When did Ski Reality become Irrelevant?

[Scruffy]

Anyone read this?

http://desertsnowjunkies.com/when-did-ski-reality-become-irrelevant/


"Today it’s all about the glamor of big air, obese skis, and bottomless powder. More attention seems to be paid to a ski’s ability to stomp cliff jump landings than negotiate a mogul. Seriously? So if you’re stuck with a one ski quiver like the vast majority of skiers, does it make any sense that our occasional little cliff huck or charge down a narrow chute should overly influence the ski’s design. ...."

 

[benski]

In my opinion powder skis are still good on an average day but narrower skis will really hold you back in powder. I think that is why people have been buying fat skis.

 

[prsboogie]

Just read it. I think it is very well written and probably more accurate than most care to admit.

 

[Savemeasammy]

I would rather have my "narrow" skis for our typical New England conditions . For the occasional powder day that I get - which lasts a few hours at most - it doesn't make sense to me to own fat skis (100+ mm waist). My skis are designed to handle the conditions I see the most.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[prsboogie]

I ride a 86 daily and have one 98 for the soft/corn days. The only reason for two was the deal on the second set, couldn't pass um up!! I can ride the 98 in all but rock hard ice pack days but who the hell wants those days anyways.

 

[Quietman]

Anyone read this?

http://desertsnowjunkies.com/when-did-ski-reality-become-irrelevant/

This is a classic!



I have 6 pairs of skis, none of them with a waist over 74mm. I'd take a pair of fat skis if someone was giving them away, but I can't justify buying a new pair for a couple of powder days a year.

 

[Savemeasammy]

As for their take on ski movies, I would much rather see skiers/riders tackling terrain that is accessible to the majority of us. Exotic locations in lands that most of us will never see really doesn't do much for me. There is plenty of kick-ass terrain in N. America - let's see more of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deadheadskier]

In my opinion powder skis are still good on an average day but narrower skis will really hold you back in powder. I think that is why people have been buying fat skis.

I tend to agree. I'd rather my skis be too wide than not wide enough.

That said I'm glad I've got my hard snow Fischers for my primary ski as that's the type of snow I'm skiing 80% of the time here in NH.

 

[Not Sure]

I would rather have my "narrow" skis for our typical New England conditions . For the occasional powder day that I get - which lasts a few hours at most - it doesn't make sense to me to own fat skis (100+ mm waist). My skis are designed to handle the conditions I see the most.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Love that quote

 

[Highway Star]

 

[BenedictGomez]

I have 6 pairs of skis, none of them with a waist over 74mm.

I'm guessing you dont ski in the woods?

 

[prsboogie]

Classic quote!!

 

[Highway Star]

Dude is stuck in the 80's, and angry about it. The newest skis in my active quiver are 191cm, 125mm waist, complex sidecut, mild rocker, full sidewall, stomp cliffs great, and I ski them on powder in the east. However, I also ski a couple days a year on DH race skis 210cm or over, oldest skis in my quiver are from 1994, most of my bindings are 10 to 25 years old, and about half of my quiver skis are normal camber midfats from the 00's.

Most people suck at skiing and can't carve worth a damn, even with deep sidecut skis. Like 95% of skiers. They are perfectly fine skidding sideways on 90-110mm waist skis even in the east, the wider skis are easier to handle on choppy, skied off groomers. This has made skiing more popular, and is good for the survival of the industry. In fact, new equipment has made skiing more athletically accessible than ever, not the reverse that the "extreme" image theory the article puts forward. Ski mags don't emphasize powder or cliff performance, unless justifiably discussing that kind of ski. Here is freeskier's gear guide, they show a huge range of skis, including many all mountain choices:

http://freeskier.com/gear_types/skis?products_per_page=all&orderby=rating

Ski movies and televised competitions have ALWAYS shown the top end of the sport - in freestyle, racing and freeskiing (extreme). People are not morons, almost everyone understands that the vast majority of skiing is recreational done by people of modest ability. However, I'm certainly not the only one out first thing on a powder day, there are plenty of normal people out there buying powder skis and putting them to good use.

I got my first pair true powder skis (110mm waist) in the fall of 2000. The comments about wow those are huge they are like waterskis went on until the late 00's, they were funny. There is now much more competition on a powder day for fresh lines and tree shots, unfortunately.

 

[deadheadskier]

. The newest skis in my active quiver are 191cm, 125mm waist, complex sidecut, mild rocker, full sidewall, stomp cliffs great, and I ski them on powder in the east. However, I also ski a couple days a year on DH race skis 210cm or over,

Curious what ski models these two are.

 

[BeefyBoy50]

Most people suck at skiing and can't carve worth a damn, even with deep sidecut skis. Like 95% of skiers. They are perfectly fine skidding sideways on 90-110mm waist skis even in the east, the wider skis are easier to handle on choppy, skied off groomers. This has made skiing more popular, and is good for the survival of the industry. In fact, new equipment has made skiing more athletically accessible than ever, not the reverse that the "extreme" image theory the article puts forward. Ski mags don't emphasize powder or cliff performance, unless justifiably discussing that kind of ski. Here is freeskier's gear guide, they show a huge range of skis, including many all mountain choices:

I agree with this.

 

[Highway Star]

Curious what ski models these two are.

Head Boneshaker, $199:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2z0zLnZUv0

There are some Head Carlos on ebay for $299 new with binding, same ski, I'd buy them but I usually get 4-5+ years on powder skis and I don't want the bindings. Great pow ski on a budget. I've got two pairs of rossi axioms, these are very comparable. Mounted -1.5cm behind the furthest back line.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2011-Head-C...e-/201169145600?pt=Skiing&hash=item2ed69d8f00

The DH skis are two pairs, one is a early 00's volkl men's 218cm DH with deflex (40m+ radius) with lifted salomon race bindings, the other is ~2010 atomic women's 210cm DH (45m+ radius) with 1018's. Surprisingly, the volkls seem to be easier to ski on due to having a bit more sidecut.

 

[deadheadskier]

I have 6 pairs of skis, none of them with a waist over 74mm. I'd take a pair of fat skis if someone was giving them away, but I can't justify buying a new pair for a couple of powder days a year.

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

I had at least four days there this season where my daily driver Fischer Motive 84 was woefully inadequate in terms of width for the snow conditions.....not just the depth of the snow, but how wet and heavy natural snow can get in southern NH.

One thing to think about in terms of owning a set of deep snow skis is not, "I'll only use them a few times a season", but rather, "these skis will likely suit my needs in powder snow for a decade or more." I finally replaced my powder ski in my quiver this summer. The skis they replaced were bought in the Fall of 2000 and were used five times this past season.

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.

To each their own, but if you're going to have 6 sets skis in your quiver, I'd recommend having at least one of them have a waist over 100mm.

 

[deadheadskier]

. I've got two pairs of rossi axioms,

What size?

My just retired Axioms are 184cm.

The skis you mention owning are always very long - typically max length for the model.

I'm not huge, but pleasantly plump at 195# and I have a hard time seeing a need for something much larger than the 184 in the Axiom unless the skier was pushing 250+ pounds.

 

[Highway Star]

What size?

My just retired Axioms are 184cm.

The skis you mention owning are always very long - typically max length for the model.

I'm not huge, but pleasantly plump at 195# and I have a hard time seeing a need for something much larger than the 184 in the Axiom unless the skier was pushing 250+ pounds.

Axiom's came in 183cm and 163cm. Mine are both obviously 183cm. The older pair is foam core, has wear induced flat camber and a bit of tip rocker, the newer (to me) pair appears to be wood core with solid full camber and does not float as well. I mounted the Heads at -1.5cm to match the front length (length in front of mid-sole line) of the axioms of around 105cm, so given a similar 11.5lb weight, they feel very similar in maneuverability. While the tail is a bit longer, it is a twin and tapered, so it sinks well enough. The rocker is very mild, so the ski is very stable at speed on uneven terrain and confident jumping/dropping. Like an axiom, but even better.

I'm a bit over 200lbs, and this is my third pair of 125mm+ waist powder skis. Have 190 cm super big daddies retired, 185cm chopstics quasi retired, both were good skis but didn't have the strengths of the axioms or heads. I'll find myself in 3-4ft+ of uncompressed snow surprisingly often, or very light snow, where skis of this width excel. I've also got narrower powder skis for more dense fresh snow, including the axioms (good pair for charging, old pair for rock skis), 1st gen 180cm explosivs mounted on the (far back) stock line, 180 snowrangers (80mm waist) for 3 day old windbuff, and 179 public enemy rock skis mounted all the way back.

But the biggest skis come out on the storm day.

That said, my all mountain midfats are 186cm to 192cm, sandwich construction, most with metal, GS sidecuts in the mid 20m range.

 

[BenedictGomez]

One thing to think about in terms of owning a set of deep snow skis is not, "I'll only use them a few times a season", but rather, "these skis will likely suit my needs in powder snow for a decade or more."

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.