EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Minimum width for a good powder performance? (All Mountain Ski)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Minimum width for a good powder performance? (All Mountain Ski)

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

Hi!

 

I'm searching for the best one-ski-quiver for a 60/40 groomers/powder use. If will replace my Fischer AMC 76 164cm. I'm skiing 2-3 weeks/year in the alps, so I can't foresee the conditions, that's why I want one ski for everything. I know that it's a compromise. I'm 5'9'' ~175lbs and propably a level 7-8 skier.

One of the main problems is: I don't really know what width is necessary to get a good performance in deep snow. I just know that 76mm are not enough.

 

After spending many hours reading in different forums I now focus on these two models. For some reason they seem to fit best in my small radius + enough speed stability on groomers + just enough width float well in powder requirement profile. I would choose the 178cm Sultan or 182cm Punisher at the moment. The Sultan seems to be a bit more groomers-oriented whith its metal inlays. On the other hand the Punisher should work better in deep snow, because it's softer and wider.

 

I also toy with the idea of getting the Völkl Mantra in 177cm for more float. It seems to be the best for groomers of all the ~95ers, but has rather a big turning radius.

 

Any thoughts or recommendations to my speculative considerations? (please) 

 

Thanks!

 

post #2 of 12

I don't know about the width, but your skis are too short for powder at your weight imho.  Actually your skis are too short for just about any type of snow at your weight, again, just my humble opinion.

post #3 of 12

From my experience 95mm is a bout the perfect waist width for a 50/50 groomed/ungroomed ski. If you go fatter than that you start to lose carving ability pretty quickly, unless you are a very strong or skilled skier.  You can make a 105mm waisted ski carve on groomers, but it is more work than most people want to do for half of their turns. Conversely, if you drop below 95mm you start to lose the ability to support yourself in deep snow on one ski, which requires more mental and physical effort to balance your weight between your skis.  Mantras have a reputation as a one-ski quiver because they have enough sidecut and stiffness to handle hardpack, but a wide enough tip and waist to float in deep snow.  The Watea 94 has very similar dimensions, but a softer flex so it is better in soft snow and little worse on hard pack and heavy crud than the Mantra, but there are many other skis in that midfat range that can do the job.

post #4 of 12
Ghost and Mudfoot nailed it. Thread over.
post #5 of 12

I don't see how a 182 cm one ski quiver is too short for a 175 lb person (for 60% groomer use).  He's replacing his 164s after all, and going much wider anyway.  What would you put him on a 190 cm ski? 

post #6 of 12

Just reread the OP, you mean his current 164 cm is short - got it now, my bad.

post #7 of 12
Thread Starter 

You're right Ghost, that's why I want to exchange them. 

 

In terms of width: What would you say is the best ~95er for groomers? I'd say that they're all wide enough to work well in powder, some better some worse. But my priority is still on groomers. I'm the first who jumps into deep snow slopes when there's fresh snow but it will be no use if there isn't any for the 2/3 weeks I'm skiing/year. The groomers are always there, great powder perhaps not th_dunno-1[1].gif

post #8 of 12

LOL, I'm not giving any advice on which modern powder ski to buy; the last time I skied powder it was on 215 or maybe 220 dynastar gs skis (whatever the longest rental I could find in the area was) and I was only interested in making sg turns in it; I'm also happy as a clam on in deep snow (wet snow not powder) on my skinny old 2002 Volant Machete G skis (190 cm  x 104-68-90 mm).  I understand that if you go fatter you can go shorter, but I wouldn't want a ski less than about 180 unless I was skiing very slowly (like 5 to 10 mph) through very tight trees.

post #9 of 12

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

From my experience 95mm is a bout the perfect waist width for a 50/50 groomed/ungroomed ski. If you go fatter than that you start to lose carving ability pretty quickly, unless you are a very strong or skilled skier.  You can make a 105mm waisted ski carve on groomers, but it is more work than most people want to do for half of their turns. Conversely, if you drop below 95mm you start to lose the ability to support yourself in deep snow on one ski, which requires more mental and physical effort to balance your weight between your skis.  Mantras have a reputation as a one-ski quiver because they have enough sidecut and stiffness to handle hardpack, but a wide enough tip and waist to float in deep snow.  The Watea 94 has very similar dimensions, but a softer flex so it is better in soft snow and little worse on hard pack and heavy crud than the Mantra, but there are many other skis in that midfat range that can do the job.

 


Alternate point of view: I just got Icelantic Nomads, 105 waist, this season ... I thought they'd be hard to ski on groomers, but they've been great.  In fact, I initially got them for soft snow days, but now they're probably my every day ski.  They exposed some bad technique on my first few runs, but I took a lesson, practiced edging, and since then I've been flying on them.  I'm not sure how their stiffness compares to the other skis that have been suggested.  Mine are 158s - I'm 5'5, 175 lb, ski in the upper 8 lessons at Breck (upper bowls, (most) double blacks, trees, etc).  I've skied them on groomers, in crud, in trees, moguls, and in some powder.  So far so good. My powder skills lag behind other terrain types, but I did ski them in powder last weekend, and they were better than my old 82mm skis by a long shot (dumbo's feather?).  The one thing I don't know is how Colorado groomers compare to Alps groomers; if Alps groomers are more like east coast sheet ice, I can't speak to that.  Also, if trees and moguls feature heavily in the poster's future, maybe getting long skis for powder would be suboptimal?

post #10 of 12

Besides less flexing and ultimate grip, skinny skis have an advantage over wide skis on hard snow in that less torque is required to tip them onto a big edge angle.  It may not seem like it would matter much, but if you spend a lot of time at big angles on hard snow and have boney ankles and don't have cushy boots, you begin to notice it.

post #11 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

LOL, I'm not giving any advice on which modern powder ski to buy; the last time I skied powder it was on 215 or maybe 220 dynastar gs skis (whatever the longest rental I could find in the area was) and I was only interested in making sg turns in it; I'm also happy as a clam on in deep snow (wet snow not powder) on my skinny old 2002 Volant Machete G skis (190 cm  x 104-68-90 mm).  I understand that if you go fatter you can go shorter, but I wouldn't want a ski less than about 180 unless I was skiing very slowly (like 5 to 10 mph) through very tight trees.


Nice, they had to rip me off my 03-04 Machetes a couple of years ago.  They're my rock skis now - and they still rock - in nearly everything except deep snow, and bulletproof ice...imho 
 

post #12 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

LOL, I'm not giving any advice on which modern powder ski to buy; the last time I skied powder it was on 215 or maybe 220 dynastar gs skis (whatever the longest rental I could find in the area was) and I was only interested in making sg turns in it; I'm also happy as a clam on in deep snow (wet snow not powder) on my skinny old 2002 Volant Machete G skis (190 cm  x 104-68-90 mm).  I understand that if you go fatter you can go shorter, but I wouldn't want a ski less than about 180 unless I was skiing very slowly (like 5 to 10 mph) through very tight trees.



you really could opt out of any discussions of powder gear if you are only (always) going to post that you don't post anything about fat skis.no one really cares if long GS skis can be made to work.

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 › Minimum width for a good powder performance? (All Mountain Ski)