or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Could some one recomend a powder ski that can still rip the whole mountain?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Could some one recomend a powder ski that can still rip the whole mountain? - Page 2

post #31 of 114
Right, I took your comment out of context:

Looks like you had a great season!
post #32 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Right, I took your comment out of context:

Looks like you had a great season!
Yeah, I think you did.

I don't feel 'awkward' at these widths, but I don't perceive the fine differences as much as others. I bend my knees, turn my feet, tip my ankles (try to remember to keep my hands forward) and the skis turn for me.

You might be the princess that feels the pea buried under 40 mattresses. You may be the guy who feels all wrong with a 1 degree shift out of alignment. Hey, that's fantastic.

I'd love to see a person in action who really feels a couple of centimeters in length or a couple of millimeters in width as a huge difference in their skiing. They must be much more precise than I am.
post #33 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
I think there is more to dynamicskiing then bending the ski at high speed!

good for her! She should keep the personal skiing ability comments to herself. Particularly, when she has never skied with me, knows no one who has skied with me and knows nothing about my skiing background, don't ya think!!!!
you know most arguements on this board could be solved by more people skiing together or at least posting TRs....something you dont do.
post #34 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
you know most arguements on this board could be solved by more people skiing together or at least posting TRs....something you dont do.
Sometimes you have wisdom that belies your youth.

Then there are the other days.
post #35 of 114
One thing I have noticed as I ski on wider skis skiing on hard snow is that the edges exert more leverage over the boot, binding, foot, and ankle when up on edge in a turn. This isn't really noticeable in soft snow but on harder snow, I definitely get sore feet after skiing fat skis for a few hours. Its not that is isn't possible to carve on fatter skis in hard snow its just that after a while it just hurts.

I haven't really notice a definite demarcation where skis beyond XXX width are no good on hard pack, its more of a gradual worsening.

Some wider skis like im103s are not very painful most of the time on hard pack at all, but that is because I make relatively few turns on those skis and when I do make short turns its more of a skidded smeared turn and not really dynamic carves.

I have had two busted ankles this season so maybe that is the cause of the pain or maybe its some other boot fit issue, and then there is my ham fisted (ham footed) ski technique, but this is definitely the impression that I have.
post #36 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by bklyn View Post
Yeah, I think you did.

I don't feel 'awkward' at these widths, but I don't perceive the fine differences as much as others. I bend my knees, turn my feet, tip my ankles (try to remember to keep my hands forward) and the skis turn for me.

You might be the princess that feels the pea buried under 40 mattresses. You may be the guy who feels all wrong with a 1 degree shift out of alignment. Hey, that's fantastic.

I'd love to see a person in action who really feels a couple of centimeters in length or a couple of millimeters in width as a huge difference in their skiing. They must be much more precise than I am.
Well, i guess i am that guy. And yes i have been told by many and do consider my skiing to be termed very precise.

And I will throw out that much of the difference in skis is relative to the last ski you just skied on.

So for instance if I jst took a run on a FIS legal Race Stock 165 slalom ski and then jump on a pair of Gotamas on the groomed, the gotamas are probably going to seem much worse then if I had just started out on the goats 1st thing in the morning (But in reality who would pick goats to go ski groomers anyway)

So yes i can feel the 1 degree out of alignment and instantaneoulsy feel the couple (or more) MM in waist width, binding position difference or ski shape. And I believe many who post here can also.

Now let me explain to you why.

It is called subconcious competence. this is the holy grail of all disciplines and books (The Inner Game of Tennis or Skiing) have been written about it. this means you have practiced and ingrained a discipline to make how you do it competent without having to think about. There is concious incompetence (you know you suck), unconcious incompetence (you don't know you suck) concious competence (you are good but you have to think about what you are doing) and subconcious competence (you just do) and it is good!

This applies to golf, skiing, musicians and any discipline that takes a particular skill set.

Once tuned into a pair of skis or boots or even poles for that matter, I do not have to think about what I am doing. My mind "automatically expects" everything to be in the same place it was the last run. I just flow down the hill.

Change any one of the parameters, more or less base bevel, duller or sharper edges, length, width, sidecut, stiffness, boot geometry and so forth and my subconcious must be reprogrammed to the changes. This can take anywhere from 1 to a few runs.

We have all had that amazing run or day where we ski with amazing ease and grace. And then we have all had days where we struggle and just can't seem to be as "golden" and try to duplicate that magical day.

The diffference is attributed to subconcious competence and your internal teller not intimdating you as a doer!

so you can keep your comments coming that i must not be able to ski worth a darn because i don't like overly fat skis on groomed slopes. But trust me when I say, that is your problem not mine!
post #37 of 114
One time I skied with a snowboard on each foot. That was too wide.
post #38 of 114
but if you are conscious of your subconscious competence (or incompetence) doesn't that negate everything?

sometimes i think too many folks think too much about skiing rather than just skiing, consciously, subconsciously or otherwise.

as for the comparison of being on a ridiculously short and narrow race ski and then jumping to a Goat, I have the exact opposite. I've been skiing on 94 and 93/99 waisted skis as my every day for the past 2 seasons. when i jump on anything narrower than 90 they feel terribly weird.

also i think nobody has bothered to mention where one is skiing predominantly and what type of terrain.

it's obvious that Atomicman is an EC boilerplate lover. at least that's what i gather from his posts (oops, notice that he's from Bellevue, Washington, which makes his love of skinny skis that much more perplexing given the Chunder and PNW Concrete action they get up that way...the few folks I've skied with from Washington favor fatter skis as every day planks, fwiw)

those of us who are lucky enough not to have to endure such conditions (i.e. skiing in Tahoe/Utah/Colo/Wyoming/Canada/PNW on a regular basis where boilerplate is rare) probably don't have much use for the super narrow, super short, race skis or the minutae that comes with being able to discern between precise measurements and the like.

then again, i'm merely speaking for myself here.

since the OP has listed Canada, I don't think he needs a narrow waisted powder ski.

anyway, how did this discussion devolve into a discussion about race carving skis anyway?

the OP asked for a powder ski that would be good all around the mountain, not a carving ski that would suffice in powder.

besides, i think the whole concept of carving powder is quite ridiculous. i mean you don't float boilerplate, do you?
post #39 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
but if you are conscious of your subconscious competence (or incompetence) doesn't that negate everything?

sometimes i think too many folks think too much about skiing rather than just skiing, consciously, subconsciously or otherwise.

as for the comparison of being on a ridiculously short and narrow race ski and then jumping to a Goat, I have the exact opposite. I've been skiing on 94 and 93/99 waisted skis as my every day for the past 2 seasons. when i jump on anything narrower than 90 they feel terribly weird.

also i think nobody has bothered to mention where one is skiing predominantly and what type of terrain.

it's obvious that Atomicman is an EC boilerplate lover. or at least that's where he lives and is stuck skiing such conditions on a regular basis.

those of us who are lucky enough not to have to endure such conditions (i.e. skiing in Tahoe/Utah/Colo/Wyoming/Canada/PNW on a regular basis where boilerplate is rare) probably don't have much use for the super narrow, super short, race skis or the minutae that comes with being able to discern between precise measurements and the like.

then again, i'm merely speaking for myself here.

since the OP has listed Canada, I don't think he needs a narrow waisted powder ski.

anyway, how did this discussion devolve into a discussion about race carving skis anyway?

the OP asked for a powder ski that would be good all around the mountain, not a carving ski that would suffice in powder.

besides, i think the whole concept of carving powder is quite ridiculous. i mean you don't float boilerplate, do you?
No you it does not negate anything. You missed the point. Read the book. the Inner Game of skiing. You may find it interesting and helpful!

dookey, I live in the great PNW. I have never skied the EC and afterall we had 471" of snow this year at Crystal. So no I ski POW all the time, sorry to burst your bubble. but the OP wanted a fatter ski that was a true all mountain ski.
what the OP said was and I quote:

"This ski that I am looking for should be able to ski everything from steep deep bowls to tight trees. However it is also essential that it can handle marginal conditions like ice and crud. would also be nice if it could lay a trench in large radius turns back to the lift. alot to ask i guess but i know there are skis up to the job."

I suggested the i.M88 and the new MOJO 94. both fast, quick, stable damp plenty of float except for the worst heavy deep snow, and able to ski trees and lay trenches. He said he already had a 78mm ski (I said big diff between 78 & 88 and there is)He pretty much described the moster 88! Go figure
post #40 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
So for instance if I jst took a run on a FIS legal Race Stock 165 slalom ski and then jump on a pair of Gotamas on the groomed, the gotamas are probably going to seem much worse then if I had just started out on the goats 1st thing in the morning (But in reality who would choose to ski groomers anyway when there is almost always off piste to be had)


Fixed it for ya
post #41 of 114
Always fun to wander into these arguments about width. Three propositions:

1) It's difficult to defend a Rubicon of 88 mm (or any other width) as the dimension when carving becomes awkward since "awkward" (or any other adjective) will vary from person to person and ski to ski. Maybe we could all agree that as width increases, edge to edge response time and the amount of force required to initiate any particular edge angle also increases. I may find increasing response time and force no big deal up to 105 mm, somebody at TGR may think 130 mm, and an instructor I know thinks anything north of 75 mm is silly for carving. If you spend most of your quality time running gates on GS cheaters, that's a reasonable perspective.

2) Everyone also has a different definition of "carving." Even if you make railroad tracks, what radius and depth are you talking about? Are shallow 40 m tracks still evidence of a carve? I've read comments at Epic that they don't count. Are scarves allowed? Hmm. Only at 75 degrees of vertical maybe. Goats, for instance, can do nice sidecut radius railroad tracks at lazy speeds and at speed can be bent easily into shorter radii. But if you think they dig in as hard, or are as quick, or like the same angles as a Tigershark, you should give up skiing and run for president. So is their carve still a carve?

3) These subjective judgments about carving and width have a correlation with skiing ability only at the lowest end. Eg, an intermediate learning to carve IMO will probably have a bad learning curve if they're on anything much past 70 mm. YMMV. But once folks get beyond learning to carve (and everyone commenting here is way past I suspect) the correlation is zip. It does not make you a better or worse skier to label one width or another as the limit for easy carving. It just shows you have a different preference for force or quickness than the person you're arguing with.

4) So let's hold all the endless, boring "YOU can't ski...No YOU can't ski...No that's NOT what I said...No that IS what you said" posts until August. When we're dying for anything to do with snow, and even they'll be diverting.
post #42 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
... 4) So let's hold all the endless, boring "YOU can't ski...No YOU can't ski...No that's NOT what I said...No that IS what you said" posts until August. When we're dying for anything to do with snow, and even they'll be diverting.
post #43 of 114
Let me introduce you to,
Bklyn, TC, and Bumpfreaq



Bklyn and TC had almost as much fun skiing groomers on their 99w skis as Bumpfreaq did on his skinny a$$ sticks(cabrawlers or sumthin like that) when the snow got deep.

You know what? We were all Grins!!!!
I'll take that triple chair any day!!!
post #44 of 114
the moral of this thread is that carving should only be done at Thanksgiving...







and i still maintain that a "fatter ski that is a true all mountain ski" is a double-oxymoron.
post #45 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
the moral of this thread is that carving should only be done at Thanksgiving...







and i still maintain that a "fatter ski that is a true all mountain ski" is a double-oxymoron.
You are correct in that a ski that truly does it all well is not really a possibility, however, If you were told you had to have one ski to take on a trip, there are many that would keep a grin on your face.
For my husband its the Blizzard Titan Cronus 88 waist, which is a fat ski for him. But I'm set out to change that.
post #46 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post
Let me introduce you to,
Bklyn, TC, and Bumpfreaq



Bklyn and TC had almost as much fun skiing groomers on their 99w skis as Bumpfreaq did on his skinny a$$ sticks(cabrawlers or sumthin like that) when the snow got deep.

You know what? We were all Grins!!!!
I'll take that triple chair any day!!!
Oh, and may I tell you just how happy I am to be part of this thread:
post #47 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpfreaq View Post
Oh, and may I tell you just how happy I am to be part of this thread:
You're welcome!
post #48 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post
One thing I have noticed as I ski on wider skis skiing on hard snow is that the edges exert more leverage over the boot, binding, foot, and ankle when up on edge in a turn. This isn't really noticeable in soft snow but on harder snow, I definitely get sore feet after skiing fat skis for a few hours. Its not that is isn't possible to carve on fatter skis in hard snow its just that after a while it just hurts.
Excellent observation Tim, it's an important consideration.
post #49 of 114
OP - Consider the Black Diamond Verdict, maybe in a 170. Only place that it really sucks in are bumps. I think it would meet all your needs.
post #50 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post
OP - Consider the Black Diamond Verdict, maybe in a 170. Only place that it really sucks in are bumps. I think it would meet all your needs.
skied the 180 mounted with Fritschi's (Belong to a good friend of mine) on a great Powder day. Although a better setup for trekking and hiking, my 175cm Monster 88's was much better both on and off piste. The Verdict felt very stiff underfoot and had a strange flex pattern. Maybe he had them mounted in an odd position. But, i was totally unimpressed. In the skis defense maybe I needed to ski them all day to dialed in!

Surprised I was skiing on such a setup???? :
post #51 of 114
I'm coming into this tread late, but... I am 5' 10" and weight about 155lb with a pack on and ski in similar conditions to Whistler. I have used both the Head i88m (175cm) and Dynastar Mythic Rider (172 cm, 88 underfoot). Each were mounted w/ AT bindings and both are very nice skis. For my style of skiing, I preferred the Dynastar Mythic Rider ski. Since I traverse a lot, looking for good snow, I look for a ski that can ski in mixed conditions that consist of occasional ice spots, frozen avalanche debris, and powder. These skis are a compromise, but the Mythic Riders seem very nice to me. Cheers, cmr
post #52 of 114
post #53 of 114
Getting back on subject, I've ended up with this weird quiver of mostly powder skis.
184 Gotamas
179 Soft Bros
178 Dynastar 8800
177 Mantras
188 Sollie Gun Lab S
and I've skied the Head 88 and the P-100 a bit.

For what you're looking for, and your weight, perhaps the Bro model 174. Trekchick has some, I think. I have last year's 179 soft Bros. They quickly became my everyday ski for all but groomers, and they ski groomers well, it's just that other skis work better, like the Mantras. Once you get into a three dimensional environment, however, they outshine everything else I've been skiing, except maybe the Gotamas, and I just haven't had the Goats long enough to encounter a variety of conditions, so jury's out. I put 40+ days on the Bros this season in everything from boilerplate to windcrust, heavy crud and three feet of blower powder. They hold really well on ice, depending on the tune- better than Mantras and waaaay better than P-100's. I think the Head 88 beats them on ice and high speed carving, but not in powder. As for the Goats, I find the 105 width trucky on groomers, whereas the Bros at 99mm, when loaded up and rolled, carve great turns on groomed. They were so good at so many things that I really came to trust them in all kinds of conditions, bumps, bizarre wind buff crust, mank, ice, but especially the deep stuff. Very light and super quick in trees yet very stable GSing too. Amazing season we've had, that Bushwacker is having. I'm thinning the quiver next fall and looking at a carver or a skinnier midfat just to rock the groomers with.
post #54 of 114
After a long day, SJ's response put a smile on my face. With that said, one can still rip the whole mountain on many different types of skis and still have fun. cmr
post #55 of 114
If you're in the high 80's, you might as well be in the 90's.

Check out Nordica's new Hell Diver. (the carbon/soft-snow version of the Hellcat). It's got a system binding which can move fore/aft by as little as around 4mm so you can tune it in to the snow conditions. (back for pow-- fore for firm) Go Hellcat if you want metal, but that stiffness will take away from Pow performance. Hence- the Hell Diver.

I rode the hellcat and it fricking ripped arcs on cord. 136-94-122. (I think) After riding it, I see no reason to go below a 90 waist for an everyday ski. If I only had one ski to do everything, it would probably be the softer version-- hell diver.
post #56 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
skied the 180 mounted with Fritschi's (Belong to a good friend of mine) on a great Powder day. Although a better setup for trekking and hiking, my 175cm Monster 88's was much better both on and off piste. The Verdict felt very stiff underfoot and had a strange flex pattern. Maybe he had them mounted in an odd position. But, i was totally unimpressed. In the skis defense maybe I needed to ski them all day to dialed in!

Surprised I was skiing on such a setup???? :
Should I be surprised? Oh, I see now - Atomicman. Heh.

Anyway, I have some 170 '08 Verdicts and have a much different opinion. They are somewhat stiff - which is why they do so well on hardpack, a rather important part of the all-around deal. But the overall flex seems very even and smooth to me. And a hand flex in the shop shows it to be pretty round. All the reviews I've read give the Verdict a good rating in all-around skiing. I have no experience with the Monster 88s. And FWIW, I don't like Atomic skis.

Full disclosure - I ski tele, but a round flex is more crucial for tele than alpine so I'd say that counts for something.

I wonder if your friend's pair wasn't mounted too far back for you - the overall stiffness might well account for a weird feeling of the flex in the tail if you were too far back on the ski. Are your feet bigger than his? That affects the mounting of Fritschis.
post #57 of 114
He didn't have them mounted in an odd position, atomicman, he had them mounted with fritschis. I would argue that Fritschis are perhaps the worst piste binding available for a 12-din. To compare that setup to your 88 (which I do assume is not mounted with a fritschi) seems quite the stretch. You might as well add a tele set-up into that on-piste carving debate.

Perhaps I'm out of line... which binding do you have on the 88's?
post #58 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post
Should I be surprised? Oh, I see now - Atomicman. Heh.

Anyway, I have some 170 '08 Verdicts and have a much different opinion. They are somewhat stiff - which is why they do so well on hardpack, a rather important part of the all-around deal. But the overall flex seems very even and smooth to me. And a hand flex in the shop shows it to be pretty round. All the reviews I've read give the Verdict a good rating in all-around skiing. I have no experience with the Monster 88s. And FWIW, I don't like Atomic skis.

Full disclosure - I ski tele, but a round flex is more crucial for tele than alpine so I'd say that counts for something.

I wonder if your friend's pair wasn't mounted too far back for you - the overall stiffness might well account for a weird feeling of the flex in the tail if you were too far back on the ski. Are your feet bigger than his? That affects the mounting of Fritschis.
NO very close but he is maybe a couple of mm bigger.

Monster 88's are a Head ski not Atomic

You don't like Atomic skis? Big generalization don't you think???
post #59 of 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
NO very close but he is maybe a couple of mm bigger.
Well, it's probably not that then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Monster 88's are a Head ski not Atomic
I know that, I should have put a couple of returns in between those two statements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
You don't like Atomic skis? Big generalization don't you think???
I was just trying to egg you on a little, but lets put it this way - I've never skied an Atomic ski that I liked, with the exception of some Black Diamonds that were made at the Atomic factory.

[/hijack]

I still think the OP would do well to look at those BD Verdicts I mentioned.
post #60 of 114
170 is too short for a good skier on alpine, nad the verdicts ARENT powder skis.

heck i could argue that gotama arent powder skis as well but to be honest they are way better than the IM88 or verdict in powder.

plus who cares about hardpack performance seriousally how much hard pack do you find on a real powder day. Today I found none, there wasnt even groomed cat tracks.

The bigger ski really shine when the snow has beeen cut up there is no need to be precise just go and charge and let the ski do most of the balancing for you.
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 › Could some one recomend a powder ski that can still rip the whole mountain?