Not impressed by fat skis

[drjeff]

Getting off topic but the armada JJ has a 12/13m radisu and is 115 under foot. Softer flex though.

This weekend as I was on the demo boards, I DID notice that I definitely preferred the tip stiffness of the Rossi E98 vs. the Nordica Patron's as I was crashing through mush bumps/piles. Then again I've always been a fan of a generally race ski tip flex, so that's just me.

I want to have a good idea when I see that mush bump/pile that the tip is going to just charge right through the mashed potatoes with little/no deflection. Just my style, and after 30+ years on skis, I'm going to have a tough time changing that style

 

[goldsbar]

You don't need to go short for the trees. Get the length that you ski best. If you need a shorter ski for the trees, then you probably don't belong in the trees to begin with. 186cm for me and I am a tight and narrow tree hound, no problem at all.

Thanks for telling me where I belong. We're talking optimum. Short is easier to pivot all else equal. Yeah, we all know the guy who was great on bumps with the old 210s. Not the point. If I'm maching cuttup at groomer speed give me long and stable. Don't need the length for tight trees and I'm not exactly trying to make rr tracks.

To get back to the original thread intention, wide - to a point - is better in trees until they start to resemble bump skiing.

 

[goldsbar]

I had a pair of these in my hands in Colo. They were on sale for $540. They are unbelievable. The bases are the same as my Icelantics which have never had a core shot. They are fairly stiff like the Hell and Backs so they should be stable at speed.

My 25th anniversary is coming up and my wife asked what I wanted. I told her a pair of these with custom art. I may even go with the full custom though. The only problem is do I ski them or hanhg them over the fire place.

Please report back if you get them. Realskiers has had these as overall ski of the year 2 years straight. Other reviews have been mixed. Seem like a love or hate affair. Very curious.

Edit: Another off topic but it's not like most of us are skiing. Know what you mean about core shots. My old Atomics were fairly sturdy. They would scratch and every so often get a deserved core shot. When patch and scraped with a Stanley Surform Shaver (great tool for ptex repair removal), there were never scrape marks in the base from the tool. My newer Dynastars get core shots with the slightest hit. Worse, I can't use the shaver as it gouges the base material. Wish more ski companies used harder base material.

 

[riverc0il]

We're talking optimum.

Exactly. We are talking optimum. And skiing a ski in the length that best suits an individuals characteristics, specifications, and style is optimum. Speed of a pivot turn has less to do with length than fitness, skill, and balance. Most glades have trees spaced out at least ten feet wide. Shorter isn't going to help unless you are jump turning down a gully less than six feet wide.

I meant "you" as a generic third person term, not you specifically.

 

[deadheadskier]

I had a pair of these in my hands in Colo. They were on sale for $540. They are unbelievable. The bases are the same as my Icelantics which have never had a core shot. They are fairly stiff like the Hell and Backs so they should be stable at speed.

My 25th anniversary is coming up and my wife asked what I wanted. I told her a pair of these with custom art. I may even go with the full custom though. The only problem is do I ski them or hanhg them over the fire place.

I'm not so sure I'd have shown the same restraint for that price with the skis in my hands. I'm also not so sure I'd make it to my 3rd anniversary if I made that purchase. :lol:

 

[SkiFanE]

Exactly. We are talking optimum. And skiing a ski in the length that best suits an individuals characteristics, specifications, and style is optimum. Speed of a pivot turn has less to do with length than fitness, skill, and balance. Most glades have trees spaced out at least ten feet wide. Shorter isn't going to help unless you are jump turning down a gully less than six feet wide.

I meant "you" as a generic third person term, not you specifically.

"Glades" are not "trees" lol. Trees to me are the off-piste stuff hubby drags me down..very tight and if I can't follow him, I'll herringbone it, lol. I know...splitting hairs, but there's usually a big difference in spacing between the named vs. 'private' tree runs.

 

[tekweezle]

How about just choosing the best tool for the job that suits you? Some people can make some nice ice and wood sculptures using a chainsaw. They might have work a little harder but that's where their skills comes into play.

Same thing with fat skis. It's characteristics might not suit all users and conditions but with enough skill, you could make it work.

Sent from my Htc Incredible via tapatalk....

 

[BenedictGomez]

I'm not saying that you shouldn't go short, I'm just saying you shouldn't choose your length based on skiing the woods.

I'd say the same thing about long. I mean, sure, I can ski on my 186cm in the woods, but going shorter all things being equal is easier. And given that Phantom is the only company that has manufactured a "tight eastern tree specific" ski and optimized it at 162 (and 180 as the "long" version), I'd say they agree. Actually, as long as you have proper flotation, I'd like to hear your rationale for why longer skis would be "better" in tight trees, as this is a bit of a head-scratcher for me.

Thanks for telling me where I belong. We're talking optimum. Short is easier to pivot all else equal. Yeah, we all know the guy who was great on bumps with the old 210s. Not the point. If I'm maching cuttup at groomer speed give me long and stable. Don't need the length for tight trees and I'm not exactly trying to make rr tracks. To get back to the original thread intention, wide - to a point - is better in trees until they start to resemble bump skiing.

All good points. I'm been considering the "steep and tight bump trees" equation as well.

A few weeks ago after Jay got about 4 feet, I spent the day in the trees, but it was about 2 or 3 days after the snow event, and it was all bumps. I was on the Line Prophet 90s and I thought they handled well, it's obviously not a great bump ski, but it has the float. I'd like to think about something that might be a touch better for this condition, but I might be obsessing at this point. The last thing I want is to end up like some on this board with a 764 ski quiver!

Exactly. We are talking optimum. And skiing a ski in the length that best suits an individuals characteristics, specifications, and style is optimum. Speed of a pivot turn has less to do with length than fitness, skill, and balance. Most glades have trees spaced out at least ten feet wide. Shorter isn't going to help unless you are jump turning down a gully less than six feet wide.

Oh, wait, what? Well, this clears up the above.

"Glades" are not "trees" lol. Trees to me are the off-piste stuff hubby drags me down..very tight and if I can't follow him, I'll herringbone it, lol. I know...splitting hairs, but there's usually a big difference in spacing between the named vs. 'private' tree runs.

Yeah, this is what I was referring to and what the Phantom model was designed for. Steep trees, where you're shooting small gaps where you see just as much bark as you do white stuff in between bark. I'm gonna give it a whirl next year to see what I think. Maybe something 165cm/100mm. It would positively BLOW on the trails, but this is something for days like at Jay where you're literally in the woods from 8:30am - 3:30pm.

 

[Puck it]

Icelantic is a west coast ski company that makes perfect skis for east coast trees and powder. Especially when they only made 170cm and below.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Icelantic is a west coast ski company that makes perfect skis for east coast trees and powder. Especially when they only made 170cm and below.

Do you mean they made tree-specific models that were all 170cm and below?

 

[deadheadskier]

Do you mean they made tree-specific models that were all 170cm and below?

I believe the Shaman was one of their original boards and when it was released it was quite short; 160 cm or so. 160 in the tip though, so plenty of surface area / float

 

[riverc0il]

"Glades" are not "trees" lol. Trees to me are the off-piste stuff hubby drags me down..very tight and if I can't follow him, I'll herringbone it, lol. I know...splitting hairs, but there's usually a big difference in spacing between the named vs. 'private' tree runs.

I know this and I argue this point as well. I ski elevator shafts on 186s that are probably only 200 cm wide at best. Like I wrote (which you even quoted) "Shorter isn't going to help unless you are jump turning down a gully less than six feet wide." But if you are herringboning in the trees, like I wrote before, that is skill related and not ski length related.

 

[Puck it]

Do you mean they made tree-specific models that were all 170cm and below?

They were not intended for this originally, it was just one of the benefits that was noted. I have Nomads in 168cm. Two years later they were making a longer length 180cm. They said the short length and the widths gave them the float needed. They spec surface on their skis. The Scout first came out as a ~160cm ski if I remember correctly.

 

[tekweezle]

The scout is a 140cm ski. Almost like snowblades I think.

I have 169cm pilgrims. 90mm waist and reasonably good turn radius and float. They serve as my west coast powder ski. I am not a big tree skier but they did well for me.

Sent from my Htc Incredible via tapatalk....

 

[BenedictGomez]

I know this and I argue this point as well. I ski elevator shafts on 186s that are probably only 200 cm wide at best.

200cm wide is roughly a 6.5 foot to 7 foot gap = not tight tree skiing.

What I (and others) are talking about is tight tree skiing. Skiing between trees where there are trees nearly touching BOTH your shoulders, which is tighter than an "elevator shaft". You encounter this terrain frequently at places like Smuggs (unmarked) and Jay (marked and unmarked), and obviously backcountry.

They were not intended for this originally, it was just one of the benefits that was noted. I have Nomads in 168cm. Two years later they were making a longer length 180cm. They said the short length and the widths gave them the float needed. They spec surface on their skis. The Scout first came out as a ~160cm ski if I remember correctly.

This is a concept that I really want to explore. I haven't skied anything 160cm or 165cm since I was a kid, but I will definitely rent something short and fat (I'll have to work out the surface area math, but I'm thinking 100mm underfoot would compensate for the loss in length) in Burlington next season to try out at Jay's trees.