EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Anything 122 underfoot sounds like a pure, dedicated powder ski that would be abysmal on just about anything else except at least 8 inches of fresh snow, probably more.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anything 122 underfoot sounds like a pure, dedicated powder ski that would be abysmal on just about anything else except at least 8 inches of fresh snow, probably more.

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
Nope! Only abysmal if you are hitting mostly ice. Kids these days have it too easy.  I grew up skiing everything, mostly bumps and trees, on either a 200-207 slalom or 205-213 GS.You can still rip bumps and lay railroad tracks on just about anything relatively soft. I like the feeling of putting a fat ski on its side. 
 
Someone with skills can ski just about anything, with any ski, with style. Of course you get the occasional "Oh Shit, Wew! I Survived!" It also helps if you know how to anticipate and work around on the changing conditions on the mountain. Sometimes its a bit of waiting game until the refrozen crud thaws to mush. There's a lot more to picking out a ski than its width. Sometimes its like the Mounds or Almond Joy dilemma. How do you want to ski today? Sometimes you want the nuts and sometimes you don't. When I guess wrong, I just think of it as an agility test. There's only been a few times when I given up on the ski I chose for the day and gone back to the car/room for a switch. 
post #2 of 21

I am lost without my decoder ring. th_dunno-1[1].gif

post #3 of 21

This is good. I get out of breath venting unintelligibly, and then along comes someone to hand off to. Yep, erpelsnort the whazmallows, except when the zrtalops are out! Dr. Seuss would agree. He preferred Lotus 138's, actually. 

post #4 of 21

I think this thread was split unintelligibly.

 

:)

post #5 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

I am lost without my decoder ring. th_dunno-1%5B1%5D.gif

It is code! Just unscramble the words.

"I weigh 122, just did at least 8 inches of a line of powder, probably more, and am under someone's dedicated powder ski. Sounds abysmal on just about anything."

You see? It's a cry for help! We must help this poor fellow!
post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

I am lost without my decoder ring. th_dunno-1[1].gif


See OP above = Abysmal compared to the right ski for the conditions..

post #7 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post


See OP above = Abysmal compared to the right ski for the conditions..

 

Exactly! A fat ski is not as one dimensional as many people make them out to be. On a big mountain, over the whole mountain, over the course of a whole day, you are unlikely to have one ski that is optimal everywhere. Also, I see a lot of over simplification based on width alone.  Camber, side cut, materials and flex pattern matter just a much as width. On top of that, you have to throw in the skier's style, strength, size and skill.

post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJQIV View Post

 

Exactly! A fat ski is not as one dimensional as many people make them out to be. On a big mountain, over the whole mountain, over the course of a whole day, you are unlikely to have one ski that is optimal everywhere. Also, I see a lot of over simplification based on width alone.  Camber, side cut, materials and flex pattern matter just a much as width. On top of that, you have to throw in the skier's style, strength, size and skill.


If you can't have a quiver you have to decide which is less pleasant and which will happen more often... having to ski something 85ish in deep or having to ski something over 100 in bumps and hardpack.  If you like to run NASTAR or ski a lot of bumps it doesn't make much sense to go fat regardless of camber and sidecut.  If you're likely to have and ski lots of fresh snow most of the time it doesn't make sense to go thinner. 

post #9 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJQIV View Post

Exactly! A fat ski is not as one dimensional as many people make them out to be. 

Nowadays don't think many people make them out to be any more one dimensional than 70-something carvers. As crgildart sez, it's all about what's least pleasant on which ski and how often. False crisis, stick with erpelsnorting the whazmallows, and we're all happy you love your fatties.

 

 

post #10 of 21
Quote:
Camber, side cut, materials and flex pattern matter just a much as width.. 

Ya, about that, no not really.

post #11 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post

Ya, about that, no not really.

Really? A "reverse/reverse", a "stiff, damp rocker-camber-flat tail", or  a "softer early taper, full rocker" with the same surface area will be equal in all conditions?

post #12 of 21

I'm sure.

 

Do all that to a 115 and then ski a flat 138 and get back to me.

 

 

"A fat ski is not as one dimensional as many people make them out to be."

 

 

or some along those lines ;-)

post #13 of 21
Thread Starter 

Not sure what you meant by "I'm sure."?

 

With the exception of a flat 138, I've pretty much done all that. I've only skied a rockerred 138. They're all pretty versatile. They ski differently. Each has it own strengths and weaknesses. On different days, I'll grab a different ski. 

post #14 of 21

whoa.....and I thought some how we agreed.  115 + is my dailey driver year around.   I seldom go less even when I have to carry them to earn my turns.


Edited by Dane - 6/14/13 at 4:57pm
post #15 of 21
Thread Starter 

I do! But, I have an assortment fatty's to choose from. A 110, rocker-camber-rocker if I know its going to be frozen for most of the day or almost every is fully bumped out with choppy moguls. If not, its usually one of the 120+'s. 

post #16 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJQIV View Post

I do! But, I have an assortment fatty's to choose from. A 110, rocker-camber-rocker. 

 

and your point is?

I suspect my choices are more diverse and more in numbers.  May be not if you have over a dozen in your current and usable quiver.

I also regularly ski Nov through late July or early August.  Skis change as the conditions and effort reguired change.

 

Through most of my multi month season I still ski a 115+.by choice

115mm under foot last weekend with virtual "hiking boots" on spring ice, then corn and finally full on slush..all in one day

post #17 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dane View Post

 

Quote:
Me: Camber, side cut, materials and flex pattern matter just a much as width.. 

You: Ya, about that, no not really.

 

 

 

You: and your point is?

 

 

 

My point is when I grabbing a ski for the day: Camber, side cut, materials and flex pattern matter just a much as width

 

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

On another note. I'll have people ask me why I'm using a powder ski on very warm spring day.  I'll be sitting sitting there, looking at them completely bundled up in their full-on, storm conditions winter gear, thinking aren't you awfully hot. Unzip the damn jacket, you're making me feel hot. But, in the end, I'll just respond: Because is works for me.

post #18 of 21

Quote:

 

My point is when I grabbing a ski for the day: Camber, side cut, materials and flex pattern matter just a much as width

 

 

I generally grab the ski I think will be the most fun for that day.  Depends if that is lift served or boot served to start.  Then the snow conditions.

Could be anything from 60mm under foot to 138mm under foot.  But the skis I am most often to be on are between 112mm to 117mm.   I could easily ski something between 112/117mm year around and be happy 90+% of  the time. 

post #19 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane View Post

 

I generally grab the ski I think will be the most fun for that day.  Depends if that is lift served or boot served to start.  Then the snow conditions.

Could be anything from 60mm under foot to 138mm under foot.  But the skis I am most often to be on are between 112mm to 117mm.   I could easily ski something between 112/117mm year around and be happy 90+% of  the time. 

 

Agree with you 100%. My skis in teen to twenty widths tend to make more types of snow/terrain more fun.

post #20 of 21

Camber / rocker profile, construction and flex are underrated - I agree there's too much focus on width.  Currently in my quiver I have skis that are 108, 110 and 115mm underfoot and they're all very different and serve different purposes.  One is a big mountain charger, another is a twin tip jib ski, and the other is a fairly versatile but fun powder loving ski that I also use for touring.  All within a range of 7mm.  (and yes, I do have an 88mm ski for those other days)

post #21 of 21

I am here to post in this important thread.icon14.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 › Anything 122 underfoot sounds like a pure, dedicated powder ski that would be abysmal on just about anything else except at least 8 inches of fresh snow, probably more.