How wide are your skis underfoot?

[bigbog]

how do you like the Z10's?

Jay's DP,
Z12s.....nothing surprising. I know that skiers in the know go either way with them, but they are stiff laterally. Have let me go twice when I needed.

$.01

 

[salida]

BD Verdicts - 98mm waist, 190 cm
Atomic Stomps - 88mm waist, 176 cm
Elan M12's - 69mm waist, 176 cm
Volkl P50's - 65mm waist, 188 cm

Contrary to popular belief with the right technique and some sharp edges those fat skis that everyone raves about can be skied really well on hard pack and ice. If they are stiff enough they feel like real fat race skis almost. They are damn fun on some hardpack in my estimation, super stable. Here is a pic to show you what I mean.

Porter

 

[bigbog]

new Armada ARVs added..(92mm)..WooHooo..

160 Fischer RX6s (68mm)
175 Armada ARVs (92mm) ...my smile just got an inch bigger last night after putting in the order.;-) Were at a great price...will see how they fare through the horror-show crud-mornings.

 

[Greg]

6' 1", 165 lbs., advanced skier. My 2006 AC3s are 74 mm underfoot. My favorite terrain is variable natural snow (crud, bumps, powder). I also really enjoy bumps which is why I think the AC3 is a good all-mountain compromise. The 2007 AC3 is 76 mm underfoot and gets great reviews.

Moving to Gear.

I'll be adding something in the 60's underfoot this season (bump ski).

 

[JimG.]

66 mm

 

[koreshot]

BD Verdicts - 98mm waist, 190 cm
Atomic Stomps - 88mm waist, 176 cm
Elan M12's - 69mm waist, 176 cm
Volkl P50's - 65mm waist, 188 cm

Contrary to popular belief with the right technique and some sharp edges those fat skis that everyone raves about can be skied really well on hard pack and ice. If they are stiff enough they feel like real fat race skis almost. They are damn fun on some hardpack in my estimation, super stable. Here is a pic to show you what I mean.

Porter

Lies! Don't you know anything? The only way you can carve is with GS and Slalom skis that are too short and are no more than 65mm under foot!

In all seriousness, I agree - fat skis can carve and carve rather well. I have seen people lay down trenches on the groomers with Gotamas - a pretty stiff fat ski with 105mm under foot.

I will be trying the theory out with a pair of super stuff and burly Atomic Powder Pluses this year.

 

[Marc]

Lies! Don't you know anything? The only way you can carve is with GS and Slalom skis that are too short and are no more than 65mm under foot!

In all seriousness, I agree - fat skis can carve and carve rather well. I have seen people lay down trenches on the groomers with Gotamas - a pretty stiff fat ski with 105mm under foot.

I will be trying the theory out with a pair of super stuff and burly Atomic Powder Pluses this year.

Hey koreshot, any trips to SA planned?

I hope you still have your Bro's.

 

[madskier6]

My current all mountain skis are 76 mm underfoot. Atomic Metron B5. They're great at carving, hitting some fluff and all other conditions we generally experience here in the East. They also do surprisingly well in bumps despite their stiffness & lots of sidecut.

I'm planning on getting a pair of Vokl Gotamas (105 mm underfoot) this year to use as my powder boards. I love the way they feel both in deep powder & cut-up crud.

 

[koreshot]

Hey koreshot, any trips to SA planned?

I hope you still have your Bro's.

Howdy Marc, been a while. Still have the Bros, sitting in the closet waiting for the snow to fly.

Unfortunately no south america trips planned this year - or next year - or for the next 17 years... not until my toddler daughter grows up and goes to college... :roll:


Hope all is well with you. I plan on making a few trips up to VT this year so hopefully we can get together.

 

[Terry]

126-74-105 Rossi Z9's for this year. In the past it was 68 underfoot on my Volkls.

 

[riverc0il]

Lies! Don't you know anything? The only way you can carve is with GS and Slalom skis that are too short and are no more than 65mm under foot!

In all seriousness, I agree - fat skis can carve and carve rather well. I have seen people lay down trenches on the groomers with Gotamas - a pretty stiff fat ski with 105mm under foot.

I will be trying the theory out with a pair of super stuff and burly Atomic Powder Pluses this year.

I was surprised how well the Volkl Mantras carved despite being 93mm wide. Actually, I had more fun with them on the groomed than in powder interestingly enough. So yes, fat skis can carve and ski powder because the manufacturers are trying to design fat one ski quivers in addition to the mid-fat. The mid-fat is still far more versatile and for someone just looking to ski groomers most of the day (80% or better) a 70mm ski is still the best choice. There is a reason race skis are still made less than 70mm at the waist and its because those style skis are superior for laying down railroad tracks. Obviously, the average skier not dedicated to carving and groomers exclusively would benefit from a fatter ski that also excels off the groomed. I still maintain the dedicated skier would do well to invest in multiple skis to really maximize performance as the one ski quiver may be cheaper but the fatter you go the more you do sacrifice in terms of variable performance and versatility but the same is true the narrower you go too.

 

[awf170]

Personally I hate the idea of making a fat ski carve as good as possible. I would way rather have my fat ski be good in the bumps instead of the groomers. This is coming from the perspective of someone who never carves turns, so it might be a bit skewed.

 

[JimG.]

Personally I hate the idea of making a fat ski carve as good as possible. I would way rather have my fat ski be good in the bumps instead of the groomers. This is coming from the perspective of someone who never carves turns, so it might be a bit skewed.

That's why I'm using a race ski that's only 66mm underfoot...much better in bumps.

It's funny because nobody today would ever buy my skis (Fischer RX8's) to ski powder, but those suckers ski powder so much better than any straight ski I ever had it isn't funny. So, to me, they're great in deep snow.

I'm glad I learned to ski on straights...I think I appreciate new technology more than most and it allows me to get away with using one ski for all conditions. I'm not fussy.

 

[riverc0il]

I'm glad I learned to ski on straights...I think I appreciate new technology more than most and it allows me to get away with using one ski for all conditions. I'm not fussy.

I started skiing on straights and skied them for about 15 years before my first pair of shaped skis (that were still 198cm, my longest straights were 204cm). If using older technology makes you appreciate newer technology, then I have used the long straight skis and can certainly appreciate the differences. But that appreciation only makes me more fussy not less Its all good though, I enjoy the fact that two people can see something from different perspectives even with similar historical understanding (granted, you have had a lot more time to appreciate the straight skis than I did ).

 

[snoseek]

i'm a big fan of fat skis (i ski 82 and 92 widths), but there is something to be said for sinking a little. imo a truly advanced skier can fly through powder on almost any ski. that being said fat skis have made my own personal experience much much better.

 

[koreshot]

That's why I'm using a race ski that's only 66mm underfoot...much better in bumps.

Indeed short slalom type skis are better in the bumps that most fatty long boards, but I didn't think that my 2001 Rossi 9S 167cm shorties were particularly good in the bumps either. Too stiff and too turny/hooky. IMO out of the popular ski designs one sees on the hill, the softer twin tips in the 70-80mm range are solid in the bumps. I'm investing in a pair of Legend 8000s for trees and bumps based on some rave reviews and their reputation for quick, playful turning (also very tame sidecut and light design) - also have heard B2s are nice.

That said, skill is still #1 factor. I am sure you could put a good bump skier on a hair of 185 GS race skis and he would still kick my butt no matter what ski I am on.

 

[JimG.]

Indeed short slalom type skis are better in the bumps that most fatty long boards, but I didn't think that my 2001 Rossi 9S 167cm shorties were particularly good in the bumps either. Too stiff and too turny/hooky. IMO out of the popular ski designs one sees on the hill, the softer twin tips in the 70-80mm range are solid in the bumps. I'm investing in a pair of Legend 8000s for trees and bumps based on some rave reviews and their reputation for quick, playful turning (also very tame sidecut and light design) - also have heard B2s are nice.

That said, skill is still #1 factor. I am sure you could put a good bump skier on a hair of 185 GS race skis and he would still kick my butt no matter what ski I am on.

You bring up a good point about ski stiffness. And before the RX8's I was a confirmed twin tip guy. But then alot of the twin tips got really really soft and I didn't like them at all; then I put the RX8's on my feet and it was a done deal.

As much as they are race derived, I've always been a bit astonished at how flexible my RX8's are. I'd never have considered them if I hadn't demoed them because they contain a titanium layer and I never wanted metal in a ski I would take into bumps. But they ski great in bumps, very quick. And the metal makes them quite usable for crud busting and spring snow.

 

[eastcoastskiier]

i tested out the new series from rossignol, formerly the B series (B1, B2, B3 B-squad..) they modified the skis a little bit in this line-up adding about 2mm to the waist on them, and they will be refering to them by their waist width this year. But i tested the ski that was 'the B2' and it was great. It had alot of pop, very lively, and when i was on it, I HAD FUN.

when i first started skiing, i assumed a ski was a ski was a ski.. and thast nobody could REALLY tell the difference.. then i started testing, and have learned that that could not be more wrong. granted there are some similar models.. i couldnt believe it when i tested a pair of 'dead' skis.. yes i got from the top to the bottom in one piece, but they were BORING, uke:no life. those new B2 had so much energy, i swear they kinda reminded me of like a new dog, hoping all around, getting into everything.. maybe putting me on a ski like that is a bad idea, but hell I'll HAVE A BLAST

---sorry about the tangent
HORRAY MID-FATS!!

 

[big_vert]

Dynastar Legend 8000 - 81mm
Dynastar Legend 8800 - 88mm
Dynastar Pro Rider - 97mm
Dynastar Skicross 10 - 67mm

I usually use the 8000's in the east, exept in the unlikely event that there's some fresh, then I bring out the 8800's. The ProRiders are for the West.
The Skicross 10's come out when I get stuck having to do groomers all day because of ice (ahh, err, "hardpack").

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

from 70mm for my "beer league" race ski (Volkl All Star) to 76mm, 79mm, 84mm, and 95mm for my fat skis. Got plenty of days on the fat skis last spring...almost the only thing I skied from St Paddys day until the end. EC skiers can get plenty of use out of fat or wider mid fats...a two ski quiver of something in the low to mid 70mm range and a wider ski in the mid to upper 80mm range would be a good bet for most ECers. 76mm is the narrowest ski I take out on the hill other than race nights.