When did Ski Reality become Irrelevant?

Quietman · Oct 12, 2014

BenedictGomez said:
I'm guessing you dont ski in the woods?

I've spent a lot of my time at the Crotch in the last 2 years in the woods. It has a lot of off map glades and many of them are tight and in S. NH, we don't have loads of powder that lasts very long before it turns to crud, so a 100mm ski is mostly overkill. If a mountain that I ski(Crotch, Wildcat, SR, Mt Abrams, Black of ME, Jay, Bolton) has woods in play, that is where I will be. I just don't have an extra $400 that I can justify on skis. It was great to ski at Cannon this year with Puck-it and JDMRoma, and I was really drooling over their wide rocker skis, but I think that our enjoyment of the day was equal, regardless of the age/narrowness of my Fischer RX8's.

deadheadskier said:
A couple of thoughts as I had double digit days at Crotched this past season; which I believe is your home mountain.

Again, I would like a wider pair of skis, but I did not have a day this year when I said to myself "this sucks". OK, I did break out the old Rosi 4s's that I loved when racing many years ago for 2 runs this year in some pow/crud, and yes, they really sucked!! :razz:

Highway Star · Oct 13, 2014

BenedictGomez said:
I finally came to the same above conclusion that you're pointing out after last season.

Sure, there were only 3 or 4 days last year I felt I wanted something wider than my normal 90mm underfoot, but life is short, and the fact is if you buy used it's cheap. This summer I picked up a 2 year old pair of 115 underfoot skis with Rossi bindings for just $230.

Now some might say that's a "waste of money" for skis that might only be used 2 to 4 days per season, but my view is that assuming I like them, and given they will see such low use I'll have them for probably the next 10 or 12 years on those "2 to 4 days per season" when they'll add to my skiing enjoyment.

I expect to get 20 days or so out of powder skis. They get constant heavy base/edge damage in the woods, then there's the chance of cracking sidewalls or flat out breaking them. I'll only buy a pow ski with thick edges and a full sidewall because of this, no more caps or race width edges. You should be able to get almost any modern pow ski new for $400, unpopular models for less, totally worth it.

BenedictGomez · Oct 13, 2014

Quietman said:
I've spent a lot of my time at the Crotch in the last 2 years in the woods........ If a mountain that I ski(Crotch, Wildcat, SR, Mt Abrams, Black of ME, Jay, Bolton) has woods in play, that is where I will be.

And your widest skis are 74mm underfoot? Unless you're talking about tracked-out woods, that's not good.

In nice snow conditions, I have to imagine those suckers are submarining. And I dont understand how someone who owns SIX pairs of skis, has none over 74mm underfoot. Unless you're on a ski race team and they're all racing skis or something, that would make sense I guess. But if not, I mean, overlap much?

Highway Star · Oct 13, 2014

deadheadskier said:
True story from Crotched this winter. I rode the Rocket with some college kids from St. As on a Powder day. They all had the latest Powder skis. One of the kids looked at my skis and said, "What model Rossi's are those? I like the retro looking graphics." My response, "the skis don't 'look' retro, they ARE retro." :lol: They couldn't believe a 115mm waist ski was made back at the turn of the century.

Axioms came out in 1993 and measure 130-110-120mm.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0F...EwAA#v=onepage&q=rossignol axiom 1993&f=false

steamboat1 · Oct 13, 2014

It's not the ski's. It's the man clicked into them.

witch hobble · Oct 13, 2014

"Dress for the job you want, not the job you have" ---> "Gear up for the conditions you want, not what's actually out there"

deadheadskier · Oct 13, 2014

Highway Star said:
Axioms came out in 1993 and measure 130-110-120mm.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0F...EwAA#v=onepage&q=rossignol axiom 1993&f=false

Wasn't sure on the exact year. I (and basically the whole town of Stowe) got mine off a Rossi rep during the 2000-2001 season. They had a crap load of them just sitting in their Williston, VT warehouse and told the rep to basically get rid of them. He was selling them out of the back of his truck for $150 a pair, less if you were a friend of his.

Highway Star · Oct 13, 2014

I got mine for $60 at a ski swap in 2000, they had 6 new pairs. Always figured they were blowing out a bunch of old stock.

St. Bear · Oct 13, 2014

For the most part, these kind of rants, and I've been taking part in a similar thread over on EpicSki that has been quite enjoyable, are just people complaining about things they don't like or understand. Yes, the ski industry pushes products that may not be suitable for a majority of everyday skiers. Welcome to Capitalism. That's what every industry in Western civilization does. No need to yell at the kids to get off your lawn.

Ski porn is a tricky beast. I enjoy watching epic conditions that I can aspire to, but when it gets too far out there, it's no longer relatable and I lose interest. It's a fine line to walk.

St. Bear · Oct 13, 2014

Look, I’m not saying to completely abandon the current marketing direction. Freeskiing represents an ongoing evolution. We all know how important it is in this digital age to stay fresh, trendy, and cutting edge, but maybe we’re losing some of the forest through the trees here. Would it hurt to just reign it in a bit and take a fresh look? There exists a spectrum, and somewhere in the middle lies “Joe the Fogotten Skier”. On the bell curve, Joe is the middle, the foundation, and the bread and butter resort skier. What is it that he or she really aspires to? Is it to jump a higher cliff, nail that double cork, or just learn how to get through those damn moguls?

I like to watch football. I don't get disillusioned watching Calvin Johnson make a leaping one handed catch in the end zone because I will never aspire to that level. It's just impressive watching top level athletes do incredible things.

HowieT2 · Oct 13, 2014

I went from a line prophet 90 to the SFB 108mm last season and Im perfectly fine with how they perform on non powder and on groomers. Ideal, maybe not, but its not like im competing on the groomers anyway. they are much better where I prefer to be, which is in the powder and/or the woods. and I was able to take them out west with me.

Highway Star · Oct 13, 2014

St. Bear said:
.......EpicSki........just people complaining about things they don't like or understand.

QoTD.

SkiFanE · Oct 13, 2014

steamboat1 said:
It's not the ski's. It's the man clicked into them.

Exactly. But that doesn't sell skis! Changing technique is harder than buying new.

I don't have the luxury of going West, so my 60ish ski days a year are in NE. I have SL race skis I use 98% of the time and 90mm for powder. Last year I used the 90mm two times. WHen I'm on the fence of which to bring, I'll bring my SLs. If it's a trail - I'll go for bumps over untracked, in the woods is where I really need my 90mms. But still don't quite know how to use them after 5 years, lol, still feel like I'm skiing on planks.

If you are a bumper that only likes bumps, those mid-fats suck (or to this bumper). SL are perfect b/c they turn on a dime quick (hellooooo big stump I didn't see on backside of bump)....grip the ice that surrounds 50% of the bumps in NE and are easy to level out flat when you need to zipper down that rare line of perfectly soft bumps. When I'm forced down a groomer or ice, they do well there too. They serve me very well 98% of the time. But yeah...in the woods in deep snow, they suck.

Puck it · Oct 13, 2014

I am on my 98's most of the time. Great all around ski for me.

St. Bear · Oct 13, 2014

Right now I'm on 89mm @ 179cm. I'd actually prefer a little more length than width (that's what she said). My next daily driver will be in the low to mid 90s @ 180-185cm.

It's been said many times, but it's about trade offs. I'm more than willing to sacrifice frozen groomer performance for soft snow performance. Your opinions may vary.

Scruffy · Oct 13, 2014

My daily driver is 96mm waist, this year I added a 98mm, just because the old gal is get on in years and I got a good deal on the Bones.

Last year I added a 84mm waist 50/50 on/off piste rated ski for a more bump specific ski that is not a dedicated bump ski.

I also have 64mm race skis GS and SL that are a hoot.

Depends on my mood and the conditions.

deadheadskier · Oct 13, 2014

I'd love to give a modern race stock SL ski a whirl. I've never skied anything with under a 16m radius

Scruffy · Oct 13, 2014

deadheadskier said:
I'd love to give a modern race stock SL ski a whirl. I've never skied anything with under a 16m radius

Like a Porsche 911 turbo

Quietman · Oct 13, 2014

BenedictGomez said:
A And I dont understand how someone who owns SIX pairs of skis, has none over 74mm underfoot. Unless you're on a ski race team and they're all racing skis or something, that would make sense I guess. But if not, I mean, overlap much?

Because I didn't pay a thing for most of them. My Dad was sure that he needed new skis every 2 years and I would get the 2 year old rejects. Unfortunately, he hated the woods so all the skis are on the thin side.

Highway Star · Oct 13, 2014

SkiFanE said:
Exactly. But that doesn't sell skis! Changing technique is harder than buying new.

I don't have the luxury of going West, so my 60ish ski days a year are in NE. I have SL race skis I use 98% of the time and 90mm for powder. Last year I used the 90mm two times. WHen I'm on the fence of which to bring, I'll bring my SLs. If it's a trail - I'll go for bumps over untracked, in the woods is where I really need my 90mms. But still don't quite know how to use them after 5 years, lol, still feel like I'm skiing on planks.

If you are a bumper that only likes bumps, those mid-fats suck (or to this bumper). SL are perfect b/c they turn on a dime quick (hellooooo big stump I didn't see on backside of bump)....grip the ice that surrounds 50% of the bumps in NE and are easy to level out flat when you need to zipper down that rare line of perfectly soft bumps. When I'm forced down a groomer or ice, they do well there too. They serve me very well 98% of the time. But yeah...in the woods in deep snow, they suck.

You sound like you're stuck in 1999. People don't freeski on Slalom race skis anymore, because they suck for that.

When did Ski Reality become Irrelevant?

Member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Member

Moderator

Active member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Moderator

Active member

Member

Active member

Similar threads