EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › When are Fat skis necessary?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

When are Fat skis necessary? - Page 3

post #61 of 80

 

Are you saying you believe you can find "advanced" terrain more readily at the average CO resort vs Snowbird?

 

Are you saying you find Snowbird somehow disappointing?

 

Have you missed the express & often repeated admonitions that ratings are always relative within a single resort? If so, do you actually ski, or are you just pulling everyone's collective leg? 

 

As far as the thread topic goes - it beats me why any recreational skier would use a sub-95 ski for anything other than specialty uses. I suspect that in two or three years, a "normal" ski (at least in the US) will be in the 95 to 110 zone. Maybe fatter in the west. So I guess the notion of "fat" is relative. And much depends on the design of the ski, so talking about just width is a bit of a red herring.


Edited by spindrift - 5/23/10 at 11:47am
post #62 of 80


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdiddy View Post

I think most people look at trail maps and when planning a trip look online to decide which resort to go to, especially if they are or are not looking to ski advanced terrain. 

 

 

who really needs to look at a trailmap to know that snowbird is rad?  if you ski at all, you know that snowbird is one of the best places there is to ski steeps.

 

you weren't talking about planning trips either.  your point was that you were skiing snowbird's black diamonds and they weren't difficult enough...  as if you can't look around from the lifts and find all the gnar you want at the bird.

 

by the way, don't bother coming to squaw if you like to ski double-diamonds.... we don't have any.

 

i apologize for feeding the troll.

 

post #63 of 80

Are you saying you believe you can find "advanced" terrain more readily at the average CO resort vs Snowbird?

 

Are you saying you find Snowbird somehow disappointing?

 

Have you missed the express & often repeated admonitions that ratings are always relative within a single resort? If so, do you actually ski, or are you just pulling everyone's collective leg? 

=========================================================================

1) nope didn't say that at all, talking about actual trail ratings.

2) yep due to the BS trail rating that they provide on the web,  It's my opinion

3) Yep, it's just usually they are relative to a specific area of the state, not specific ski area, in other words, Keystone, A basin, Loveland, Copper, WInterpark, all have very similiar trail ratings, I would expect the same at Utah, with Solutude just a few miles away (as the crow flies).  

4) yes I can ski.  and I fail to see why objecting to a resorts trail rating somehow makes anyone believe anything other than that.   It's not that I am looking for only Double blacks, heck I usually do a few a day if the resort has them open, but when I look online at a resort I have never been to I would expect the trail map to be realistic to the area for which it is in.  For instance, if I go out east I would expect a black to probably be a Blue in the west.  

My god, you guys act as if you created the trail rating and I am attacking you....

post #64 of 80

who really needs to look at a trailmap to know that snowbird is rad?  if you ski at all, you know tat snowbird is one of the best places there is to ski steeps.

 you weren't talking about planning trips either.  your point was that you were skiing snowbird's black diamonds and they weren't difficult enough...  as if you can't look around from the lifts and find all the gnar you want at the bird.

 by the way, don't bother coming to squaw if you like to ski double-diamonds.... we don't have any.

i apologize for feeding the troll.

=============================================================================

 

I was talking about planning a trip AND yes I was saying that the many of the blacks at snowbird do not deserve a black rating and most of the double blacks do not deserve a double black rating.   It's my opinion, so what do you care?  were you on the snowbird board when they labled the runs?    if not then what do you care what my opinion is.

I am sure if Squaw all of the sudden changed the rating on several blacks to double blacks you would roll your eyes as well, wouldn't you?

post #65 of 80

You know what, I do want to applaud pdiddy for having the cajones to call it out-

 

Bird does overrate some of their easier runs calling them blacks when they could easily call them blues.  This is not to knock the awesomeness of Bird (you can find any type of trouble you want to find without much effort), but rather, that they could get a little more accurate in rating themselves.

 

That being said, let's instead assail the "blacks" on the east coast and mid-atlantic.  With just a few exceptions, the typical black run in the east is only called black because of this "relative to the mountain" rule.  I skied Seven Springs every year as a kid and up until I came out here to NV, and really, there is not a black run at that mountain.  Or many other places, with hidden gems and a few well-known exceptions in VT and ME.

 

Truthfully, the rating system has a larger skew in the east in general.  Oh how I miss the ice (not).

 

Reddgabe

post #66 of 80

You know what, I do want to applaud pdiddy for having the cajones to call it out-

 

Bird does overrate some of their easier runs calling them blacks when they could easily call them blues.  This is not to knock the awesomeness of Bird (you can find any type of trouble you want to find without much effort), but rather, that they could get a little more accurate in rating themselves.

 

That being said, let's instead assail the "blacks" on the east coast and mid-atlantic.  With just a few exceptions, the typical black run in the east is only called black because of this "relative to the mountain" rule.  I skied Seven Springs every year as a kid and up until I came out here to NV, and really, there is not a black run at that mountain.  Or many other places, with hidden gems and a few well-known exceptions in VT and ME.

 

Truthfully, the rating system has a larger skew in the east in general.  Oh how I miss the ice (not

===========================================================================

 

I skied a resort called Snow Summit in southern Cali and the blacks were hilarious,  but it was at least relative to the ratings in the area and the ability of most socal skiers, (not all, don't want anyone jumping me for that).  , 

post #67 of 80

I didn't know trail ratings were such a big deal...i had a great year on blues, blacks, and "double blacks" from kirkwood to squaw.  If you can't find extreme enough terrain, maybe you have mastered the sport and need to look for other winter activities.  I have never skied a day in CO, UT, or CA and been disappointed due to the resorts labeling of runs.  I grew up in the midwest, learned to ski on a tiny hill, and understand that ratings do vary from east coast to rockies/sierras.  Why are you bashing snowbird? 

 

As for the initial post fat skis are fun, i didn't give up my volkl explosive R GS skis for years and now i only ski a line prophet 100. i thought about adding a midfat in the 80-90 range at the end of the year but i own an old dynastar skicross 10 that's great for hardpack/refreeze tahoe days.

 

It's all about having a good time and hitting the mtn as many days as possible!

post #68 of 80

I still don't get it.  I quit skiing for 20  years and now find that I "need" fat skis for powder.  I read a lot about the new fat skis staying on top of crud and powder.  For what purpose?  At 5' 7   150 lbs my old 200cm salomon 810s were great fast cruising skis and skid ALL snow conditions very well from hardpack to powder and everything in between.  For deep powder days I used  710s with a relatively soft flex that were amazing in powder and bumps. Waist width? IDK  65? less?  No they didn't stay on top of the snow but why would I want them to. The soft tip brought them near the surface between turns.   Yeah it was Steamboat pow and for a few years we were skiing everyday.... but still

 

I had a chance to use my new 74 cm Tornado's a few times this year in powder and crud and yes they make most conditions effortless,  but better ?   No  My skinny skis were at least as good.

That said, I'm keeping an open mind and will have a chance next winter to demo all kinds of skis,  as the resort I work for is opening up in Deer Valley with it own rental shop,  so maybe I will learn the value of wide skis.

post #69 of 80

So I guess that the average 10 day a year recreational skier who skis mostly on groomed runs on 80mm wide skis fits into that specialty use classification? If yes, please explain why that skier would possibly benefit from 95mm ski. Keep in mind you said any recreation skier. A lot of recreational skiers never venture off blue or easy black groomers and except for making them look cool, please explain to us what a 95mm wide ski does for them.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

As far as the thread topic goes - it beats me why any recreational skier would use a sub-95 ski for anything other than specialty uses. I suspect that in two or three years, a "normal" ski (at least in the US) will be in the 95 to 110 zone. Maybe fatter in the west. So I guess the notion of "fat" is relative. And much depends on the design of the ski, so talking about just width is a bit of a red herring.

post #70 of 80

I still don't get it.  I quit skiing for 20  years and now find that I "need" fat skis for powder.  I read a lot about the new fat skis staying on top of crud and powder.  For what purpose?  At 5' 7   150 lbs my old 200cm salomon 810s were great fast cruising skis and skid ALL snow conditions very well from hardpack to powder and everything in between.  For deep powder days I used  710s with a relatively soft flex that were amazing in powder and bumps. Waist width? IDK  65? less?  No they didn't stay on top of the snow but why would I want them to. The soft tip brought them near the surface between turns.   Yeah it was Steamboat pow and for a few years we were skiing everyday.... but still

 

I had a chance to use my new 74 cm Tornado's a few times this year in powder and crud and yes they make most conditions effortless,  but better ?   No  My skinny skis were at least as good.

That said, I'm keeping an open mind and will have a chance next winter to demo all kinds of skis,  as the resort I work for is opening up in Deer Valley with it own rental shop,  so maybe I will learn the value of wide skis.

post #71 of 80

I didn't know trail ratings were such a big deal...i had a great year on blues, blacks, and "double blacks" from kirkwood to squaw.  If you can't find extreme enough terrain, maybe you have mastered the sport and need to look for other winter activities.  I have never skied a day in CO, UT, or CA and been disappointed due to the resorts labeling of runs.  I grew up in the midwest, learned to ski on a tiny hill, and understand that ratings do vary from east coast to rockies/sierras.  Why are you bashing snowbird? 

========================================================================

my posts have nothing to do with my or anyones ability, 

post #72 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdiddy View Post

I am sure if Squaw all of the sudden changed the rating on several blacks to double blacks you would roll your eyes as well, wouldn't you?

 

 

if squaw changed the ratings of its trails i wouldn't notice or care.

 

post #73 of 80

if squaw changed the ratings of its trails i wouldn't notice or care

====================================================================

 

 

This coming from a person who actually GPS's all of his runs and logs each run that he does down on a daily basis????   okay,   

post #74 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric S View Post

So I guess that the average 10 day a year recreational skier who skis mostly on groomed runs on 80mm wide skis fits into that specialty use classification? If yes, please explain why that skier would possibly benefit from 95mm ski. Keep in mind you said any recreation skier. A lot of recreational skiers never venture off blue or easy black groomers and except for making them look cool, please explain to us what a 95mm wide ski does for them.

 


 


Arguably those are the folks who will benefit the most from modern skis. In my book, modern equals "fatter" and rockered. How many 5-10 day a year skiers slay it on their "carvers"? Maybe giving them a more stable ski that provides a broader set of turn options & is less likely to throw them on their butts is a good idea.

 

The sensible cases for sub-95 skis usually reduce to one of: 1) I am used to them & like them & do not want to have to retrain myself; 2)  I ski true ice and serious hardpack groomers a bunch for real (aka, what I really do is ice skate); 3) I am focused on "technical carving"; 4) I use dedicated park skis; 5) I am a racer.

 

Well, the average recreational skier of the type you mentioned falls into "none of the above". And even some of the ones that sort of do, really do not... Most places I've skied, a true ice/hardpack day will drive average skiers into the lodge about as quickly as two feet of new super high water content snow. Which is pretty darn quickly. Interestingly, in both cases, most "average" skiers would benefit from a fatter & rockered ski.

 

Just about everywhere I have skied, in the current design world, a sub 95 (OK, maybe sub 90) ski is every bit as much a "specialty" ski as a fatter than 135 ski.

 

Let's revisit this discussion in two years or so. I suspect the jury will be in...

post #75 of 80

Check out the video at the end of this TGR thread.  It appears all the skiers are on old school sub 70mm waisted skis.  Do you think "adding 50mm to the waists of their skis would have improved their experience?

 

 

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21982&page=2

post #76 of 80

That is a great video!  I've never skied in Montana{?) and if they get blower like that all the time i need to book a trip.   Point taken about skinny skis, it really depends on the type of snow you get in your region

post #77 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

Check out the video at the end of this TGR thread.  It appears all the skiers are on old school sub 70mm waisted skis.  Do you think "adding 50mm to the waists of their skis would have improved their experience?

 

 

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21982&page=2


Bridger Rocks!!!

post #78 of 80

That was skiing in the pow! Beautiful.

post #79 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

Check out the video at the end of this TGR thread.  It appears all the skiers are on old school sub 70mm waisted skis.  Do you think "adding 50mm to the waists of their skis would have improved their experience?

 

 

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21982&page=2

 

It is all a personal preference. 

 

The video was shot in '98 though. If the skiers are on wider skis today, then they probably think that the wider skis improve their experience. 
 

post #80 of 80

Fat skis are NEVER necessary.

 

But they make bc skiing more enjoyable except for the hard or bulletproof conditions.

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 › When are Fat skis necessary?