or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Can ~90mm underfoot handle powder?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can ~90mm underfoot handle powder? - Page 2

post #31 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post


Yeah, no.

1. A powder ski allows one to do things impossible on a skinny full camber ski.

2. By bringing the speed needed to float the ski WAY(!!!) down, a powder ski becomes controllable and playful at much lower speeds than skinnies. A nice wide powder ski is the tool for those that want to go slower, not faster.

Why does every thread about a ski wider than 70mm have to get polluted with simply garbage info on this site lately?


It is worth noting that a wide properly shaped powder ski increases your options - fast or slow. -TRUE

High speed, high edge angle "carving" is impossible in powder on narrower conventional skis. - :bs:

 

Low speed slarves are likewise improbable..-TRUE..

A real powder ski offers infinitely more options in powder. Of course, there is no free lunch..-TRUE

 

To the OP, the question is not whether or not such a ski can "handle" powder. It is about how well. And about your preferences and choices. 

post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_SSS View Post
 

Years ago advanced skiers all skied powder with much narrower skis and did so efficiently looking good.  

 

Looking good is subjective. But there is no way anyone skied deep powder efficiently on those narrower skis. Certainly not by today's standards.

:bs:

post #33 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino View Post
 

no - You need to buy my 181 Sickles and Look Pivot 14 bindings.  PM me for info. 

 

Haha. I just bought some Rossi FKS 120s which are waiting to be mounted when I get there and pick them up from the place they were sent to. Which reminds, me I need to make a thread about mount position, binding screw inserts and all that etc. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_SSS View Post
 

Sure as long as your skis flex enough evenly for your weight.  Years ago advanced skiers all skied powder with much narrower skis and did so efficiently looking good.  There has always been somewhat of a disconnect in understanding on ski sizes for lighter skiers usually women especially when advice is coming from heavier skiers.  The following epicski article puts the powder element in some perspective since that is more a length x width area issue than just ski length.

 

http://www.epicski.com/a/powder-skis-and-skier-size

 

There is more to the above than provided article numbers show because powder density and metamorphosis with time are important factors.   I'm a small old advanced male skier of decades 66" and 140# that bought a 88mm width  all mountain ski mainly for powder skiing because my Rossignol S7's at 168cm and 110mm width IMO have too much float for my liking unless conditions are deep and light.  Thus the wide skis don't get down into moderate density fresh snow much which means one planes on the surface more resulting in higher speeds and greater forces.   For some advanced skiers, that is what they want while this person is more a relaxed bouncer at slower speeds that typically skis long distances non-stop in fresh snow.    Instead the mid width ski gets down into the powder more providing more to work with at a more relaxed speed.

&

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

I've skied my Nordica Steadfasts, 90mm waist, in show up to about 20".  I'm 5'7", 150 pounds.

 

&

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBuffs1993 View Post
 

I think it really comes down to experience with pow over time. My wider boards were in repair during an unexpected 10 in pow day at Mt. Snow, VT during a family trip this past February. So I had to pull out my old pair of Atomic Blackeye TI's, which are only 81 under foot. After adjusting my balance a bit, I found I was fine and could still crush it. Was I floating on the top of the snow? No, but it was a great day and hardly thought it would have been better with some wider skis - in fact, I found myself looking for soft bumps more than I otherwise might have. Kinda felt old school for this 45 yr old. I'd just say, enjoy what you have, get the experience you need, then demo some fat skis when you have the right opportunity. 

dave_SSS - Thanks for the link.

And to all 3 of you - Thanks, Its useful to hear some first hand opinions from people who have ridden similar width, some of who are also lightweight.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

Will do just fine; much over 90 mm is more about personal preference than need unless you're in hip deep. And don't forget to review your skis here, don't think we know much about this company. 

Will do :D I've only had two morning on them demoing before i bought em, but they blew me away. Just for a quick comment, as far as i know there's zero torsional flex on them at all when you get up on edge or try and twist them in your hands. And when you go over bumps and the ski flexes upwards, it very quickly returns back to the snow. The result is it has a very satisfying edge hold.

 

Comparing to my fischer progressors 8+ (like new 800 series), they feel stiffer in a bend test, but on the snow they feel like they have far more spring and pop, its hard to describe. As someone who can't do tricks or ride park to save themselves, on the second run down on these i was confident enough to pop off edges and get a bit of air. 

 

They also have a very distinct almost 'hollow' sound to them as you ride, of which the guy who made them explained is due to them being high tensile, much like when you drop a high tensile bolt you'll get a loud 'ping' instead of a dull thud. There's just something about having a casual chat to the guy who hand made your equipment which fills you with appreciation.


And yes they are ridiculously lightweight so very easy to bring the front around and turn on a dime if you need to. But saying all this, it could have been the adrenaline talking to me.

 

I'll assume around here it's okay to do do a bit of show and tell in another thread, but i might save that for when i've got a few more days on them, the lower half of the mountain was spring conditions so they haven't shown their full potential yet.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

This ^^^^. Where wider skis really make a difference is in the heavy stuff.

Whether you float or sink depends on how fast you go. Any ski will float if you go fast enough. I have been out on really deep days where on a 106mm ski anything pitched under 35 degrees or so was too flat to float. Even if you pointed them straight down the hill you would barely move. On days like that you either need a real powder ski or a consistently steep slope from top to groomed runout. But on an ordinary powder day your skis will be fine, if you have the technique and the strength and endurance. (No need to do wall squats if your skis are 130 under foot).

Useful to know, i'll keep that in mind. Plus a good reminder that I need to built up that strength too.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

What I think is missing from this convo is how much powder the OP is going to have access to. How many days do you expect to get on these skis and where?

90mm isn't much for Utah or Japan and 50+ days a season. It may be too much for New York. If the OP is buying skis for a weeklong vacation to someplace snowy, they may serve great as the chances of taking a scheduled trip someplace and catching a monster storm are pretty low- even to really snowy places.

I would say a 90 waist ski should be good till somewhere around a foot, passable to two, and not abysmal beyond that. The 5 point shape should be fun on the snow.
 
 
Originally was going to be Colorado (and considering California), but highly considering Revelstoke as our NZ Dollar is almost as weak as the Canadian, so its a heck of a lot cheaper to head up north. Plus Revelstoke sounds absolutely glorious for someone who want's to experience 3-5 days of top notch North American skiing.
Typically i'll be skiing on hard pack back here in NZ on Mt Ruapehu, that i'd describe similar to some less favourable descriptions of the USA east coast.
 
By that i mean, no dry powder, often heavier snow, off piste is very crusted over over unless youve got a fresh coating or the afternoon sun has softened the surface a bit. And when that's not happening, the wind might have blown the loose stuff off anyway, since the treeline is well below the car park, and its all volcanic rock (on a still active volcano) upwards from there.
And this isn't uncommon from the chairlifts in the morning. But when you do get a fresh dumping, the terrain is excellent.
 
That's why you go to the South Island when you ski in New Zealand, its far more favourable. Come visit sometime, we have some pretty neat terrain and fairly alright views.
post #34 of 44
Sounds like there isn't much payoff to going wider. If you run into truly deep conditions, just rent a big stick and enjoy.
post #35 of 44
Compared to the rest of expenses in skiing, the skis are relatively inexpensive. Pow skis are more fun than 90mm skis in deeper snow, but they're not necessary (unless you consider more fun necessary).

Here's a Chrismas Day pic of a buddy at Northstar not going fast enough on Gotamas (105mm). Look above him - dunno how fast you'd want to fly through the trees, but YMMV.

post #36 of 44

With decent technique, you can ski anything, even bottomless powder, with 90 mm waisted skis.  Granted, wider skis float better and are less tiring in deeper or heavier snow.  It also depends on your weight.  

post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacobillie View Post

With decent technique, you can ski anything, even bottomless powder, with 90 mm waisted skis.  Granted, wider skis float better and are less tiring in deeper or heavier snow.  It also depends on your weight.  
Yeah, true - many of us used to ski bottomless pow on 65mm skis back in the day and refined our technique over the last 40 years as skis changed and our bodies aged.

This isn't an either or argument. Some of us believe pow skis are more fun in deep snow. Not too many folks really believe they are strictly "necessary."

If you're not competing, then why do you ski? If it's just for fun, then why not try a bunch of different skis and techniques? IMO, it's better to have tried it and have the experience than to wonder what if....But hey - YMMV...
post #38 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

High speed, high edge angle "carving" is impossible in powder on narrower conventional skis. - :bs:

 

 

Why the meter?

 

If you lay a pair of conventional 70 or even 80-something (or at my weight, even 105) skis over at higher speed  in deep snow, the usual result is that you will push through rather than turn - the snow simply cannot offer enough support to force the ski into a turn. Get onto a 125 or 140 modern powder design ski and the game starts to change. You can still push through now and again - but your performance envelope is vastly wider. Tweak your angle & tweak your performance. Done...

 

Do you doubt this? Have you ever skied a >125 wide modern powder ski at even modest speed? If not, you can take my word for it that it is different world in deep snow. Not saying everyone has to  prefer it, but the performance difference in that environment is real.

post #39 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by eXDee View Post

Thanks for all the responses, this confirms what I thought. It was frustrating reading various around the net which claimed you simply must have a pair of wide pontoons, and anything under 100 wasn't going to work. Camber was often mentioned but height and weight are hardly commented on.

Now I just have to wait a few months, find some powder and learn to ski it. My only experience has been gliding through 2 feet of Japanese powder on carvers. That snow was insanely light and dry so the thinner skis quickly sank, but there wasn't much resistance moving around.

Time to find some YouTube guides I suppose!

When I was working at the shop we were always taught the Ski never knows how tall you are but it always knowns how heavy you are
post #40 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

High speed, high edge angle "carving" is impossible in powder on narrower conventional skis. - :bs:

 

 

Why the meter?

 

If you lay a pair of conventional 70 or even 80-something (or at my weight, even 105) skis over at higher speed  in deep snow, the usual result is that you will push through rather than turn - the snow simply cannot offer enough support to force the ski into a turn. Get onto a 125 or 140 modern powder design ski and the game starts to change. You can still push through now and again - but your performance envelope is vastly wider. Tweak your angle & tweak your performance. Done...

 

Do you doubt this? Have you ever skied a >125 wide modern powder ski at even modest speed? If not, you can take my word for it that it is different world in deep snow. Not saying everyone has to  prefer it, but the performance difference in that environment is real.


I have skied Dynastar GS skis in 30+ feet of snow on the back side of Mt. Washington BC.  IIRC they were about 68 mm wide and 215 or 220 cm long and they did not sink in at high edge angles, provided I was skiing fast enough, and kept my weight properly distributed between the two skis.  Skiing too slowly limited edge angles possible. Putting all your weight on one ski while skiing slowly did result in that ski deciding to take a trip to china.

post #41 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

Looking good is subjective. But there is no way anyone skied deep powder efficiently on those narrower skis. Certainly not by today's standards.

Do I really need to post the Niseko telemark video again? smile.gif
post #42 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post


I have skied Dynastar GS skis in 30+ feet of snow on the back side of Mt. Washington BC.  IIRC they were about 68 mm wide and 215 or 220 cm long and they did not sink in at high edge angles, provided I was skiing fast enough, and kept my weight properly distributed between the two skis.  Skiing too slowly limited edge angles possible. Putting all your weight on one ski while skiing slowly did result in that ski deciding to take a trip to china.

Ghost, you did not ski 30 feet of unconsolidated snow. I've skied on 30 FT of rock hard refrozen snow. I've skied probably 3-4' of fresh on top of 30' of snow. Ive skied lovely corn over even more, but I've never seen or heard of 30' of 'powder'. rolleyes.gif
post #43 of 44

Can't say how much was unconsolidated, as I could not reach the unconsolidated snow when I tried to out of curiosity.   I can't say it was bottomless, but there was more than five feet of onconsolidated snow, and I don't know how consolidated the rest was.  Please read more carefully; I never said it was  30+ feet of unconsolidated snow.

post #44 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post


Do I really need to post the Niseko telemark video again? smile.gif

 

 

Please do. I only vaguely remember it. It'd be easier for you to post it than for me to look for it. :) Of course then I will reply with the Defago gambit... ;)

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 › Can ~90mm underfoot handle powder?