or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Do Americans buy too big?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do Americans buy too big? - Page 2

post #31 of 105

Short skis build crappy moguls

Short skis suck for skiing really fast

Short skis are great for beginners though

 

Other than that, short skis suck

 

post #32 of 105

My fleet includes...

 

179cm / 85mm.......For rails

183cm / 87mm......Jumping/All mountain

188cm / 102mm....Powder/Cliffs

191cm / 67mm......Going fast

 

The 179's go up to my bottom lip barefoot.  The 191's are the middle of my forehead.

 

Are my skis too big or too small?  Because in all cases, that is the largest ski available in that particular model.

 

post #33 of 105

it varies by ski area also. there are areas in the Tahoe region where skiers drop into narrow chutes for a 55mph+ straight line or 40ft of air. Bring a pair of hooky short skis up there and you're in for a ride. much of the debate is mut on the hill where it's put up or shut up.

post #34 of 105

Fat, lazy, maybe, but mainly out of touch with what most skiers actually encounter. Meaning: The folks here who proselytize long fat skis for "wide open bowls at speed" or "narrow chutes at 55 mph" either 1) live near enough to that bowl that they can hit it just after a storm, 2) are unemployed and can ski whenever and wherever they want, or 3) have very flexible work schedules, live only for pow and big air, and eschew skiing anything else.

 

For the rest of humanity, who work in towns or cities a ways away (100 miles to 1,000 miles say) , and don't necessarily huck cliffs, it's tough enough just to get there the next weekend. Or on a week vacation planned a year earlier. For them, odds are that bowl will be cut up and settled, with lots of bumps over the bottom 1/3, and some crust and ice in the steeper bits. Or maybe full of rocks and refrozen crust courtesy of the latest El Nino/La Nina. I've skied Tahoe on and off for 45 years and I don't recall the sidebounds constantly being that clogged with new snow, or the cliffs having such long lines of experts waiting to do air. Last time I was at Squaw I must have miscounted all the folks doing epic air. From the comments here, assume it's at least 2/3 of the the total ticket count.

 

So curious: How many who advocate rockered fatties over your head for "daily drivers" have actually skied in Europe? Do you know anything about the terrain and the typical conditions? Probably not, or you wouldn't attribute Euro ski choices to being behind the curve or "Brits leading the way." (More like British college students aping what they see American college students apparently doing in magazines.) Similarly, glad folks can extol the virtues of soft fat rockers for New England, but where do you live? Do you work in Stowe? Do you work in Boston or Hartford? Do you have a job that requires you to actually show up, regardless of snow conditions up north?  

 

So carry on with these endless threads about how real men/good skiers should all ski on rockered fatties above our heads. They keep the post counts up for the advertisers, they fuel sales for our own retailers, and we all need a good laugh.

 

PS: Yes, I own some fat rockers above my head. No, I don't see them as the Second Coming.  


Edited by beyond - 9/8/10 at 11:31am
post #35 of 105

have given up such posh sh#& as fancy resteraunts, new cars, expensive clothes, and ocean cruises in favor of really skiing. a demanding career is fine, and then some day your totally........dead!

post #36 of 105
Thread Starter 

superb, couldn't have said it better

post #37 of 105

In fact I just did a little Math...and the fact is...save for Super G and Downhill skis, they don't make skis that go over my head!  I'm 195cm tall for crying out loud!

 

So I don't understand this debate of skis over your head or under your head.  To me, all of them that matter are under the top of my head. 

post #38 of 105



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

have given up such posh sh#& as fancy resteraunts, new cars, expensive clothes, and ocean cruises in favor of really skiing. a demanding career is fine, and then some day your totally........dead!


LOL Perfect!  I ate at Taco Bell last night.  I had a $2 Meal Deal.  Last car I bought was a 2001 Volvo in 2009 for $6300.  Last new shirt I bought was in July of 2009 for my HS Reunion.  Never been, or wanted to go on a Ocean Cruise.  I bought two brand new pairs of skis this year, new bindings, season pass, and tripping to Jackson Hole, Steamboat, Crested Butte, Tahoe and maybe Aspen this year.  I fly airplanes for a living.

 

You summed me up pretty good!
 

post #39 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujativeOCR View Post



 


LOL Perfect!  I ate at Taco Bell last night.  I had a $2 Meal Deal.  Last car I bought was a 2001 Volvo in 2009 for $6300.  Last new shirt I bought was in July of 2009 for my HS Reunion.  Never been, or wanted to go on a Ocean Cruise.  I bought two brand new pairs of skis this year, new bindings, season pass, and tripping to Jackson Hole, Steamboat, Crested Butte, Tahoe and maybe Aspen this year.  I fly airplanes for a living.

 

You summed me up pretty good!
 


OTOH, I also ate a lot at Taco Bell in the past month, while driving my 1997 4-Runner with 182,000 miles on it. I've bought two t-shirts and one pair of board shorts in the past year, have never been on an ocean cruise, and directed as much of my own discretionary $ as possible at my season pass and ski purchase addiction. So obviously I live for skiing, right? 

 

Uh, wrong. I live for my kids and wife and interesting but in one place job. Like many great jobs, it has demands. Ditto for wife, kids, wife's great job. So when we have extra money, the kids' shoes come (gasp) before ski boots. Then their various school supplies and lessons and after school activities. Then oddities like food, health care, and shelter, both near job and near slopes. (Wives and small kids don't like sleeping in the backs of trucks near the slopes, and child welfare types especially get very tight ass about pediatric frostbite.)

 

So you (may) get the salient ideas:  1) Contrary to popular belief, not everyone who has "a real life" owns a new 911, guzzles 98 Chateauneuf du Pape and fritters away $ on ocean cruises rather than the important things like skiing. 2) There is life after 9-5 employment, and after marriage, and even (gasp) after children. Kinda nice life, actually. Technically, it precedes death by a while. 2) At some point you realize that there are other interesting things in this life besides skiing. 3) However, that doesn't make you love skiing less. You just ski less. Particular lifestyles or career choices or skis you like are not ideological purity tests, with the loser getting branded on the forehead with a PM or JJ by true believers. Rather, real life introduces an element of, ah, realism. 4) That, in turn, makes you more amused when you read people with say, a less typical real world footprint preaching to Epic newcomers about how they should try big fat skis for daily drivers.

 

But hey, obviously I suffer long-ski envy, not to mention inadequate high speed performance anxiety. Where are those damn meds again? 

post #40 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Fat, lazy, maybe, but mainly out of touch with what most skiers actually encounter. Meaning: The folks here who proselytize long fat skis for "wide open bowls at speed" or "narrow chutes at 55 mph" either 1) live near enough to that bowl that they can hit it just after a storm, 2) are unemployed and can ski whenever and wherever they want, or 3) have very flexible work schedules, live only for pow and big air, and eschew skiing anything else.

 

For the rest of humanity, who work in towns or cities a ways away (100 miles to 1,000 miles say) , and don't necessarily huck cliffs, it's tough enough just to get there the next weekend. Or on a week vacation planned a year earlier. For them, odds are that bowl will be cut up and settled, with lots of bumps over the bottom 1/3, and some crust and ice in the steeper bits. Or maybe full of rocks and refrozen crust courtesy of the latest El Nino/La Nina. I've skied Tahoe on and off for 45 years and I don't recall the sidebounds constantly being that clogged with new snow, or the cliffs having such long lines of experts waiting to do air. Last time I was at Squaw I must have miscounted all the folks doing epic air. From the comments here, assume it's at least 2/3 of the the total ticket count.

 

So curious: How many who advocate rockered fatties over your head for "daily drivers" have actually skied in Europe? Do you know anything about the terrain and the typical conditions? Probably not, or you wouldn't attribute Euro ski choices to being behind the curve or "Brits leading the way." (More like British college students aping what they see American college students apparently doing in magazines.) Similarly, glad folks can extol the virtues of soft fat rockers for New England, but where do you live? Do you work in Stowe? Do you work in Boston or Hartford? Do you have a job that requires you to actually show up, regardless of snow conditions up north?  

 

So carry on with these endless threads about how real men/good skiers should all ski on rockered fatties above our heads. They keep the post counts up for the advertisers, they fuel sales for our own retailers, and we all need a good laugh.

 

PS: Yes, I own some fat rockers above my head. No, I don't see them as the Second Coming.  

AWESOME POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

post #41 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpedges View Post


 


I'm an American skier and, as you say, I am fat.  My daily driver is 170cm and I could probably get by as well with a 165.  It skis powder up to 18 inches nicely despite a medium waist width of 66mm.  If it floats my bulk that nicely, then probably few non-backcountry skiers really need more on most days ... what they want is a different story. 

 

I have no interest in rocker because 1) strong, classic camber is what makes crisp turns on firmer snow possible and 2) the tips have always been turned up to avoid problems in 3-D snow. 

 

Could it be that our European counterparts are simply more inured to the ski advertisers' gimmicks?  tdk6, what do you think?

 


If 66mm is medium width, what would you consider narrow?

post #42 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingaround View Post

118-85-109 these are my current dimensions. I find I can ski it all with these. Oh, and length 178cm, about eyebrow height.


To be honest dude, if I were living and skiing in Euroland that is probably something close to what I would ski every day. Would probably do it in a 180something as I probably have an inch or so on you and about 25 more pounds to lug around. With all the variable conditions over there it would make sense.

 

Last time I hit Europe it was in March with a pair of Bro Stiff 188's. Don't think I would go much fatter for an ever day type of ski cause of the crazy variety snow I alluded to earlier.

 

Parting Shot: But if you get right down to it, if you know what you're doing any modern ski will get you through just about anything. I've seen guys ripping bottomless in long 75 underfoot skis back in the day and guys absolutely killing it in VW sizes bumps on JJ's. It is all a question of the degree of fun you want to have in each particular condition.

post #43 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Fat, lazy, maybe, but mainly out of touch with what most skiers actually encounter. Meaning: The folks here who proselytize long fat skis for "wide open bowls at speed" or "narrow chutes at 55 mph" either 1) live near enough to that bowl that they can hit it just after a storm, 2) are unemployed and can ski whenever and wherever they want, or 3) have very flexible work schedules, live only for pow and big air, and eschew skiing anything else.

 

For the rest of humanity, who work in towns or cities a ways away (100 miles to 1,000 miles say) , and don't necessarily huck cliffs, it's tough enough just to get there the next weekend. Or on a week vacation planned a year earlier. For them, odds are that bowl will be cut up and settled, with lots of bumps over the bottom 1/3, and some crust and ice in the steeper bits. Or maybe full of rocks and refrozen crust courtesy of the latest El Nino/La Nina. I've skied Tahoe on and off for 45 years and I don't recall the sidebounds constantly being that clogged with new snow, or the cliffs having such long lines of experts waiting to do air. Last time I was at Squaw I must have miscounted all the folks doing epic air. From the comments here, assume it's at least 2/3 of the the total ticket count.

 

So curious: How many who advocate rockered fatties over your head for "daily drivers" have actually skied in Europe? Do you know anything about the terrain and the typical conditions? Probably not, or you wouldn't attribute Euro ski choices to being behind the curve or "Brits leading the way." (More like British college students aping what they see American college students apparently doing in magazines.) Similarly, glad folks can extol the virtues of soft fat rockers for New England, but where do you live? Do you work in Stowe? Do you work in Boston or Hartford? Do you have a job that requires you to actually show up, regardless of snow conditions up north?  

 

So carry on with these endless threads about how real men/good skiers should all ski on rockered fatties above our heads. They keep the post counts up for the advertisers, they fuel sales for our own retailers, and we all need a good laugh.

 

PS: Yes, I own some fat rockers above my head. No, I don't see them as the Second Coming.  


Jesus dude, you trying to quit smoking today or something? ;) What's with getting all agro on people who manage to get more than 10 day in a year? Seems you have a complex or something.

 

 

 

 

 

post #44 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingaround View Post

118-85-109 these are my current dimensions. I find I can ski it all with these. Oh, and length 178cm, about eyebrow height.


Sounds about the size of my 1998 Olin Sierra's that I bought off Smooth Johnson - Master of the Carve.  Maybe yours are a bit wider, but mine were 197 cm long (my eyebrow height is 191 cm).  I'd be OK with that as my daily driver, but there are better options nowdays.  And yes, I've skied Europe - on blue noodles (Salomon Pocket Rockets).  I think I would've liked the old Olins for most of the runs.
 

post #45 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ster View Post

Most Americans are too lazy to turn much .

 

JF



One of the best quotes I have seen on the changing "trend" in skiing. Speed and Parks are what is popular. Not turning.......

post #46 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnMiddleton View Post





One of the best quotes I have seen on the changing "trend" in skiing. Speed and Parks are what is popular. Not turning.......


 

so speed and parks are popular eh?

post #47 of 105

I think he means straightlining big faces.

post #48 of 105

1 - I think Europeans are more traditional in general about skiing. More about racing and race technique.

 

2 - As others have said, I think you can do anything on any type of ski, it just may be harder. You can ski waist-deep powder on a 65mm ski. You probably wouldn't, but you could.

 

3 - For what it's worth, I think having two pairs of skis (thinner and wider) is worthwhile for a lot of people (say, anyone who skis 10+ days per year). I think having more than two is diminishing returns unless you ski several multiples of that number of days per year.

post #49 of 105

I am wondering how this discussion came to assume that the skis you ski define who you are.  I get beyond's point, but I also get davluri's point.  What I don't get is why it matters what you ski.  You ski what you like to ski and can afford.  The original post gets the award for best flame baits of the year.  To say that all you need is a pair of short all-mountain skis is to say that everyone should drive a Camry- it sure works fine for everything, even hauling furniture if you are creative about it, yes,sure, but there is a market for Corollas, Chevy trucks, and BMWs.    I can get down anything on an all-mountain ski and I have owned a succession of skis that defined that versatility for me, and I remember doing just fine on a 67mm ski in powder.  But nowadays my all mountain ski is 94mm, and I also own a fat powder ski that makes soft snow skiing all that much more enjoyable for me (and yes, I have a job, a family, small kids, and we still get to ski more than 20 days a year).  And last year I tried a rockered powder ski that was so good that I almost put an order for it.  Does it make me a fat overindulgent american who does not know how to ski without the fat ski crutches?  MAybe so, but why does it even matter?  I have two instructor friends who are both fantastic technical skiers.  One guy owns a fair of short narrow slalom race skis (in addition to fat skis for softer snow), another guy has a 96 mm ski as his skinniest hard snow day ski.  Does one know better than the other?  Assuming that you can afford it, you pick the tools that get the job done for you and then enjoy them whenever and how often you can get to the slopes.   Just chill out, guys...

...   

post #50 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

effective length about eyebrown height is my general rule...  SJ, do you have a guide line? Do you think groomed vs. off-piste makes a difference (just general practices you use in Ski Haus)


The general guidelines that I have used for years involve individual evaluation. When I look over a customer and talk to them about the runs (or non runs) they ski, I'm going to have a fair idea of how they ski and what they really need. Realistically, if their circumference is much more than 50% of their height, I tend to take their claims with a little NaCl and make my suggestions accordingly. I tend to sell longer skis than city shops for sure and I find that some of my local competitors tend to sell women skis that I think are a bit short.

 

So........

 

I tend to use myself as an example. I'm 5' 10" and about 198#. That's average on height and plus some on weight but close enough to use as a baseline. For groomer biased skis, I'm going to suggest the range of 170-175. For polyvalent skis, I'll suggest the range of 175-182. For deeper snow and powder specialty skis, I'll usually suggest 180 and up. If rocker is added to the equation I'll add some length. For those dramatically outside the norms as far as weight, I might add length due to stature but I may well deduct if I think they can't ski.

 

I'll bet that is all about as clear as mud..................

 

SJ

post #51 of 105

Basically, do Americans buy too big?  It depends on the niche you're looking at.  On average the answer would be no. 
For every consumer buying a ski that's too long, with too long a radius, and too wide a waist, for them to handle, there's an offsetting consumer getting sold a wet noodle that's too short, along with a pair of comfy "intermediate" boots that feel great in the shop. 

 

There is a bit of a negative cult around powder boards with traditional but very long sidecuts that I think causes one small consumer niche to ski very blocky turns, with the exception of the 5 people at any large ski area who can actually ski that type of shape well (of whom often none will WANT to, given the other options now available).  However, the skis that fit this niche are generally beautiful, and for certain conditions and user groups are the cat's meow. 

 

Americans do buy, and ski with, too many backpacks of too large a size.  That problem transcends any specific use group.  I blame 80s ski movies for this, so hopefully with a bit of a time lag we'll be able to move on. 

post #52 of 105

It's hard for me to think of a reason to carry a backpack frontside. Unless you're planning a picnic or you're shooting a major motion picture on the slopes. If your trailmap, snack, flask and camera don't fit in your pockets, you've got the wrong jacket.

post #53 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Jordan View Post

It's hard for me to think of a reason to carry a backpack frontside. Unless you're planning a picnic or you're shooting a major motion picture on the slopes. If your trailmap, snack, flask and camera don't fit in your pockets, you've got the wrong jacket.


I actually used to share this same mindset and never wear a pack of any sort. I ended up picking up a little CamelBak SnoBlast for the backcountry a while back and one day I pulled my avy gear from it and took it to the resort. I have to admit, I can't image skiing at the resort without it now for one reason and one reason only - water. Maybe it is because I'm not getting any younger but staying hydrated throughout the day has been huge for me. I lug around a Leatherman, a small knit hat for balcony use and a light midweight and that's about it. I know I should shove a sandwich or two in there and save some $ but I am too lazy. I do have the ever present bottle of pharma for when things go bump but you don't really need a pack to carry around some Advil. Only other "kit" like thing is that I wrap a bead of duct tape around each of my poles (near the top) for repairs/first aid. Actually, that has been the most useful thing so far.

 

Oh ya, the pack is uber useful when skiing with my kids. But that goes without saying....

 

post #54 of 105

ive got a pair of 170's (110-69-96) for ice hardpack and bumps, however these skis just arent quite fast enough, so i bought a pair of rossignol bandit xXx's in 193, theyre fast enough, and a blast to ride at speed, not twitchy like my 170's and they do alright in powder at speed, so why do us americans go big, speed plain and simple

post #55 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post





typically PSIA I am stuck in my way and I am never going to change. your east coast counter parts are much ahead of you......

 

FACT You can not ski tight places in 3d snow as fast on 66mm skis as you can on anything newer.

 

   Josh,  I'm not one of those old fart examiners on narrow skis you complained about after your 1st level 3 exam.  I'm actually one of the last people on earth the PSIA label could apply to. 

 

With regret, I note that that many of my "east coast counterparts" are following the Pied Piper of Hamelin.  In that sense they are "much ahead of me" because I won't follow that path to ... you know what nasty end.  And please put "alleged" in front of FACT next time cause it just ain't so. 

 

I love your enthusiasm for skiing.  But having watched several videos of your skiing in recent years, I think you'd benefit technique-wise from a focused week or two on the narrower skis in your quiver.  I bet you'd revise your opinion on this "fact." 

 

My principle concern about fat, rockered skis is the increasing number of dangerously out-of-control skiers I have seen threatening the skiing public on groomer thoroughfares as this fad has taken off.  Innocent people are gonna get killed ... and by skiers not snowboarders

 

Finndog does have a point about flotation skiing trees in thin cover, but my personal choice is to not ski trees in cover that thin no matter how wide my skis.  Just basic safety on the slopes.  Like him, I have no interest in acquiring a spiral fracture.

post #56 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedToSki View Post



 


If 66mm is medium width, what would you consider narrow?


The old skis, low 60s.  Much wider than a boot heel (low 70s and above) I consider wide or fat, as everyone once did, because it requires significantly more torque transmitted through the boot to keep such a ski on edge due to the longer lever arm.

post #57 of 105

I bang nails for a living. I own 7 different nail guns. I need every one of them, there are no duplicates.  I would never roof with my trim gun nor trim with my framing gun and then there is the one where you load the 22 caliber blank in to shoot something into concrete.

 

All these have a specific need and are sized accordingly.

 

As for my skis...............only 3 pair..........and some have to do double duty..........but I make do.......because I don't make my living on skis anymore (though I used to)

post #58 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingaround View Post

I'm based is Switzerland, but everytime I ski with my american friends (i work at an american boarding school)  they have way too big skis. I've spent some time in Tahoe and Utah, and again saw some good skiers buying real big skis. The reason they told me was they wanted a big solid platform for the serious big mountain.

This is a load of bull. Get a good quality ski, length somewhere between tip of nose and middle of forehead, and stick with it. A top quality all mountain ski of this length will serve you anywhere, from bumps, crud, piste, steep and deep.

Bigger is not always better.

 

Yea those people are idiots. I mean who would want to click into a set of fat rockered boards and go slarving steep trees and poping off of mellow drops into chest deep pow?

post #59 of 105


I think somebody spilled Chernobly on the hot tub switch again!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpedges View Post


The old skis, low 60s.  Much wider than a boot heel (low 70s and above) I consider wide or fat, as everyone once did, because it requires significantly more torque transmitted through the boot to keep such a ski on edge due to the longer lever arm.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpedges View Post


I'm an American skier and, as you say, I am fat.  My daily driver is 170cm and I could probably get by as well with a 165.  It skis powder up to 18 inches nicely despite a medium waist width of 66mm.  If it floats my bulk that nicely, then probably few non-backcountry skiers really need more on most days ... what they want is a different story. 

 

I have no interest in rocker because 1) strong, classic camber is what makes crisp turns on firmer snow possible and 2) the tips have always been turned up to avoid problems in 3-D snow. 

 

Could it be that our European counterparts are simply more inured to the ski advertisers' gimmicks?  tdk6, what do you think?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingaround View Post

Finndog, I get that feeling on my regular skis, that floating sensation. In some ways I think real fat skis are good and bad at the same time. With big fatties it's too easy, but you get to enjoy the powder if you're not quite up to it. And with regular all mountain skis, you probably need a bit more skill, but the sensation is just as good.

post #60 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Jordan View Post


It's hard for me to think of a reason to carry a backpack frontside. Unless you're planning a picnic or you're shooting a major motion picture on the slopes. If your trailmap, snack, flask and camera don't fit in your pockets, you've got the wrong jacket.





I bet you never ski with your kids. Try carrying three pairs of skis, snacks and some spare clothes without a pack.... What's wrong with you guys- why is everyone trying to pigeonhole people into caricatures. If you carry a pack and ski the fat skis, then you must be a ski movie wannabe. What a bunch of BS. You do what works for you, the ski area is not a fashion contest.
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 › Do Americans buy too big?