Big skis = can't ski? - Page 6

Quote:

Originally Posted by davluri 

 

not to sidetrack the thread, a quick reply. the B-100 will ski most like the Phantom 108 in the longer lengths.. Your B-3 is about 1/3 the stiffness of the 174. . the Quad is a different ski in each length, with a big change between 184 and 189, being much, much stiffer. a beast if you will. the 164 is foam w/ 1 metal,   the 174 woodw/ 2 metal, and so on. I ski the 164 and it's awesome fun, over 200 days on em, med-stiff flex, 174 a moderate ski also. beyond that you'd better be 180lb+ and strong as an ox. The skis are very damp and the tip is shear genius in crud or pow. good buy for sure. good luck.
 

 

Thanks for the insight.  My favorite in the 100 range, by a large margin, was the 188 Coomba.  It seemed pretty soft.  (I weigh about 210 pounds).

Wow, look at this total hack. He seriously needs to learn to ski and start using short skinny skis.

Show me someone skiing like this on skinny skis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karpiel 

 

Wow, look at this total hack. He seriously needs to learn to ski and start using short skinny skis.

 

 

Show me someone skiing like this on skinny skis.

Ummm...

Have you ever watched "Blizzard of Ahhhhs" or "Steep"? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Peters 

 

 

 

Ummm...

 

Have you ever watched "Blizzard of Ahhhhs" or "Steep"? 

 

 

same terrain yes, same skiing HELL no.

scot skis nicely in ahhhs, but you dont think he could of skied what he skiedin ahhhs faster, with more turns, and with less energy on a pair of 185 Big troubles?

whats really funny to think about is that Dana only on a 185 some people would actually says that too short which clearly it isnt.

I would have to say Glen skiing bumps on 223s was pretty awesome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Peters 

 

 

 

Ummm...

 

Have you ever watched "Blizzard of Ahhhhs" or "Steep"? 

 

 

That had this guy in it, right?

 140-111-130

And from an interview with Doug Coombs.

[quote]DC: Yeah, we have the full fleet of wide skis, but they're high performance wide skis here. And those wide skis are nice in torsional stiffness and they're a little soft flexing and they're real friendly in the tip so the turn initiation is real easy and it makes skiers having a little trouble into heroes. When people first get on them, they're just loving life. It takes one run to get used to them and suddenly you've just improved your ability level a whole notch. When I first came here I was on K2 TNCs, these GS, sidecut, old race kind of skis, really skinny and every run was a million turns. It was quite exhausting. And if you got any funny snow, any crust, windblown, suncrust, whatever, it was a lot of effort and strength, it was real tough. And now you can just cruise through that stuff. These new skis are like the snowbusters, like ghostbusters, they can bust down anything. Everything feels good, feels easy. If you want to go fast, they're like Cadillacs, if you want to go slow, they plow through anything -- like a Jeep four-wheel drive[/quote]

What were you talking about again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgcatching 

People can't ski these days... I don't think it matters what skis you are on: if you can't turn, you can't turn.   

I haven't waded through the whole thread, which seems an awful lot like a dozen other threads pitting the fats against the thins   , but suggest Dawg's response as a sticky, to cover all possible future posts for all possible sports. 

Yeah, took a lesson the other day with a level III ex racer in serious deep spring crud/slop, actual lakes interspersed with big ugly mounds, stiffening up in the shadows, I'm wishing I had my Mantras, and he's running Tigershark 10 Foots of all things, just nuking along like it's first run corduroy, relaxed, perfect round arcs exactly when and where he wants it to happen. Talked about exams in Utah where they had to be just as smooth and round on rock hard refrozen crud.   So I asked him if he ever used fats, and he said, sure, but it isn't all that important one way or the other, more about what mood he's in. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by skifishbum 

 

Pftt another stokeless epic pissing match

All us good skiers are in the BC

 

This stuff weeds out you Slackcountry beacon carrying wannabes

That and the  1000's of feet of vert

We're rockin fat skis

 

 

Needs more stickers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgcatching 

 

 

What the heck are you talking about?  I used him as an example of somebody who can ski, without necessarily an agenda to be "old school" or "new school" or a rebel, or whatever. I have skied with him a bunch, he usually skis wider skis, I am sure he skied skinnier skis when that is what was available back then.  The point is, the guy can ski, regardless of the skis he is on, which is the point to my post.  Anyone who has skied with me knows that I ski wide skis when there is any new snow to be had: so what?  The point is, and always has been, that knowing how to ski is way more important than having this gear or that gear. 

 

At no place did I say anything about him "extolling the virtues of skinny skis": please take the time to read the post. Mis-quoting me isn't appreciated.    

You know something dawgcather,

You are the one that is kind of lame. You won't answer direct questions and you won't admit that there are people who can turn a pair of wide skis. The fact of the matter is that if you care to be a good skier you are near where the skiing happens. BTW, I will be skiing tommorrow at Squaw on pair of Stockli Storm Riders, Scott Schmidt version. Width at the waist is 91. I'm done with you, it is obvious that you don't know jack.

calm down fellas!!!
 

Just out of interest when does a ski become a fat ski..... in your opinions at what length??

90mm?

Oh and by the way have loved sitting at work reading this post!

Good question, compo. Nolo's Tough Luvs are 88mm underfoot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ske-Bum 

 

 The fact of the matter is that if you care to be a good skier you are near where the skiing happens.

 

Guess that leaves me out

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Louie 

 

 

 

Guess that leaves me out

Honey, guess this means we'll have to sell the house and move closer to Perfect North!

karpiel:Show me someone skiing like this on skinny skis.

Talk to Ghost, apparently he has no problem doing that on ancient SG ski.

Quote:

Originally Posted by compo rocks 

 

Just out of interest when does a ski become a fat ski.....??

 

Shortly after it gets married.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ske-Bum 

 

 

 

You know something dawgcather,

 

You are the one that is kind of lame. You won't answer direct questions and you won't admit that there are people who can turn a pair of wide skis. The fact of the matter is that if you care to be a good skier you are near where the skiing happens. BTW, I will be skiing tommorrow at Squaw on pair of Stockli Storm Riders, Scott Schmidt version. Width at the waist is 91. I'm done with you, it is obvious that you don't know jack.

 

What?  Do you not read, Dawg said in the very quote you installed in this post that they guy could turn on fat skis or skinny skis.  His point is, and correctly made, is that what is important is being able to TURN, not what ski you do it on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ske-Bum 

 

 

 

You know something dawgcather,

 

You are the one that is kind of lame. You won't answer direct questions and you won't admit that there are people who can turn a pair of wide skis. The fact of the matter is that if you care to be a good skier you are near where the skiing happens. BTW, I will be skiing tommorrow at Squaw on pair of Stockli Storm Riders, Scott Schmidt version. Width at the waist is 91. I'm done with you, it is obvious that you don't know jack.

 

Actually he does, my name is Jack and dawgcatching knows me.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ske-Bum 

 

You know something dawgcather,

 

You are the one that is kind of lame. You won't answer direct questions and you won't admit that there are people who can turn a pair of wide skis. The fact of the matter is that if you care to be a good skier you are near where the skiing happens. BTW, I will be skiing tommorrow at Squaw on pair of Stockli Storm Riders, Scott Schmidt version. Width at the waist is 91. I'm done with you, it is obvious that you don't know jack.

 

Most worthless post in this thread.  He does answer direct questions, he does admit that there are people who can turn a pair of wide skis... have you been paying attention?  And what does where someone lives have to do with this discussion?  Not that it's relevant, but do you even know where Dawgcatching lives?

Quote:

Originally Posted by skifishbum 

 

 

 

 

Yes MattL the stickers are interesting...but maybe due to a warmer winter out here I view this pic thinking I’d like to avoid gulping down a bunch of lake algae as I grab the handle tight on the tow rope before saying ‘hit-it-bro!’

That is funny...

When I was doing Lotoja on the back of a tandem and my captain was bonking 40 miles into a 206 race, I was having to work really hard.  When we made it to the highest peak and about 110 miles into the race and saw all of these cars passing us with Cervelos, and every other italian bike you can name, who's wheels cost more than that tandem I was on... realized I was still in the race and was going to finish above the posers in the BMWs on their way to Jackson...

On the slopes, I'm always looking for the great skiers, so I can follow and learn.  Now I know I need to gain some confidence and work on my off trail skills, and always reading and watching great skiers... but on Piste, geeze, where is the tip and rip?  When I ski better than the patrolers... sad day..  Now I do have a quiver of skis, but I buy used... :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ske-Bum 

 

You know something dawgcather,

 

You are the one that is kind of lame. You won't answer direct questions and you won't admit that there are people who can turn a pair of wide skis. The fact of the matter is that if you care to be a good skier you are near where the skiing happens. BTW, I will be skiing tommorrow at Squaw on pair of Stockli Storm Riders, Scott Schmidt version. Width at the waist is 91. I'm done with you, it is obvious that you don't know jack.

 

And it's obvious you don't even know jack about your own skis. They're 89 mm. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roadrash 

 

 

What?  Do you not read, Dawg said in the very quote you installed in this post that they guy could turn on fat skis or skinny skis.  His point is, and correctly made, is that what is important is being able to TURN, not what ski you do it on.

Actually it is about going straight, occasionally throwing them sideways to scrub speed. Like a snowboarder. Snowboarders are responsible for all developments in skiing since 1986. Get with the program, Rip Van Wrinkles. Turns, haha, please!

Fat skis vs. Skinny skis??? What a pointless arguement. Every tool has it's uses. Really, if you think it's a badge of honour to ski skinny skis all the time, come out with me on a deep powder day. I can guarantee you that regardless of who you are and how good of a skiier you are, I will be waiting for your ass at the bottom of the hill. It's physics.

Same goes for skinny skis, there is no question that they are more agile on the groomers and hard pack. I do feel that it's a smarter choice to have a fat ski as an every day ski as I can still rip up the groomers on my 130mm underfoot ski. A lot better tht someone on a 75mm waisted ski can ski the POW. However I'm in western Canada, and the logic might not apply if I was skiing out east.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hossnphefer 

 

Fat skis vs. Skinny skis??? What a pointless arguement.

Because on Epic, we never have pointless arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hossnphefer 

 

.. I can guarantee you that regardless of who you are and how good of a skiier you are, I will be waiting for your ass at the bottom of the hill.  

Whoa…if that “guarantee” is replaced with “bet” of a good lunch and dinner…I’m your huckleberry.  Along with that you front the airfare and T&E costs for my trouble.  Sounds right.  So how about SSV...a great visit and ski that would be 

Quote:

Originally Posted by spielerman 

 

... but on Piste, geeze, where is the tip and rip?  When I ski better than the patrolers... sad day.. 

Consider the concept behind nolo's original post.
 

Think about this for a second. 

Let's assume for a second that all the folks nolo saw  finally got out of the terrain they were on and hit a groomer back to the lift.  Let's assume their skiing still doesn't look so great.....OK then what we MAY have is wide skis that helped folks "up their ability" off piste.

Now lets assume you really are out-skiing most on the hill spielerman, and looking for great skiers to follow and can't find them.  (I'm not doubting your ability level here s-man....just trying to make a point)

As I see it at this point there may be several reasons why you can't locate these people to follow.

1) They may not be out that day

2) It's really folks that are marginal skiers but have an advantage off piste due to gear, and choke when they hit the groomed,  because they use the same movements on piste as off.

or

3) With most everybody going up to skis in the 90mm plus range underfoot.....Isn't there a possibility that the width of that ski actually impedes "tip and rip" on groomers?  Maybe there are plenty of good skiers that don't look it, given what they are standing on.

I know I can't get my 81mm underfoot Blizzards to even come close to what my Tigersharks will do for me on groomed terrain, especially if the surface is frozen.  When I demoed some 100+ plus stuff.....tip...on groomed....not so much.

I'm sure this may extend the conversation here a bit longer,  but I think that anyone ON GROOMERS is going to have a far tougher time getting high edge angles on a 100+ cm ski vs something 70 and under.

Good skier......marginal skier....lousy skier, pick the right tool and you'll do better.  Want to find a REALLY good skier?  Pick the wrong tool for the job at hand, put them out on the hill on it and they look no different. (This of course would exclude being in a race course)