or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Are fat skis/powder skis ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to ski powder?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are fat skis/powder skis ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to ski powder? - Page 7

post #181 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by bounceswoosh View Post
 

 

What on earth is "including most women" doing in that sentence? Perhaps you meant "including lighter people"? I promise you that delicate lady parts are not damaged by use of wide skis.

 

/baffled

 

I suspect if you knew more of my history you'd understand where I am coming from. It is a reaction to the fact that when women, or people asking on behalf of women, post seeking powder ski suggestions, they are almost always "downgraded" maybe 10 cm in length and a cm or more in width from what a similarly sized guy would get as suggestions. Men and women of comparable weights will receive quite different suggestions.   IMO there is a cultural bias that puts many women on "powder" skis that just make life harder than it should be. I called women out as a demographic specifically to reject this bias.

 

Maybe we should split a different thread out on that specific topic. I find it puzzling that both on the usual boards (including Ski Diva which I peek in on now and again), and in the retail channel, women often still suffer from 2nd class status in terms of gear suggestions. Until recently, there were not even decent skis/lengths to discuss since "women's" designs have generally trailed by a few years. But then there is the question of whether "women's" models even make sense...

 

FWIW, my spouse will, more often than not, choose a 177 Praxis Protest on big days (like yesterday...). And on choppy days, usually a 182 GPO. If Keith made a 177 GPO, I suspect she'd ski that a whole bunch - but she likes the ski and 182 is as short as that ski gets (from what I can tell, the 175-ish space seems to suffer from the fact that many women are told a ski that size is too big for them and many guys seem to feel that a mid 170-something length is not manly enough - so that model stops at 182...). She's also been messing about with 176 Volkl Ones a bit.

 

Sorry about any confusion... If you still think I'm off base - feel free to pound on me...

post #182 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post
 

prove it. 


it's common sense.

post #183 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 

 

I suspect if you knew more of my history you'd understand where I am coming from. It is a reaction to the fact that when women, or people asking on behalf of women, post seeking powder ski suggestions, they are almost always "downgraded" maybe 10 cm in length and a cm or more in width from what a similarly sized guy would get as suggestions. Men and women of comparable weights will receive quite different suggestions.   IMO there is a cultural bias that puts many women on "powder" skis that just make life harder than it should be. I called women out as a demographic specifically to reject this bias.

 

Maybe we should split a different thread out on that specific topic. I find it puzzling that both on the usual boards (including Ski Diva which I peek in on now and again), and in the retail channel, women often still suffer from 2nd class status in terms of gear suggestions. Until recently, there were not even decent skis/lengths to discuss since "women's" designs have generally trailed by a few years. But then there is the question of whether "women's" models even make sense...

 

FWIW, my spouse will, more often than not, choose a 177 Praxis Protest on big days (like yesterday...). And on choppy days, usually a 182 GPO. If Keith made a 177 GPO, I suspect she'd ski that a whole bunch - but she likes the ski and 182 is as short as that ski gets (from what I can tell, the 175-ish space seems to suffer from the fact that many women are told a ski that size is too big for them and many guys seem to feel that a mid 170-something length is not manly enough - so that model stops at 182...). She's also been messing about with 176 Volkl Ones a bit.

 

Sorry about any confusion... If you still think I'm off base - feel free to pound on me...


Clear candidate for a 176 Billygoat.

post #184 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post
 

prove it. 


it's common sense.

how about science? nah common sense is much easier... Thumbs Up

post #185 of 203

Some things can't be proven, just observed.

post #186 of 203

umh no.

look at studies on shape skis and ACL injuries, look at the mechanical effects of a larger ski at the base of the leg-boot/binding lever.
The science is there ;)

post #187 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bounceswoosh View Post
 

 

What on earth is "including most women" doing in that sentence? Perhaps you meant "including lighter people"? I promise you that delicate lady parts are not damaged by use of wide skis.

 

/baffled

 

I suspect if you knew more of my history you'd understand where I am coming from. It is a reaction to the fact that when women, or people asking on behalf of women, post seeking powder ski suggestions, they are almost always "downgraded" maybe 10 cm in length and a cm or more in width from what a similarly sized guy would get as suggestions. Men and women of comparable weights will receive quite different suggestions.   IMO there is a cultural bias that puts many women on "powder" skis that just make life harder than it should be. I called women out as a demographic specifically to reject this bias.

 

Maybe we should split a different thread out on that specific topic. I find it puzzling that both on the usual boards (including Ski Diva which I peek in on now and again), and in the retail channel, women often still suffer from 2nd class status in terms of gear suggestions. Until recently, there were not even decent skis/lengths to discuss since "women's" designs have generally trailed by a few years. But then there is the question of whether "women's" models even make sense...

 

FWIW, my spouse will, more often than not, choose a 177 Praxis Protest on big days (like yesterday...). And on choppy days, usually a 182 GPO. If Keith made a 177 GPO, I suspect she'd ski that a whole bunch - but she likes the ski and 182 is as short as that ski gets (from what I can tell, the 175-ish space seems to suffer from the fact that many women are told a ski that size is too big for them and many guys seem to feel that a mid 170-something length is not manly enough - so that model stops at 182...). She's also been messing about with 176 Volkl Ones a bit.

 

Sorry about any confusion... If you still think I'm off base - feel free to pound on me...

 

I was worried you were coming from some other direction - what you've just said makes perfect sense to me, and I totally agree!  Right now my two skis are the Sick Day 110 and the Gypsy (125 underfoot), with The Ski on the way because I have finally admitted to myself that there are some rare situations where fatties are somewhat suboptimal.

 

BTW, I did some research and as near as I can tell the 172 length Line Sick Day 110 and Pandora are nearly identical, except the graphics and that the Sick Day 110 is more expensive.  I liked the treehouse graphic and thought maybe somehow the increased pricetag would translate to a slightly stiffer ski, so I went with the SD110. They look like the skis Tank Girl would use, if there were water in her world.

post #188 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post
 

umh no.

look at studies on shape skis and ACL injuries, look at the mechanical effects of a larger ski at the base of the leg-boot/binding lever.
The science is there ;)


This is a soft snow conversation. The mechanics have different variables. Hard snow conversation is that way ------------>

post #189 of 203

right... 
:rolleyes

post #190 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post
 

how about science? nah common sense is much easier... Thumbs Up

 

The nut of the theory of operation is here. It is readily mapped into hybrid designs.

 

But all you have to do is use a range of modern skis in a range of conditions and the reality becomes deeply self-evident. Unless you are driven by some sort of ski instruction or technique religion that is blind to reality.

post #191 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post
 

umh no.

look at studies on shape skis and ACL injuries, look at the mechanical effects of a larger ski at the base of the leg-boot/binding lever.
The science is there ;)

 

I thought we were discussing this: "Wider ski's with some tip rocker will be more easily maneuvered than a traditional ski" - not the other stuff.

post #192 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post

 
umh no.


look at studies on shape skis and ACL injuries, look at the mechanical effects of a larger ski at the base of the leg-boot/binding lever.

The science is there wink.gif

I thought we were discussing this: "Wider ski's with some tip rocker will be more easily maneuvered than a traditional ski" - not the other stuff.
Oh, no lol
different arguments! That I agree, rocker reduces the running length of the ski helping initiation and making the ski easier to turn.
post #193 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post


Oh, no lol
different arguments! That I agree, rocker reduces the running length of the ski helping initiation and making the ski easier to turn.

 

:D

 

More then the running length - but yeah, that's right up there.

 

Pretty sure no one here is arguing that a fat reverse/reverse ski is an ideal tool for ice!

post #194 of 203

In terms of length....well we've drifted far from the tree seeing as the OP was 14. lol, but carry on. (note the dramatic wording of the title which really has only one easy answer - no)

 

In terms of injuries in powder...that article linked had Brad Holmes? talking about the increased risk with increased speed going wider.

All forces on the skier would be greater since there is more push back from more surface area.

On the other hand, narrow could tend to burrow in and let the skier's body come over thus mangling the knee.

 

I think the upshot is probably with wide on powder you do more and at higher speed and that increases the risk just like if you did the same on groomers with narrow skis.

post #195 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post
 


This is a soft snow conversation. The mechanics have different variables. Hard snow conversation is that way ------------>

Bingo, we have a winner----------> exit stage left! ;)  Two very different conversations. 

post #196 of 203
One ski is never enough.
post #197 of 203

   Today we had only 5-10 inches of light fluff -15 snow. I started on my 110 faction 3 zeros and switched to my 90cm at the foot Helldivers when things got chopped up. All in all a perfect day. Ripped some extreme lines with the mountain owners son whos 23 and that was wild and scary as heck!! Hes a crazy good snow boarder and I was on skis and death was there if we messed up!! What an exhilarating few runs. I was just trying to go were he knew as he rides the mountain when no ones there and was brought up living on it. Figured he was just doing his thing. Then he said that was sketchy as hell to me laughing and I thought holly crap even he was scared!! haha  As for what what said about skinny skis in 40+ days. Are you kidding me there is no comparison. Anyone who says sub 80 skis in 40+ inches of snow is just fine compared to having a rockered super7 on for instance hasn't skied that ski in truly deep snow. Its like a religious experience. Even like porn maybe? You can get away with 100-110 but the guy on the 115++++ at the foot is going to look like a pro compared to you even if your the same level of skier in 40+ days.And at the end of the day the wider ski guy will still have legs to do it all over again.

post #198 of 203

i am an east coast skier and my a-ha moment was that i really noticed a  difference between a 90ish underfoot vs a 106-110 underfoot.  In deeper stuff (which we don't get often) that little bit of extra width makes the skies glide right over those rock solid frozen huge bumps that are just peeking out above the fresh stuff.  And, like others have said, the wide boards really make skiing the cut up stuff super fun.   I found that after i got used to skiing the cut up stuff with my wider boards, I was able to ski that same stuff with a lot more confidence on my 90ish daily drivers.  I can now make smoother, more confident turns at higher speeds in the crud.  I think the fatties have helped.  And they are just simply more fun for an intermediate guy like myself.  Some might say that 90 underfoot is wide enough.  That debate will go on for an eternity.  My .02

post #199 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by whipper View Post
 

   Today we had only 5-10 inches of light fluff -15 snow. I started on my 110 faction 3 zeros and switched to my 90cm at the foot Helldivers when things got chopped up. All in all a perfect day. Ripped some extreme lines with the mountain owners son whos 23 and that was wild and scary as heck!! Hes a crazy good snow boarder and I was on skis and death was there if we messed up!! What an exhilarating few runs. I was just trying to go were he knew as he rides the mountain when no ones there and was brought up living on it. Figured he was just doing his thing. Then he said that was sketchy as hell to me laughing and I thought holly crap even he was scared!! haha  As for what what said about skinny skis in 40+ days. Are you kidding me there is no comparison. Anyone who says sub 80 skis in 40+ inches of snow is just fine compared to having a rockered super7 on for instance hasn't skied that ski in truly deep snow. Its like a religious experience. Even like porn maybe? You can get away with 100-110 but the guy on the 115++++ at the foot is going to look like a pro compared to you even if your the same level of skier in 40+ days.And at the end of the day the wider ski guy will still have legs to do it all over again.

very true about the legs being fresh.  And when you are skiing the deeper stuff, you never want to stop, no matter how tired you are!

post #200 of 203

switching to post on Lady Salina :p Boot was on my pc.

post #201 of 203

Bah here i go again.  I had a nice long post about females and ski length but i put it under boot lol.  I had the chance to try out several wide and long men's powder skis and the odd lady's model a couple of years ago.  Let me say that the average woman in the US height is 5'5" and man is 5'10.5".  This varies by race.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height .  Currently FIS women's slalom skis are 155 and men's are 165.  I can tell you when I ski on boots slalom skis, at 165 when the rebound kicks me I have to be ready, my 158's are nice and sure notice like the energy and my ability to control it better.  I am average... I am not a light weight though, at 140 to 150 lbs and 5'5'.

 

On the powder boards.  When I ordered my all mountain western ski I was going to order the women's version of the Head Johnny 94 but it was suggested I get the men's to get the 173, women's didn't go up to that, so I had more float for the amount of snow that I would be skiing.  

 

They worked great.  The powder boards I tried on several days of snow fall over 3' though, which were longer and meant for the men coming out to cat ski I found stiff and wide and more like a feeling of 2x4's on my feet.  I could ski them, I just didn't find them floaty and fun, more floaty and hold on and surf them.  I surfed them but I didn't feel I directed them.  The only one I really liked was a K2 Kung Fu Ja which had a center mount.  I spent a lot of that day in trees with the ski and there was 3' of fresh snow and they were floaty fast and turned industriously for me but were not as wide under foot as other models for powder, were very similar to my every day ski.

 

I believe the height different from men and women is probably the biggest performance difference in the ski.  A man's ski is engineered for a person of more weight and height in particular.  I think Height plays a role.  If you are a shorter male, under 5'6" you probably should try out shorter skis, especially if you are lighter weight.  Up to a 110 underfoot I felt good on, when i got up to the 120 and 130 underfoot I just didn't like the feel... again they were all 180 plus in length also that I tried.    

post #202 of 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by lady_Salina View Post

 

On the powder boards.  When I ordered my all mountain western ski I was going to order the women's version of the Head Johnny 94 but it was suggested I get the men's to get the 173, women's didn't go up to that, so I had more float for the amount of snow that I would be skiing.  

 

They worked great.  The powder boards I tried on several days of snow fall over 3' though, which were longer and meant for the men coming out to cat ski I found stiff and wide and more like a feeling of 2x4's on my feet.  I could ski them, I just didn't find them floaty and fun, more floaty and hold on and surf them.  I surfed them but I didn't feel I directed them.  The only one I really liked was a K2 Kung Fu Ja which had a center mount.  I spent a lot of that day in trees with the ski and there was 3' of fresh snow and they were floaty fast and turned industriously for me but were not as wide under foot as other models for powder, were very similar to my every day ski.

 

I believe the height different from men and women is probably the biggest performance difference in the ski.  A man's ski is engineered for a person of more weight and height in particular.  I think Height plays a role.  If you are a shorter male, under 5'6" you probably should try out shorter skis, especially if you are lighter weight.  Up to a 110 underfoot I felt good on, when i got up to the 120 and 130 underfoot I just didn't like the feel... again they were all 180 plus in length also that I tried.    

 

I'm 5'5, 190lbs, and my powder skis are 125 waist, 170 length. When I first got them, they skied me, much as you describe.  I didn't like them. Fast forward two seasons, and this season I am *loving* them.  If you thought 120/130 was too wide, maybe try something in the 170s. I am kind of wondering if mine should be 180, since my daily driver is now 172 ... but when I got the powder skis, I was skiing a lot shorter.

post #203 of 203
I have a 132 wide Kuro and a 110 wide Sanouk and spec wise they are so different...one is a fat tipped pintail with side cut and full rocker while the Sanouk is a fork tailed straight no side cut (R=45ish) wet noodle with flat camber... Yet both are so much fun in power for different reasons. I would say that the softness of the Sanouk deffently gives it a grin factor hard to describe where the Kuro feels more like a snowboard gliding above all. I guess I didn't realize that flex of the ski has such a big factor on how a ski behaves and floats .... Not just pure width.
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 › Are fat skis/powder skis ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to ski powder?