EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Is there any good reason for a skinny ski out west?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is there any good reason for a skinny ski out west? - Page 2

post #31 of 42
I don't have any use for a Skinny? ski here in the west.

When the conditions get firm I get out the 194 LP's.
post #32 of 42
There are days out west where the off-piste is brutal frozen crud. On those days the groomers are usually hard, fast & empty. While you can use a fatter ski on them they are a blast to ski with a great carving ski. Don't miss the chance to truly enjoy wide open empty groomers.....take a pair of carving skis with you.
post #33 of 42
if by skinny you mean something in the 87-94mm range, sure!

i found that the Blizzard Titan 9 (and the T8 if you're shorter) in an 86mm (80-82mm in the 8, I believe) is an unbelievably sweet hard snow ski (i even thing that Phil Pug uses it as his everyday goto EC ski). I rode the old piss green ones several demo days last season at Heavenly when a bunch of the runs were nothing but pimpled ice. They held up with sweet, sweet, sweet aplomb.

ditto for my 94mm AK King Salmons, at least in the textured hard stuff. i haven't really gotten them out on straight ice yet (and don't really go looking for that anyway).

like Jim, I value my ski days, but actually not enough to go if the conditions are crappy. i have to weigh the merit of driving 3-4 hours from San Fran to ride ice and rocks.

that said, i have found skiing in a group on crappy days makes them much more enjoyable (or even just skiing with one other person).

Full disclosure time: i do own a pair of 78mm waisted skis (No Ka Oi). But they are hella stiff and toss me around a bit on the truly hardpack. I have relegated them to spring groomer ripping and crud busting.

PS: Bob, I think I'd like to ride with you sometime. I had a blast with an excommunicated Epic skier last season at Beaver Creek. He was skiing some short (no longer than 170) and hella narrow Head skis and we were hitting ankle deep powder and slush all day. He whupped my hiney, too. He thought my 94milli's were really fat.
post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
if by skinny you mean something in the 87-94mm range, sure!

I value my ski days, but actually not enough to go to merit of driving 3-4 hours from San Fran to ride ice

had a blast with an excommunicated Epic skier last season at Beaver Creek. He was skiing some short (no longer than 170) and hella narrow Head skis . He whupped my hiney, too..

Maybe there is a conection here? Put in some time on a ski made for icy conditions and maybe you'll be the one doing the hiney whippin'
post #35 of 42
man, i just spent the last 2 seasons demoing and figured out that my sweet size for skis 87 and up is between 180 and 188.

now i gotta start the process all over again and try skies under 175 and in the low 70's at the waist?!?!

aw, man!

PS
I've ridden MTT's Legends and seen him ride 'em, too...he just points those suckers straight down the fall line and plunges. So of course they tear up the ice (they probably never touch it, but rather hover a mm above it, planing on the current created between the friction of their bases and the cool air coming off the ice).
post #36 of 42
If you race, or ski a ton of park, then yea, it makes sense to have some skinny skis.

For myself, I don't think theres any advantage to anything sub 90mm. Even on the hardest of harpack days I find a stiff midfat to be optimal. Something stiff, any 95-105 will plow through all the uneven snow you find off the groomers when it hasn't snowed for weeks, and will still be plenty fast edge to edge on the groomers, once you get up to speed. I pretty much only like groomers that are steep and long enough that you can go FAST. Anything else is just transportation between more entertaining runs.
post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
like Jim, I value my ski days, but actually not enough to go if the conditions are crappy. i have to weigh the merit of driving 3-4 hours from San Fran to ride ice and rocks.
Bingo!!! Most Westerners avoid conditions many Easterners consider good. Add in wide open empty groomers and you have conditions many Easterners consider paradise. Bring your carving skis. If the conditions turn 'icy' enjoy the luxury of carving turn on runs you have all to yourself.
post #38 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rio View Post
Bingo!!! Most Westerners avoid conditions many Easterners consider good. Add in wide open empty groomers and you have conditions many Easterners consider paradise. Bring your carving skis. If the conditions turn 'icy' enjoy the luxury of carving turn on runs you have all to yourself.
People always say stuff like this, but I just don't think its true for most real skiers. For hobby skiers, or people that have a big drive to the hill, yea. However, ski towns are filled with people that moved to (or stayed in) the mountains because they really love skiing. These people ski every single day off, and as many lunch breaks as they can, regardless of the conditions.
post #39 of 42
Maggot -

I have yet to experience an icy day in Montana or Idaho where I saw a crowd except during Xmas break when the entire state of Minnesota comes to Montana to ski. Its amazing the number of people from the Midwest & New England that move here and swear off ice. Yes, there is a dedicate group (myself included) that goes out in all conditions but they are a minority.
post #40 of 42
Last year in the Sierras, we got off to a terrible start to the winter, and had record lack of snowfall. Off piste was peppered with rocks. Now, there were a bunch of guys out there collecting core shots, but I really don't consider that fun. The main trails were in firm, but good condition. I saw no problem in sticking to the groomers until the rocks covered.

You should see guys like Eric Deslauriers ripping on 78 and 82 mm width skis on every kind of gnar terrain; cliffs, ice bumps; on and off piste, and doing it in style. Its hard to believe most of the advocates of wide skis on hard conditions use their edges the same way, but I have seen some who definitely do. It takes tremendous strength and toughness in the legs and knees to do that, and its not really something the guys who do it well would advocate to the average skier. There are good reasons guys like me choose a narrower ski in these conditions. Geez, I hate coral reef!:

By the same token, those of us who find narrower skis to be the tool of choice on icy conditions are unlikely to persuade Maggot or Tyrone to ski sub 90mm skis except on Retro day or Demo days. I've seen Tyrone on 70 mm skis, and he does well on them. His preference for 100+ mm is an educated choice.
post #41 of 42
If your skiing groomers, ice or the bumps.. Hell ya. I end up grabbing my 64cm about 10 times a year. If there is a chance for good pow leave them home..
post #42 of 42
All the groomer haters should try some slalom skis. They can turn a smooth boring plank into a rollercoaster ride, with g-forces just not possible off piste. Sort of like making lemonade.
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 › Is there any good reason for a skinny ski out west?