or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › The East Coast Tree Ski
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The East Coast Tree Ski - Page 2

post #31 of 124

I don't think I'm ever going to agree that a 100mm waist is needed/desirable for EC tree skiing.  Actually, it's the honking wide shovels that I don't like (anything wider than around 125 is too wide, IMHO).  If the width of your skis makes a narrow bump line seem crowded, then I think they're too wide.  My opinion.

 

Instead of arguing about width (a waist of timesmile.gif), there is one attribute of a good EC tree ski that I would like to add to this discussion.  A big upturn on the tip (prime example is the K2 PE/Extreme) is a valuable attribute/quality in an EC tree ski.  Why?  Because it generally causes you to go OVER that tree stump, or branch, or whatevever, that you didn't see, partially buried, under the snow.  I'm not sure that tip rocker (which has a more gradual rise over a longer distance) provides the same benefit.  I think "extreme powder" rocker would have the same effect, but I don't think "marketing rocker" would.

 

STE

post #32 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski the East View Post

Instead of arguing about width (a waist of timesmile.gif), there is one attribute of a good EC tree ski that I would like to add to this discussion.  A big upturn on the tip (prime example is the K2 PE/Extreme) is a valuable attribute/quality in an EC tree ski.  Why?  Because it generally causes you to go OVER that tree stump, or branch, or whatevever, that you didn't see, partially buried, under the snow.  I'm not sure that tip rocker (which has a more gradual rise over a longer distance) provides the same benefit.  I think "extreme powder" rocker would have the same effect, but I don't think "marketing rocker" would.

 

 

 

Agree. I probably wasn't clear enough about that in my earlier post(s). A huge part of what I like about my new school tree skis is that they have a lot of splay. Seems like people are starting to refine the vocabulary around rocker. "Splay" seems to be a term that folks are using to indicate how high off the snow the tip ends up when on a hard flat surface. A subtly different measurement is how "early" the rise is - i.e., how far back from the tip the base begins to rise off of a hard flat surface. You can and do have skis with quite early rise but minimal splay. You could theoretically also have a ski with late rise but lots of splay but late rise, although I suspect that would make for a strange ride at best. My TSTs happen to have both. I believe several of other skis mentioned here do too - e.g., the Patron. I think that's more or less what you're referring to.

post #33 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski the East View Post

I don't think I'm ever going to agree that a 100mm waist is needed/desirable for EC tree skiing.  Actually, it's the honking wide shovels that I don't like (anything wider than around 125 is too wide, IMHO).  If the width of your skis makes a narrow bump line seem crowded, then I think they're too wide.  My opinion.

 

Instead of arguing about width (a waist of timesmile.gif), there is one attribute of a good EC tree ski that I would like to add to this discussion.  A big upturn on the tip (prime example is the K2 PE/Extreme) is a valuable attribute/quality in an EC tree ski.  Why?  Because it generally causes you to go OVER that tree stump, or branch, or whatevever, that you didn't see, partially buried, under the snow.  I'm not sure that tip rocker (which has a more gradual rise over a longer distance) provides the same benefit.  I think "extreme powder" rocker would have the same effect, but I don't think "marketing rocker" would.

 

STE


In line with this thinking, the La Sportiva Hi 5 might be a great EC tree ski, though its totally not what its intended for.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fbinjGpIvI

 

I haven't skied it, but I have West coast friend who find that its a pretty versatile ski, and have ended up using it as their go to inbounds ski as well as a touring ski.

 

My own go to ski these days is the Rossi S3, which similar in many ways to what Epic is talking about a little narrower and softer than the Patrons.  I love the S3 in the woods - its best in soft woods, but fine in hard woods (I'm talking about the snow, not the trees).  I feel like I can ski any line I can imagine on them.

 

They are also good in bumps, fine on soft groomers and passable on hard groomers.  A straight (but not too stiff) tail might help the last, so I'm intrigued buy the Souls 7 (me and everybody else).  A straight tail would also help with putting the skis on on a steep slope and with sticking them in the snow to scrape the snow off your skins, but the tail rocker is part of their playfulness in bumps and trees.

post #34 of 124

A few years ago I saw a ski made specifically for EC trees by a small indie VT company, but I cannot for the life of me find it online.

post #35 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

We seem to get a lot of threads on this topic, so let's talk about the East Coast Tree Ski. First we have to recognize that if the East Coast encompasses everything East of Colorado, that's quite a lot of territory, and of course there may be some regional differences. Now if you ask me, there is one reason to ski the trees and that is to find powder, so naturally, a tree ski is going to be a powder ski isn't it? Now I keep seeing recommendations for a ski like the Volkl Kendo at 80-something mm wide, I figure that is the bare minimum for a tree ski. Go big or go home I say. What about turn radius? A shorter radius will make for a quicker ski won't it? Well, maybe, but that hasn't been my experience. You are not going to be carving your turns in the trees. You are going to have to give them some help, and you want them to be predictable too. I demoed a Kastle BMX108 for a week or so this year and was very surprised about how snaky it could be in tight woods - this was a 188cm ski with a 32m turn radius. Should this tree ski have rocker? Yes. Yes it should. Sadly, not every day is a powder day. You will more often than not find some soft snow of some kind, it may be wet glop - with a crust. Trust me if it is, you want some rocker. Getting the tips and tails out of the snow really helps free you up and give you some options. A very small amount such as in the BMX98 can help, but if you want to really rule on the days when most other people are afraid to go in the woods you need something a bit more aggressive. I really felt that the Rossignol S7 skied better in bad snow than it did in good snow, the worse the better. The mild reverse camber of the Volkl Katana works very nicely in both good snow and bad, but woe unto you when it hasn't snowed in a week and the trees have become a 2000 vertical foot luge track. That's when it's nice to have some camber. You do need the edges to be touching the snow.

 

Well, I think I have finally found the ski that ticks all of the boxes I need it to. That ski is the Nordica Patron. This ski has significant tip and tail rocker, with a bit of real camber underfoot. It measures a full 113mm underfoot and looks totally ridiculous in the liftline, but once you get it off the trail it pretty much just disappears and lets you get on with the job. Actually, it's pretty darn good on trail too.

 

I haven't skied every ski and I'm not saying this is the only tool to use fir EC Tree Skiing, but I do think this is the right formula. I'd like to try the new breed of Rossignols like the Soul7, I'd like to try some of the new Volkls like the Shiro and the One and Two (haven't heard much about them).

 

Has anyone else found the same.


Actually, Epic, have you skied the S3's? How would they compare to the Patron?

post #36 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

Epic, my TSTs do have quite a lot of sidecut once you get past the tapered tip, and they do not have tail rocker. I actually see this as a plus.[snip]

 

Do you figure that the sidecut helps you in the trees, or just in the transitional areas? [snip]

 

I speculate that it helps me in the trees, but wouldn't want to try to defend a thesis on it. Why do I think it helps? Well, most of the time in the trees I'm using pretty low edge angles. If it's really soft, then the pre-curved tips kick in and play a primary role in turning, while sidecut is a supporting actor. However, when it's firmer, a little bit of tipping + a lot of sidecut actually produces a meaningful result. By contrast, in the same firmer conditions a long-radius ski is going to turn like the Titanic unless you either get up on a big angle with some speed - generally not practical in the woods - or else muscle-in some more pivoty actions that can be draining after a while.

post #37 of 124

My favorite trees skis are...( sound of drums)... In the number 1 position... ( drums again...)...

No seriously, I really love my Hell & Back : 98 mm,rocker at both end ( not to much),really light and quick, nice edge grip and can carve nicely for a 98 mm! Really fun!

Also like my mx88: also quick and light and with nice flottation for a 88 non-rocker...

And then, there is my mx78 with the Marker plate ( nice suggestion from Dawg): also non-rocker,more grippy but still a nice flex for moguls and trees...

 

If I can, I'll use either of them depending of the snow conditions and also the % of time I will be on or off piste...

H&B: soft snow, new snow...(also good on mixed snow)

m88 for mixed snow

and the mx78 for harder conditions and more time on piste ( but also good on soft snow)

 

For me, what is important is the flex and torsion rigidity. All 3 have a nice flex but the one that is the most rigid in torsion is the mx78 and I have to be more prudent on this ski because they want to be more on edges than to skid...

Someone was asking why larger skis seems to be more appreciated in trees than slimmer ones ( flottation aside), maybe its because they're less rigid in torsion so they are easier to skid and they have a smoother flex (or a more pronounced rocker)??? Is a Rossi Avenger 82 basalt better in trees than a Avenger 82 ti ? I would think so...And that's why I've been asking myself lately Why buy experts ( more expensive) skis if intermediates skis fit the bill for trees ( especially if those skis are to be in contact with rocks and else)??? But at the same time, at 210 pounds, I don't like being on flimsy skis... Buying a ski is not an easy decision...and meanwhile, my basement is getting full of skis...biggrin.gif

post #38 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Interesting, given that the Icelantic wide and short approach seems kinda aphoristic. But Josh used to say same thing. Is the argument that the length gives more room for COM to move around and recover when unexpected lumps, airs, and drops? Cuz that seems pretty long for quick pivots in eastern trees. (Maybe I should stop worrying about turning, put on my face guard, and truly understand the significance of "tree hugger." biggrin.gif) Or do you assume that 188 will be on a rockered 5-point ski that can shut down on a dime? 

 

 

the length is good for people who have the tactics and skills already figured out, ala strong Level 8 and Level 9 . the patron can be shut down on dime, it is just so plain predictable in every conditions stowe can though out. Not to mention it absolutely rips groomers. Its only weakness is bump run, which here at stowe even our bumped trees are not nearly as bumped as the open bump runs.

 

The patron is one of the most fun 110+ skis on groomers I have ever been. east coast groomer, 113mm skis, and skier that supposely stinks at skiing according to alot of this web forum. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski the East View Post

I don't think I'm ever going to agree that a 100mm waist is needed/desirable for EC tree skiing.  Actually, it's the honking wide shovels that I don't like (anything wider than around 125 is too wide, IMHO).  If the width of your skis makes a narrow bump line seem crowded, then I think they're too wide.  My opinion.

 

Instead of arguing about width (a waist of timesmile.gif), there is one attribute of a good EC tree ski that I would like to add to this discussion.  A big upturn on the tip (prime example is the K2 PE/Extreme) is a valuable attribute/quality in an EC tree ski.  Why?  Because it generally causes you to go OVER that tree stump, or branch, or whatevever, that you didn't see, partially buried, under the snow.  I'm not sure that tip rocker (which has a more gradual rise over a longer distance) provides the same benefit.  I think "extreme powder" rocker would have the same effect, but I don't think "marketing rocker" would.

 

STE

 

 

See I guess it depends on your terrain. alot of place have basically bump runs with trees around them. Here in stowe(which FYI has 230 + inches this year) we have trees that are not bumped and can be quite powdery. I can easily ski most of our trees on my 8.5 Mag Ti but its more fun on my Sickles. And my "the ones" are the middle ground for a mixture of tracked and untracked. I can easily find untracked snow most days its been snow recently.  for me I will always have a mostly untracked tree ski(ala patron) and mostly tracked Tree skis Ala "the one", soul rider, or even a skinnier 88mm ski. 

post #39 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogsie View Post

My favorite trees skis are...( sound of drums)... In the number 1 position... ( drums again...)...

No seriously, I really love my Hell & Back  ...,

 

.... But at the same time, at 210 pounds, I don't like being on flimsy skis.

 

This is why it's so important to provide details about the tester. (Thanks, mogsie.) I might really like that ski in the trees too if I were carrying two five-gallon gerry cans of water strapped to my back. rolleyes.gif   As it is, not so much. Give me my flimsy skis any day!  biggrin.gif 

post #40 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

Go big or go home I say.

 

epic -- I've been thinking about your thesis all weekend.   First,  if I understand correctly, what you're really saying is "go wide and unstiff or go home", yes?   Armada TST maybe, but not the Mantra.  The problem for me is when I come out of the glades.  Let's say I'm at Stowe and its 9:45 AM, 25 F, with no snow in six days.  I come out of Tres Amigos glades onto Hayride, or out of the Lookout glades onto Starr.  To put it in the vernacular, I want some hard-a** skis for that kind of hardpack.  Those Kendos that you dissed in your initial post are starting to sound better, right?  Worst that can happen to me in the glades with Kendos (or their ilk):  I get stuck and stop, figure out what to do next and then move on.  Worst that can happen to me if I hit Hayride on a semi-ice day with some flaccid wide skis:  three cartwheels followed by a roll. 

 

OK, perhaps I exaggerate, but you see the point?  No glade is an island.

post #41 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post

 

epic -- I've been thinking about your thesis all weekend.   First,  if I understand correctly, what you're really saying is "go wide and unstiff or go home", yes?   Armada TST maybe, but not the Mantra.  The problem for me is when I come out of the glades.  Let's say I'm at Stowe and its 9:45 AM, 25 F, with no snow in six days.  I come out of Tres Amigos glades onto Hayride, or out of the Lookout glades onto Starr.  To put it in the vernacular, I want some hard-a** skis for that kind of hardpack.  Those Kendos that you dissed in your initial post are starting to sound better, right?  Worst that can happen to me in the glades with Kendos (or their ilk):  I get stuck and stop, figure out what to do next and then move on.  Worst that can happen to me if I hit Hayride on a semi-ice day with some flaccid wide skis:  three cartwheels followed by a roll. 

 

OK, perhaps I exaggerate, but you see the point?  No glade is an island.


I'd say the worst that can happen in the trees is one ski stops suddenly - whether do to just super heavy snow or (more likely) something at the bottom of that snow - and you do only one cartwheel before it's interrupted by a hard object.

post #42 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusBrody View Post


I'd say the worst that can happen in the trees is one ski stops suddenly - whether do to just super heavy snow or (more likely) something at the bottom of that snow - and you do only one cartwheel before it's interrupted by a hard object.

 

eek.gif   OK, there is that.  But at least I'd be stopped....

 

BTW, in my earlier post, I meant "theory", not "thesis".  Epic's post wasn't that long...  

post #43 of 124
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post

 

Let's say I'm at Stowe and its 9:45 AM, 25 F, with no snow in six days.

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm not tree-skiing on that day. Let's suppose that I have a lesson that insists on it though, I'd still rather ski Hayride on Patrons than Amigos on a carver. Also, like I said in the OP, I judge a fat ski on it's ability to not suck so bad at the things that are peripheral to it's mission.

post #44 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post

 

Let's say I'm at Stowe and its 9:45 AM, 25 F, with no snow in six days.

 

 

 

Yeah, I'm not tree-skiing on that day. Let's suppose that I have a lesson that insists on it though, I'd still rather ski Hayride on Patrons than Amigos on a carver. Also, like I said in the OP, I judge a fat ski on it's ability to not suck so bad at the things that are peripheral to it's mission.

 

 

I'm with epic. It takes fairly special conditions to make the trees worth skiing at all here in the east. There has to be a solid base of at least a foot or two of natural snow to cover up all the large-scale atrocities. And that snow has to be on the ground, btw, not just caking the spruce boughs overhead. That rules out about half of the days in a season right there. In a year like last year, it rules out MOST of the days in a season. Then the surface has to be decent - either first-generation real snowflakes (not thawed and re-frozen) or very well thawed. At Saddleback, at least, virtually all of the tree skiing is in dense evergreens at elevations of 3,000' and above, so a sunny spring day in the 40s that thaws the open slopes often does not make the woods soft enough to be skiable. It has to be REALLY warm to ski the glades once they have gotten icy. (Of course the upside is that the original snow stays colder and softer much longer for the exact same reasons.) 

 

Anyway, the point of all this is that if conditions are good enough in the trees to make me want to be there at all, two things: 1) Conditions on the groomers are probably pretty good too, and I won't need a race ski to survive there. 2) I'm going to be taking advantage of the rare opportunity to more or less camp out on the natural snow trails, so the quality of the experience I have on any groomers I have to take is going to be relatively low on my priority list. If you're the kind of person who only skis trees under duress because your buddy insists, then you probably aren't really interested in this thread anyway. 

 

One disclaimer / shameless plug I should probably add here is that on a good day at Saddleback it's entirely possible to spend 60 - 80% of your time actually in the trees. There is just a LOT of quality glade acreage there. It's not like you have short little bits of trees in between long stretches of groomers, unless you want it to be like that. The fact that we've been lucky this year and I've been able to take full advantage of that fact no doubt colors my take on this topic.

 

 

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01


Edited by qcanoe - 3/11/13 at 5:51pm
post #45 of 124

Didn't knew there were so nice glades at saddleback!

Have to go see by myself!drool.gif

post #46 of 124

Comment about trees and sidecut: We talk about "trees" as if they're homogenous in terms of conditions. But the reality most days is that eastern trees will be bumped up in the fav lines through tighter areas, and there'll be some ice both on the far sides of the bumps and in flatter more open areas that serve as traverses, or in transitional runouts after drops. Then away from the fav lines, settled, heavy snow covering all sorts of interesting features waiting to grab you. Lotsa small branches away from the "safe" lines" to whack your face if you can't react in time. And here and there, if it's snowed recently, jewel-like stashes that make it all worthwhile. So IMO, some sidecut helps in the trees - not just getting there - because once in a while we'll need to actually set an edge and carve. Sometimes very quickly. Of course, also this is about being with kids who really really want to ski the trees even if it's not particularly powdery. But that aside, I notice that not everyone waits for 6" of fresh to ski trees. If we did, it could get to be a long wait. 

 

As an example, skied the same set of trees, same day, on RX12's in the am and BMX98's in the pm. So 28 mm difference. Morning was 2" fresh over hard refrozen, glad I had short quick, 14 m sidecut skis to handle the whole deal like firm groomer bumps with a few inches of fresh on top. Some slides and drifts, some pivots, but a lot of carves and checks in the troughs. Going through the fresh, not over, and staying in places that had already been used. By 3 pm, lot warmer, refrozen softer, but fresh all cut up and settled. The BMX's, 24 m sidecut, lent themselves to a very different style, almost entirely pivoting and drifting, only a few edge sets, troughs irrelevant, trying out new lines and seeing if I had bases left afterward. 

 

Lesson? Each sidecut and width had its virtues.( Although in truth, the RX's were too stiff for the mission.) OTOH, something like the new Soul 7 looks like it's made for our trees, with plenty 'o float over the logs, a moderate flex, low swingweight, deep sidecut for the width, although not in absolute terms, and plenty of splay in front. 

post #47 of 124

We clearly need a research field trip. 

post #48 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

Yeah, I'm not tree-skiing on that day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

I'm with epic. It takes fairly special conditions to make the trees worth skiing at all here in the east. There has to be a solid base of at least a foot or two of natural snow to cover up all the large-scale atrocities. And that snow has to be on the ground, btw, not just caking the spruce boughs overhead. That rules out about half of the days in a season right there. In a year like last year, it rules out MOST of the days in a season. Then the surface has to be decent - either first-generation real snowflakes (not thawed and re-frozen) or very well thawed.

 

You guys sound like you live near ski resorts and can pick your ski days. smile.gif  Actually, I know epic does.  Anyway, point taken -- not every day is a tree-skiing day.  I just need to explain this to my glade-addicted kids....   

 

So, on the next point, epic, you said if you had to ski trees on an ice or semi-ice day, that you'd "still rather ski Hayride on Patrons than Amigos on a carver."   Is this personal preference, or are you saying it is easier / less risky? 

 

qcanoe, you may have partially answered this:

"Anyway, the point of all this is that if conditions are good enough in the trees to make me want to be there at all, two things: 1) Conditions on the groomers are probably pretty good too, and I won't need a race ski to survive there. 2) I'm going to be taking advantage of the rare opportunity to more or less camp out on the natural snow trails, so the quality of the experience I have on any groomers I have to take is going to be relatively low on my priority list."

 

I hear what you're saying on the first point.  On your second point, though, the kids and I still ski trails -- most of them not groomed, but many that are steep.  We, so far, stay inbounds, but we like to move around the mountain.  At Stowe, that means Tres Amigos one run and Nose Dive a couple runs later -- without changing skis (we only have one pair of skis each). 

 

But OK, in two weeks we'll be at Jackson Hole, so I'll test the hypothesis.  I was already planning to demo every day.  I won't just demo the "security blanket" hardpack skis (Kendo, etc.) but will also try some of the lighter, more early rise, fatter skis -- both in the trees and on the steep, scraped-out stuff.  I'll report back after the trip.

post #49 of 124
Thread Starter 

I feel like I am exposing myself to less risk by skiing the Patrons on Hayride than I would be if I skied say my MX83s in a marginal Amigos. Also, I will say that there are times (windy times) where the woods have powder and the rest of the resort is formica. The newer breed of fat skis can actually be pretty enjoyable on the hard stuff. I own and ski on GS skis, so I'm not going to make a ridiculous statement like "they rip like GS skis", but they really can be fun in conditions you wouldn't expect them to be if they have the right blend of shape/rocker/flex.

post #50 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

 

 

I'm with epic. It takes fairly special conditions to make the trees worth skiing at all here in the east. There has to be a solid base of at least a foot or two of natural snow to cover up all the large-scale atrocities. And that snow has to be on the ground, btw, not just caking the spruce boughs overhead. That rules out about half of the days in a season right there. In a year like last year, it rules out MOST of the days in a season. Then the surface has to be decent - either first-generation real snowflakes (not thawed and re-frozen) or very well thawed. At Saddleback, at least, virtually all of the tree skiing is in dense evergreens at elevations of 3,000' and above, so a sunny spring day in the 40s that thaws the open slopes often does not make the woods soft enough to be skiable. It has to be REALLY warm to ski the glades once they have gotten icy. (Of course the upside is that the original snow stays colder and softer much longer for the exact same reasons.) 

 

 

Really?

 

I get to ski one day each weekend. Whatever the conditions are, those are the conditions I'm going to ski, and I'm going to make the best of it.

 

If the glades are open, then they're worth skiing.  Sometimes when the glades are not open they're still worth skiing.  I would estimate that I skiied glades on about 60% of the days I've skied this winter.  On perhaps half of those days, I could find a decent run of untracked snow if I searched it out.

 

Although fresh snow is nice anywhere, I'm just as happy skiing glades that others have skied before me as I am skiing bumps that others have skied before me. 

 

If there's a crust, bust through it.  Thin cover, ski around it. 

 

 

STE

post #51 of 124
STE, we're not that far apart. You're just describing it from the "glass half full" perspective. If you were from the PNW and had to contemplate staying off anything that didn't have snowmaking for forty percent of your season because there was NO BASE, you'd be bumming.
post #52 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post

I feel like I am exposing myself to less risk by skiing the Patrons on Hayride than I would be if I skied say my MX83s in a marginal Amigos. Also, I will say that there are times (windy times) where the woods have powder and the rest of the resort is formica. The newer breed of fat skis can actually be pretty enjoyable on the hard stuff. I own and ski on GS skis, so I'm not going to make a ridiculous statement like "they rip like GS skis", but they really can be fun in conditions you wouldn't expect them to be if they have the right blend of shape/rocker/flex.

 

 

Thanks.  I'll test and report.  BTW, I was describing this discussion to my (18-year-old) son; he said that by focusing on downside risk instead of upside rush, I'm exposing myself as an "old guy".  eek.gif

post #53 of 124
I have been enjoying my volkl bride 2011 179's for the past two seasons as my DD (with my Kendos) and find them adequate in the trees. I just picked up a pair of TST's at 182cm and am hoping to make these my DD/tree/pow skis. I am 5'9" and about 180#. I think a great EC tree ski must be a good bump ski with some width underfoot IMO. At least 90mm and some tip rocker are, for me, what works well.
post #54 of 124
Hmm, having done a good amount of nth EC and WC glades/trees on different skis, I would agree you can use fatties in tight trees. They ski differently though. My Line Prophet 90s 186 need to be driven into the snow and offer snappy, drilled in performance. My DPS Lotus 120 190 Pures need to splay and play across the surface, you are really riding the surface and using weighting/unweighting to stay riding the curves. More of a passenger on EC glade terrain versus the driver the Line is (you are just following the contours of the lines underneath versus cutting the line yourself)

They are both fun, if you know and understand how to utilize each ski for those circumstances. You certainly cannot rely on the ski's natural turn radius for a fatty in EC trees. Hip hop hooray, ho, jump that way, then Jump around, jump around lol. Anyone who has tried fatties in EC trees knows what I mean. It's an entertaining roller coaster ride for sure, part of the time riding the contours, part of the time jumping/re-weighting to reposition the skis in different direction.

Fatties can definitely be used outside of powder - the wide area of the ski allows you to ignore so much uneven bumps/surfaces.I still prefer driving my Lines on EC boilerplate though, more enjoyable. The splay, play, smear, surf, etc. is awesome fun on fatties if you have the powder but otherwise, go with the all mountains for more fun.

In short, I feel it's doable, and worthwhile from time to time, but overall, bring fatties for 6"+ days, all mountains for lesser days to maximize fun. Any ski on snow is fun If you know what you are doing. Mind you, I know a small army of locals at Telliride that disagree and swear by a fattie for a quiver of one - and Telluride gets similar snow/thaw/freeze cycles to VT. Ditto guys at Whistler - people swearing by fattis in a coastal weather system with frequent hardback issues. Personally, I think they are just so in love with fattis on powder they are willing to overlook everything else. My personal solution of bringing both all mountains and pow skis and locking up a pair at base with a Ski Key has kept me happy in all conditions - if it's the wrong choice, I can just swap.
post #55 of 124

Great thread guys.

 

Personally I find something softer in the 88-90 range under foot most versatile for trees (and bumps since as someone said, in the east coast, the woods are often bumped up). For me (who can only ski weekends for the most part), the 98 width is bit wider than I like as the trees are frequently often not deep enough to justify for them to me, although I think that is a very useful size to have if you can swing it. Of course I am 5'10" 175 so physics demands bigger guys obviously would want to go bigger.

 

I've been looking to add something for just this purpose (trees and bumps) and the two I've been focusing on have been the Bushwacker and the Steadfast.

post #56 of 124

I won't take a fat ski (say 100+) into the woods unless it is deep and fresh (say 7"+), otherwise I find them more work than help. Tend to feel the same way about the class of 98 skis, but those tend to be significantly better at the hard stuff so it's not as much as a trade off as when you break the 100 barrier.

post #57 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by timm View Post

Great thread guys.

 

Personally I find something softer in the 88-90 range under foot most versatile for trees (and bumps since as someone said, in the east coast, the woods are often bumped up). For me (who can only ski weekends for the most part), the 98 width is bit wider than I like as the trees are frequently often not deep enough to justify for them to me, although I think that is a very useful size to have if you can swing it. Of course I am 5'10" 175 so physics demands bigger guys obviously would want to go bigger.

 

I've been looking to add something for just this purpose (trees and bumps) and the two I've been focusing on have been the Bushwacker and the Steadfast.

The BW, I only liked in fresh snow and definitly not on hard snow or skied trees... The Steadfast, I liked a lot on the groomed but have found it too stiff for the trees . I've sold it to a bigger friend ( me: 210 and him:250) and he just love it!  Maybe at 175, the BW would be nice for you... For me, I prefer the mx 88, the mx78 or the Hell & Back: a really fun ski!

post #58 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski the East View Post

Really?

 

I get to ski one day each weekend. Whatever the conditions are, those are the conditions I'm going to ski, and I'm going to make the best of it.

 

I'm with you. Get both weekend days, but rarely any week days, maybe twice a winter. So yeah, it's like the NFL: You go do everything you can do in what god gives you for conditions that day. These guys who live near a major resort - or far worse, work there - need to have a little asterisk next to their avatar. To remind us how spoiled they are. biggrin.gif

post #59 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

I'm with you. Get both weekend days, but rarely any week days, maybe twice a winter. So yeah, it's like the NFL: You go do everything you can do in what god gives you for conditions that day. These guys who live near a major resort - or far worse, work there - need to have a little asterisk next to their avatar. To remind us how spoiled they are. biggrin.gif

Lets vote!

post #60 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

We clearly need a research field trip. 

Now this is one of the most compelling proposals I've read on Epic in a while. The research team, besides us, should include a meteorologist, a student note taker, a videographer, and a fleet of reps with demos trailing at a respectful distance. Some catered food would help.  cool.gif

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 › The East Coast Tree Ski