EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Maximum width skis for hard snow conditions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Maximum width skis for hard snow conditions

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Been reading alot about all mtn twins and its peaked my interest. but the reality is i dont have that much variation in terrain where i live. small hill, little snow fall. i am looking for a twin thats good on hardpack, can power through the crud and cut up snow. and is manageable in tight icy bumps. found a good deal on a 06 PE , but wonder if 85mm is too wide for the conditions. I'm 6' 1" 195# level 8 aggressive skier. and i like to ski with a tight stance. i use every possible turn shape in every run i make. also does anybody know anything about atomic stomps. there pretty cheap on ebay.:
post #2 of 17
The PE would be a great one ski quiver. Highly recommend it. I haven't skied or heard anything about the Stomps so I can't help you there.
post #3 of 17
For width... just depends on what you are used to ....

When I went to 90 wide I loved it because I felt more stable and was able to ski in ungroomed snow. However, I lost that sense of edging that I had been used to when I would create ice shavings off the boilerplate. Can still edge, just not quite as precise. But, I wouldn't go back. I changed my technique a little, because I was more stable, I felt comfortable going faster and didn't have to turn as much.

Recommend that you demo the wide skis... because it feels so different. You will be able to tell real quick if there is a smile on your face or not. Wide skis are just not as good in ice. But ice is always a problem anyway.
post #4 of 17
It is about much more than width.

For my everday ski, I have Ak Rocket Swallowtails.
For my super hardpack, icy, hasn't snowed in I can't remember how long skis, I have 185 Armada ARV's.

They are actually both 95mm underfoot, but the ARV's are much easier to throw around and much more forgiving.
post #5 of 17
From my experience an 85mm waist works for an all-round ski and will carve well on very hard snow. I was unable to get that same result from several 90mm waisted skis I have tried. Once I went wider than 85mm I had to really concentrate and intentionally work the ski beyond what was comfortable. The good news is that wider skis allow a more controlled slide on hard snow. If you want a true hard snow carver at 90mm or wider I think you would need to raise the bindings quite a bit, although you will certainly find people on this site that claim to be getting a good carve from very wide skis.
post #6 of 17
I don't think there is a maximum, it is just a fact of geometry that the wider the ski are like levers making it harder to edge with power. There are a lot of other factors, but if you imagine a binding in the middle of a sheet of plywood...how hard would one have to crank to rock up on edge. You might be able to do it on soft enough snow.

The first time I used wide skis it felt like my boots had gone soft. I added a riser plate, changing the geometry, and it became much easier. (picture that plywood with a four foot high riser...you'd have the leverage to edge it.

Many high performance wide skis carve ice as well as a narrow ski, if you can get it up on edge and hold it there. It just has more leverage against you boot than the skinny ski.

I like to ski with a lot of angulation and hate smearing my turns. I'm always looking for an effortless feeling and like ice. I tend toward narrower skis.
post #7 of 17
Much of this depends on the gear involved (lateral boot stiffness, binding coupling strength, skis chosen), but I agree with mudfoot and my experience is similar. At about 90mm+ edging on hard snow starts to get a bit too inefficient to really carve well.
post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 
thanks for the replies. as far as what I'm used to, I got back into skiing three years ago after an eight year layoff. I started off on my old kneissel superflex 195s and then demo'd some sx-9 supercross in a 170, liked em and bought them. I thought I was nuts going to a ski that short, but these things are incredably stable. I just jump on em and ride em. it was work to have this much fun on my old straight skis. As for demo's, the only thing available are the most popular carvers. I've yet to here anything bad about the PE except for one or two people who thought they felt dead. I've herd that k2's are damp. Are atomics concidered damp
also. Getting back to the original question, I was wondering what the torque effect might have on your feet, ankle, and lower leg. Newfydog you touched on this. I enjoy smearing, and skidding just as much as I do carving, so that isn't a problem. I just don't want to go so wide that it becomes work to get em on edge. but if I was to read between the lines, I'd say you think there is a limit to which it becomes work. I guess its all subjective and up to each individual to find.
post #9 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
From my experience an 85mm waist works for an all-round ski and will carve well on very hard snow. I was unable to get that same result from several 90mm waisted skis I have tried. Once I went wider than 85mm I had to really concentrate and intentionally work the ski beyond what was comfortable. The good news is that wider skis allow a more controlled slide on hard snow. If you want a true hard snow carver at 90mm or wider I think you would need to raise the bindings quite a bit, although you will certainly find people on this site that claim to be getting a good carve from very wide skis.
After reading your post, I thought about this a bit more.

Hardpack doesn't neccesarily mean groomers. If by hardpack, you mean just packed down skied out old powder, but not moguls or groomed, then the surface is going to be less even and a fatter ski has the benifit of being more stable on such terrain.

For a beginer/intermediate, or someone who hasn't skied in a while, I'd say try and find something in the 80-90mm range as your everyday ski.
post #10 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
After reading your post, I thought about this a bit more.

Hardpack doesn't neccesarily mean groomers. If by hardpack, you mean just packed down skied out old powder, but not moguls or groomed, then the surface is going to be less even and a fatter ski has the benifit of being more stable on such terrain.

For a beginer/intermediate, or someone who hasn't skied in a while, I'd say try and find something in the 80-90mm range as your everyday ski.
I try to avoid going out in the mourning when it is freshly groomed and there is no new snow. It's just to vanilla for me. I prefer latter in the day when the slopes are all cut up. the worse it gets the better I like it. as far as ice goes, I've got my atomics for that, bumps are always rock hard which I kinda like. dont know how PE's or an 85mm ski would do there.
post #11 of 17
Icy bumps the 85mm. PE suck, but add substantial powder and they do much better. Sorta like bad east coast bumps, way better out west. I 5'10" 165lbs. much prefer a mogul ski for local hard pack moguls. 62 waist 185cm. K2 Mamba's. Guess its due to the edge to edge quickness.
The PE's rock hard otherwise. At your height and weight you have to go 179cm.
The Stomps were recomended to me couple years ago. I forget why I decided against. You can go longer at 186cm. for your weight. Has a bigger radius, won't turn as quick as PE. Not sure exactly how stiff the Stomp is but I assume its as stiff if not slightly stiffer than the PE. The PE is sorta stiff, not soft. I like them. Just not icy bumps.
post #12 of 17
My Phat Luvs (90mm waist) on yellow man-made re-freeze ice are not stellar. They work, they hold, sort of. but it's not a pretty sight. Hard pack, they're fine. Ice, there's an element of turn and..... wait.
Mind you, I never have them tuned and the edges are probably edges in name only.
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by code View Post
I try to avoid going out in the mourning when it is freshly groomed........ the worse it gets the better I like it........ bumps are always rock hard which I kinda like.

Don't worry, you’ll grow out of it.




The Stomps are only ok; some of the cheap ones have atomic only plates. The Head Mojo is a pretty good hard snow twin.
post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by code View Post
I try to avoid going out in the mourning when it is freshly groomed and there is no new snow. It's just to vanilla for me. I prefer latter in the day when the slopes are all cut up. the worse it gets the better I like it. as far as ice goes, I've got my atomics for that, bumps are always rock hard which I kinda like. dont know how PE's or an 85mm ski would do there.
Are you East or West? I have never talked to anybody here in the East that actually searched out icy (as in east coast icy) bumps. It's all relative. I have skiied, laughed at and thoroughly enjoyed that "western ice".

A day of laying down tracks on corduroy in the morning and skiing soft bumps in the after afternoon sounds pretty good to me if there hasn't been any new snow in a while.
post #15 of 17
your question in flawed, I can work icey condition on 105mm waist skis. Is it the best tool for the job? Hell no. With that said PE are pretty good skis, but I like Line chronics better in the all mountain twin catergory. but narrrow short SL carvers are my favorite on a hardpack hill.
post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattL View Post
Are you East or West? I have never talked to anybody here in the East that actually searched out icy (as in east coast icy) bumps. It's all relative. I have skiied, laughed at and thoroughly enjoyed that "western ice".
Check out Pierre's signature.

And in defense of "Western ice", I have seen some pretty solid thawed and refrozen ice cubes masquerading as bumps out at Big Sky, Montana.
post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattL View Post
Are you East or West? I have never talked to anybody here in the East that actually searched out icy (as in east coast icy) bumps. It's all relative. I have skiied, laughed at and thoroughly enjoyed that "western ice".

A day of laying down tracks on corduroy in the morning and skiing soft bumps in the after afternoon sounds pretty good to me if there hasn't been any new snow in a while.
I'm in the east. I dont seek them out, I just take whats given to me. the bumps dont soften up until late feb or march. then I spend half the day trying to get used to the wet heavy conditions. maybe its my skis, yeah thats it. its my skis, one more reason to buy another pair.: my atomics are ok in the bumps, but they are all I know right now. I was originally going to look for a twin thats silky in the bumps and wont get deflected in the crud. but all the talk of fats and mid-fats has lead me astray. that and the price tag on some 06 PEs.
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 › Maximum width skis for hard snow conditions