EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Equipment Innovation <-> Technique <-> Instruction, so...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Equipment Innovation <-> Technique <-> Instruction, so... - Page 3

post #61 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty View Post
Skis:
1200 ski&binding
800 boots
100 poles
====
2100
Where are you buying your gear from? Those prices are pretty astronomical even without a Pro/Bro form.
post #62 of 75
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but I'd like to know what percentage of skiers even own more than one pair of skis.

And I'm sure the percentage of skiers that are still taking lessons is far lower than THAT...

I just don't think the cross section of people who take lessons and people who own multiple pairs of skis and people who ski PNW glop is going to be very large ....
I gather that, like Max and some others, you believe this is entirely an issue for people with quivers. And entirely an issue for experts. And almost exclusively an issue for PNW "glop" skiers. And if this were indeed the case, that would be a mighty small intersection in the Venn diagram!

But it is not the case. Ignoring the fact that not all PNW snow is "glop" - and that even said glop can be big fun on the right skis ---- the truth is the fat ski thing is none of the above. While they are obviously not the tool of choice for NE ice skiing, fatter skis hold their own under a very broad range of snow conditions and terrain. And skier ability. Hence their growing popularity among virtually all classes of skiers in much of the U.S. Despite the friction caused by both sales and instructional channels with their feet firmly planted in the last century ( : ).

In much of the country, there is no practical reason beginners and intermediates should be hesitant about using fatter skis (at least 85-100). And there should be no reason they should not expect a random instructor to be comfortable with that. At least if the instructional world were on top of current gear and technique. And likewise, in much of the country, there is no reason someone interested in skiing powder should not be able to bring rockered skis to a lesson and get proper instruction (conditions permitting). But in most places, you probably can't.

In my mind there is some sort of strange funny+sad irony in seeing beginners struggle in lessons with gear and instructors that limit them, yet at the same time being able to look, not 30 yards away, at a bunch of kids with a solid two-footed stance laying down rails on fat twins as they show their buddies how to ski. And watching these learners progress ridiculously faster than their "peers" in lessons. You may be observing something else, but to me this is like a big red flare with respect to equipment, with respect to technique, and with respect to teaching.

I'm not dismissing the utility of any particular category of ski under the right circumstances, but I'm just plain confused about people thinking all "fatter" skis are some sort of specialty tool. Heck, compared with virtually any 12 meter carver, a Mantra or Gotama (or anything similar) is a veritable Swiss Army Knife (::.
post #63 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
I gather that, like Max and some others, you believe this is entirely an issue for people with quivers. And entirely an issue for experts. And almost exclusively an issue for PNW "glop" skiers. And if this were indeed the case, that would be a mighty small intersection in the Venn diagram!
....

I'm not dismissing the utility of any particular category of ski under the right circumstances, but I'm just plain confused about people thinking all "fatter" skis are some sort of specialty tool. Heck, compared with virtually any 12 meter carver, a Mantra or Gotama (or anything similar) is a veritable Swiss Army Knife (::.
As far as the quiver issue: you are saying one should use a Pontoon or Praxis as one's only pair of skis?

I just agree with the others that the vast majority of skiers ski on groomed or hard snow, because that's mostly what there is to ski on. Even on a powder day, resort runs are often tracked out before most skiers are even on the lift. The runs that aren't already groomed, that is. And many skiers don't like skiing in "bad" weather, either, which rules out those days where it fills in while you're riding back up.

I guess I just don't see where most skiers have enough soft snow to justify using a big no-camber ski as their only pair. (IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE NICE IF THAT WERE SO, HOWEVER!)

And that also takes me back to the "glop" comment, which wasn't supposed to imply anything except that geographically speaking, you West Coasters probably need bigger skis than most of the rest of us.

So I'm not saying anything different from what was said already; I assumed you were talking about a quiver -- I can't imagine a Pontoon being anything except a quiver ski. Sorry. I guess that's your entire point.

My own experience is this: I transitioned from straight skis on Volkls that are 67 underfoot. A couple of seasons ago I bought some 88s. The first year I used the "big" ones only on powder days. But last year I started skiing them more often, packed powder or anything soft was fine. I really prefer the 67s on harder snow, though.

For this year, I bought some 78s to use as the "hard snow" skis. And I imagine that I'll transition to a bigger, longer ski for big snow days.

I would bet, though, that it's easier to learn on narrower skis and then step up to wider skis, under almost all conditions.

And that would be enough uninformed late-night rambling from me ....
post #64 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
I really don't think most recreational skiers really care about how they're "progressing" as long as they're having fun.
I suspect that many skiers have more or less given up with worrying about development because they haven't been progressing at a measurable rate.
post #65 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
I suspect that many skiers have more or less given up with worrying about development because they haven't been progressing at a measurable rate.
I suspect that they are usually pretty satisfied with their development. It isn't really that difficult to fake your way to a level of skiing that takes most people down the runs they want to ski. Most don't want to ski trees or steeps or bumps or much of the terrain that WE like. That kind of stuff is scary, you know.

Skiing is a cool sport because any level is fun. If you're a beginner, beginner runs are fun. Just sliding is fun. It isn't like tennis, where you have to get to a certain level (ie, ability to get the ball back in play somewhat consistently) before it's fun. Unless you think chasing balls is fun.

I don't know, maybe I'm being cynical. I just think too much discussion on this board is filtered through the perspective of a very small proportion of skiers out there, the addicted and obsessed.
post #66 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
I suspect that they are usually pretty satisfied with their development. It isn't really that difficult to fake your way to a level of skiing that takes most people down the runs they want to ski. Most don't want to ski trees or steeps or bumps or much of the terrain that WE like.
Perhaps. But I ski and ride the lifts with lots of recreational skiers and based on the questions I get I've got to think that they would like to be better skiers.
post #67 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Where are you buying your gear from? Those prices are pretty astronomical even without a Pro/Bro form.
Jer,

I tried to do list price comparisons for high end gear, but one level down from overly rediculous. For example, Callaway has a $600 driver, but $500 seems to be the price for most of the latest and greatest. Similarly I've heard of some specialty skis running $1500+, but saw a bunch of high end skis around the $900 mark and bindings around $300 and compared to a couple of $1200 integrated high end skis. I realize that very few people buy gear at list price, but discounts are all over the map for both ski and golf and thus make it hard for an apples to apples comparison.
post #68 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
The Rusty, your comparison is missing half a dozen pairs of skis; you didn't list only one club did you?
ha ha

I've already got 3 sets of golf clubs vs 7 pairs of skis vs 4 snowboards. I don't really need multiple sets of either. I'm just trying to make the point that golf equipment expenses can be in the same neighborhood as ski equipment expenses.
post #69 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post
As far as the quiver issue: you are saying one should use a Pontoon or Praxis as one's only pair of skis?

Just thought I'd clear that up for ya:

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
In much of the country, there is no practical reason beginners and intermediates should be hesitant about using fatter skis (at least 85-100).
Since there are no freakskis that come with waists that small, I assume he's talking about traditionally shaped skis.
post #70 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
Perhaps. But I ski and ride the lifts with lots of recreational skiers and based on the questions I get I've got to think that they would like to be better skiers.

I would agree and I started a thread on this last summer. Keep in mind the profile of the average skier, I think it's like 7 days a year and the vast majority won't ski on icy or crud days. Most won't ski on pow days for that matter. few will invest in lessons, few will invest in proper fitting boots, few are willing to work on drills and such for oneof their 7 days. Wider skis do provide a kind of instant gratification to many of these folks. Although I see and appreciate your point, look at it from another view. If this gets more skiers out and sells more skis, that's good for the overall industry, more revenue pays for the resorts to make improvements and such. I am a skinny skier convert so while I like my SuperShape on hardsnow, I have found that wider skis 78-89 are a lot of fun and as correctly said, just slower to come up on edge, they are more fun and you can still ski them with your preferred technique. I love my mids! less work, more fun per run= more runs....:
post #71 of 75
Thread Starter 
I just felt the need to resurrect this

A this season draws to an end and we've seen what people were riding - and we've also seen what next year's lineups look like. There is no doubt that more and more fat skis are appearing on the scene. Likewise more rockered skis of various flavors. Granted my neighborhood is probably one of the places relatively far along this curve, so my view may be a bit skewed. But the trend is undeniable.

Instructors, sales folks, buyers, etc. - what to you think?

If you are an instructor, what do you do if someone shows up on skis 100 wide? 115 wide? What if they show up with 72s asking for powder lessons (and there actually is powder)? What if next year they wander in having purchased a Czar or S7 or maybe even a Kuro & want lessons - for carving, powder, general off piste, whataver?

Shop folks, what will you steer people toward and why? What if they ask for a traditional 70-75 midfat? What if they walk in and want to buy 115 waisted skis. What will you ask? What will you say? What companies are building the skis you really *believe* you should be putting customers on?
post #72 of 75
I think that a point central to this issue is one of location.
post #73 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
I just felt the need to resurrect this

A this season draws to an end and we've seen what people were riding - and we've also seen what next year's lineups look like. There is no doubt that more and more fat skis are appearing on the scene. Likewise more rockered skis of various flavors. Granted my neighborhood is probably one of the places relatively far along this curve, so my view may be a bit skewed. But the trend is undeniable.

Instructors, sales folks, buyers, etc. - what to you think?

If you are an instructor, what do you do if someone shows up on skis 100 wide? 115 wide? What if they show up with 72s asking for powder lessons (and there actually is powder)? What if next year they wander in having purchased a Czar or S7 or maybe even a Kuro & want lessons - for carving, powder, general off piste, whataver?

Shop folks, what will you steer people toward and why? What if they ask for a traditional 70-75 midfat? What if they walk in and want to buy 115 waisted skis. What will you ask? What will you say? What companies are building the skis you really *believe* you should be putting customers on?
not your normal instructor...

if someone shows up on 100mm+ and they arent noodles I normally just roll with it. If the skis are holding them back on hardpack and thats all there is to ski I will let them know. I teach tons of kids to ski powder on very skinny skis, lets face it not optimal but there normally isnt a choice there.

As long as the ski isnt not holding them back I normally dont care what they on, in fact despite my large quiver I normally teach all lesson on my 179cm Pes unless someone has 'really" specific thing they want to learn.
post #74 of 75
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post
I think that a point central to this issue is one of location.
While I think there is a pretty general trend toward fatter & a definite expansion of the rockered segment - I actually agree. Clearly choice of skis is influenced by where people live & ski. Among other things... So it might be worthwhile for people to qualify their comments with some mention/discussion of geography & maybe even resort. But that certainly is not the entire picture.
post #75 of 75
The only fatties here in west virginia are sittin' in fast food restaurants.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Equipment Innovation <-> Technique <-> Instruction, so...