or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What's the "hot" category for 2016?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's the "hot" category for 2016? - Page 2

post #31 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
 

 

Gotta check those out.  I don't carry enough body fat to stay warm in windy, cold Bachelor conditions. 

 

I can spear some...

post #32 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
 

 

Yeah, 95mm seems to have a ton of good skis!  But really, what is the difference between that and the 98mm category?  Anyone know if there is a legitimate design difference, or just come companies went 95, others 98? I can't imagine any of us could really feel 3mm of difference outside of an ice rink, but then again, there is no rule that a ski has to be a certain width. The whole 98mm thing was puzzling, as somehow 100mm was "too" wide and 99mm too close to 100, so they chose 98mm.  

 

Maybe someone can do a historical chart of skis the past 10 years; we can see where they land!  The Blizzard Atlas was 94mm I believe, as was the Dynastar Mythic; both good widths. I think the old Legend Pro was 94 at one time as well.  Seemed like a good resort width. As did 98mm. 

I am surprised no one corrected it yet, the Mythic was 88 underfoot, and a shining example of the "crazy 88" category (not counting the Kastle MX88 of course).  I think the natural reference point in the ski widths is indeed 98, because its the width of a typical expert level ski boot last.  So 88 are "a bit narrower", the 105s are just a tad wider, and 98-95s are about the boot width.  I personally don't see a difference between 98 and 95, a true connoisseur feet may think otherwise. 

post #33 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

I am surprised no one corrected it yet, the Mythic was 88 underfoot, and a shining example of the "crazy 88" category (not counting the Kastle MX88 of course).  I think the natural reference point in the ski widths is indeed 98, because its the width of a typical expert level ski boot last.  So 88 are "a bit narrower", the 105s are just a tad wider, and 98-95s are about the boot width.  I personally don't see a difference between 98 and 95, a true connoisseur feet may think otherwise. 

No big deal, but 'expert boots' come in several last widths from about 93 through a generous 100~102 Even the mythical 98 gets wider over a 26/26.5 shell.
post #34 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by trailtrimmer View Post
 



I'm with ya!  I'm guessing 75 to 88 is going to be the trend for the next few years.  Fats are fun on new snow, but they are overkill for most rec skiers and those east of the rockies.


Not so quick here...   McConkey was the one of the first first to realize the benefit of skiing wider skis not just in powder but in everyday mank conditions.  My father, when he was still skiing, loved his soft fat Solly Guns and he never ventured off the groomers.  For him it was just like getting full suspension added to his skis.  Regardless of what fat skis do for technique, they do make the skiing experience different and in most cases easier and more enjoyable for the general public.  Sure, a narrow carver feels way more enjoyable on a groomer to a skier with even moderate amount of technique, but not everyone is in the same league. Fat skis also opened up off-piste skiing in crud to a whole lot of people who would not be there otherwise.  

post #35 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


No big deal, but 'expert boots' come in several last widths from about 93 through a generous 100~102 Even the mythical 98 gets wider over a 26/26.5 shell.

True.  So do the expert skis :-)  The perception and the prevailing trend although is to make most of that type of a boot in a 98, won't you agree? 

post #36 of 37
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post
 

I am surprised no one corrected it yet, the Mythic was 88 underfoot, and a shining example of the "crazy 88" category (not counting the Kastle MX88 of course).  I think the natural reference point in the ski widths is indeed 98, because its the width of a typical expert level ski boot last.  So 88 are "a bit narrower", the 105s are just a tad wider, and 98-95s are about the boot width.  I personally don't see a difference between 98 and 95, a true connoisseur feet may think otherwise. 

 

Correct!  Was thinking of the Legend 94!  The Mythic Rider goes WAAAY back, 2007 right? 

post #37 of 37
Yes, it goes way back when it was considered a fat ski. Last ski I bought from SierraJim when he was still in Sacramento.
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 › What's the "hot" category for 2016?