or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Am I a missing something? What is the great allure to moving to all these skis that are over 90mm underfoot if you ski in the east??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Am I a missing something? What is the great allure to moving to all these skis that are over 90mm underfoot if you ski in the east??  

post #1 of 118
Thread Starter 

As an eastern skier I am truly baffled as to the mass appeal of skiing down hard pack icy runs on wide skis made primarily for off piste/powder soft snow skiing. I understand that ski companies have to constantly recreate the wheel in order to move product, and yes I understand that great improvements have been made over the last decade in technologies, materials and so on.

I grew up skiing on primarily race/carve skis and my everyday skis are either 72mm or 84 mm underfoot depending on the conditions and I could not see going any wider unless we got a 3' dump and no one was tracking it out. I put an emphasis on being able to carve on hard pack and hold a nice edge and I just don't see the additional torque on the knees using wide skis to do that worth the effort. It appears that ski companies successfully market to people for conditions they hope to or wish to be skiing on and not what they actually get. Is it just genius marketing or do +90mm skis have a place for the everyday eastern skier that sees primarily groomed hard pack/ice bumps 80% of the season?? i get it for tee skiing, but the majority of recreational skiers don't go into the trees on a regular basis.

I find that a narrow ski (68mm-80mm) is easier to maneuver on hard snow than a wider ski.

Is it a technique issue? i ski 35-45 days a year and I probably see 10 'great snow days" a season, and my narrow skis do just fine on those days as well.

As the upcoming ski season is around the corner, can someone shed some light on the benefits of going on anything wider than a 90mm underfoot ski to ski in the east? Not trying to be confrontational or naive, I just don't get it the need for them for eastern skiing.

post #2 of 118

fat vs skinny thread alert

post #3 of 118

Well, I'll have you know, I was actually skinny... before I was fat.....  :)

post #4 of 118

Phats just work better with doof doof music and  your pants are down around your knees. biggrin.gif

post #5 of 118

I'm a skinny ski lover, fast cruising on hard steeps is great.  But, I did finally have to concede that fat skis are pretty damn good in spring slushy conditions. 

post #6 of 118

You dont seem to be missing a thing....

post #7 of 118

If you're already a good skier, then just using a skinny set of sticks for east coast hardpack is a no-brainer.  I have a set of 67mm I use nearly all the time, in fact.  However, if you're not already a good skier, then a wider ski can make things more......."accessible".  I won't say "easier" but the more inexperienced skier seems to find wider skis less work to skid around rather than railing carved turns.  I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just that it tends to be the rationale to explain the move to wider skis.  I can understand why an intermediate, occasional skier would favor a wider ski that allows their day to be less demanding; it honestly does make sense to me.

 

However, I suspect most people who frequent this forum are NOT one of those types, so the "wider is easier" mantra doesn't mean much for the east coast hardpack/non-tree conditions described.  Most people here simply pick the tool to suit the conditions, and most here also have more than one tool at their disposal.

 

I will admit I have a 98mm ski as well, and I do enjoy its wider platform stability and crud-busting capabilities, as well as being good in the softer stuff.  It's also my west coast trip ski too though, but I do find it capable on the east coast.  Can it slice and dice like my 67mm slalom ski on the ice (aka "hardpack")?  No.  Is it still a great ski?  Absolutely.

 

Different tools for different preferences, for different needs, for different people, with different abilities.

post #8 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

You dont seem to be missing a thing....

   Yeah....sorry fat ski lovers, but Basil ain't missing a thing. It all boils down to the right tool for the job. Fatties are S L O W edge to edge.

 

    zenny

post #9 of 118

Are we really going to do this again? rolleyes.gif

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/118885/skis-over-75mm-underfoot-in-the-east-why

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/113541/is-everyone-going-just-too-fat

 

And many many more if you plug this string into Google: east coast ski "too fat" site:epicski.com

post #10 of 118

I think what you're missing is that given the lack of good conditions/terrain on the East Coast, Eastern skiers need something to challenge themselves. Some go tele. Some prefer to go with wider skis. The feeling of getting a 90+ (or 100+ or 110+) ski up on precarious edge and carving it across an icy groomer is something that surpasses doing the same on a 68mm carver and the skill required to do it surpasses the skill needed to do it on a skinnier ski. I think skiing on my 116mm skis on hard days has made me a better skier. It really has made me work on the "bounce" part of a turn and that's helped my overall form. Since I've started skiing my fat skis on hard days, I've actually been much more satisfied with what I can do with my Progressor 9+s, especially in deep snow.

 

So fat skis don't make sense to me. The real thing I don't understand is why some people still don't wear helmets and why areas just don't require them.

post #11 of 118

Basil, I'm with you for 90% of what you said. Watching intermediate skiers wanting desperately to "buy a turn" as their full rocker 90+cm skis tips flap uncontrollably on the hard snow surface as they skid around wiping away what little good snow there is. From the chair I would almost laugh but it's really just sad that they were "sold" the wrong ski for what they ACTUALLY do.

 

I do however like some of the wider skis for nice fresh snow days, tracked out refrozen crud and they double as an absolute hoot surfing on top of the spring corn.

 

You might just try a suitable 90-105mm ski on "one of those days" and see if you don't find even more fun lurking in the magic snow.

post #12 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusBrody View Post

I think what you're missing is that given the lack of good conditions/terrain on the East Coast, Eastern skiers need something to challenge themselves. Some go tele. Some prefer to go with wider skis. The feeling of getting a 90+ (or 100+ or 110+) ski up on precarious edge and carving it across an icy groomer is something that surpasses doing the same on a 68mm carver and the skill required to do it surpasses the skill needed to do it on a skinnier ski. I think skiing on my 116mm skis on hard days has made me a better skier. It really has made me work on the "bounce" part of a turn and that's helped my overall form. Since I've started skiing my fat skis on hard days, I've actually been much more satisfied with what I can do with my Progressor 9+s, especially in deep snow.

 

So fat skis don't make sense to me. The real thing I don't understand is why some people still don't wear helmets and why areas just don't require them.

 

Thanks for throwing in the helmet issue..... I don't choose to wear one and won't be "told" too either.

You should make your own choice and let others do the same nonono2.gif

post #13 of 118
Thread Starter 

Well said. I don't by any means want to make this a skinny vs fat thread.

And believe me I don't have any bias towards narrower skis at all. I also believe the right tool for the right job.  I am just trying to understand if I am missing any benefit based on the regular environment I ski in, aka Cannon, Sugarloaf, Killington etc.by not using a wider ski. I was talking to a friend today who is a good skier in his own right and I was mentioning that I was looking forward to using a motive 80 as my regular daily ski this season and he suggested I go with a bonafide or mantra instead.When I asked why he thought that either one of those would be more nimble and easier in the trees. They probably would be, but my return on investment would be poor, because I only spend maybe 20% of my skiing time in the trees, mainly because I don't want to ruin my skis on thin cover, and the glades at Cannon are quite doable on an 80mm waisted ski IMO. Now if I skied Jay or Stowe every weekend and only used the trails to get into the trees, I may look for a wider ski, because of better float, easier swivel turns etc. But I don't, so I value a good sidecut, turn shape versatility, mogul friendliness and of course, solid edgehold first & foremost. Thank you for your feedback

post #14 of 118

     ......although, fatter skis DO hold an edge on harder snow better (in theory, that is)...according to at least 2 VERY prominent Bears biggrin.gif

 

       And here's me without a helmet:

 

 

       lookout3.jpg

 

       zenny


Edited by zentune - 8/26/13 at 3:21pm
post #15 of 118
Thread Starter 

sorry did not see this thread.

post #16 of 118
i agree...even the president of K2 was interviewed in some ski mag i just read last week (a ski season gear review...once I find it on the newstand i'll edit this post: i try to be accurate)...and his one main suggestion to buyers was: buy the ski for the conditions that you'll realistically ski each day...NOT choose a ski based on what conditions you'd ideally like to ski in....and that most everyday conditions we encounter warrant a 90mm or under ski, not anything wider ....sure we have fat skis for big dump days, (just as we have narrower skis for hardpack days)...but... i think, given the wider shovels of todays mid-fat skis (see head rev pro 85 for example) that a well balanced ski in the mid-high 80s could easily be a great daily driver for the majority of one's skiing.
Edited by canali - 8/26/13 at 3:20pm
post #17 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by canali View Post

..and his one main suggestion to buyers was: buy the ski for the conditions that you'll realistically ski each day...

 

 

time for me to get a new bike then. smile.gif

post #18 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by zentune View Post

   Yeah....sorry fat ski lovers, but Basil ain't missing a thing. It all boils down to the right tool for the job. Fatties are S L O W edge to edge.

 

    zenny

 



It is easy to agree with zenny.  Proof?  Next time it hasn't snowed in two weeks or when there is that frozen-over spring snow, ski first with a ski that has what is now called a narrow waist, and then take out some fats.  The fats will have the quickness of a Mack truck compared to a Corvette (well, not that dramatic).    After a few turns you get used to them, but the fats are slower and take more work to get both skis on edge.  Do you need an 90mm+ waisted rocker for a few inches of powder every now and again?  Don't be ridiculous. I suspect many of us grew up skiing everything on SL or GS boards and know better.   If I still lived in upstate NY I'd buy a used fat ski and pray to Ullr I'd get to use it after a few big dump days per year, while using something quicker for everything else.  But then again, I am not influenced by the ski magazines.  

post #19 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil J View Post

sorry did not see this thread.

 

 

    Groomed turn- MA   starting at about post #106  smile.gif.

 

 

     zenny

post #20 of 118

Find what works for you and don't worry about what every other person is doing.

 

I have found that skis I used to enjoy (SL and GS cheaters) don't hold any allure for me any more.  They are a lot of work and make me tired.  I like the flex and weight of my Watea 94s but I ski in bumps, trees, and ungroomed conditions most of the time.  If it's bullet proof, I'll take a few runs to say I did and then spend the rest of the day in the Black Line Tavern.

post #21 of 118

Fascinating sort of re-thread.

 

Every ski design has trade offs. But given current knowledge and materials, skis have evolved considerably in the past few years. So let's just try to cope with reality, shall we? Anything much under 90 is not a general purpose ski, it is an ice skate. Or a ski/ice skate hybrid at best. I've never skied the "east", so maybe there is no natural snow, no spring slush there? Just ice all the time? If so, I'm confused - because where I ski, it is usually done on, or in, snow...

post #22 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

Fascinating sort of re-thread.

 

Every ski design has trade offs. But given current knowledge and materials, skis have evolved considerably in the past few years. So let's just try to cope with reality, shall we? Anything much under 90 is not a general purpose ski, it is an ice skate. Or a ski/ice skate hybrid at best. I've never skied the "east", so maybe there is no natural snow, no spring slush there? Just ice all the time? If so, I'm confused - because where I ski, it is usually done on, or in, snow...

 

Sorry to give you actual Northeast perspective, but anything over 90 is just not a general purpose ski here.

post #23 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by canali View Post

i agree...even the president of K2 was interviewed in some ski mag i just read last week (a ski season gear review...once I find it on the newstand i'll edit this post: i try to be accurate)...and his one main suggestion to buyers was: buy the ski for the conditions that you'll realistically ski each day...NOT choose a ski based on what conditions you'd ideally like to ski in....and that most everyday conditions we encounter warrant a 90mm or under ski, not anything wider ....sure we have fat skis for big dump days, (just as we have narrower skis for hardpack days)...but... i think, given the wider shovels of todays mid-fat skis (see head rev pro 85 for example) that a well balanced ski in the mid-high 80s could easily be a great daily driver for the majority of one's skiing.

 

I noticed that interview with Petrick. I thought it was rather odd coming from a guy whose company, at the time, was arguably saved by the 117 waisted S7.

 

Canali, IIRC, you ski Whistler a bunch. When I head up there, the narrowest ski I usually take is mid-teens. Maybe I'm spoiled, but if the snow is too nasty for that to be enjoyable, I'll find something else to do.

post #24 of 118
hello spindrift ... as per your post, what do you mean, however, by ''nasty conditions''? if it is hardpack and/or there's been not much fresh and/or the fresh in many areas has been all skied out (and let's be frank: there are plenty of those days)..then i'll have a ton of fun on my kastle mx78 carving up the hills (heck alot of instructors are on those widths too when there's been a lack of fresh)...or i'l have my (90mm) nordica steadfasts...i like all types of snow, with each offering me a chance to round out and refine my mid-level skill sets. if deeper snow then i'll pull out my 98 bonnies or 123 bent chetlers....guess it really depends on what type of snow you seek ...i like it all (but not wet/soggy) and try to use different tools that are best suited to said conditions on hand.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

I noticed that interview with Petrick. I thought it was rather odd coming from a guy whose company, at the time, was arguably saved by the 117 waisted S7.

 

Canali, IIRC, you ski Whistler a bunch. When I head up there, the narrowest ski I usually take is mid-teens. Maybe I'm spoiled, but if the snow is too nasty for that to be enjoyable, I'll find something else to do.


Edited by canali - 8/26/13 at 5:17pm
post #25 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post

 

Sorry to give you actual Northeast perspective, but anything over 90 is just not a general purpose ski here.

 

 

Sorry to hear that....mad.gif

 

Move away from therebiggrin.gif

post #26 of 118

I wish someone would enlighten me why anyone tooling around a ski area would care what anyone skis  with the exception of an instructor, free ride coach, or race coach who is paid to have an opinion and give advice to their clients. I think I've said that before. smile.gif

post #27 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

I wish someone would enlighten me why anyone tooling around a ski area would care what anyone skis  with the exception of an instructor, free ride coach, or race coach who is paid to have an opinion and give advice to their clients. I think I've said that before. smile.gif

 

Did you read the OP? He asked what he was/wasn't missing regarding 90+mm skis in the East. Nothing to do with "caring what others are skiing".

post #28 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

I wish someone would enlighten me why anyone tooling around a ski area would care what anyone skis  with the exception of an instructor, free ride coach, or race coach who is paid to have an opinion and give advice to their clients. I think I've said that before. smile.gif

 

I find it a bit funny-peculiar that there could be such a thing.

post #29 of 118

   I'm starting to worry that in another 5-10 years there wont be any skis available under 100mm's rolleyes.gif

 

    zenny

post #30 of 118

"Oh, look!  A carver!   He skis like my granddad!"

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
This thread is locked  
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Am I a missing something? What is the great allure to moving to all these skis that are over 90mm underfoot if you ski in the east??