or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

members advice on ski gear

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
I was reading a recent post on powder skis (powder skis, bwxmas), and came across some nasty disagreements among bears re the choice of powder ski for the OP.

My experience with epic says that there are many members that ski on, like, and recommend fat skis (100+ mm waists) for all skiing...jer, hs, maggot etc.
There are also members that recommend more moderate-waisted skis (85-100mm) for all-around use, especially for lighter skiers..sj, cirquerider, barrettcv, beyond et al.
Some others favor smaller waists...dawgcatching, atomic man and others..

None of these is the perfect choice for a particular OP, until he demos and decides what flavor is best for him..

This is one of epic's strong suits IMO...3 differing preferences, all from experienced, knowledgeable skiers....

Compare this to TGR where everyone skis on 105+mm waists, 200+cm long.
Any references to skis <95cms are JONGED off the planet ..

At newschoolers, it's "Park skis rule, dude!"
At Real Skiers, it's " Head skis are the 2ND COMING!!"

Am I deluded in pointing out that EPIC has more balance?...Balance is good for SURVIVAL...check out insects, sharks, crocs, etc.. Dinosaurs didn't last long...too specialized :..

I've also gotten great help and advice from members like Rio, SJ, Jer, Barrettcv, Cirquerider, Dawgcatching among others ..
Over at TGR I got the BIG JONG :...

So what I'm trying to say is to let's leave room for differing opinions/likes/dislikes, and not get our drawers in a bunch over small stuff...Do we want to mimic TGR/newschoolers/Real skiers??

Any OP over the age of reason can sift through the different opinions given and decide in which direction he wants to head...:

I don't know anymore...

p.s. JER...I and I am sending you a prescription for TRIPLE-STRENGTH GANJA for your terminal dandruff..yaga

cheers..........nfp158
post #2 of 27
Wow, a bit of common sense and reality?....well thats just crazy talk around here.
post #3 of 27
If you want to be a good skier balance in all things is key.
post #4 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post
p.s. JER...I and I am sending you a prescription for TRIPLE-STRENGTH GANJA for your terminal dandruff..yaga

cheers..........nfp158
Man, I sure hope you sent that USPS.

Every fat ski thread ends up like that. It's tradition.
post #5 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post
Over at TGR I got the BIG JONG :...
Did you get jonged because you like skinnier skis, posted
a question that had been discussed at length and didn't
do a search, or posted the question in the main forum and not tech talk?

Or a combo?
post #6 of 27
And I owe thanks to Physicsman, B.W.in PA & Shredhead for broadening my horizons (I'm not one of those lighter skiers):

[ IMG ][ /IMG ]

Nothin' wrong with having the right tool for the job .
post #7 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter View Post
Did you get jonged because you like skinnier skis, posted
a question that had been discussed at length and didn't
do a search, or posted the question in the main forum and not tech talk?

Or a combo?
Don't forget naked pics of Sister/Girlfriend.
post #8 of 27
I don't think there's ever been a time when advice on skis has been more fragmented, disparate and -- frankly -- mostly unhelpful. There have been times when, as a result of a general design change (e.g. the introduction of metal or fiberglass, the GLM thing, or the first "shaped" skis), there was a sort of clinging-to-old / ready-for-the-new disagreement going on -- but the difference generally lay along a single dimension, and the differences weren't really all that huge.

Now you've got camps which disagree in multiple dimensions, and not only do they favor different areas along those dimensions, they don't even come close to overlapping. And there aren't two camps, but around five, or maybe more. There's not really any old/new split either, as all the camps have a mix of "neat-o, that's new!" and "bah, that's silly" attitudes. And I'm not entirely sure there even is a mainstream anymore.
post #9 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjjohnston View Post
I don't think there's ever been a time when advice on skis has been more fragmented, disparate and -- frankly -- mostly unhelpful. There have been times when, as a result of a general design change (e.g. the introduction of metal or fiberglass, the GLM thing, or the first "shaped" skis), there was a sort of clinging-to-old / ready-for-the-new disagreement going on -- but the difference generally lay along a single dimension, and the differences weren't really all that huge.

Now you've got camps which disagree in multiple dimensions, and not only do they favor different areas along those dimensions, they don't even come close to overlapping. And there aren't two camps, but around five, or maybe more. There's not really any old/new split either, as all the camps have a mix of "neat-o, that's new!" and "bah, that's silly" attitudes. And I'm not entirely sure there even is a mainstream anymore.
sjj,
It's all good is what it is!

adn i fgorot to iclunde Bushwcaekr in pnen....thanks to you my man!

Cheers, nfp
post #10 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjjohnston View Post
I don't think there's ever been a time when advice on skis has been more fragmented, disparate and -- frankly -- mostly unhelpful. There have been times when, as a result of a general design change (e.g. the introduction of metal or fiberglass, the GLM thing, or the first "shaped" skis), there was a sort of clinging-to-old / ready-for-the-new disagreement going on -- but the difference generally lay along a single dimension, and the differences weren't really all that huge.

Now you've got camps which disagree in multiple dimensions, and not only do they favor different areas along those dimensions, they don't even come close to overlapping. And there aren't two camps, but around five, or maybe more. There's not really any old/new split either, as all the camps have a mix of "neat-o, that's new!" and "bah, that's silly" attitudes. And I'm not entirely sure there even is a mainstream anymore.
Yep. Isn't it an awesome time to be a skier?
post #11 of 27
enjoy the snow. It may be only a memory in thirty years.
post #12 of 27

Miscell

In 30 years I won't have a memory!
post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post
there are many members that ski on, like, and recommend fat skis (100+ mm waists) for all skiing...jer, hs, maggot etc.
Just for the record, I have a pair of 95mm waisted skis in my quiver. Since I am a complete gear nerd, I have a word document saved on my computer detail my absolute dream quiver, which has 5 skis (out of about 20 total) with a waist width less than 100. The narrowest is 87.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post
Compare this to TGR where everyone skis on 105+mm waists, 200+cm long.
Any references to skis <95cms are JONGED off the planet ..

Am I deluded in pointing out that EPIC has more balance?...Balance is good for SURVIVAL...check out insects, sharks, crocs, etc.. Dinosaurs didn't last long...too specialized :..

I've also gotten great help and advice from members like Rio, SJ, Jer, Barrettcv, Cirquerider, Dawgcatching among others ..
Over at TGR I got the BIG JONG :...
While I don't think you're deluding yourself, I think maybe your perspective is biased. Not a bad thing, just something to be aware of.

First, there are plenty of people at TGR that own skis <100, even <80. The elan 777s are well liked there, along with bros (of course) and most things from the head monster series. No one at TGR is going to dislike you because you like skinny skis. Its a bit hard to realize (not being sarcastic here) but sometimes people at tgr will berate and ridicule someone, not because they dislike them, but just to point out their mistake. Since it is mostly unmoderated, and threads cannot just be moved, by making fun of someone who posts something in the wrong place, they (ideally) guide others to do it the right way.

Second, Epic is biased too, towards skinny skis. Sure, people talk about fat skis here, but not any more than people talk about skinny skis at TGR.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post
Any OP over the age of reason can sift through the different opinions given and decide in which direction he wants to head...:
Well anyone with any common sense can realize that a bunch of comments on the internet are not going to tell you what kinds of skis you like. I have found out what kinds of skis I like, through skiing them. I only read reviews to see how well a ski fits into the realm of what I already know I like. If its something you're completely unfamiliar with, the only way to know for sure is to try it.
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjjohnston View Post
I don't think there's ever been a time when advice on skis has been more fragmented, disparate and -- frankly -- mostly unhelpful. There have been times when, as a result of a general design change (e.g. the introduction of metal or fiberglass, the GLM thing, or the first "shaped" skis), there was a sort of clinging-to-old / ready-for-the-new disagreement going on -- but the difference generally lay along a single dimension, and the differences weren't really all that huge.

Now you've got camps which disagree in multiple dimensions, and not only do they favor different areas along those dimensions, they don't even come close to overlapping. And there aren't two camps, but around five, or maybe more. There's not really any old/new split either, as all the camps have a mix of "neat-o, that's new!" and "bah, that's silly" attitudes. And I'm not entirely sure there even is a mainstream anymore.
But it IS a great time to be a skier.

I don't see the different camps warring with each other. They just like different things. Lets take the off piste/powder crowd. There are people that like trees the best, people that like doing tricks into powder the best, or people that like skiing super fast steep stuff in powder the best, and people that like billy goating steep exposed intricate lines.

Every one of those groups is going to do a bit of the other stuff, but they are going to like skis tailored to thier personal style. If I see people on rockered skis (which I don't really care for) I don't think they're stupid, I just think they probably enjoy tighter terrain than I do.

Then theres the on piste crowd, with all its own divisions, the backcountry crowd, and whatever else.

Like I said before, people just have to figure out what they like for themselves. Read reviews to figure out if a ski is similar to what you already like, don't read reviews to figure out what someone else thinks is the BEST SKI EVER!!!!
post #15 of 27
In terms of TGR, people should btw be aware that in "Tech Talk" there is a sticky thread for "Recommended SKis and bindings" which is really quite good and a great service to the skiing community, and covers basically everything except for frontside carving skis and dedicated bump skis. If you were to ask in tech talk for race stock slalom recommendations, you might actually get some on-target advice and/or referred elsewhere; it is unlikely that except for sarcastic posts someone would say, "Dude, those race skis are going to limit you in the really deep stuff, have you considered racing on Iggie FFFs instead?" I don't post there anymore, I could list a lot of faults, but the ski advice and reviews there is quite good within the focus of the forum, and very diverse in terms of opinions on specific skis. In reviews people also do a very good job in general in listing their own skiing background and preferences, including bindings used, etc. all of which can have a big impact. There is no orthodoxy even as to wht some might call "house brand" skis there, much less particular shapes in general.
post #16 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post
Compare this to TGR where everyone skis on 105+mm waists, 200+cm long.
Any references to skis <95cms are JONGED off the planet ..

So what I'm trying to say is to let's leave room for differing opinions/likes/dislikes, and not get our drawers in a bunch over small stuff...Do we want to mimic TGR/newschoolers/Real skiers??
If you were really talking about skis <95cm, you were rightfully JONGed. You a blader or something? Doing gnar on blades = superjong - let's see pictures.

Maybe a post on Gaperzone, where they barely have a clue about most anything and run Youtubes of "bump skiing" at sundown on their front page could be a place for <95cm ski discussions.

Count your blessings.
post #17 of 27
I think if you read the gear reviews you will see lots of skis reviewed. In general the softer snow you ski, the wider you would want to ski. I have no problem with RX-8's at about 66mm wide on the hard snow we get in the East. Your goal should be to find a ski that works for you under conditions you encounter. If you encounter enough range of conditions, consider more than one pair of skis. Of course, don't forget that very small improvements to your boots can have a lot more beneficial impact than a major change in skis. Also consider the effect of tune and stiffness in deciding what kind of ski to get.
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post
Compare this to TGR where everyone skis on 105+mm waists, 200+cm long.
Any references to skis <95cms are JONGED off the planet ..

Over at TGR I got the BIG JONG :...
You're going to get jonged if you A. are new, and B. waltz in asking "what skis should I get?" for the bazillionth time.

The quivers of the Mags that I ski with, and there are quite a few, include skis that are appropriate for the snow, terrain and skier. I've known many of them for many years, and there is a wealth of knowledge, interposed with a wealth of attitude on the board that isn't always there in person.

As far as knowledgable, I take posts here with more than a grain of salt. Face it, on one hand you get people who live in East Manutackettutacut Massachuussettss who spend one week out west and others who claim to have nothing under 100 in their quiver giving advice about skis. Frankly, advice on the internet is worth all the ink it's printed with.
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
Just for the record, I have a pair of 95mm waisted skis in my quiver. Since I am a complete gear nerd, I have a word document saved on my computer detail my absolute dream quiver, which has 5 skis (out of about 20 total) with a waist width less than 100. The narrowest is 87.


First, there are plenty of people at TGR that own skis <100, even <80.
Actually there are some of us who own skis in the 66 range. If your entire quiver of 20 doesn't include anything under 87, you're going to miss out on on having the right gear for the right day.
post #20 of 27
Harry, are you ever going to sell me that snurfer?
post #21 of 27
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snofun3 View Post
If you were really talking about skis <95cm, you were rightfully JONGed. You a blader or something? Doing gnar on blades = superjong - let's see pictures.

Maybe a post on Gaperzone, where they barely have a clue about most anything and run Youtubes of "bump skiing" at sundown on their front page could be a place for <95cm ski discussions.

Count your blessings.
<95mm waist.....my bad
nfp
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
I don't see the different camps warring with each other.
I don't either. Though that might be just because I'm not looking.

It isn't warfare that bugs me (to the extent anything does): I don't read any forums (here or elsewhere) in which warfare is S.O.P., except for an occasional brief glance at the instructional forums here.

Quote:
They just like different things. Lets take the off piste/powder crowd. There are people that like ... people that like ... , or people that like ... and people that like ....
With that, I agree. Presumably there are some people who kind of move around and do different things, too. It isn't so much people recommending particular (sometimes odd or extreme) skis for particular (sometimes odd or extreme) uses, it's how to reconcile bold statements like: "Nobody should use anything with a waist under 100 mm for anything," and "Nobody should use anything with a waist over 75 mm for anything." Not only don't they reconcile, they don't even seem to be talking about the same subject.

And the waist business is just one dimensions, albeit one that's easy to talk about because you can use numbers. Throw in: length, shape, cap/laminate, race-stock, non-FIS-compliant, gendered skis, silly brand-personality alignments (more prevalent in bindings than skis) and you start to wonder if people are not only talking about completely different subjects, but doing it in different languages.

Quote:
Read reviews to figure out if a ski is similar to what you already like, don't read reviews to figure out what someone else thinks is the BEST SKI EVER!!!!
I'm starting to wonder if there's any value to reviews at all, particularly if you're looking for something that's not similar to what you've already used.

Maybe, ultimately, it all boils down to this: can an i.M 88 actually be a good ski, despite the fact Highway Star recommends it?
post #23 of 27
Inspite of HS's opinion, the i.M88 is a great ski. Although it is much better when clamped on to someome other the HS's feet!
post #24 of 27
"Knowledge is power." I think the more information and opinions you can get about a ski the better position you are in to decide if you will like it. Of course some of the reviews here are b.s., but then so are most of the ones you read in Powder or Ski Magazine. It has been my experience that if you go on line, look hard enough, and read between the lines you can usually get a pretty good feel for whether you will like a particular ski in a particular length. I love reading opinions by people that are completely opposite from my mindset. Heck, they've even gotten me to try and buy skis I would have never considered if left to my own devices.
post #25 of 27
WHile I have never skied anything fatter than 80----I skied Silverton this year---about 1.5 feet of POW...except for the boarders, the rest were on their own or borrowed 100+. Most admitted they did not like them. Beside the guide---who was one damm good skier, (on 100+ customs) I might suggest that I was both having the most fun and making the sweetest turns of the paying folks. Been on 65 waists in 2.5 feet. While not the best, I had a ball. I know I will try fatter skis. I believe they will be better than thinner in the POW.....however I might use the equation of

80% of it is the skier....20% the ski. Without the former, the latter will not see the benefits promised. My 2cents
post #26 of 27
Don't take it personally. Jonging is an entertainment art form at TGR. There's a lot less of that form of entertainment here.

To me the best reviews are the ones that explain not just what ski they liked but why they liked it and how it behaved compared to other skis so you can extrapolate from your knowledge base. It's great that you can ask clarifying questions here, without setting yourself up for a punch line.

I don't understand how someone can not have any sub 100 mm waisted skis:. Don't they like speed? Even the LP is 97.
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
I don't understand how someone can not have any sub 100 mm waisted skis:. Don't they like speed? Even the LP is 97.

Rossi B squads are way more stable at speed than LPs, and the squads are 104.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion