EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Carving Ability as Waist Width Increases
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Carving Ability as Waist Width Increases

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I currenty own a mostly front side carver that is 69mm wide. I would like to add a ski to my quiver that will differentiate itself from the frontside carver thus allowing more all mountian flexability but is still fairly quick edge to edge. I am looking at skis in the 72mm to 76mm width range.

My question is does it really mater if I go with a 72mm, 74mm, or 76mm ski? How much of a compromise will I be making as I go up in waist width? I am looking for a happy medium that will allow me to ski tight steep chutes as well as wide open groomers in the east. I know I need to demo, but I also hope for some experienced feedback.
post #2 of 25
Without knowing your skiing prowess, height or weight, I'd try the AMC 76. Plenty nimble enough to do the front side stuff and more girth underfoot for soft stuff, especially for the east coast. I think you'll find 78mm skis (or even 82!) that are great all mountain options and still give you the ability to carve turns. I'd bet 72 to 74 mm skis offer too little improvement over your current 69's.
post #3 of 25
Thread Starter 
Thank you Magnus CA. I was wondering what kind of improvment I would find if I only went up 3-5 mm. I will look at skis starting at 76mm wide and take into consideration the Fischer AMC 76, however the 08 Cool Heats look real nice. I'll have to wait to see what Sierra Jim's reviews of the 08 Fischers say..
post #4 of 25
I ski on an 85, 90, 106, 110 and 150 mm under foot. They all carve just depending on the conditions. The harder, less new snow I go narrow and increase size with depth of snow and soft conditions.

My favorite ski is the Line Elizabeth(172cm). 142-110-139. Carves great. Steeps, tight chutes, love it.

It all depends on your skiing style, weight, height etc.
post #5 of 25
Here is a clarification...........

The ability of the ski to carve is dependant upon the construction and shape. This is almost entirely independant of the width.

The ability of the skier to carve is dependant upon the skiers ability to create the proper edge angle and to apply and maintain pressure. This is not independant of the width as a wider ski will require a higher edge angle to engage and a more deliberate move to make the change.

It is all about priorities and tradeoffs.

BTW: I skied about 50+ skis over the last 3 days and the Cool Heat was uhhhhhh..............cool.............

The new construction is a wood laminate vs. the current Aircarbon/Metal. Hence the new ski is heavier, more stable and more powerful. This is a more deliberate ski than the current AMC 76 and has a definite GS feel. The entire package is not as light or nimble as the current ski but it is much more damp. Interestingly, the 'Flowflex' plate has a distinctly different feel than other plate setups. I think I could actually feel the springs in the plate unload at the turn finish/crossunder. The pop was powerful but verrrry smoooooth. It is almost like the 'flowflex' takes the "pop" and spreads it over a wider time period. Pretty cool but different than anything I've ever felt.

SJ
post #6 of 25
I'd go wide enough that you actually gain a noticable difference in all mountain capability. I challenge you to put the 82mm Volkl AC4 on edge and see what you think.

Caveat: From what I'm hearing, these skis are becoming very difficult to find.
post #7 of 25
Thread Starter 
Fritzski...you have presented a challenge that I plan on taking you up on. I plan to demo the AC4 next week...I am looking forward to the contrast verses the front side carvers I am used to...It will be an interesting test!!
post #8 of 25
Thread Starter 
Sierra Jim...Thanks for the education on ski waist width. I guess that means DEMO..since waist width and carving ability are so dependent on construction, shape and skier ability.

I appreciate you remembering I had inquired about the Fischer Heat Series (escpecially the cold heat). No pun intended, but it sounds like you are a bit "cold" on the ski. I am guesing it's characteristics are indicative of the entire Heat line. Do you feel the ski can fit into the one-ski quiver category or is it actually more suited to backside skiing? By "much more damp" do you mean the ski lacks any life? It sounds like your skiing experience was much different than you expected. I would love to hear what 08 skis really impressed you when you have the time to sit down and record a few comments. I will be covering yoour reviews carefully as I decide on adding to my quiver in 08. So far Fischer Heat Series and Elan Magfire series intrigue me the most.
post #9 of 25
V:

Actually, I'm not cold on the Fischers at all, but after running 50+ skis rapid fire through the same runs, same snow, etc. I have a more clear idea of the positioning (in my mind anyway) of the new generation of wider carvers. Without going into too much depth, I feel that the term "one ski quiver" entails too many compromises for my tastes.

So.....................

IF: Your idea of a one ski quiver is a ski that excells on groomers and is passable in crud, powder, and weirdo conditions, then the new generation of ~~75-85mm skis with built up shoulders, stiffish flexes, plates etc. is a good call. In softer or semi deep conditions, these skis will be slicers rather than floaters and will need to be skied with some authority.

OTH....IF: Your idea of the OSQ is a ski that that is easy, quick and nimble in the goo and bumps, then I think a bit softer and probably lighter ski is the ticket. Most of the skis like this are already around and have great reputations but they not as authoritative on the groomers as the other type. Most of the skis like this that I like are flat or "semi flat".

SJ
post #10 of 25
OTH....IF: Your idea of the OSQ is a ski that that is easy, quick and nimble in the goo and bumps, then I think a bit softer and probably lighter ski is the ticket. Most of the skis like this are already around and have great reputations but they not as authoritative on the groomers as the other type. Most of the skis like this that I like are flat or "semi flat".

SJ[/quote]

A short list of those please !
post #11 of 25
Turn Radius has as much, if not more effect than waist. I have no problem carving my 86 waisted Titan Nines (20M radius), but I need a wide open mountain to get the most out of them in a carve. My sones M10's w/ a 13M radius and a 74 waist are as quick of a ski as I would want.
post #12 of 25
Monster im88.

Amazing carving capability for a 88mm waist & 19M RADIUS @ 175. I have not found it's speed limit.

the Intelligence technology seems to really work as the ski is more forgiving on soft snow and gets noticably torsionally stiffer on hardpack.
post #13 of 25
Short list:

Atomic Snoop Daddy
Blizzard Titan 9/ next years Cronus
Dynastar Legend 8800/ next years Mythic Rider
Elan 777
Head iM88/ Mojo 90
K2 Apache Outlaw
Stockli SS Pro
Volkl Karma
post #14 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeezer View Post
OTH....IF: Your idea of the OSQ is a ski that that is easy, quick and nimble in the goo and bumps, then I think a bit softer and probably lighter ski is the ticket. Most of the skis like this are already around and have great reputations but they not as authoritative on the groomers as the other type. Most of the skis like this that I like are flat or "semi flat".

SJ

A short list of those please ![/quote]

Dynastar Legend 8000
Solly XW Fury or Tornado
Rossi B2 or B3
K2 Recon (not light but verrrrry easy)
Snoop.........pretty wide but super light and nimble (for as big as it is)

SJ
post #15 of 25
Just my 2 cents... I learnt on a pair of 68mm rossi C.U.T (carving utility tool @170cm). To ski the steeps/chutes/trees i jumped around like a rabbit on adrenalin... don't get me wrong its fun to agressivly launch your self down the slope with each landing slamming snow everywhere... This year it came time to get some new sticks... So i demoed the B2's with 78mm waist, didn't notice a consderable difference in edge to edge and carving ability (probibly do to the skis shape and flex). I ended up buying a set of snoop-daddies was really a spur of the moment purchase for me. There 88mm in the waist and 174cm long. The funny thing is there the same weight as my skinny carvers. Makes skiing the steeps.cutes/trees super easy and enjoyable. But the width in these skis is noticable in carving... You need to take up a lot of a groomer to lay some rails. Also the edge to edge is noticably (more slightly noticable) slower if you ski the same way u would on some 68-75mm waists. However if you ski with more toe edge to start your turns the increase in the skis size is hardly notacible. Since i live in the west (Alberta) an 88mm ski is actualy whats mostly found on the hills (like Fernie for example). But for you i think you could go up to an 82mm waist and not be disipointed in grooming preformance. In opinion a waist between 80-90mm is a great all-mountain width. It gives you the advantage you want when your off sight. Anything under 78mm should stay where the snow isn't 30cm deep and heavy.
post #16 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Rock View Post
Just my 2 cents... I learnt on a pair of 68mm rossi C.U.T (carving utility tool @170cm). To ski the steeps/chutes/trees i jumped around like a rabbit on adrenalin... don't get me wrong its fun to agressivly launch your self down the slope with each landing slamming snow everywhere... This year it came time to get some new sticks... So i demoed the B2's with 78mm waist, didn't notice a consderable difference in edge to edge and carving ability (probibly do to the skis shape and flex). I ended up buying a set of snoop-daddies was really a spur of the moment purchase for me. There 88mm in the waist and 174cm long. The funny thing is there the same weight as my skinny carvers. Makes skiing the steeps.cutes/trees super easy and enjoyable. But the width in these skis is noticable in carving... You need to take up a lot of a groomer to lay some rails. Also the edge to edge is noticably (more slightly noticable) slower if you ski the same way u would on some 68-75mm waists. However if you ski with more toe edge to start your turns the increase in the skis size is hardly notacible. Since i live in the west (Alberta) an 88mm ski is actualy whats mostly found on the hills (like Fernie for example). But for you i think you could go up to an 82mm waist and not be disipointed in grooming preformance. In opinion a waist between 80-90mm is a great all-mountain width. It gives you the advantage you want when your off sight. Anything under 78mm should stay where the snow isn't 30cm deep and heavy.
Thanks D Rock..it is good to hear that I can go up to an 82mm waist and not loose much hard snow capability. If I go from a ski that is 74mm to 82mm with the right shape, it should give me all mountian performance with a bias toward carving medium to GS turns. Now to find a ski that fits that criteria.
post #17 of 25
I don't think the waist has much to do with the ski's ability to carve, but it dictates how much leverage the edged ski exerts on the side of your boots. It is a big deal on glare ice, and a non-issue on packed powder. A fat ski chatterring will shake your whole body, while a narrow one is easier to stomp into submission.
post #18 of 25

SierraJim

What would the short list be for your:

IF:
Your idea of a one ski quiver is a ski that excells on groomers and is passable in crud, powder, and weirdo conditions, then the new generation of ~~75-85mm skis with built up shoulders, stiffish flexes, plates etc. is a good call. In softer or semi deep conditions, these skis will be slicers rather than floaters and will need to be skied with some authority.

Thanks,

PJS
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJS View Post
What would the short list be for your:

IF: Your idea of a one ski quiver is a ski that excells on groomers and is passable in crud, powder, and weirdo conditions, then the new generation of ~~75-85mm skis with built up shoulders, stiffish flexes, plates etc. is a good call. In softer or semi deep conditions, these skis will be slicers rather than floaters and will need to be skied with some authority.

Thanks,

PJS
What I personally like best includes.

Nordica Nitrous, Afterburner.
Fischer AMC 76,79
Atomic M11 B5

Other great skis that are just too stiff for my personal tastes.

Volkl AC3,4
Nodica Top Fuel, Jet Fuel.

Not all that short of a list......................

SJ
post #20 of 25
I am actually debating between the Salomon X Wing Tornado and the AMC 76, both in 170.

I ski in Ohio, Mich., NY (a lot at Holiday Valley), Pennsylvania. What would your recommendation be between these two>
?

I am higher end intermediate, medium speeds, medium turns, 95% groomed.

Thanks,

PJS
post #21 of 25
Both are very good skis but the Fischer will have better grip while the Solly will be more forgiving. The Solly will be a little more clattery on icy midwestern hills.

SJ
post #22 of 25
Jim;

Thank you SO much for your input. I am leaning toward the Fischers. I know both are excellent products. I enjoyed both but did notice I like the lighter weight of the AMC's as they seemed to help me link turns a little easier, perhaps due to their lighter weight.

The X Wing was fun and very easy to ski but I think I remember the AMC 76 being a touch more stable at higher speeds, even though I am by no means a speed freak.

Thanks again,

Pat
post #23 of 25
Remember just a few years ago when 70mm was a mid fat? Go wider, keep your edges sharp and you will carve! The only place width slows me down are in hard bumps! I own skis with waists of 66,70,77 and 94. The 94's carve just as well as the 66 and 70 and better than my 77's.
Also make jumps of 10mm in the waist to really notice a moderate difference IMHO.
post #24 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski=free View Post
Remember just a few years ago when 70mm was a mid fat? Go wider, keep your edges sharp and you will carve! The only place width slows me down are in hard bumps! I own skis with waists of 66,70,77 and 94. The 94's carve just as well as the 66 and 70 and better than my 77's.
Also make jumps of 10mm in the waist to really notice a moderate difference IMHO.

Thanks for the information and advice. I have a 69mm ski and plan to demo a 76mm and now also something in the 80mm range.
post #25 of 25
If you are a 'power' skier, don't forget the Atomic 11B5. They grip very well on the hard stuff but are quite wide for off piste. I agree with what what said earlier though. There truly is no ONE SKI quiver. Choose what means the most to you and compromise the on the other. It's like asking for a woman who is hot, cooks, enjoys serving her man, and earns a big salary. They don't exist except in our imaginations.
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 › Carving Ability as Waist Width Increases