3 weeks ago... on cassiar 85's.  if i was not up there doing development work, i would FOR SURE have been skiing my spoons. but man, i totally forgot how awesome skiing powder is on a versatile narrow ski.  there are of course massive limitations to the pitch, speed, and the amount of time you can ski down the fall line on something like that compared to a super fat specialty ski, but that didn't make it any less fun.  to be honest, i had MORE fun skiing the lower mountain (ziperline powder-bumps) and about the same amount of fun skiing the upper mountain (low density snow on top of hard-chalk) as i would have on a 105mm ski - its just i had to do it in a different way.  

 

my point, though, is that skiing a foot of fresh snow is NOT what a 105mm is for.  they are not (in my clearly biased opinion) inbounds powder skis.  their strength is when the snow is tracked, the sun comes out, the wind picks up, whatever.  skiing variable snow.  

 

riding higher (i.e. more "float") smoothes out the snow surface underneath the fresh snow - meaning you are not scratching the base as frequently, but you are still confined to ski the snow as described by your flex pattern and turn radius - you are not yet free from the fall line.  and that is just a matter of personal preference - options are great, and choose what works well for you and where you ski.  

 

i gotta say though, when you are on plane - well... oh boy.  not to mention 4" of fresh on smooth consistent base (say 4" after a hard wind event) is every bit as all-time awesome as a 36" ridiculous snow cycle.  you are in full surf mode when the resort is empty and everyone is at home.  man.  getting stoked for next winter just thinking about it!  

post #441 of 504

i don't know where i am going with any of that, but enjoying the conversation anyhow :D

post #442 of 504
Marshall, speaking of that elusive Cassiar 85, how does it differ from the existing Cassiar 80?
Also when do you anticipate the 85 will be available?
post #443 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

i don't know where i am going with any of that, but enjoying the conversation anyhow biggrin.gif

So...having a hard time gleaning what you think about the 105ish vs. other widths for that variable snow performance. Better than the crew of 98's? Worse? Is the 2D bias better here than edging up (pun!) to the 3D bias?

Or is it those mid-80's to mid 90's when you hit those three different conditions in the span of a couple turns?
post #444 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

neat to see this thread get bumped again.  

 

I have been skiing a ton of different skis in this class over the spring.  it has been really interesting to try and figure out what, exactly, the "105 class" is for, and when one would use these skis.  i can't say the below will make sense, or even be of use, so my apologies for the slightly rambling post.  just my .02!

 

first off, while waist width is an easy way to identify ski “classes”, I also think it is also a red herring that distracts away from the more fundamental root design function of the ski - aka WHY is the ski built/made and WHERE will it excel.  

 

+great "powder" skis are designed to offer power and grace in 3D untracked snow. 

+great "carving" skis are designed to offer power and grace in consistent 2D snow.  

+however, great "all-mountain skis" are NOT (imo) skis can do both 3D and 2D snow equally well.  great “all-mountain skis” are designed to translate power and grace in variable snow - maintain their composure as you cross from one snow-type to another.  

 

you can, of course, ski most skis acceptably in a range of conditions - its more a matter of the style and effort you are willing to put into the thing to make it work.  you just have to dial in your weighting, speed, turn-shape and leverage.  however, you cannot vary these factors (weighting, speed, turn-shape and leverage) mid-turn in variable snow, especially if visibility is imperfect.  

 

A truly competent all-mountain ski should behave predictably in a variety of snow conditions WITHIN the same run, rather than requiring a different style of skiing in a variety of conditions - what if you encounter broken snow, hard snow and powder all within 1-2 turns?  at the least, you would want similar feedback from the ski as you cross from one condition set to another.  you want consistency - an ability to trust the ski will track true, not deflect, and maintain your line regardless, in a predictable and consistent manner.

 

with most of the "98mm" class, my opinion is that most of these skis have their strengths rooted in 2d snow (for the waist width), and complimented by responsiveness in trees and bumps (relative to wide skis), with mild acceptability in 3d snow.  in my opinion, the very few truly exceptional 98mm skis are the ones that blend the “all-mountain” concept above as well.   

 

so this brings me full-circle back to the “105mm class".  there is additional stability provided by the increased waist width relative to the “98mm” class, which offers tracking and predictability in mixed conditions.  however, of the skis I have been on, not really many spoke to me as incredible as variable snow skis.  many seem to be shooting for the jack-of-all trades, master of none philosophy - changing the priority from 2D to 3D snow... meaning most are slightly better in powder (generally from being softer/more rockered/less cambered), with the associated sacrifices in carving ability relative to the 98mm class skis, which sort of underscores the "wide-98" comment i made earlier.  i felt a little underwhelmed with the  “variable snow” performance that i think defines the “daily driver” concept for most skiers.

 

There is a lot of truth to what Marshal says.  This winter the three best 105's I have been on were Stockli SR107, Nordica Vagabond, both are built like a wider 98, and a Cochise which is built for busting variable snow.  My favorite was the Stockli which is the most "carvy" and traditional of the three.  I'd still choose a Bonafide over any of those on a typical mixed snow Tahoe day, because the 2D snow skis manage the 3D snow better than 3D snow skis manage 2D snow, so the tradeoff is inherently biased towards narrower class for this point in a quiver.  

 

As a counterpoint though, the equation changes when you consider only one ski for all conditions. The problem is that people value 3D snow experience higher than 2D, so even though a 98 is more versatile, if I only had to have one ski, that would be a 105- just because I value my fun on a powder day more than I would on a groomer day.  Although here is where the line gets really blurry.  

post #445 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post

Whatever combination of those characteristics you want, it's easy enough to find and thus, those are enormously useful skis no matter where you live. But if you only want two skis, the wider ski to go with it has been to some extent limited in that most of the good stuff is wide enough (113 +) that once the new ski smell wears off you might not want to ski it all that much. This would especially be true on the 6-12" days which are far more common than the 24-30" days.rc helicopter


Unless you want that 6-12 day to feel like 24-30.

post #446 of 504

Damnit Marshal, your post got me all pumped up to go ski some powder... and it's May 2nd and the AC is on in my office.

post #447 of 504

***caveat*** i am the sales manager for DPS.  so while my opinions expressed are just my own, and really, i am stoked to talk this stuff through and see where other folks minds are and see if i am crazy or not... it could easily be read as if my comments are DPS marketing/sales jazz.  i am unsure, given my position with DPS, if i can truly separate my personal opinion from that of DPS', and given that my primary function at DPS is to create DPS sales messaging, i am pretty sure my opinion and DPS' are basically the same thing...  just to be honest!  ***caveat***

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


So...having a hard time gleaning what you think about the 105ish vs. other widths for that variable snow performance. Better than the crew of 98's? Worse? Is the 2D bias better here than edging up (pun!) to the 3D bias?

Or is it those mid-80's to mid 90's when you hit those three different conditions in the span of a couple turns?

 

 

anyhow... i would say that generally i see them as shades of grey. if you loved the bonafide, and just thought "man this thing is perfect, i just wish it was a little wider" then the el capo is a really darn good ski to look at - but i think the expectation that 7mm wider ski (everything else being equal) is going to be all that much different in 6" of snow is a bit naive.  the additional waist slows down the edge to edge quickness - which from a different perspective could be called "adds stability". 

 

compared to a 120+mm specialty ski, the 105 and 98 are the same thing in 3d snow.  relative to one-another, i would say that is more about looking at the rocker profile and flex pattern than it is about the few mm in waist width.  

 

(just my opinion, but) i don't think that I have skied what i felt to be THE transformative, category defining ski in the 105mm class. you take 1 run on a bonafide, wailer112, mx88 and... well, i just felt like man, this thing is magical.   i have skied a bunch of really good skis in the 105mm class, but not anything that blends all aspects perfectly - the way aforementioned skis have seemingly managed to do within their respective categories.  

 

i think the 98mm width really excels in 2D snow, not as a CARVING ski the way the 85mm and down skis do, but in the western US "all-terrain" sense of the term, where you are skiing bumps, trees, off-piste, all sorts of terrain and snow-conditions.  but generally in 2D snow - maybe a few inches of fresh on soft, or some soft corn, or mid-winter chalk.  but not 3D "up on plane" snow.  

 

to try and re-state my previous rambling mess about 105mm skis, i feel like they are not supposed to be 3D skis, but to seamlessly transition from 2D to 3D snow within the same turn.  cleanly carve right thru chalk, cleanly carve right thru chopped snow, maintain the line in untracked snow.  you do not want the tip to plane up as soon as you transition into soft snow.  you want that tip to maintain the line and arch cleanly thru it - the ski maintains your line as it transitions for firm to soft to firm.  the rise and sink between snow types creates a feeling of unsettling.  I do think most of the 105 skis i have skied falter in this style.  they are too rockered and soft in the tip, so they rise as soon as you hit soft snow and then you drop back down onto hard snow once thru.  they are trying to make skis that carve well on groomers and ski powder ok-ish on an individual basis, rather than seamlessly blending these skills together within 1 turn.  too much float, too much carve, not enough tracking.  

 

sheesh.  that is just as rambling as before.  

post #448 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

Damnit Marshal, your post got me all pumped up to go ski some powder... and it's May 2nd and the AC is on in my office.

ha, you and me both brother!  got a mild endorphin rush while typing that stuff, reliving a few runs from this winter!  

post #449 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by msolson View Post

anyhow... i would say that generally i see them as shades of grey. if you loved the bonafide, and just thought "man this thing is perfect, i just wish it was a little wider" then the el capo is a really darn good ski to look at - but i think the expectation that 7mm wider ski (everything else being equal) is going to be all that much different in 6" of snow is a bit naive.  the additional waist slows down the edge to edge quickness - which from a different perspective could be called "adds stability". 

 

So this reminds me - I'm going to contradict some of my earlier statements in this thread.  On the last day of the epic gathering at Big Sky, the conditions were pretty crappy (until we found some great stashes later on).  It had warmed up to 60+ degrees the day before and it was slush city, then it all froze overnight.  That next morning, the joke was "who knew this was the east coast gathering?"

 

Anyway, to really put them to the test and against my better judgement, I decided to ski on the Vagabonds (107mm) which I'm quite fond of.  And... they kind of sucked.  After a run or two I switched back to the Bonafides (which I'd been skiing the previous couple of days) and the difference was pretty dramatic.  So the compromise of those extra 9mm of width are more than I had previously thought, although those conditions aren't what I'm usually skiing in.

 

On the other hand, an 88mm ski would have been even better (of course), so that doesn't necessarily defeat the effectiveness of an 88 / 108 quiver.  But I do have to admit, if I could only have one ski it would be around 98 - 100mm, contrary to what I said before.

post #450 of 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

I decided to ski on the Vagabonds (107mm) which I'm quite fond of.  And... they kind of sucked.  

 

interesting stuff here.  curious if you ascribe that solely to the lack of waist width?  

 

the vagabond is straight glass, rather than 3 (4?) sheets of metal like a bonafide, so you have a ~10% less dense ski, that is probably 20% less torsionally rigid, and much softer longitudinally as well - all of which will dramatically decrease the true hard snow fun-factor.  

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 › 2014 Gear.....105mm and rethinking that quiver thing.