EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Width trend is overrated!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Width trend is overrated!! - Page 2

post #31 of 50
You should buy the new Volkl All-Stars cause, "Hey now, your an All Star, Get your game on, go play......"
post #32 of 50
I find the midfat skis are not as quick, probably because it takes longer to get them on edge. For some reason all the Atomic Metrons feel stiff and sluggish to me.
post #33 of 50
I have two skis right now: 01-02 Bandit XX 177cm (74mm) and 05-05 Legend 8800 188cm (89mm). I ski mostly Lake Louise/Sunshine which are not powder havens by any means. Since I got the 8800's in Feb, I didn't use the XX once. They just feel tiny. Sure they are a bit faster edge to edge but groomers are a last resort. I can carve GS turns nicely on the 8800's unless it's bulletproof ice. 89mm is sooo much better than 74 in any kind of soft snow/windpack/chop. So much easier to land drops on 188 than 177 too. I see no reason to ski under 90 in the west besides racing/bulletproof/groomers only.
post #34 of 50
I have a fleet of skis in which the waists range from 62mm to 90mm. If I had more money on me I would purchase more 80mm - 90mm waisted skis. They really do perform well. Mine do not have metal in them (beginner fat ski IMO), but after spending some time ont hem last season I can easily see myself getting into a slightly longer beefier ski. They ski great. If you are a good skier you can carve on them just like you would on a normal ski - you just have to watch out for hardpack. The bottom line is that the trend for recreational skis is toward versatility. New construction allows for wider skis, and the wider the ski gets the more versitile it is going to be. You can now get better groomer performance out of an 85mm waisted ski than you could out of a 68mm waisted ski 6 years ago. Why not get wider skis? The groomer performance of carving skis is starting to get rediculous, so the companies can start making the skis wider since they can be built to such high performance levels. If you like your 70mm waisted skis, then ski them. I can still be found on 68mm Xscreams from time to time. If I had more capital you better believe they would be replaced with something with a wide waist and lots of metal.

Later

GREG
post #35 of 50
Oh yeah, did you read the ski advice FAQ? The section that I added in highlights each category. You may be enlightened to what crowd each "type" of ski is geared toward. It is a helpful over view to see where skis "fit" in the big picture, whether it is a new ski or an older ski with similar dimensions.
Later
GREG
post #36 of 50
I'll be on a 188cm ski with 99mm underfoot this year, and damned straight it'll see some hardpack.

btw mudfoot - do you seriously think fatties are 'easier to balance on' because they're wider? I guess if you're standing still in the parking lot they are.
post #37 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by contec
I'll be on a 188cm ski with 99mm underfoot this year, and damned straight it'll see some hardpack.

btw mudfoot - do you seriously think fatties are 'easier to balance on' because they're wider? I guess if you're standing still in the parking lot they are.

I would say they are due to the fact that they want to stay flat, have less cut to run away with and b/c VERY FEW can actually take them up to the bombing speed they are ment for.

FYI: I'll be on a quiver from 63 mm (SL ski) to 103mm (supermojo)
post #38 of 50
I think the answer here would be to put out a width restriction. You can only use skis which are narrower than 70mm + (age-40). Thus you can't use a 90mm waisted ski until age 60. Violators will have to spend a day skiing Vermont ice on Big Daddy's or deep Sierra Cement on some old 207 slalom skis.
post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blizzard
I find the midfat skis are not as quick, probably because it takes longer to get them on edge. For some reason all the Atomic Metrons feel stiff and sluggish to me.
Yep--they make some beautiful turns but they sure seem slow after the slalom skis. And all the emphasis on waist width is only part of the story. My 170 SL9's have a shovel as big as a canoe paddle, and the total surface area is enough that they do pretty well in powder.
post #40 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog
I think the answer here would be to put out a width restriction. You can only use skis which are narrower than 70mm + (age-40). Thus you can't use a 90mm waisted ski until age 60. Violators will have to spend a day skiing Vermont ice on Big Daddy's or deep Sierra Cement on some old 207 slalom skis.
That's just plain mean. My back hurts just thinking about it.
post #41 of 50
More skis = More fun.

Each has a purpose. i will not give up my Gotama's, but I only ski them out west, and sometimes ski them all day.

Another rule I use is:

Shorter the runs, skinier the skis. It works like this for me.
post #42 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15
In the late 1980's, I was using skis with 54cm waist.
That'd have to be the widest ski I've ever seen... About 21". How did they ski?



post #43 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blizzard
I find the midfat skis are not as quick, probably because it takes longer to get them on edge. For some reason all the Atomic Metrons feel stiff and sluggish to me.
To each his own. My b5s feel as quick as my RX8s. Even though I feel like they "shouldn't".
post #44 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
That'd have to be the widest ski I've ever seen... About 21". How did they ski?



HaHaHa! They were a little slow edge to edge.
post #45 of 50
It depends on where you want your skis to shine and also what you're good at it.

Having grown up in the east, I'm better at carving turns than skiing powder, but I like skiing powder more and more if that's possible. I can carve a 90+ waisted ski no problem, even on boilerplate. I can't however ski a 66mm waisted ski in powder and crud very well. So, as the year's go by and my skis get wider, I I like skiing off-piste more and thus like skiing wider skis more. It's a vicious cycle, but every year is better so I'm not complaining.
post #46 of 50
ski=free

You may not think that a 1/2 degree lateral difference on your boot sole would make a noticable difference?......but it does! 2mm over the length of the ski is a noticable "surface area" difference when it comes to floatation as well as edge change.
post #47 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ron livingston
It depends on where you want your skis to shine and also what you're good at it.

Having grown up in the east, I'm better at carving turns than skiing powder, but I like skiing powder more and more if that's possible. I can carve a 90+ waisted ski no problem, even on boilerplate. I can't however ski a 66mm waisted ski in powder and crud very well. So, as the year's go by and my skis get wider, I I like skiing off-piste more and thus like skiing wider skis more. It's a vicious cycle, but every year is better so I'm not complaining.

I fully agree. My first fat ski was the PM Gear BroModel's I got last year, and I can't stay off of the things. Once I started skiing these, I only skied other skis when it was rock hard (which they can still carve, but I have many pairs of skis, so why not use em?), or I was worried about rock damage (I have beaters for that). The versatility of a well-made fat ski is unmatched, as it lets you have fun all over the mountain, both out west and out east. I couldn't count the amount of times I got pissed off at my skinnier skis diving when I didn't want them to when dicing through the trees. Now that I'm on the bro's, everything is faster and easier when it comes to powder, and I can straightline crudfields and most mogulfields with relative ease. Carving knives are great, but swiss army knives tend to be more useful in the long run .
post #48 of 50
I suspect one reason we're seeing wider skis is that carving sidecuts can now be maintained on wider skis due to the latest generation polymers and adhesives.

At last year's Ski Show in Seattle, the Atomic rep informed me that the wide'ish Metron B:5's couldn't have been made any sooner because materials necessary to maintain torsional integrity in a tip that wide hadn't previously been available.

Hence, wider skis with excellent carving charactoristics are now possible.

Greater width usually offers better stability and float, inspiring more confidence in the skier. Provided that carving performance isn't lost, increased width appears to have value.
post #49 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
I suspect one reason we're seeing wider skis is that carving sidecuts can now be maintained on wider skis due to the latest generation polymers and adhesives.
At last year's Ski Show in Seattle, the Atomic rep informed me that the wide'ish Metron B:5's couldn't have been made any sooner because materials necessary to maintain torsional integrity in a tip that wide hadn't previously been available.
Hence, wider skis with excellent carving charactoristics are now possible.
No doubt.
I may have posted this before:
when the Austrian Reini Fischer experimented with his wide shaped skis, one of his earlier skis more than 10 years ago had 135-90-125/162cm/12.5m, later (1996 or 1997) there was the Yeti 124-80-116.
They were very good soft-snow skis but much worse on groomers and hardpack (I only know the Yeti, not the earlier models).
They seem to have been the right philosophy but without the technology to support it.
post #50 of 50
btw mudfoot - do you seriously think fatties are 'easier to balance on' because they're wider? I guess if you're standing still in the parking lot they are.[/quote]

It has been my experience that wider skis are definitely easier to balance on in almost all conditions, if they are tuned properly. Besides a wider more stable platform in deep snow, on hardpack it is almost impossible to catch an outside edge on wide skis, which is partly due to the fact that the new skis are generally tuned with much more side bevel than the old 65 mm waisted skis. Wider means bigger margin for balance error in most situations, which is not a bad thing.

If you tele the increased movement between the skis makes the easier balance on wider skis strikingly obvious. Take a pair of same length 65mm waisted skis and a pair of 95s and run them straigt down a bump run without turning and then tell me that there is no difference in balance between the two at speed. Just for fun you can imagine yourself as a hormone/peer group driven teenager that has been watching cliff hucking videos, which will inspire you to pole plant like you are actually turning while careeining straight down the fall line. (I think we've all been there.) I advise a helmet for this experiment.
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 › Width trend is overrated!!