EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Still using long skinny skis for powder?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Still using long skinny skis for powder? - Page 2

post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
Takecontrol618: "Short super fatties" are pretty rare. Sure, there's the occasional misguided fool who thinks his 164 Guns are the right tool, but the type of fat skis most of the faithful fat ski users are on are more in the 185-200cm range.

My experience from both reading this forum and from on the hill observation reflects that a very small percentage of people (of any size) are buying powder skis 185 or longer. I am constantly amazed at posts here about 200+ lb. guys trying to decide between 165 and 170s. I admit these are not the top end skiers, but they are the majority.
That doesn't mean its the right size for them- no way should a 200 lbs guy be on anything less than a 170 unless its an SL ski or a really stiff high end carver. I'm a firm believer that for a person with an average build a good benchmark for ski length is top of the head- and I don't see too many 200lb guys with an average build who are 165cm tall. Ifyou want to use the ski for different purposes, like more tree oriented, you look at different ski constructions, not different lengths. The added maneuverability of a shorter ski is much overplayed when it comes to fat skis, and that maneuverability does you no good if you're sitting back on your tails all the time to avoid going over the handlebars.
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takecontrol618 View Post
The added maneuverability of a shorter ski is much overplayed when it comes to fat skis, and that maneuverability does you no good if you're sitting back on your tails all the time to avoid going over the handlebars.
My sentiments exactly, but that doesn't seem to stop tons of people from buying them short.
post #33 of 47

Reflections

Reflections from a Minnesota Skier.

1. Very interesting post. I am a MN skier who gets to the mountains once or twice a year. Yet have been intrieged by and trying to understand the wide ski trend, thus I am being educated by reading this and other posts.

2. My powder experience has been limited, however about 6 years ago I skied "face shot" powder at Red Lodge MT (a most unlikely place for a perfedt light 5 ft of it). I was on traditional Slalmon 3S's and had a great time. I loved the in the lap, in the face, 3D type soft floating experiene. These skis also did just fine for other less deep powder. That made me wonder "why" for the fats.
My buddy says fats "make 2 ft of powder ski like 2 inches and 2 inches ski like 2 ft" and I wondered why anyone would want to have that.

3. But, I went with the trend and got some Explosives for trips out west. I used them last year at Crystal Mt in WA. and I was glad I had them. The heavy deep would have been impossible for my thinner skis. Maybe a ski with a softer tip would have been even better.
Then on to Utah during a storm cycle. It seemed I was skiing the left over powder buy the locals looking for the virgin at Snowbird. Again, I am guessing they worked better as I looked for and turned in the poweder patches between the tracks of others.

4. My limited experiences seems to tell me that both long and thin or medium and fat will work in perfect powder, however as the snow gets less than perfect, the fats start to shine.

5. PS. I do use them in Minnesota when we get 6+ inches, they do seem to make the snow feel deeper.
post #34 of 47
Things may be different in Colorado, but at Alta/Bird most of the guys on fat skis (and by fat I mean 105+) are on 183-185's and up. Some powder skis come in one size only and it's usually 190+ (like my Sanouks - actually I wish my Sanouks were 203cm). Also, nearly all the gapers I see Zorroing (messing up) powder are on mid-fats or rentals, not fat skis. I think the reason so many guys at Epic ski really short fat skis is because many of them are East Coasters and are used to buying really short carving skis.
post #35 of 47
Good one Jer.

Short skis suck, skinny skis suck, short skis suck again...Short, skinny skis really suck.

Go long and wide my friends.....

Anxious to get out and try my closeout XXL's.
195 Praxis on pre-order for next year....

Maybe it's all hype and I'll pull out my early 90's GS boards?
post #36 of 47
Jaxson where did you get those closeout XXL's, cause if they're the pair that got yanked from under my nose (actually I was waffling on whether I could afford them) I may have to track you down and steal them.
post #37 of 47
>>I think the reason so many guys at Epic ski really short fat skis is because many of them are East Coasters and are used to buying really short carving skis.

I agree. here in the east coast, we don;t get to see the powder and wide open trails you guys see in the west coast. most people only have one set of skis and need it to ski well where they are 95% of the time. so for them, the right tool for the job is a shorter ski which excels on groomed runs, hard pack and navigating short, crowded trails. if I am ever lucky enough to see decent powder on my short skis, I guess I;ll just have to rely on skill to navigate myself.

no doubt if I am able to ski bottomless powder and steep ungroomed bowls, the right tool for the job is a longer, fatter ski. well now I own 3 sets of skis so maybe I am breaking out just a bit.

However, I did recently purchase an arguably too short K2 PE 169.....guess I couldn;t break out of my east coast mentality.
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post
Jaxson where did you get those closeout XXL's, cause if they're the pair that got yanked from under my nose (actually I was waffling on whether I could afford them) I may have to track you down and steal them.
PhilT

Impulse buy. Went to Sturdevants Sat morning for the start of the 50% off sale and somehow missed the opening time and I was there early. Went for some S914's but there were none left. So I'm looking around at skis and the Goats were 2008 so were not on sale, but these XXL's were starting to get my interest. They were marked $899 (less than the 8800's, Squads & others etc.??) so I pulled the trigger at half price. I'll let you know what I think of them when I get a chance to ride them. This weekend is looking bad but I'm heading to WB next Thursday and will definately get on em. I mounted some P18's on them for my 321 BSL so if you have a BSL 321 or a bit under I'd be happy to hook up and let you crank a few turns on them even if it's next season. We should stay in touch via PM.

Jaxson
post #39 of 47
Quote:
I think the reason so many guys at Epic ski really short fat skis is because many of them are East Coasters and are used to buying really short carving skis.

tekweezle answer the question perfectly. Not everyone can afford to own multiple pairs of ski. And even if they do, you can only bring one or two of them on the plane. No one in their right mind would travel to the east coast to ski. But if they do, we would see many skier sliding all over the slope with their too wide skis that don't hold an edge in hardpack!

But I still don't get why is longer any better? Float? It maybe important for the 200+ pound guys. But for average folks, isn't 100mm wide enough at 180?
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by at_nyc View Post

But I still don't get why is longer any better? Float? It maybe important for the 200+ pound guys. But for average folks, isn't 100mm wide enough at 180?
yes, that is enough.

enough is an objective term. Once you ride fat skis in pow, you discover how easy it all is. then when you realize it could be even easier, you want more. hence, many of us going longer as well as wider.
post #41 of 47
Interesting comments. But here's another deal about length and width: The slower you ski, the more surface area you need to float at/near the surface. And the reverse. So assuming most of you powder hounds ski big lines fairly fast, why go for the extra width (and loss of maneuverability)? The extra length I can see for stability at speed, but I don't get why anyone under 220 lbs needs BOTH 190-something length and 100 something width.

It only makes sense if you're skiing slowly over thin cover and want to float. Is this the subtext?
post #42 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
why go for the extra width (and loss of maneuverability)?
I think you have your facts a bit confused...
post #43 of 47
lose the "need" choice of language. we don't need it. It's just more fun. Maneuverability is not lost, imo, only gained the higher you are out of the snow. float=maneuverability, imo, especially at speed. width = smearing/sliding maneuverability as well... hence reverse side-cut pow skis.
post #44 of 47
Having extra length also allows you to get forward more without experiencing tip dive. You could be on something 150mm wide, but if its super short you're going to go over the handlebars or submarine straight to the bottom of the snowpack. It's why skiboards are so useless in powder despite some models being pretty wide. If you've ever felt like you really need to sit back to get your tips out of the snow, a longer ski will definitely help.
post #45 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai View Post
any hills hold a "skinny/antique ski day"? LIke gaper day? Would be kind of nostaligic to get a core group of pass-holders together on a spring day, sporting 15 year old boards. I think that would be the only time I would be willing to bust mine out.

"If you do it, I will too."
The other day I rode the first pair of skis I was ever on.... 36 years ago!
And they were old hand - me - downs then. All wood, bear trap bindings and screwed on edges with leather lace up boots. I'ts been many years since I was so scared and out of control on skis! :
post #46 of 47
>>hence reverse side-cut pow skis.

I have been reading up on the Praxis, Spatula and the K2 Pontoon. if I skied enough powder, I would consider these as my tool of choice. 400$ for a pair of custom built Praxis;s is doable if I got 40-60 days of skiing.

what;s funny is that Shane McConkey;s observations largely mirror my own.
post #47 of 47
another thing to consider is that longer skis usually goes hand in hand with stability, speed and edge hold on steeper slopes. when you go "billy goating" off cliffs and steep bowls, you probably want the versatility of the longer skis for these conditions.
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 › Still using long skinny skis for powder?