Originally Posted by spindrift
Originally Posted by Ghost
You are missing that I have never said anything against wide rockered skis for deep snow.
If you want to start a thread on how great modern wide rockered skis are in deep soft snow, by all means do so.
I am reasonably sure not missing what you said. I think we have a failure to communicate.
I am saying that I do not think you grasp the versatility of modern all mountain skis. The notion that a 90, or 100, or 105 or even wider is intrinsically a "powder" ski ignores the bulk of the last decade's worth of ski design evolution. These 90,100, 105 are not "powder skis" I know this. They are not groomer skis, or skis for what most skiers ski either, you don't know this, probably because you have not experienced high performance skiing on groomed runs on skis designed for those runs.
Clearly such skis are not ice carving specialists. But (yet again), most skiers do not spend all their time on ice. Most skiers spend most of their time on groomed and ungroomed marked runs that are not covered by 6" of snow by noon, runs where 90, or 100 or 105 are an impediment to skiing and learning to ski at a higher level.
For many, giving up something like 10% or even more of a ski's ice/hardpack performance to get vastly improved performance in *all* other conditions is not a bad deal. The only place these skis provide a benefit is in 6+ inches of snow.
You might consider trying some current generation all-mountain skis in the >100, or better yet >105 zone across a variety of conditions. It might provoke you, as you play, to think more about the mechanics of those skis. About how design elements other than conventional camber with full length sidecut and a super narrow waist can influence how a ski behaves under different conditions. And about what technique shifts are needed to get them to behave at their best. You underestimate me, I am familiar with and agree with McConky's Spatula instruction manual. I also do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. In addition to making other options easer to access (smear, butter, pivot sideways skiing, blending, etc.) full rocker skis shift the point for base carving turns to a tighter radius while still allowing a higher level of stiffness for high performance soft snow skiing.
As an example in the opposite direction, I took some 82 carvers out yesterday --- it took some messing about to begin to get used to the idea that my usual expectations of what I can do directly underfoot no longer applied (fwiw - fun to play on, they offered useful technique "reminders", but I would hate to go back as a steady fare) Once you learn how to shape the ski and the platform beneath it, you have a lot more versatility, even while smearing turns in deep snow. That skill needs to be built, and relies on pressuring different parts of the ski beyond it's natural camber (or its natural reverse camber for full reverse) Your remarkable success whith the easy part of skiing a modern ski has hidden the best part of modern ski design from you - high performance skiing where you actually work the ski. As I said elsewhere, it is like you found a 1000 cc sport bike great because it makes torque at low rpm, but haven't discovered the top half of the tach.
No need to start a thread about why skis designed to do well in powder ski powder better than skis that are the exact opposite of that. Or summed up another way - skis similar to Spatulas rule powder because they are designed for exactly that. Skis like 60 or 70 something carvers suck in powder because they were designed to ski ice - the opposite of powder - with no consideration whatsoever for skiing powder. Anyone not seeing the symmetry of this does not understand ski design and how skis interact with snow. Happy with that summary? Can we skip the separate thread? I think a thread on how powder skis perform, including the advantages of a reverse-reverse, and five point design would be great; you seem to want to talk about powder skis, and we don't need to clutter up this thread with that, as it is an entirely different discussion.
My main complaint here is that skis designed to perform well on 6" inches of snow are being oversold to folks looking to ski groomed runs with typically less than 6+ inches of snow on them and for which other skis would perform better, and provide enhanced reward for learning to ski at a higher level.