New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tyranny of Fat - Page 30

post #871 of 903
Hmmm... well, that's a bit 'wrong'. I, when asked, generally try to pry a bit of information out of the skier. "What do you enjoy skiing? What terrain? Do you ski bumps and trees or like fast cruising?" (The answer to that series of questions is usually "yes" which is entirely unhelpful.) Luckily most adults then throw in "well, I'm an expert, but I will be skiing with ____ (kids or SO) so I will be skiing slow on groomers with her/him/them", which IS helpful... sort of. (Though I seriously question any 'expert' who doesn't own boots and complains about their toes touching... something... in a rental boot that is two sizes too big, but whetever.)
post #872 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

Hmmm... well, that's a bit 'wrong'. I, when asked, generally try to pry a bit of information out of the skier. "What do you enjoy skiing? What terrain? Do you ski bumps and trees or like fast cruising?" (The answer to that series of questions is usually "yes" which is entirely unhelpful.) Luckily most adults then throw in "well, I'm an expert, but I will be skiing with ____ (kids or SO) so I will be skiing slow on groomers with her/him/them", which IS helpful... sort of. (Though I seriously question any 'expert' who doesn't own boots and complains about their toes touching... something... in a rental boot that is two sizes too big, but whetever.)

 

Asking how people like to ski is the best approach to getting them on the right ski. Next in line is know the conditions where they'll be skiing. Knowing if they are looking for something new and different helps, too.

post #873 of 903
Yup. "What have you skied, what did you like about it, or what DIDN'T you like? What do you wish it did better or differently?" GREAT info to have, most people simply can't or won't provide it.
post #874 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
 

I looked at Winterpark's beginner rental ski and it has a 70-79mm waste.  So, perhaps you've been entirely right about everything you said in this thread, but dude, why are you skiing on entry level rental equipment?  Stop it.  Is it worth being right if you're a gaper?  Demo and try a bunch of different top level skis.  It's not much more money compared to the overall expenses and well worth the experience.

 

My friend just went with what the shop recommended for the conditions.  We had a mix of conditions skiing all over the mountain.  Sometimes his ski was better suited, sometimes mine was.  We'd hit some bumps that I thought were awesome, and he'd say wow those are too icy.  Sometimes I would have trouble getting up out of some heavy wet snow when it was steep where he didn't.  I would have struggled with his ski in the bumps with a narrow stance, but ultimately either ski was fun everywhere that day.

 

I don't think you're understanding. I'm not on beginner rental gear. I own my own skis, but I didn't take them to CO because the airline couldn't guarantee my ski bag on one of my connecting flights. My skis cost quite a bit, and it was a hassle to find a shop in Europe that even sold them. So, there was no way I was going to risk having to leave even one of the two pairs behind in the US.

 

I expected to go into the shops in Dillon and Frisco and find skis similar to my own as easily as I have done in the past in SLC, but I didn't. What I found was that a vast majority of the rentals were 80-mm and less, directional carvers. The only way to get something different was to find one of the few shops with a good selection of demos and specifically ask for a demo ski. That goes against the premise of the original editorial, which paints the picture of fat skis being everywhere and skinny skis being difficult to find.

 

As for your friend's story, I'm now struggling to understand what your point is. I thought you were complaining that he was pushed into a wide ski that was inappropriate for the conditions. Now, you're saying that it was fairly appropriate for the conditions. So, what's the problem?

post #875 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan View Post
 

Quote:

No. The original premise of the thread had to do with the frustration of teaching people how to use a ski shape/design (ie engage an edge, and shovel of the ski) to shape a turn, when they come to lessons on a wide rockered ski and how the wide rockered ski ("FAT") has been getting pushed by the marketing machine. There was nothing about rental fleets.

 

My revisit of the thread had to do with the fact that the MFG's are now putting out more good quality skis back in the narrower widths (not skinny, just narrower) and the ski reviewers are taking note of this and some are praising it.

 

And what's the ratio of students at lessons on rentals vs. their own skis? If many/most people taking lessons are on rentals, and you're saying that they're showing up on the wrong gear, then you are basically saying that rental shops are giving people the wrong skis.

 

I honestly haven't seen a large number of people on inappropriately wide skis in general. I've definitely seen some, but they are a very small minority of the people I've skied around. And, I can't recall the last time I saw such a person taking a lesson. Most of the people I see with instructors are on skis that appear to be fairly appropriate for the terrain and conditions.

 

I'm sure full-time instructors do see some people show up to lessons on completely inappropriate skis, and I'm sure it annoys them to no end when they do. But, I don't get the impression that it's as big of a problem as the editorial makes it out to be. My impression is that, because fat skis are more visible on shop walls and it's really annoying when someone does show up to a lesson on inappropriate skis, people are putting 2 and 2 together to get 22 instead of 4.

post #876 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post
 

 

I don't think you're understanding. I'm not on beginner rental gear. I own my own skis, but I didn't take them to CO because the airline couldn't guarantee my ski bag on one of my connecting flights. My skis cost quite a bit, and it was a hassle to find a shop in Europe that even sold them. So, there was no way I was going to risk having to leave even one of the two pairs behind in the US.

 

I expected to go into the shops in Dillon and Frisco and find skis similar to my own as easily as I have done in the past in SLC, but I didn't. What I found was that a vast majority of the rentals were 80-mm and less, directional carvers. The only way to get something different was to find one of the few shops with a good selection of demos and specifically ask for a demo ski. That goes against the premise of the original editorial, which paints the picture of fat skis being everywhere and skinny skis being difficult to find.

 

As for your friend's story, I'm now struggling to understand what your point is. I thought you were complaining that he was pushed into a wide ski that was inappropriate for the conditions. Now, you're saying that it was fairly appropriate for the conditions. So, what's the problem?

You say you have to demo to get a ski that you prefer, and that's probably true for most of us.  I don't even bother looking at rental fleets, so from my perspective when I walk into a demo shop there's not much if anything that will be narrow enough for what I want.  No matter what, I was faced with inconvenience finding a narrow ski.  Either I carried on the plane or had to drive away from the resort in the morning (arrived late in the evening) to find a demo shop in town that had one ski that would probably work for me.

 

My friend is not as strong of a bump skier as me and is happy to take my advice.  My advice was to work on stuff on some of our local slopes, but just have fun exploring the mountain and different equipment during our trip to CO.  Then he doesn't have to worry about bringing his skis on the plane. 

 

The original premise was that when you walk into a shop to try to find an appropriate ski to teach advanced skills, it's hard to find.  Also, shops tend to push that tourist onto a fat rocker ski in icy conditions that gives him less control on icy hard packed slopes.  So, from my perspective that original premise is exactly what we experienced.  If I was to try to teach my friend to rip, we would need a narrower ski for him to work on a narrow stance and work on good use of the edges.  That was hard to come by.  We walked into the demo shop and said we want to ski bumps and they put him on something ridiculously fat even though we ran into a fair amount of ice the first day.  There's no way that ski could keep up in those conditions.  There's no way I could teach my friend to rip with that ski in those conditions, but we just made the best of whatever we came across and he skied in whatever way worked best for him on that ski, and we had fun everywhere on the mountain.  He's good enough not to be a meat missile, but there's only so far I think he could progress with that ski in some of those conditions.

post #877 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post

And what's the ratio of students at lessons on rentals vs. their own skis? If many/most people taking lessons are on rentals, and you're saying that they're showing up on the wrong gear, then you are basically saying that rental shops are giving people the wrong skis.

I honestly haven't seen a large number of people on inappropriately wide skis in general. I've definitely seen some, but they are a very small minority of the people I've skied around. And, I can't recall the last time I saw such a person taking a lesson. Most of the people I see with instructors are on skis that appear to be fairly appropriate for the terrain and conditions.

I'm sure full-time instructors do see some people show up to lessons on completely inappropriate skis, and I'm sure it annoys them to no end when they do. But, I don't get the impression that it's as big of a problem as the editorial makes it out to be. My impression is that, because fat skis are more visible on shop walls and it's really annoying when someone does show up to a lesson on inappropriate skis, people are putting 2 and 2 together to get 22 instead of 4.
Beginner lessons with rentals most are on appropriate gear.

Intermediate-advanced where the customer owns their own gear. If recently purchased gear their first set of skis, about 75% are on inappropriate gear for their skill set. Of the people on said gear, about 75% are on all mtn powder skis wondering why they are having trouble carving and don't ever venture off pist. The other 25% are on advanced/expert skis wondering why the ski is so unforgiving.

The 25% on appropriate skis are usually advanced skiers out to improve their skills for a particular snow condition.

In California where I ski and teach, about 50 % of the general public that own their own gear are on all mountan powder skis. Probably not the extreme fats but 90+ underfoot, mostly rockered or very little camber. While this year, there were many more soft snow days, in past seasons, we might have had 7-10 days all season where those skis made sense. And most of those people were spending most of their days on groomed firm pack.

As far as basic rental packages, those will always be entry level. "Performance packages" for rentals will also be basic. Just a higher performance than the basic. To get into "select a proper ski for the conditions" you will almost always have to seek out/get demo skis.
post #878 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post

 

The original premise was that when you walk into a shop to try to find an appropriate ski to teach advanced skills, it's hard to find.  Also, shops tend to push that tourist onto a fat rocker ski in icy conditions that gives him less control on icy hard packed slopes.  So, from my perspective that original premise is exactly what we experienced.  If I was to try to teach my friend to rip, we would need a narrower ski for him to work on a narrow stance and work on good use of the edges.  That was hard to come by.  We walked into the demo shop and said we want to ski bumps and they put him on something ridiculously fat even though we ran into a fair amount of ice the first day.  There's no way that ski could keep up in those conditions.  There's no way I could teach my friend to rip with that ski in those conditions, but we just made the best of whatever we came across and he skied in whatever way worked best for him on that ski, and we had fun everywhere on the mountain.  He's good enough not to be a meat missile, but there's only so far I think he could progress with that ski in some of those conditions.

 

Again, you say that tourists are being pushed onto fat, rockered skis, but I'm just not seeing it happen very often in person. Most of the people I see on the mountain are not on 106-mm rockered skis like your buddy. Most of them, as far as I can see, are on the types of skis that make up the bulk of the rental fleet that I've seen in shops, which are directional carvers that are 80 mm or less.

 

If you and your buddy walked into a shop with demos running from 80 mm and up on a day with icy conditions and he walked out with 106-mm rockered skis, then that makes me wonder what the two of you were doing in there. Even if he doesn't know enough about skis to know that such skis are not good for icy conditions, why didn't you step in and take charge? If I had a friend planning to ski off piste in the Alps with significant amounts of fresh snow on the ground and a rental shop tried to hand over a pair of short, stiff, 70-mm carvers, there's no way I'd let him walk out of the shop with them, especially if that shop had other skis that were much more suited to the conditions.

 

If there is a big problem at Winter Park and Vail, then as far as I can tell, that problem seems to be localized there. I was in Keystone, Copper, A Basin, and Loveland during spring break time in conditions where wide skis weren't appropriate, I didn't see many people (other than patrollers) on wide skis. There were a few, but not many. The same has been true when I've skied in the SLC area as well as the Alps, though my SLC trips have all had a big dump at some point during the week, so there were a number of people with wide skis due to the conditions.

post #879 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post

 

 

If you and your buddy walked into a shop with demos running from 80 mm and up on a day with icy conditions and he walked out with 106-mm rockered skis, then that makes me wonder what the two of you were doing in there. Even if he doesn't know enough about skis to know that such skis are not good for icy conditions, why didn't you step in and take charge?

 

When you demo on the mountain you can come back and change skis.  That's one very nice thing about demoing.  You should try it.  So, it's not a crisis what you walk out the door with first thing in the morning.  That's kind of part of the experience.  You get to try out different stuff.  When the temperature is hovering around freezing and there's huge elevation changes around the mountain you can experience a large range of conditions.  So, it's hard to know what you'll run into and where you'll want to spend your time.  I think it's reasonable to go with the shops recommendation at first.  That's an experience in itself.  My friend had a great time.  I think many people have a great time on fat skis.  If we were going to be working on specific advanced techniques in the bumps all day, then we would have driven into town to pick up some Harts.

post #880 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 

Meh. It is ski magazine.They have historically played to that side of the equation. And look how well they are doing! There are other review sites/crews that have never come to grips with modern skis. 

 

But as long as we are revisiting this....

 

Most skiers most places should be on 90-110 skis most days. Kind of "foot wide". ish. Obviously some places might bias narrower and some wider. But the bottom line is that time and again it strikes me that the narrow ski contingent (especially in western mountains) is more about ego and less about people having fun *and* improving their skiing.

 

Ask yourself about attrition rates. Why don't people come back more? If the narrow mindset was not so prevalent in the teaching world, maybe attrition would be lower. And I'd likely take a fistful of privates a year. Instead, I average....zero. I suspect others get clued into that gulf when they compare what they are being pushed onto vs what is on the feet of the best and happiest skiers at most hills. And for total newbs - narrow fully cambered skis just cause pain and falling for no benefit. I'm not suggesting everyone go as wide as I prefer - but most places putting a beginner on a sub-90 ski is just abuse.  And intermediates are limited by such skis.

 

The real question is why does so much of the teaching community insist on living in the past and dragging students back with them? (note: again, discount this observation for appropriate corner cases)

 

There is a very good reason that the trend in recreational skis has been toward medium wide (aka 90-110 or maybe even 115), rockered, and early-ish taper taper skis. 

OMG................WTF  :bs:          Yeah, look what it did for your skiing!:rolleyes

post #881 of 903
So there's different movements on wide skis then narrow. No.
post #882 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
 

170 pounds, 5'11", 182 cm.  They are the 2014 version with different graphics.

 

Allot of my demo carving experience is getting outdated, but one problem I've had with carvers in the bumps is that they get edge locked and it's hard to release the edges and there's lots of energy to be dissipated when releasing the edges.  So, I find them harder to smear when I need to smear.  This demo below shows nicely the difference I've experienced.  Look how much more rebound there is with the carver.  The mogul ski is less lively, but smears around more easily.

 

 

The Engineer:  It occurs to me that I have forgotten to ask the most important question ("but what about me?").  In other words, for a pure mogul ski to learn to ski moguls smoothly like you, with me being 210 lbs,  5'  10 3/4" what ski make, model and length would you recommend?  And what binding and boot combination?   (Now I feel better about my posts here...)

post #883 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Hodgson View Post
 
The Engineer:  It occurs to me that I have forgotten to ask the most important question ("but what about me?").  In other words, for a pure mogul ski to learn to ski moguls smoothly like you, with me being 210 lbs,  5'  10 3/4" what ski make, model and length would you recommend?  And what binding and boot combination?   (Now I feel better about my posts here...)

 

I really like the Dynastar Twister.  It was also reasonably priced when I bought mine.  However, I have heard people complain that it's too soft for them.  At 210 lbs that could be an issue.  But, then there's this description from a reliable source that pretty much says the opposite. 

 

http://www.mogulskiing.net/buyers-guide.html

 

 

I'm a fan of the longer skis, because I'm not afraid to venture into soft snow with them.   I also feel like that tip sticking out further helps me get better speed control with some turn shape in the bumps.  I can't imagine at 210 lbs that you would want less then 182 cm.  Here's a description about setup from the same source.  I'm just on factory.

 

http://www.mogulskiing.net/tech-tips.html

 

With bindings, I've struggled to understand how they can make much difference.  I'm sure that will inspire lots of responses full of information useful and not.  I use a low din setting, because I'm not heavy, don't really ski with impact, or do extreme stuff.  I usually get inexpensive Solomon bindings and have never really had any problems.

 

Jack has much more experience with different boots than me and is definitely the person to ask.  He was just talking about it in the Korean Mogul video thread.  My personal experience is that I was having trouble getting enough forward pressure, so I went to a very similar boot that is softer (maybe 110, old Heads) and that made a big difference.  Having enough forward lean is important.  Too soft makes precision control difficult, and too hard doesn't allow enough forward lean to pressure the tips.  I'm going to check out Dalbello if I can find a place to try them on.

post #884 of 903

The Engineer:  Your reply is quite helpful and your links are outstanding and I should be 195 lbs. and I usually get down to 200 lbs. during the season.  (The end of the season before Summer sports begin is dangerous for me...)  Thanks, buddy! 


Edited by Tim Hodgson - 4/20/17 at 6:04am
post #885 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Hodgson View Post

The Engineer:  Your reply is quite helpful and your links are outstanding and I should be 195 lbs. and I am usually get down to 200 lbs. during the season.  (The end of the season before Summer sports begin is dangerous for me..)  Thanks, buddy! 

It's not easy to find mogul skis to demo. I wasn't able to find any way to demo the twisters in Winter Park. One shop offered one Hart model. So word of mouth and forums can be very helpful, and I am happy to share.
post #886 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
 

 

When you demo on the mountain you can come back and change skis.  That's one very nice thing about demoing.  You should try it.  So, it's not a crisis what you walk out the door with first thing in the morning.  That's kind of part of the experience.  You get to try out different stuff.  When the temperature is hovering around freezing and there's huge elevation changes around the mountain you can experience a large range of conditions.  So, it's hard to know what you'll run into and where you'll want to spend your time.  I think it's reasonable to go with the shops recommendation at first.  That's an experience in itself.  My friend had a great time.  I think many people have a great time on fat skis.  If we were going to be working on specific advanced techniques in the bumps all day, then we would have driven into town to pick up some Harts.

 

I have to say I find you to be very inconsistent.

 

First, you said your friend was pushed onto wide skis as if it was a bad thing. Then, you say the skis were actually ok for the conditions and your friend had fun. Then, you go back to saying that your friend was pressured into choosing wide skis, which couldn't handle the icy patches you encountered (again, implying that he was pushed onto inappropriate gear). Now, you're saying again that the skis were actually ok for the conditions, your friend had fun, etc.

 

Which was it?

post #887 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post
 

 

I have to say I find you to be very inconsistent.

 

First, you said your friend was pushed onto wide skis as if it was a bad thing. Then, you say the skis were actually ok for the conditions and your friend had fun. Then, you go back to saying that your friend was pressured into choosing wide skis, which couldn't handle the icy patches you encountered (again, implying that he was pushed onto inappropriate gear). Now, you're saying again that the skis were actually ok for the conditions, your friend had fun, etc.

 

Which was it?

The skis were not optimal for the conditions.  They were way too fat, but that doesn’t mean many people won’t have fun.  He could ski in ways where he still had fun, but not necessarily in ways that practice certain techniques necessary to improve.  Most people are on skis that are not optimal for the conditions; they just don’t realize it because they aren’t using techniques where it matters.  For example, if you have no edge grip in icy moguls it’s very hard to control speed, so you might not ski a direct line, but many people haven’t discovered the joy of skiing a direct line anyway.  When you have edge grip, the entire field comes alive like it’s packed powder.  If you have no edge grip it’s impossible to carve.  If you don’t carve, it doesn’t matter to you.  There are challenges skiing rapid turns with a narrow stance on fat skis, but if you don’t ski quick turns with a narrow stance, then you don’t care.  Narrower skis allow for performance in areas that advanced skiers can utilize.  This is why mogul competitors and racers use narrow skis.

 

Bottom line is that my friend is not predominantly skiing with techniques where the loss of performance makes it no fun.  Also, we tended to gravitate to the slopes that were more suited for his skis and away from some of the nicely formed bump lines.  I think this is common as well, where people stay away from the bumps, because they aren’t given the right techniques or the right equipment to enjoy them even though that’s what we asked for.   But, on a trip it’s fun to explore the whole mountain too.

 

I believe that some skiers would have been meat missiles with the ski recommended by the ski shop that day in some of the conditions we experienced.  He was not a meat missile.  I think it depends largely on a combination of personality, skill sets, and experience.

 

Given the variety of conditions we experienced, and the techniques typically employed by my friend, the shops recommendation was not a bust, and he had a great time. 

post #888 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
 

The skis were not optimal for the conditions.  They were way too fat, but that doesn’t mean many people won’t have fun.  He could ski in ways where he still had fun, but not necessarily in ways that practice certain techniques necessary to improve.  Most people are on skis that are not optimal for the conditions; they just don’t realize it because they aren’t using techniques where it matters.  For example, if you have no edge grip in icy moguls it’s very hard to control speed, so you might not ski a direct line, but many people haven’t discovered the joy of skiing a direct line anyway.  When you have edge grip, the entire field comes alive like it’s packed powder.  If you have no edge grip it’s impossible to carve.  If you don’t carve, it doesn’t matter to you.  There are challenges skiing rapid turns with a narrow stance on fat skis, but if you don’t ski quick turns with a narrow stance, then you don’t care.  Narrower skis allow for performance in areas that advanced skiers can utilize.  This is why mogul competitors and racers use narrow skis.

 

Bottom line is that my friend is not predominantly skiing with techniques where the loss of performance makes it no fun.  Also, we tended to gravitate to the slopes that were more suited for his skis and away from some of the nicely formed bump lines.  I think this is common as well, where people stay away from the bumps, because they aren’t given the right techniques or the right equipment to enjoy them even though that’s what we asked for.   But, on a trip it’s fun to explore the whole mountain too.

 

I believe that some skiers would have been meat missiles with the ski recommended by the ski shop that day in some of the conditions we experienced.  He was not a meat missile.  I think it depends largely on a combination of personality, skill sets, and experience.

 

Given the variety of conditions we experienced, and the techniques typically employed by my friend, the shops recommendation was not a bust, and he had a great time. 

 

Ok, so the skis were not optimal for the conditions that you specifically wanted to ski (i.e., bump lines), but they were relatively ok on easier terrain. I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

Now, this takes me right back to my question about what exactly the two of you were doing in the rental shop. You wanted to take your friend onto terrain where 106-mm skis are clearly not ideal, and yet you let him walk out of the shop with 106-mm skis. Why? You wanted a bump ski or at least something with good edge hold and maneuverability, and you took a powder ski without saying "no."

 

Unless the mountain was completely covered with people flailing on skis that were way too wide, it sounds to me like the two of you simply didn't do a good job explaining what you were looking for to the shop assistant. If the shops were pushing 100+ mm skis on everyone, then you'd be telling me about the time you and your friend were stuck on a mountain full of meat missiles.

 

As for people avoiding the bumps, I think it's because, even if you have the technique, skiing bump lines for significant periods of time takes a lot of effort. I don't think many people are willing to put in the work necessary to get their technique and fitness up to those levels, especially when there's other terrain they can have a lot of fun on already. So when they're on vacation, fun beats work almost every time.

 

BTW, I don't know if your suggestions and explanations about skis and "big" mountains are meant to be helpful or patronizing, but either way, they're not necessary. I've been skiing since I was 4. I've skied in CO, UT, BC, France, Italy, Austria, and Switzerland. I don't use beginner rentals. I have demoed skis before. I do know the merits of edge grip. And, I regularly ski off piste on mountains with 5000-6000 feet of vertical and terrain facing every direction both above and below tree line, so I'm familiar with variable conditions.

post #889 of 903
I hear princess Elsa singing at the top of her lungs "Let it Go! Let it Go!"
post #890 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post
 

 

Ok, so the skis were not optimal for the conditions that you specifically wanted to ski (i.e., bump lines), but they were relatively ok on easier terrain. I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

Now, this takes me right back to my question about what exactly the two of you were doing in the rental shop. You wanted to take your friend onto terrain where 106-mm skis are clearly not ideal, and yet you let him walk out of the shop with 106-mm skis. Why? You wanted a bump ski or at least something with good edge hold and maneuverability, and you took a powder ski without saying "no."

 

Unless the mountain was completely covered with people flailing on skis that were way too wide, it sounds to me like the two of you simply didn't do a good job explaining what you were looking for to the shop assistant. If the shops were pushing 100+ mm skis on everyone, then you'd be telling me about the time you and your friend were stuck on a mountain full of meat missiles.

 

As for people avoiding the bumps, I think it's because, even if you have the technique, skiing bump lines for significant periods of time takes a lot of effort. I don't think many people are willing to put in the work necessary to get their technique and fitness up to those levels, especially when there's other terrain they can have a lot of fun on already. So when they're on vacation, fun beats work almost every time.

 

BTW, I don't know if your suggestions and explanations about skis and "big" mountains are meant to be helpful or patronizing, but either way, they're not necessary. I've been skiing since I was 4. I've skied in CO, UT, BC, France, Italy, Austria, and Switzerland. I don't use beginner rentals. I have demoed skis before. I do know the merits of edge grip. And, I regularly ski off piste on mountains with 5000-6000 feet of vertical and terrain facing every direction both above and below tree line, so I'm familiar with variable conditions.

I’m tiring of this, and I think I’ve explained it pretty well.  Here’s my last shot.  First of all, based on the way he's skied in the past, I felt like there was going to be a ski in the demo shop that would be fine for him, and we talked about that weeks before, because he doesn't ski with a narrow stance, make super fast turns, or carve wonderfully, and probably wasn't going to get there with this one trip.  So, it's just better to focus on fun and convenience.  

 

If you always approach everything like you’re always right, then you’ll never grow when you’re wrong, and you’ll guide all your friends or students down the same narrow minded path.  The people that work in the shop live there and recommend many skis to everyone every day.  Why should I push my friend down my very specific way of doing things that happens to be different than most people?  How can I figure out if my way is better or not?  The best answer to all this is to demo, ask for a recommendation and then try it out.  If it’s terrible then we just go back and change skis and learnt something.  It turned out it wasn’t a bad choice, because my friend had a great time, and that’s what we were there for.   Maybe he would have had a better time if he changed skis, but that was for him to decide. 

 

The thing that really stood out to me was that he looked the same skiing the ultra steep soft heavy snow as he did skiing blue moguls.  The fat ski really helped him use intermediate techniques on advanced terrain and get down comfortably.  It didn’t bother him that he’s doing the same survival techniques on blue moguls as he is on the steepest terrain, because that’s how he generally skis.  If he had a narrow ski, he might end up skiing the same on the blue moguls, but then much worse on the steep soft stuff.  This is the crux of it.  It didn’t matter when the ski wasn’t optimum, because he doesn’t know how to get the most out of the ski in those situations anyway.  I think this is generally true for quite a number of people which is one reason why fat skis are oversold.

 

This is my experience and my perspective.  It happens to match Seth’s narrative much more than your narrative.  For me I must bring my skis on the plane or drive to get one option in one store in the town.  This is different than it was 16 years ago, because now all the skis are so fat. 

 

You weren’t able to find the ski you wanted either.  It just turned out that all you had to do was walk out the rental shop and into the demo shop next door.  I’m sorry that was such a traumatic event for you having to demo a top end ski instead of renting the beginner ski, but I don’t think that’s a sign that fat skis are not oversold especially for those that want to develop particular advanced techniques.

post #891 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post
 

 

I really like the Dynastar Twister.  It was also reasonably priced when I bought mine.  However, I have heard people complain that it's too soft for them.  At 210 lbs that could be an issue.  But, then there's this description from a reliable source that pretty much says the opposite. 

 

http://www.mogulskiing.net/buyers-guide.html

 

 

I'm a fan of the longer skis, because I'm not afraid to venture into soft snow with them.   I also feel like that tip sticking out further helps me get better speed control with some turn shape in the bumps.  I can't imagine at 210 lbs that you would want less then 182 cm.  Here's a description about setup from the same source.  I'm just on factory.

 

http://www.mogulskiing.net/tech-tips.html

 

With bindings, I've struggled to understand how they can make much difference.  I'm sure that will inspire lots of responses full of information useful and not.  I use a low din setting, because I'm not heavy, don't really ski with impact, or do extreme stuff.  I usually get inexpensive Solomon bindings and have never really had any problems.

 

 

 

 

Nice read by Chuck Martin comparing the Hart (USA) to the Twisters, I never tried the Harts since they were too expensive for my taste. 

 

As far as bindings, you want something with a bit of elastic travel but not too much. This is allows some slight jarring or shock absortion before the bindings release. Before I got the mogul bug, I had Markers, from mid end to high end models, what I found was that they pre release on me when I hit a bump a certain way. It got to the point where I can tell when it was going to go base on my speed, how much air I have (which was very little) and where I will make contact on the snow. Marker recently introduced their Royal series which has elastic travel in the toe piece and maybe in the heel peice. It's telling in a way, Marker either submitted to marketing pressure or they acknowledge the lack of elastic travel was a design flaw, either way its not good for Marker if they want to go after the park rats or skiers who like the natural trails.

 

The Look bindings (Rossi re brands this) has been a mainstay with mogul skiers since they were one of the first to have elastic travel. The Look PX and Pivot toe piece has close to the same travel, the difference is the heel piece, Pivot has elastic travel while the PX has none but I never had any problem in the bumps with the PX. The SPX which is the next gen to the PX has some elastic travel at the heel.  Solomon mid end to high end models has elastic travel in their toe and heel piece as well. I have a TI Z12 on one of my Twister, a PX12 on the other and I can tell the difference, the Solly seems to have more give when I make contact on the bump. I think in general, the Sollys have more travel.  Attach is a post with the written specs of some bindings, the Z12 is close to the STH2. 

 

Basically, I suffered thru Marker bindings (before the Royal series) and have grown appreciate binding designs with this type of travel. It blows when your 're hitting the line and then the bindings release on you or you know they will because you can't target the bump another way. 

 

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/119855/bindings-elastic-travel-values-call-for-data#post_1573478

post #892 of 903
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Engineer View Post

 

This is my experience and my perspective.  It happens to match Seth’s narrative much more than your narrative.  For me I must bring my skis on the plane or drive to get one option in one store in the town.  This is different than it was 16 years ago, because now all the skis are so fat. 

 

You weren’t able to find the ski you wanted either.  It just turned out that all you had to do was walk out the rental shop and into the demo shop next door.  I’m sorry that was such a traumatic event for you having to demo a top end ski instead of renting the beginner ski, but I don’t think that’s a sign that fat skis are not oversold especially for those that want to develop particular advanced techniques.

 

Seth's narrative is that large numbers of people are being pushed into using skis they can't handle, and that leaves them out of control. Your story is that, even when your friend was given wide skis, he could still handle them. Also, your story gives me the impression that your friend was an outlier in terms of being on rentals that were much wider than the conditions warranted. That might not be right, but it's the impression I got.

 

All I've been saying is that, in the various place I've been skiing in the time since wider skis have become more prevalent, a vast majority of the people that I'm seeing on the mountain still have narrow skis on their feet (even when there are significant amounts of fresh snow on the ground). Also, when I go into ski shops to look around, and on the rare occasions when I want to demo something, most of what I see in the rental/demo fleets are still narrower, mostly cambered skis, even in the same part of the world that Seth is writing from.

 

From my own experiences, if I want something similar to what Seth says is being forced on people, I have to put at least a little effort into finding it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm saying it doesn't match what I'm being told is happening.

 

Several people from other parts of North America and some others from Europe have shared similar observations in this thread. We're seeing some people on wide skis when conditions don't suit them, but we're not seeing large numbers of them relative to the overall skiing population.

post #893 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack97 View Post
 

 

 

Nice read by Chuck Martin comparing the Hart (USA) to the Twisters, I never tried the Harts since they were too expensive for my taste. 

 

As far as bindings, you want something with a bit of elastic travel but not too much. This is allows some slight jarring or shock absortion before the bindings release. Before I got the mogul bug, I had Markers, from mid end to high end models, what I found was that they pre release on me when I hit a bump a certain way. It got to the point where I can tell when it was going to go base on my speed, how much air I have (which was very little) and where I will make contact on the snow. Marker recently introduced their Royal series which has elastic travel in the toe piece and maybe in the heel peice. It's telling in a way, Marker either submitted to marketing pressure or they acknowledge the lack of elastic travel was a design flaw, either way its not good for Marker if they want to go after the park rats or skiers who like the natural trails.

 

The Look bindings (Rossi re brands this) has been a mainstay with mogul skiers since they were one of the first to have elastic travel. The Look PX and Pivot toe piece has close to the same travel, the difference is the heel piece, Pivot has elastic travel while the PX has none but I never had any problem in the bumps with the PX. The SPX which is the next gen to the PX has some elastic travel at the heel.  Solomon mid end to high end models has elastic travel in their toe and heel piece as well. I have a TI Z12 on one of my Twister, a PX12 on the other and I can tell the difference, the Solly seems to have more give when I make contact on the bump. I think in general, the Sollys have more travel.  Attach is a post with the written specs of some bindings, the Z12 is close to the STH2. 

 

Basically, I suffered thru Marker bindings (before the Royal series) and have grown appreciate binding designs with this type of travel. It blows when your 're hitting the line and then the bindings release on you or you know they will because you can't target the bump another way. 

 

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/119855/bindings-elastic-travel-values-call-for-data#post_1573478

Great post.

IMO this is a problem with the DIN standard. It only standardizes the force required to release, but often it is more important what energy is required to release the binding.

 

I also think that it is important that the "give" is elastic, i.e. that it comes from the spring system of the binding, and not bending of the binding parts.

This is the big advantage of a more expensive binding, like race bindings, jester pro or the likes. Metal parts and sturdy springs.

The same construction with weaker parts (plastic) can have the same DIN measure, but it will release with less energy than the more high end binding.

post #894 of 903
Can someone save this thread for posterity so it can just be referenced anytime in the future of the Internet someone wants to start a "get off my lawn" ski gear argument? I'd also like a bit of Red v Gray to live on.
post #895 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbob View Post

Can someone save this thread for posterity so it can just be referenced anytime in the future of the Internet someone wants to start a "get off my lawn" ski gear argument? I'd also like a bit of Red v Gray to live on.


already done.

post #896 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by dchan View Post
 


already done.

 

For both threads? This and red vs. gray?

post #897 of 903
All of Red v. Gray needs to be saved. This is time critical. Silly Luddite debates about ski types can be regenerated at any time.
post #898 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

All of Red v. Gray needs to be saved. This is time critical. Silly Luddite debates about ski types can be regenerated at any time.

Shoot me the link to the thread or the specific searchable name and I'll save it for you. Assuming your are serious. ;-) 

post #899 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastersRacer View Post
 

Shoot me the link to the thread or the specific searchable name and I'll save it for you. Assuming your are serious. ;-) 

 

Here's the specific thread : http://www.epicski.com/t/123217/whos-pass-would-you-pull

 

And here's the more general one there's also some discussion in (it's a big one) : http://www.epicski.com/t/123048/time-for-the-code-of-conduct-to-be-updated

post #900 of 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbostedo View Post
 

 

Here's the specific thread : http://www.epicski.com/t/123217/whos-pass-would-you-pull

 

And here's the more general one there's also some discussion in (it's a big one) : http://www.epicski.com/t/123048/time-for-the-code-of-conduct-to-be-updated

 

Got'em.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching