or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Your choice ski WAIST MM for a foot of new A POLL
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your choice ski WAIST MM for a foot of new A POLL

Poll Results: Your ski for a foot of fresh by waist in mm.

 
  • 14% (14)
    85mm, ,
  • 20% (20)
    95mm
  • 37% (36)
    105mm
  • 15% (15)
    115mm
  • 7% (7)
    125mm
  • 3% (3)
    135mm
  • 1% (1)
    145mm
96 Total Votes  
post #1 of 128
Thread Starter 

Now that you can pick any width and shape, what have you decided? What do you bring out for a foot of new?

for example, my ride: Legend Pro 176cm, 97mm (conventional camber and sidecut, raised tail)

post #2 of 128
 I like my 10/20 rockered Maiden AK, (PBR's), they are 108 underfoot with a nice shape. 
post #3 of 128
I am rocking my praxis anytime its deeper than a few inches.
post #4 of 128
192cm  125mm daily driver


Atomic Atlas
post #5 of 128
Another vote for praxis.
post #6 of 128
Need more info.

Above treeline wide open bowl or narrow trail/chute?
Blower or mayonaise?

I think it's funny your survey starts at 85mm.
post #7 of 128
Thread Starter 
Fresh powder in the medium - light moisture.

terrain Resort Stashes, faces, chutes and trees. you're going to want it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Moose View Post

Need more info.

Above treeline wide open bowl or narrow trail/chute?
Blower or mayonaise?

I think it's funny your survey starts at 85mm.
that 85mm is the author's inside joke
post #8 of 128
I'd be happy on almost any good ski from 72mm to 130mm. I foot of powder is hero snow, as in everyone can be a "hero".
post #9 of 128
On a morning like that I probably went whoring at the Demo Shop.   

Got into the habit of hitting the on mt demos-r-us, if there is over about 6-8" of over night fresh.  Why not?  I only have a couple of pairs of all mt skis not a quiver per say.

On the day described today would call dibs on the new Goats, or something of that ilk.
post #10 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

I am rocking my praxis anytime its deeper than a few inches.

Yep, I have my new Back Country's that will be prefect for a foot of fresh
post #11 of 128
I was thinking the same thing, 75-80 is fun to actually ski under the snow, it gets boring riding on top of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Moose View Post

Need more info.

Above treeline wide open bowl or narrow trail/chute?
Blower or mayonaise?

I think it's funny your survey starts at 85mm.
post #12 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILDCAT View Post

I'd be happy on almost any good ski from 72mm to 130mm. I foot of powder is hero snow, as in everyone can be a "hero".

Ain't that the truth. Even I do well in a foot of fresh.

I think the poll should have been based on a two foot drop.
post #13 of 128
Flawed., I skied a 65 waist 195 cm GS ski the last big powder day I had,.
post #14 of 128
Thread Starter 
so, was it fun? Powder's not all that hard to have fun in/on
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Flawed., I skied a 65 waist 195 cm GS ski the last big powder day I had,.
 
post #15 of 128
Thread Starter 
with some of these greater widths you wouldn't know if it was one foot or two foot. cause you're only skiing 8" of it. 




now with a few more votes the bell curve is  105   the actual ski you will take out on the hill. of course the popularity of the Goats

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNPete View Post




Ain't that the truth. Even I do well in a foot of fresh.

I think the poll should have been based on a two foot drop.
 
post #16 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

with some of these greater widths you wouldn't know if it was one foot or two foot. cause you're only skiing 8" of it.


That's not accurate in my experience.
post #17 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Flawed., I skied a 65 waist 195 cm GS ski the last big powder day I had,.
 


That's ok I suppose if you're into the whole fat ski "crutch" thing. I usually take a pair of solid wood Asnes XC skis with three pin bindings and leather boots. But then again, I'm an EXPERT.
post #18 of 128
I think it really depends on the consistancy of the snow.  If it is real "Hero" snow there is a wide range of widths that will work well depending on your weight & provided you have enough length.  With that said I am torn between the 95mm & 105mm at 180cm to 185cm length... Hmmm.... such choices... I guess there are worse things to have to decide about... 12 inches is a pretty good amount of fresh....




.....  I'll go 105mm for the poll.

JF
post #19 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Flawed., I skied a 65 waist 195 cm GS ski the last big powder day I had,.

Oh, I forgot to mention the last time I skied in over a foot of fresh snow was 1986 
And, yes,it was fun.  I hope to have fun on something less demanding next time. I skied about 10" last season on 80mm.   That wasn't quite as much fun as 3 feet of Colorado Champagne on the old skool GS boards. 

I skied hardpack on a 91mm for about half an hour two years ago just to prove I could be "cool".  And, I have a pair of 99mm available should it ever actually snow West of the Mississippi.and South of the Catskills.
post #20 of 128
Flawed!
The range is too limiting.

I would take my Vollants, they are about 107-68-95 give or take a mm in the 190 length, unless I was straight-lining steeps.  I would do that on the SG, just because I have confidence in their high speed handling characteristics.  Of course I haven't tried any new stuff, so it's ok that I didn't vote.  
post #21 of 128
Thread Starter 
you really can ski at any depth with 130mm, yeah I can see that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post




That's not accurate in my experience.

 
post #22 of 128

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

with some of these greater widths you wouldn't know if it was one foot or two foot. cause you're only skiing 8" of it. 
 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

you really can ski at any depth with 130mm, yeah I can see that.
 


I would like to apologize on behalf of my 136 waisted Praxi. They clearly did not get the message. So sorry...


 
I will request that they behave more in accordance with "conventional wisdom" in the future... 
post #23 of 128
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post


Quote:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

you really can ski at any depth with 130mm, yeah I can see that.
 


I would like to apologize on behalf of my 136 waisted Praxi. They clearly did not get the message. So sorry...


 
I will request that they behave more in accordance with "conventional wisdom" in the future... 


 




they just wanted to give you a face shot!
post #24 of 128

Blizzard Answers-110 waist. Awesome!

post #25 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

you really can ski at any depth with 130mm, yeah I can see that.
 


 

So what's the point of the poll and discussing this stuff on the internet? You seem to have all the answers already.
post #26 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post




So what's the point of the poll and discussing this stuff on the internet? You seem to have all the answers already.
 


What's funny is that this level 7 skier did foot deep powder last season with ease on his Metron9s.

What I don't understand is why one needs a 100mm ski to ski said conditions. I will admit that I know nothing about skiing as I only have five seasons under my belt. But still, with that said 12 inches of the fresh was easy. 24 inches, not so much. That was hard.

So anyone want to explain why you need a 100mm ski for 12 inches of new snow?
post #27 of 128
For a foot of fresh I ride Spatulas.
post #28 of 128
Need more info!  I say whatever works for you, and your conditions.  Some of the best 12" days of my life have been on:

Elan 1010: super versatile, no speed limit, great choice for steep in-bounds skiing

Dyna* Huge Troubles: made 12" of low-angle snow really ski-able; I would have been stuck otherwise. Great runs all day, off-limits to most

Dyna* Legend Pro Rider: enough float that I could pretty much ski anything, power through anything, rip all day and not care

Kastle MX98: steep untracked stuff at speed on this BMW 6-series is a hoot

Elan 888: 12" new day at Alta, bumped up quickly. Perfect ski for the day, I had 105mm skis in the car and never though to get them

Head iSpeed race carver: maching down a steep untracked run at Snowbasin, probably one of the top 3 runs of my life.  Hero snow.   But, it was 2 feet deep, not 1.

I have had pretty varying experiences!   My opinion: is more about the skier and the circumstances and less about the ski. If I had to take a wild guess, just skiing 12' of light untracked every run at a generic 30 degee angle, maybe around 100mm???
 
post #29 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by k2skier View Post

I was thinking the same thing, 75-80 is fun to actually ski under the snow, it gets boring riding on top of it.

 



 

Since there's always at least one of you guys on every single thread about powder here, I'll play along. What ski have you ever skied that allows you to actually ski "on top" of powder? I'd really like to hear about this magical ski that can defy the laws of physics.

Now granted - I haven't skied the fattest of the fat, but I get face shots all the time on all my ridiculously fat skis - even the praxis Powders. This really leads me to believe that the guys talking about skiing "on top of"powder have: 1) Never skied powder, 2) never actually skied on anything 100mm+ and are just repeating what they've heard from friends who've never skied powder or 3) weight as much as a large helium balloon.

I've had tons of fun in powder on everything from 64mm "straight" OG GS race skis to R/R Praxis Powders, but JesusAllahBuddha stop with this "skiing on top of powder" stuff. It just makes you look like a gaper. If you're skiing "on top of" powder then it's obvious you're not skiing powder. I don't care what's on your feet.


In serious response to the OP - Praxis Powders, Sanouks or EHP's - depending on terrain, conditios and where I'm going. So I guess 110mm - 135mm.
post #30 of 128
If you are sinking (regardless of what is underfoot) then you're just not going fast enough
Edited by crgildart - 11/26/09 at 7:43am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Your choice ski WAIST MM for a foot of new A POLL