Originally Posted by spindrift
1) ...but has focused on the joys of skis in pure ice. So really it seems to be about a bunch of folks singing the praises of ice skates.
2) There is no longer any serious discussion to be had about the virtues of materially sub-90 (88 is probably close enough that we could say 88) skis for anything other than ice.
3) Look around without blinders. Ignoring truly specialized uses (racing, focused technical carving,etc), the best skiers on almost any mountain these days are on fatter modern design skis. Often quite a bit fatter.
4) I can see the virtues of really narrow skis on ice. Or truly extreme hardback. But for normal skiing, including skiing where the snow is soft enough to leave a "trench", modern designs dominate the market for a reason. And not because of any big manufacturer conspiracy. This was clearly more of a "pull" rather than a "push" transition.
5) As always, I believe people should ski what gives them fun. And if that is a narrow ski, cool. That is, however, different than spreading misinformation abut modern ski design and utility. Or encouraging relative newbs to learn on antiquated and less effective designs because of outdated mythology.
6) Any shop selling sub-90 (ok, 88) skis as all-around or beginner skis is doing their customers a disservice IMO. And that's on the narrow end.
Spin, I know you like to make sweeping generalizations, and I assume it's to stir the pot. But your strategy can get wearisome. So I'll bite, consider myself stirred, and comment on the illogic of 6 statements (which I numbered in bold) that you made:
1) Straw man argument. I mentioned ice skates in passing to illustrate why my numerical model, which shows more edge pressure as the ski's width drops, makes sense of everyday praxis. No one is singing their praises, whatever that even means. You're also attempting a false dichotomy here and elsewhere by setting up two extremes (ice/non-ice) as the only ways of defining ski conditions.
2) Petitio principii (begging the question) in which an umproven conclusion is offered as a premise. In fact, Epic's threads and other review sites are full of serious discussion about the utility of <88 mm skis, and recent sales figures cited by SJ, and Ski, among others, indicate that sales of fat skis over 100-something are off. And again, you are stressing ice; that false dichotomy again.
3) Ad hominem argument about blinders (assumption being that anyone who doesn't support your argument about skis under your 88 mm limit is deluded or ignorant). Followed by unsubstantiated claim about the "best skiers" sometimes called Cherry Picking; picking a specific case you're familiar with and ignoring all other cases that may contradict it. Also, elements of a Single Cause fallacy here, in that you assume that all good skiers are on wide skis for the same reason, which is the reason you're arguing, they perform better in all conditions except ice. So even if all "best skiers" are on wide skis, you do not provide any evidence that they are for the reason's you're arguing.
4) Your use of the phrase "normal skiing" is an Equivocation (using a single term that has multiple meanings), because you're clearly trying to get the reader to buy the converse, that snow firm enough not to allow much of a trench is "non-normal." Now consider that a sharp edge will "trench" sheer ice, only the effect is a very small trench, best viewed from a distance of a few inches. Or that deep powder will also "trench" temporarily before the upper walls collapse. Or that firm, but not icy groomers, will produce small trenches. Or that the ability to produce a trench is highly dependent on skill set. So you have two very broad, vague definitions, each dependent on the other.
5) Terms like "misinformation," and "antiquated" are being used pejoratively, and definitional parts of an argumentum ad consequentiam, in which negative or positive consequences are said to follow from pursuing some course of action, such as buying narrow or wide skis, that you're advocating. We all realize you see yourself as very cool and modern, and anyone who doesn't buy your narrative as luddites, but that won't support the arguments you're making.
6) You insert "IMO" to make the argument apparently unfalsifiable. But the argument remains a classic inductive fallacy ("Hasty Generalization") in which the unsupported premises only vaguely support the conclusion, regardless of whether it's your opinion. More generally, "IMO" and "IMHO" do not protect a fallacious argument. They merely signal that you wish to distance yourself from the probability that others will disagree with your argument.
More generally, I notice that your ideological attachment to wide skis leads you to a slew of ad hominem attacks on others who do not share your enthusiasm. You disparage their skiing, their connection to technology, and keep restating your conclusions argumentum ad nauseam (argument from repetition).
But other than that, you're really effective...