SandwichTech
New member
This is a great analogy for an effect that is often difficult to explain.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Waist size...
- Thread starter Tin
- Start date
This is a great analogy for an effect that is often difficult to explain.
Cornhead
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2010
- Messages
- 2,839
- Points
- 48
40", oh ski waist size, 98mm as an every day ski. I'm considering going narrower, 88mm. I demoed a pair of Blizzard Bushwhackers that I liked a lot. They were more nimble than my current ski, Volkl Mantras. Now I'm torn between metal, or non metal, construction. The Bushwhackers are metal only under foot. They are more playful, better in the bumps, than the Mantras. I did notice you don't get the energy return out of turns on groomers that I get with the Mantras. I would expect edge hold to be better on hardpack with a metal ski also. I'm going to try the Blizzard Brahma Saturday and see what I think, two sheets of metal, same as the Mantra. Maybe I'll pick up some used, true powder skis for those rare times there needed here in the East, and trips out West. I could've used a pair a few times at Snow Ridge this year too. It would help if I got that "waist" size down too, tough to float 250lbs. :lol:
Puck it, the graphics are awesome on the Rock Stars.
Puck it, the graphics are awesome on the Rock Stars.
Cheese
New member
Wait out the fresh powder? I wish SO MANY more people would do this. Please let this advice go viral!
MadMadWorld
Active member
Solid advice!
St. Bear
New member
5 days in CO, my demo ski waists went 106, 102, 112, 98, 105, 117. Skied a wide variety of terrain from soft snow, bumps, and even hard groomers (in CO! *gasp*).
Many of us, myself included, get caught up in waist width, but for the most part we're talking about an inch of difference, max. 80mm to 100mm, to even 110mm, really isn't as big of a difference as ski length, flex, rocker, and other variables.
Many of us, myself included, get caught up in waist width, but for the most part we're talking about an inch of difference, max. 80mm to 100mm, to even 110mm, really isn't as big of a difference as ski length, flex, rocker, and other variables.
Puck it
Well-known member
So size does matter?
St. Bear
New member
Yes, but don't tell my wife that.
Cannonball
New member
Pretty sure I've see you on the hill (admired the skis). Do you guys have anything to demo?
dlague
Active member
Full Rocker in New England is only good on snow days which are far and few if you can only get out on weekends! Full rocker on Hard Pack sucks! If you can afford a quiver of 3-4 pairs of skis then it fits in.
dlague
Active member
If you ski on narrower skis then the first few runs on a wider ski takes a little getting used to. Going from 72 to 85 no biggie but going from 72 to 115 - well there is a difference. Differences between the sized you mention once again no biggie.
St. Bear
New member
I had never skied anything bigger than 89mm underfoot before Sat, and I would say that the difference was negligible.
You're right that 72 to 115 would be a big difference, but I would also argue that those skis are going to be built completely differently in terms of flex and side cut and camber, that makes it an apples to oranges comparison.
Personally, I notice a HUGE difference between something in the 85 range vs 100. IMO 15 mm makes an exceptional difference in how ski handles with factors like camber/rocker/metal being equal.
jrmagic
New member
I have a 78 and a 110 and I've had so much fun with the 110 that I only skied the 78s once this year. The 110s are a very cambered multi radius twintip with with no metal inside. I absolutely agree with what Cheese said about them not being as quick in transition but they are quick enough and surprisingly beefy enough to rail big turns at speed and her soft enough for the bumps except when they are rock hard. Basically they are just more fun so they have become my dIky driver.
steamboat1
New member
I've been a 36" waist for as long as I can remember.:-D
SandwichTech
New member
Right now we have a 166cm Root 78 in a Flex 3 and a 175cm Root 88 in a Flex 2 available for demoing. Just send me a PM to make arrangements.
bigbog
Active member
Cheese
New member
Unfortunately for me at least, most reviews are like this one where edge to edge transition speed isn't even a factor. I don't judge skiers at speed and I often discount the speed performance of a ski for the same reason. Any expert can half carve and half skid down a steep pitch effortlessly. Only the best can ski the same terrain slowly. A carve doesn't have to hold much when turns are only half finished. To ski a steep slope slowly, the carve needs to be far stronger and hold for far longer. The slow skiing situation requires a ski with a tight turn radius, a good amount of stiffness for edge grip and very fast transition speed. 5 turns down a black diamond with a 20 foot hockey stop at the end, meh. 20 carves and the last one ends in full 560º loop carve to stop, dayum!
Last edited:
Highway Star
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 2,921
- Points
- 36
So, did you get some real powder skis yet? Let me recommend the Head Boneshaker 191cm, I picked mine up last summer. Full sidewall, wood core, mild rocker, 146/125/135, ~11.5lb without binding, mount -1.5cm from the furtherst back line with 18-din FKS. Really stable jumping and dropping, and pretty manuverable in the woods. Of course, you're only going to want to ski these in 2-4ft+ deep mostly untracked powder, so you're going to need to know where to find powder. Great ski!
Last edited:
Similar threads
