Gear buying advice from Bode

[deadheadskier]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifesty...i-equipment/majym7xPPVPV6A9aSTmY1H/story.html

Wonder if I show my wife this if she won't get pissed if I get a new set of skis that are 70mm underfoot. "But, Bode says all my skis are too wide.....". :lol:

 

[cdskier]

Hmm...so people that ski 20-25 days should own 3-4 pairs of skis per Bode? I guess I need another pair or 2 then! What if you ski more than 25 days per year? How many pairs should you have then? :grin:

Can't say I agree with skis that are only 70mm underfoot. The narrowest pair that I still use are mid 80s waist. I have a pair that are just under 70 in the waist and a few years ago when I went to use them I hated them! And when I first bought those skis I loved them. Haven't used those since.

 

[deadheadskier]

Why yes, yes you do cdskier!. I've been skiing 20-30 days a season on average for the past ten years or so and always have about 3 pair in the rotation.

My narrowest currently is 84 (carving ski) then I have a 90 for a daily driver and a 107 for powder, which has collected dust all winter.

The 84 is the oldest and it will be replaced with something down around 70. Maybe not next season, but soon after

Something like this

http://shop.head.com/us/ski/skis/world-cup-rebels-i-race-5.html

On all those crap boiler plate days I had this season, that would be the proper tool.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Hah! So Bode agrees with me - Been saying on AZ for several years now that many people are either on skis too wide or have taken "wide" to a ridiculous extreme. I have a pair of 67 underfoot for groomer only days. Once the woods are in play, I go >=90.

On another note, saw a guy at Smuggs the other day on skis that must have been >=130. Makes me wonder if he realizes what a dope he looks like in those conditions.

This is the trend in all sports equipment though. Most people are hitting golf clubs that are too stiff for their swing. Most people are using tennis strings with a gauge too narrow for their swing. Beer league hockey players using sticks too stiff for their shot and needlessly wasting $$$$. Then we have recreational bikers on $3,000+ frames, etc... and on and on.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Can't say I agree with skis that are only 70mm underfoot.

I dont. I feel like a mountain goat on them when need be.

 

[deadheadskier]

Definitely agree. People tend to buy sports gear for what they think they want in optimum conditions performing their best than what would be best on an average day.

That said, I'd rather err too wide on a ski, than too narrow. I can still enjoy myself on hard pack conditions with a 107 waist ski. I could not enjoy myself in 12" of fresh with a 67.

 

[BenedictGomez]

That said, I'd rather err too wide on a ski, than too narrow. I can still enjoy myself on hard pack conditions with a 107 waist ski. I could not enjoy myself in 12" of fresh with a 67.

I agree with that, but again it's just like he said - totally conditions dependent.

But if I were forced to only own 1 pair of skis, I'd probably go about 90mm, as I can still have fun with it in the woods, and I can still feel safe at speed on groomers. A good compromise, IF you're forced to compromise.

 

[steamboat1]

Works for me 126/80/110 rocker/camber/rocker.

 

[deadheadskier]

I agree with that, but again it's just like he said - totally conditions dependent.

But if I were forced to only own 1 pair of skis, I'd probably go about 90mm, as I can still have fun with it in the woods, and I can still feel safe at speed on groomers. A good compromise, IF you're forced to compromise.

Agreed. My daily driver is a Nordica Steadfast. 90 underfoot and the most versatile ski I have ever owned. Love it so much I briefly thought about buying an extra pair to "cellar".

 

[cdskier]

My groomer/early season/late season skis (which I've used far too much this season) are Volkl AC50s - 128/85/112. My other skis are Nordica Hell n Backs (which I absolutely love with true packed powder and better conditions) are 135/98/125. If I was to get a third pair it would probably be something wider for a true big powder day. I just can't see myself getting something narrower than the AC50s.

 

[deadheadskier]

Love the H&B series. The Vagabonds at 107 are my powder skis

 

[bigbog]

Speed and control on steep ice....that's what they are/were after. The fastest way down the mountain = hardly what we're after, that is except for bdfreetuna:wink:

 

[goldsbar]

Wow, agree with just about everything Bode said. If you like high performance skiing on hard groomers, which means loading up the ski and using rebound energy to project your body into the next turn, narrow is where it's at. If you're not scaring yourself on groomers, you're not using rebound. I have 72s that feel sluggish compared to 67s. My 98s feel like a school bus when used back-to-back with the narrow skis. Now, in fresh snow, 98s all day long.

 

[SkiFanE]

I have no idea what my SL skis measurements are but in NE I use them 99% of my 60 days. I have some 90ish and use them a few times/year - none so far this year. Unless I'm in the woods, in general bumps around here are rarely without crust or ice. So with my SL skis it's easy to put them into zipper line mode when that rare chance happens but usually it's bump..ice...bump...rock...bump...bump...ice...stick. Like skiing Natural last weekend. Even tho I'm in "race skis" I hate groomers - but I also hate ice and like the grip I get with these. Also - since everyone is generally on skis that only turn big - my 155 SL means I can take smaller turns and stay on snow rather than having to go into icy gulls and ruts where everyone else went.

Even in NE - after 6-12 snowfall - it's down to crust and ice within a couple Hours and there's no use for fatties. But unlike bode I say one pair is fine - that's all I have. But I'm simple.