Popular Mechanics Article on the Superiority of Narrow, Straight Skis

[Domeskier]

Can't say whether I agree with this guy, since I've never been on anything wider than 78mm underfoot, but I am a big fan of Dynastar Twisters.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/adventure/outdoor-gear/a26443788/which-skis-should-i-choose/

 

[BenedictGomez]

Reading that article was X minutes of my life I'll never get back.

I'll save everyone the time and post that article in a single picture:

 

[andrec10]

Old fracking Curmudgeon...

 

[raisingarizona]

Old fracking Curmudgeon...

This person was either paid by Dynastar to write this or is just a complete f—-ing idiot.

 

[gladerider]

BG is spot on. lol.

 

[Griswold]

This person was either paid by Dynastar to write this or is just a complete f—-ing idiot.

Considering they don’t even make the twister anymore I’m pretty sure he isn’t being paid by Dynastar to promote it. Guess I’m in the minority for agreeing with the author? Must also make me an f—ing idiot.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[Jully]

I mean the author is dead wrong about a lot of it. He kept coming back to a fine point to make, that it was his preference. However, he then said things like "I noticed no difference in deep powder and they carve great" and that is fundamentally not true.

 

[Griswold]

Not sure “pretty nicely” is the same as great and it’s a stretch to say he specifically wrote he noticed no difference in powder. Maybe I have awful luck with storms but as someone who is tied to a day job I am lucky to see one legit powder day a year where I would rather be on something fatter that my mogul skis. Do they crave or float as well as race or powder skis? No of course not but I don’t think that’s the authors point. I think the point is on most days the mogul skis can be more fun and practical than a set of 100+ underfoot waterskis, yet most people haven’t tried or considered this option since it’s not the popular trend.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[Glenn]

I'm happy with 78 width skis. I don't get wide double rocker bronana boards for regular east coast skiing...outside of powder days.

 

[makimono]

Haha, as an old curmudgeon who was an expert level skier in the early nineties I agree with most of that especially this line "I assumed the ballyhooed “parabolic” design would upgrade my skiing. It didn’t. For me, shaped skis proved inferior in every way—more sluggish on bumps, chattery on ice, slower everywhere."

But I would also add that almost overnight everyone else on the mountain seemed to get instantly better at skiing. I went off on my own unique journey in free-form ski odyssey but I did demo a pair of 4FRNT Renegades (122 waist) skis on an all groomer day recently and had an absolute blast on them. So I guess I'm just not that particular, if it's got wax and there's snow I'll point 'em downhill and go.

 

[rebel1916]

I bet that guy waxes poetic about steel bicycles too.

 

[Jully]

Not sure “pretty nicely” is the same as great and it’s a stretch to say he specifically wrote he noticed no difference in powder. Maybe I have awful luck with storms but as someone who is tied to a day job I am lucky to see one legit powder day a year where I would rather be on something fatter that my mogul skis. Do they crave or float as well as race or powder skis? No of course not but I don’t think that’s the authors point. I think the point is on most days the mogul skis can be more fun and practical than a set of 100+ underfoot waterskis, yet most people haven’t tried or considered this option since it’s not the popular trend.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

Does this not mean "great" to you?

Missing the easy float and savage carving ability of my old Omesofts

Also referring to the twisters:

I’ve more than kept up with my buddies on their fat, rocker and shaped skis. No matter the conditions or terrain, “specialized” mogul skis are all-mountain champs.

And lastly I love when he says the new skis "turned like battleships, were about as flexible as an icicle and had me massaging my thighs in the lodge by noon.” but then makes a clear jab at those skiing on wider skis successfully by quoting the ski coach talking about new wider skis:

They forgive the user’s mistakes more and allow someone who can’t ride the center of the ski to feel like they can.

While the coach isn't wrong about new ski tech, I love that this guy was complaining that new skis were actually harder to ski and then says "actual skiing" is dying and implies his straight ski style is better (referred to it as "golden form" and says everyone would benefit from a return to it).

Again, the overall point from the article is very reasonable - straight skis were fun and you don't need a 120mm underfoot ski to shred. But he goes bananas getting there by insulting those skis and everyone who skis them yet he doesn't have the chops to handle them.

 

[dlague]

My first skis were Kastle RX and 205 CM in length which seems absurd now. I never got into pure parabolic designs because I took a hiatus in the late 80s into the 90s. When I returned I bought a pair of Dynastar Max 8, while they had a decent side cut, they skied like my old skis. I then decided to try mid fats 89 underfoot with a fairly wide shovel and the experience for me was amazing. Turn initiation was decent and on crud or powder the width of the shovel made a difference. I find many of the wider ski designs have a decent turn radius are multi faceted and are easy to maneuver in all types of conditions especially when on a single run you might hit a bowl then ski through trees or bumps then finally make it to a groomer. So while this is not for everyone, a swiss knife of a ski makes the experience fun.

A lot depends on what you like to ski. Some are bump purist, other are on it for speed, others stick to groomers, while others might seek trees or powder or a mix.

There is so much talk and opinion regarding the right ski, the right ski is the one you enjoy the most and the best way to find that, again IMO, is to demo.

The skis I have enjoyed the most have been the Icelantic Nomad 105 which I tried at Cannon, absolute blast. They are light, playful and checked off everything I like in a ski.

If you like a ski, who cares if someone else thinks it is too narrow, too wide, too short, too long, the wrong ski for where ever. Just have fun with ones you love - not talking about the significant other.

Sent from my SM-G930V using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[Domeskier]

Considering they don’t even make the twister anymore I’m pretty sure he isn’t being paid by Dynastar to promote it.

Was 2018 the last production year? I can't find them on the Dynastar website, but it is terrible to navigate. I guess I need to stark stocking up. Or maybe give some ID Ones a try.

 

[skifree]

if it's got wax and there's snow I'll point 'em downhill and go.

agree with this 100%

 

[BenedictGomez]

the overall point from the article is very reasonable - straight skis were fun and you don't need a 120mm underfoot ski to shred. But he goes bananas getting there by insulting those skis and everyone who skis them yet he doesn't have the chops to handle them.

Pretty much.

I agree with the point that many east coast skiers are currently skiing daily drivers that are too fat for east coast conditions probably 90% of days (I actually made this point just the other day in another thread).

But that's a far cry from basically saying parabolic skies are dumb, using fat skis in powder is unnecessary, and that all-things-considered, returning to 1980s-style straight skis would be better for the masses. This is all demonstrably & obviously false.

Again, how the hell does Popular Mechanics even allow this to publish? It's genuinely embarrassing.

 

[Griswold]

Was 2018 the last production year? I can't find them on the Dynastar website, but it is terrible to navigate. I guess I need to stark stocking up. Or maybe give some ID Ones a try.

Yes


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[SkiingInABlueDream]

Anyone who thinks a modern high end SL/GS ski is less fun on groomers than an early 1990s vintage straight ski (basically the end of that era) is either clueless or hopelessly old school/nostalgic.

 

[kingslug]

Just watch The Blizzard of Ahhhs...then a new TGR movie...hmmm..a bit different the way they go down now.

 

[drjeff]

Anyone who thinks a modern high end SL/GS ski is less fun on groomers than an early 1990s vintage straight ski (basically the end of that era) is either clueless or hopelessly old school/nostalgic.

Agree 100%

The reality is a "good" skier can turn most any radius, flex, width underfoot ski pretty well.

Modern, wider skis, often with an overall softer flex pattern than the "straight" skis of yesteryear DO make it easier for those with less skills to make better turns over a wider range of conditions. That's overall good for the industry.

Some of my best memories on skis occurred back in the late 80's on my 213 Rossignol 3G GS skis that were stiff as a telephone pole and about as wide as a pencil, but they involved a 2 foot powder day in Snowmass skiing tress with my younger brother and then about a month later a GREAT spring corn/bump day at Stratton.

Hands down, my current 185cm, 108 underfoot, full rocker Blizzard Cochises that I use on powder days now float much better than my old 3G's did, and I have multiple other pairs in the 175-185cm length and 80ish underfoot width skis that are easier in the bumps than those 213's were, but I do agree with the basic premise that "straight" skis certainly have a place still, granted its more of a niche space today. So much to the point that after demoing in December a pair of Stockli race SL skis and Rossi's race SL skis, I knew that I was going to be adding to my quiver shortly, as why should both of my kids be the only one's in the family enjoying the incredible things that narrow, modern race skis can do, especially on firmer snow! ;-)

I also agree with the comment that BG made a few posts ago that many folks in the East most days are on skis that are wider than they should be for maximum enjoyment the majority of days that they're on the hill