EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 78mm waist vs. 70- what can I expect?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

78mm waist vs. 70- what can I expect?

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
After finding myself spending less time on the corduroy and more in glades and ungroomed bowls, I'm going to upgrading in the ski department. As I usually will travel with just one pair of skis, and don't plan on abandoning the groomed stuff completely, I think I'll want something with a waist in the neighborhood of 78mm (based on research, not experience). I'm not too worried about carving on groomed runs with a wider waist, but I guess I'm wondering just how much of an improvement I'll see in the powder and/or crud by moving from a 70mm waist to 78mm? Any thought or opinions are welcome.
post #2 of 17
If I understand correctly, you already have a pair of 70mm skis? You should go with something a bit larger than mid 70s then, into the mid 80s, otherwise you're going to experience a bit of redundancy. You'll notice that edge changes are a bit slower and it'l be a bit tougher to put subtle pressure on the uphill edge in turns, but you'll benefit from more float and stability.
post #3 of 17
8mm

I have Head iM70 Monsters, the waist is actually 69 and Big Stix 7.6 waist is 76 --which is 7mm as i do the math---so pretty close to your example.

There is a pretty big difference in the ski's themselves---different "personalities" if you will. I have limited time on the BS's (less than 2 days) but they handle hardpack and actually, real NE ice pretty well. They are livelier than the heads and feel lighter, they get bounced around a bit more as a result. Not a bad thing necessarily, just different.

In wet heavy crud I liked them better than the heads, but the feeling of mass the Heads have makes the Heads feel better to me in hard choppy conditions.

We don't get deep snow here all that often---can't offer an opinion on the differences.

That may change as I get more experience on the Big Stix---we'll see.

Point is width is not necessarily the biggest factor.
post #4 of 17
My impressions. I have Volks supersport gammas with a 69 waist and Dynastars Exclusive Legends with 75. The Volks are also wider in the front. The Dynastars are a softer ski. They ski very differently. The Volkls are stiffer and carvier with more rebound energy. I had trouble skiing soft powder with them. The Dynastars are very floaty even over pretty deep snow. They are good on groomers too. When I am on ungroomed stuff they are damper-- I don't feel every vibration. And they are forgiving in the bumps. I like both skis.

I think you need to consider more than just waist but stiffness, shape, etc. If you can demo that would be great. I know I tried a few wider skis with a slightly different shape and liked the 75s better for me.
post #5 of 17
Thread Starter 
"If I understand correctly, you already have a pair of 70mm skis? You should go with something a bit larger than mid 70s then, into the mid 80s,"

I've thought about this, but two things to consider....

1) The 70mm I have now aren't exactly 'top of the line.' After taking several years off skiing (dating to the pre-shaped ski era), I decided to get back into it and picked up a pair of intermediate/recreational skis at REI, which I felt would be appropriate. Low and behold, I was immediately better, and having much more fun, than ever before. So while I initially expected to be just a casual skier, I'm finding that is not the case, and I'd like to upgrade anyway.

2) From what I've read, moving into the 80+ waist lowers effectiveness on groomed runs, and I do still like to wrap up my day on those. I'm looking less for a true powder ski than for one that can effectively work both types of terrain. If I'd need to jump from the 70mm to mid-80mms to notice any difference on the powder, than I'd be more open to that, but if I can expect a noticable difference with the 78's, I think that'd be preferable.
post #6 of 17
One more thing to consider.

Physicsman - Tom (PM) did a thread awhile back on relationships between waist width, float and body size that you really ought to go find and read. (note to self, ask ssh to put thread in faq's or make it sticky)

The short version is guys that are 6'5 and 250 pounds really do need something wider to get the float they need in powder and crud---so comparing body mass to surface area should result in similar float for say a 110 pounder on something significantly narrower that the 250 pounder.
post #7 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j
One more thing to consider.

Physicsman - Tom (PM) did a thread awhile back on relationships between waist width, float and body size that you really ought to go find and read. (note to self, ask ssh to put thread in faq's or make it sticky)

The short version is guys that are 6'5 and 250 pounds really do need something wider to get the float they need in powder and crud---so comparing body mass to surface area should result in similar float for say a 110 pounder on something significantly narrower that the 250 pounder.
that consideration is in fact so important.

tell us your weight.

i for example am a rather skinny guy with 160/6'3" and 70mms give me the float a 200 lbs skier would need some waaay fatter boards for. theoretically he would need a 88mm waist ski, given one ski length and one radius.
post #8 of 17
Ah, I see. I was thinking that you were on something like an older 5star (advanced carver) and were looking to start a quiver. In this case however, where it sounds like you want to stick with a single ski, you sound like a candidate for the hot skis of this year, which were the all mountain mid-high 70s with a big sidecut like the Nordica Top Fuel/Nitrous. A lot of these skis perform like a traditional carving ski on the hardpack and handle like a midfat off-piste.
post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElsinoreBeer
"If I understand correctly, you already have a pair of 70mm skis? You should go with something a bit larger than mid 70s then, into the mid 80s,"

I've thought about this, but two things to consider....

2) From what I've read, moving into the 80+ waist lowers effectiveness on groomed runs, and I do still like to wrap up my day on those. I'm looking less for a true powder ski than for one that can effectively work both types of terrain. If I'd need to jump from the 70mm to mid-80mms to notice any difference on the powder, than I'd be more open to that, but if I can expect a noticable difference with the 78's, I think that'd be preferable.
I noticed a little difference from 67 to 78 myself, but nothing worth exclaiming about. Big things for me didnt really seem to happen till about 85 and really at 90mm.

I would definitely reccomend demoing a Head Mojo 90 or equivalent.
At 90mm underfoot it carves up groomers, gets on edge, and stays there just as/more easily and quickly than some skis Ive been on that are 78-85mm. Performace on ungroomed, backbowls, and trees of course is absolutely amazing. This is without a doubt my "all mountain". I just cant reccomend this ski enough. Every few posts I see someone asking for this ski, even though they dont know it. Anyway, my .02
post #10 of 17
I wish I had demoed the IM 88 when there was one in front of me (but I was looking for a fast carving ski) as I could give an opinion on it. The reviews are great, and it may be great for you as a complement of your 70 mm ski. It allegedly handles great on corduroy, and it will definitely float!

YA
post #11 of 17
The other characteristics of the ski matter more than just the waist width. I've skied shallow powder (<8") and had great fun with narrow waisted, broad tip & tail, soft tip & tail carving skis. My Salomon Pocket Rockets are great in fresh deep snow, but not as much fun on the pack.

Something like a Head Monster i.75 is an excellent all-around choice. Volkl AC3 is another good choice, as is the Dynastar Legend 4800, and Atomic M11.


Ken
post #12 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the thoughts.

I'm 5'11", 200lbs. Of course last year I was closer to 220, and a couple years ago I was pushing 240. By next season, I hope to be back in the 180-190 range that I remember from my latter teens.

My thoughts right now are to go with something like the B2, and use that as an all mountain ski. Then maybe on one powder day demo something with a waist in the 90s. I'm a bit apprehensive to go with something like that for my one pair of skis (thought I've got a friend at a higher ability level than I am who skis a 96mm and dismisses as nonsense any claim that it hinders performance on groomers), but if they're the way to go in powder, I guess I could get acclimated to the idea of travelling with an extra pair. Again, I picked this up as a pastime and didn't think I'd get as 'into' it as I have over the last two seasons. For the moment, I think I'm still best with one ski that can be used in all conditions.
post #13 of 17
I completely understand your concern

And after having demo'd this years b2 and owning the mojo90
the mojo outpreforms the b2 everywhere, although the b2 felt fast for some reason....but thats not a huge deal to me cause all you have to do to fix that is PTMDH (point those mothas downhill)

getting both skis onto an edge is nearly identical but the mojo is much more willing to turn, especially in bumps

if you can demo this ski

also if youre totally insitant on 78mm, try out the k2 recon as well
post #14 of 17

Wider is better

I'm finding I prefer the ride of a wider ski far more than I ever thought. Given the choice of only skiing a 78 or 70 mm ski I would choose the larger every time. You don't have to give up any carving ability just because the ski is wider!
post #15 of 17
My two ski quiver consists of Atomic 9:18s in a 180 and a pair of Intuitiv 74s in a 182. They are about 8mm different. I bought the Intutivs and look p12s this summer new for short money (wanted Dynastar 8000s but am way to cheap).

I don't notice a tremendous difference but I wanted a little more underfoot for occaisional fresh snow and crud in the NE.

I have skied the intutivs on hard pack and was really pleased with them. I'm beginning to think the 9:18s may be redundant except for freshly zambonied boilerplate.

My take is that, while it varies from ski to ski, you can certainly get around on most anything on a ski with less than an 80mm waist.
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElsinoreBeer
Thanks for the thoughts.

I'm 5'11", 200lbs. Of course last year I was closer to 220, and a couple years ago I was pushing 240. By next season, I hope to be back in the 180-190 range that I remember from my latter teens.

My thoughts right now are to go with something like the B2, and use that as an all mountain ski. Then maybe on one powder day demo something with a waist in the 90s. I'm a bit apprehensive to go with something like that for my one pair of skis (thought I've got a friend at a higher ability level than I am who skis a 96mm and dismisses as nonsense any claim that it hinders performance on groomers), but if they're the way to go in powder, I guess I could get acclimated to the idea of travelling with an extra pair. Again, I picked this up as a pastime and didn't think I'd get as 'into' it as I have over the last two seasons. For the moment, I think I'm still best with one ski that can be used in all conditions.

i think you should rather look for some mid-80ish waist instead.
post #17 of 17
I would reccomend the elan m777's, they have a pretty decent waist in the mid 80's and they are really easy for me to turn on groomers. I don't think you would much drop in carving performance they are fairly stiff and can easily be put on edge. I'm 6'3 210 and I ride the 184's, they aren't too hard to manage and are very stable.

Seth
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 › 78mm waist vs. 70- what can I expect?