EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › HELP! I Need a ski that ski's deep powder and will still work reasonably to instruct in. Couple ideas and suggestions please.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HELP! I Need a ski that ski's deep powder and will still work reasonably to instruct in. Couple ideas and suggestions please.

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 

I was just hired to work in Canada instructing for the year at a resort that averages 908cm (360" year) of snow.  This resort has no grooming equipment ( i guess they groom a little but apparently almost none) and i will be working 5 to 7 days a week on the snow.

 

I need a ski to to actually teach school groups, and go ski in.  I will have very limited space in my employee accomodations and I'm thinking, 1 max 2 pairs.  It was suggest by the director that I get something around 85 cm under foot.  So what are your thoughts on this?

 

 

I was looking at these in the164 length cause I can afford them, lol.  We don't make a lot of money teaching but sounds like I'll at least make some, have a great winter, at a great resort with awesome skiing.

 

http://www.levelninesports.com/Liberty-Hazmat-Twin-Tip-Powder-Skis

 

 

OH yea, I'm like 5'5"  140ish pounds. 


Edited by lady_Salina - 11/2/10 at 6:30pm
post #2 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by lady_Salina View Post

I was just hired to work in Canada instructing for the year at a resort that averages 908cm (360" year) of snow.  This resort has no grooming equipment and i will be working 5 to 7 days a week on the snow.

 

I need a ski to to actually teach school groups, and go ski in.  I will have very limited space in my employee accomodations and I'm thinking, 1 max 2 pairs.  It was suggest by the director that I get something around 85 cm under foot.  So what are your thoughts on this?

 

 

I was looking at these in the164 length cause I can afford them, lol.  We don't make a lot of money teaching but sounds like I'll at least make some, have a great winter, at a great resort with awesome skiing.

 

http://www.levelninesports.com/Liberty-Hazmat-Twin-Tip-Powder-Skis

 

 

OH yea, I'm like 5'5"  140ish pounds. 

 

 

Are you working at whitewater, BC by some chance?


I never listen to SSD on ski choice normally behind the times no matter where they live. case in point Snowbird, Utah SSD doesnt ski on anything wider than 90ish mm ever. That place gets more snow than where your working.

 

85 mm is hardly wide especially for a place with no grooming.  Id go wider. Plus rockered skis make great demo ski for low end demos. 

 

Id look around TGR for someone 100mm skis that they dont want anymore.

post #3 of 28

If no grooming equipment, and with those snowfall numbers, assume when it's not snowing you will have a lot of soft bumps? Strikes me that something in the mid 90's to low 100's with a traditional tail, would work. Rest depends on your budget. But I'd see the Aura or Nemesis as very adaptable skis, can be had at reasonable prices right now.. 

post #4 of 28
Thread Starter 

Castle Mountain, AB.  And yes they have no grooming (corrected, to they don't groom the large mountain) and apparently don't need it.  I was kind of looking at a couple that are 100mm actually..... thinking i could use my IM 77's for teaching kids since I have gotten by with them in Utah, and when i go ski have something wide and easier.  But I really can't decide.  100 seems huge to me but so does that annual snowfall. 


Edited by lady_Salina - 11/2/10 at 7:58pm
post #5 of 28

I will likely get slammed for this by the "know it alls" here but:

 

Be careful on the frame of reference you get your advice from.

 

Not sure what length you had in mind but 100mm wide on a ski that is 160ish to 170 or so....is effectivley much wider then 100mm wide on a ski that is 180ish....

 

If you found 77 "ok" in Utah then 85s will likley be perfect for Castle.

post #6 of 28

I ski Castle two or three days a week hence the avatar and of course Castle has grooming - whoever told you they didn't is sadly misinformed. Mind you the grooming is on Mt. Haig which is the beginner/intermediate hill where you will be teaching. (Please consult the trail map to see what I mean).  http://www.skicastle.ca/trail-maps.cfm

The big mountain is groomed by Mother Nature's winds.

As far as ski size is concerned a two ski combo would be ideal. In fact my wife uses IM 75's when teaching the Disabled Skiing Program and Prophet 100's for most free skiing. Width is your friend and 100 is NOT wide in Western Canada and is considered a 'daily driver' in bounds ski and the Prophets are quick, stable, floaty and work perfectly for Castle's terrain. She is 5'5'', 105 lbs and skis the 178 which is big but she is truly expert. Here is a video I did of the blue terrain on the big mountain taken after 3 weeks of no snow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fku-oIBqks

Much more powder expected this year.

post #7 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

I will likely get slammed for this by the "know it alls" here but:

 

Be careful on the frame of reference you get your advice from.

 

Not sure what length you had in mind but 100mm wide on a ski that is 160ish to 170 or so....is effectivley much wider then 100mm wide on a ski that is 180ish....

 

If you found 77 "ok" in Utah then 85s will likley be perfect for Castle.


who cares....

 

more float is better PERIOD.

 

smaller people have the advantage of using a reasonable 100mm ski and getting the float big guys like me get on 130mm skis.

 

honestly I teach lessons on a 98 mm wide rockered ski with no issues if anything its easier to do low end demos because the skis dont want to carve.

 

 

post #8 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Castle Dave View Post

I ski Castle two or three days a week hence the avatar and of course Castle has grooming - whoever told you they didn't is sadly misinformed. Mind you the grooming is on Mt. Haig which is the beginner/intermediate hill where you will be teaching. (Please consult the trail map to see what I mean).  http://www.skicastle.ca/trail-maps.cfm

The big mountain is groomed by Mother Nature's winds.

As far as ski size is concerned a two ski combo would be ideal. In fact my wife uses IM 75's when teaching the Disabled Skiing Program and Prophet 100's for most free skiing. Width is your friend and 100 is NOT wide in Western Canada and is considered a 'daily driver' in bounds ski and the Prophets are quick, stable, floaty and work perfectly for Castle's terrain. She is 5'5'', 105 lbs and skis the 178 which is big but she is truly expert. Here is a video I did of the blue terrain on the big mountain taken after 3 weeks of no snow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fku-oIBqks

Much more powder expected this year.


that places looks amazing!!!

 

your wife skis solid as well. Post more stoke in the future!

 

also listen to the guy

post #9 of 28



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post




who cares....

 

more float is better PERIOD.

 

smaller people have the advantage of using a reasonable 100mm ski and getting the float big guys like me get on 130mm skis.

 

honestly I teach lessons on a 98 mm wide rockered ski with no issues if anything its easier to do low end demos because the skis dont want to carve.

 

 



 Well this was predicatble....

 

Josh, serioulsy, you venture to the TA forums so you should know better.

 

A taller person will naturally have more leverage laterally then a shorter person.  So no, a shorter person is not able to ski a 100mm ski, with the benefits of a 130mm with no downside.  They would get the same benefits, and drawbacks.

 

You ski and teach on a 98mm ski...but are effectivley adovcating that someone do it on a 120 or so equivalent...

 

Also just read your latest post, so she teaches on a 75, and her big skis are 100...this lady asked for 1 ski...where the 85 suggestion is right in the middle, or there abouts.

post #10 of 28

I'd say you're looking in the wrong place. 

 

TGR is a much better place to find good deals on fat skis.  Keep an eye out on TD as well.  They had some Rossi Voodoo BC110s on last week for $369.

post #11 of 28
Thread Starter 


Wow thank you for the input, the video looks incredible, I can't wait to come out.  I was told mother nature did the grooming and it was the Director so I am sure he was referring to the larger runs. I read quite a bit about the mountain, and saw many stills; the video was great, thanks. I read all their trail maps, looked at photos and have been out that way only once in my time out west. I used to ski Panorma ever year and have been out with RK (even pre fatty days) and yes Panorama does not get that snow fall at all, but they're quite nice and used to run trips to Fernie weekly, at least pre Intrawest.  Castle sounds great.  My concern was something I could teach with also if i went one ski but maybe two is the answer, though flying in with a winter's worth of gear and two pairs skis sounds challenging, then climbing on a bus ..... you get the picture haha. 

 

I wish I had time to demo wide skis in the snow but I won't get the chance before I get there and I don't want to be paying Canadian Prices.  I can go around the ski shops where I live this weekend, but they don't tend to keep a wide selection of truly wide skis for the North carolina powder handy, lol.  So really looking for advice, from someone that has spent time teaching on good options to narrow it down.  Also, I know it is often recommended to go 10 cm longer with powder skis which would mean 175ish, I should possibly post on ski diva's and get the perspective from a lady also.  I also realize there is the wide or narrow debate.  I like seeing everyone's opinion and then will have to sifen through the responses for reasonable possibilites lol.  I can research suggestions and see what sounds like me (my ski style, speed, like) along with look up skier reviews, and that would be great.  

 

At this point it's looking like 2 skis is probably necessary.  Oh and the two i own, my race ski and my cruiser (77's) is not the two i need lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Castle Dave View Post

I ski Castle two or three days a week hence the avatar and of course Castle has grooming - whoever told you they didn't is sadly misinformed. Mind you the grooming is on Mt. Haig which is the beginner/intermediate hill where you will be teaching. (Please consult the trail map to see what I mean).  http://www.skicastle.ca/trail-maps.cfm

The big mountain is groomed by Mother Nature's winds.

As far as ski size is concerned a two ski combo would be ideal. In fact my wife uses IM 75's when teaching the Disabled Skiing Program and Prophet 100's for most free skiing. Width is your friend and 100 is NOT wide in Western Canada and is considered a 'daily driver' in bounds ski and the Prophets are quick, stable, floaty and work perfectly for Castle's terrain. She is 5'5'', 105 lbs and skis the 178 which is big but she is truly expert. Here is a video I did of the blue terrain on the big mountain taken after 3 weeks of no snow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fku-oIBqks

Much more powder expected this year.

post #12 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post



 



 Well this was predicatble....

 

Josh, serioulsy, you venture to the TA forums so you should know better.

 

A taller person will naturally have more leverage laterally then a shorter person.  So no, a shorter person is not able to ski a 100mm ski, with the benefits of a 130mm with no downside.  They would get the same benefits, and drawbacks.

 

You ski and teach on a 98mm ski...but are effectivley adovcating that someone do it on a 120 or so equivalent...

 

Also just read your latest post, so she teaches on a 75, and her big skis are 100...this lady asked for 1 ski...where the 85 suggestion is right in the middle, or there abouts.


the benefits and the drawbacks are not the same. 

 

me on 120-130 mm ski on even soft hardpack = achy knees

 

me on 120-130 mm ski in powder is tons of float

 

me on a 100mm skis = not achy knees, actually pretty good edge grip

 

her on 100 mm skis = not achy knees pretty good edge grip

 

her on 100mm skis in powder = more than ample float

 

side to side leverage might be alittle more with an average person being taller but I have seen little girls(well young women) rip it up on daily basis on 90-100mm skis. I also think leverage is overrated and vastly misunderstood. the loads you can put on a ski though weight and turning are much more than being able to finesse your upper body a couple more inches cause your taller. most forces transmitted to skis come from skill and not weight or height. 

 

what your saying is up there with this statement "a lower of center of gravity is better for skiing"  

 

post #13 of 28



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post




the benefits and the drawbacks are not the same. 

 

me on 120-130 mm ski on even soft hardpack = achy knees

 

 

her on 100 mm skis = not achy knees pretty good edge grip

 

 

 

 

Big call....ever wonder what causes those achy knees?  Every wonder why FIS put a limit on lifters?

 

All part of leverage...more height, more leverage...wider less leverage....less leverage, more force required...more force required, more force on knees, more force on knees = sore knees.

Also less edge grip.

 

Keep on chirping big guy, you might eventually convince yourself.

 

post #14 of 28

since the OP is not tall, and I am certainly not tall, I'm going to comment on why you cannot say that a smaller person can float a narrower ski:

 

Your skis cannot discern the difference between a 130 lb person arcing turns down a 35 degree slope at 40 miles an hour

and                                                                 a 180 lb person arcing turns down a 15 degree slope at 20 miles an hour.

 

The function is velocity, not static weight.

post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

since the OP is not tall, and I am certainly not tall, I'm going to comment on why you cannot say that a smaller person can float a narrower ski:

 

Your skis cannot discern the difference between a 130 lb person arcing turns down a 35 degree slope at 40 miles an hour

and                                                                 a 180 lb person arcing turns down a 15 degree slope at 20 miles an hour.

 

The function is velocity, not static weight.



I am not sure if you agreeing with me, or disagreeing.

 

But to be clear...a SHORTER person (not lighter) will typcially be on a shorter ski...a TALLER person (not heavier) will typically be on a longer ski.

 

That means different turnining radius, flex etc even with the same ski.

 

Plus the other issue of sore knees is also a funciton of your "lever arm" or height.

 

I agree to guys at 6ft, one a line backer and 280lbs, vs. a 6ft skinny guy will experience no difference with the sore knee issue...but a 5'5 vs. a 6ft will if the width is the same, as the 6fter will have more leverage...and yes I acknowledge that is a generilisation as skiing skills, style etc will also play a role, but all things being equal the principle is definatley sound.

post #16 of 28

It sounds like a difference between the two theories is I am thinking of the ski in deep 3-D snow and you are talking about leveraging a ski onto edge so it must be hard snow. maybe the physics is different for hard and soft snow as to the skis behavior when powered by varying velocity.

 

the equating in the example earlier would be the same velocity from shifting the values for speed and weight and incline.

post #17 of 28

Well yes, I was refering to hard pack, as that is what Josh referenced when he gets sore knees.  I noticed that too on the fatter gear...but in pow it is not so much of an issue.

post #18 of 28

Lady S.....  Castle is a great hill, you will have a lot of fun!

 

The skis you already have will be fine for teaching on the Haig terrain..... 

 

Also there is a pretty good shop on the hill that will no doubt give you a pro-deal if you are working on the hill, this will work out cheaper than a USD retail price.   If you have a CSIA card, take a trip to Cow-town and pro-deal some kit there. (I think what i am getting at is that there are cheaper options up here if you are working in the Industry)

 

As said way above the cat fight.... A larger +100mm ski will be ideal for the main hill.... The upper mountain, chutes and north side get very wind affected, if you know where to look you can get lap after lap of knee-deep with free refills!...  If you happen to pick up an advanced lesson, these skis will most likely be more appropriate anyway.

post #19 of 28

P.s. - Make sure you bring plenty of layers, neck gaiter/mask, etc..... More than normal....  Castle gets windy..... VERY windy....  The old red chair up top keeps rolling regardless (avi danger will close it before wind usually!) and it can be a long slow cold ride if you are not suitably prepared...... 

 

 

If you are prepared it is not an issue......

post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

A taller person will naturally have more leverage laterally then a shorter person.  So no, a shorter person is not able to ski a 100mm ski, with the benefits of a 130mm with no downside.  They would get the same benefits, and drawbacks.

 

...this lady asked for 1 ski...

On the first, there have been useful posts about the relevance of leverage to modern styles. IMO total height leverage is relevant for projecting your CM aggressively during SG/GS, less relevant for cross-under SL because the anatomical leverage employed is mainly at the lower leg, and thus a fairly small variance between individuals, only marginally relevant for typical groomers where the CM is more neutral, mostly irrelevant to ungroomed terrain with a lot of chop and bumps where she'll be pivoting and smearing. Weight, OTOH, is a big deal for flexing and float.

 

On the second, she stated "2 max," and then added that she already has a 77 mm that she will probably keep. So fail to see how spending $ on an extra 8 mm of width is useful, especially when her 77 mm ski works well on hardpack/ice...

 

And FWIW, I know plenty of women who carve beautifully on 105-112 skis. So does BWPA, I'm sure. Somehow they manage to get their poor little female bodies to handle those ersatz 130 mm skis. 
 

post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

 

what your saying is up there with this statement "a lower of center of gravity is better for skiing"  

 


Darn. I've been using this one as an excuse for my lack of skiing ability (and lack of ability in many sports, actually) for a long time. If you don't mind, BWPA, I'm going to keep saying this to myself so that I feel better about the athletic accomplishments that I do achieve.

(Sorry for the hijack Ms. Salina).

post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

On the second, she stated "2 max," and then added that she already has a 77 mm that she will probably keep. So fail to see how spending $ on an extra 8 mm of width is useful, especially when her 77 mm ski works well on hardpack/ice...

 


I agree. I think she should look in high-90s or more with rockered tip and tail or reverse camber.

post #23 of 28

So...we have the usual ****ing match between wide and not so wide. I have personally skied 3 feet of untracked on 78mm skis (and had a blast!), and I've done my share of shmearing on a pair of 110's. They are both fun, but there are plenty of places where one or the other doesn't work well. I have to confess I haven't skied any 130mm skis yet.

 

What lady_Salina really needs or will like depends heavily on her skill set, experience and preferences, as well as her height and weight.

 

I would suggest that she fly to Calgary with just her 77mm skis. They'll be fine to teach on. And as she says, finding a good selection of fat skis in North Carolina can be a problem. Plus, dragging one pair of skis through the airport kind of sucks; two is worse. Once she's there, she should be eligible for pro deals and she may have a chance to demo to find out what she actually likes. If she's also PSIA, she may be able to contact a rep for her chosen ski in Whitefish or Schweitzer. Or the CSIA pro deals may be just fine.

 

Once there, make your decision ASAP. Pro stock tends to sell out quickly.

 

I agree that 100mm is not considered particularly wide in western Canada, but that doesn't mean that lady_Salina has to have one that big if she prefers something that's "only" 94mm wide.

 

FWIW, BWPA, 360" is a so-so year at Whitewater. If that's all we get, there's a lot of whining. But Castle is a great place with an actual shop on the hill!

post #24 of 28

What about Rossi S3? Get the S7 style shape in a 98mm width. Probably enough float given her size. I would definitely not go under 100mm without at least tip rocker. Castle gets wind hammered all the time, tip rocker will make skiing the wind effect snow a lot more enjoyable than an 85mm trad ski. Use the 77's for teaching and definitely look into pro deal.

post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by TallSkinnyGuy View Post




Darn. I've been using this one as an excuse for my lack of skiing ability (and lack of ability in many sports, actually) for a long time. If you don't mind, BWPA, I'm going to keep saying this to myself so that I feel better about the athletic accomplishments that I do achieve.

(Sorry for the hijack Ms. Salina).


ha if it were true every womens out there would outski every guys. Proportionally womens COG is alot lower than every guys. Also parents would also out ski their children as proportionally kids COG is actually higher than their parents. 

 

basically what I am saying is it really doesnt matter much where someone's COG is as waist width that matter much for leverage on smaller persons knees.

post #26 of 28

a friend of mine just bought the Salomon Geisha, 97mm rockered tip, rounded tail. nice. it's going to excell in heavy pow and crud, and rock groom and bumps.

post #27 of 28


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post


basically what I am saying is it really doesnt matter much where someone's COG is as waist width that matter much for leverage on smaller persons knees.


So... a bigger person should be knee-OK with a 36" waist; it doesn't matter how far down their bum drops?   

 

 

post #28 of 28

The IM78 is certainly in your wheelhouse for every condition, just not ideal for all.  Why not wait to decide on the 2nd pair til you get there? See what brand your SSD is repping and demo those. Isn't it likely that they will get you them on pro form or some other insider discount?  And, you get mucho brownie points for rocking the brand your boss reps for.

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 › HELP! I Need a ski that ski's deep powder and will still work reasonably to instruct in. Couple ideas and suggestions please.