• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

When is there too much snow?

mikec142

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
Messages
389
Points
18
Couple of thoughts. Too much snow? Maybe...

1. If you can't get to the mountain.
2. If the mountain loses power.
3. If the lifts are buried.
4. If the visibility is zero.
5. And the real killer, the mountain is closed.

I was at Squaw Valley over President's Day weekend when they received about 7 feet of snow. On our last day, there was literally only one lift running.

I'm primarily skiing on the east coast and ski on Rossignol Experience 88's. Last year in Jackson I demoed the Soul 7's and loved them. This year in Tahoe I started out on the Line Sir Francis Bacon's (104 under foot) and didn't love them. Then switched to the Line Sick Day's which were 114 under foot and hated them. Ended up with the new Nordica Enforcer 100's and absolutely loved them. I wonder how they'd ski back home at Sugarbush on an average day.
 

Jully

Active member
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
2,482
Points
38
Location
Boston, MA
The Enforcer 93s are awesome and are better suited to the east coast. Skis very similar in my experience. Loved the demo I did of them this year.
 

KustyTheKlown

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
2,384
Points
48
Location
Brooklyn
every time i see someone on the nordica enforcer 100s i think how much i like the look and shape of the ski. from what i've read it seems to be up my alley too in terms of being a bit on the stiff and stable side. cool ski.

i don't think 100 is too fat for daily eastern use. i ski 105s every day. 118s out west.
 

tunagod

New member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
4
Points
1
Took everyone's advice. Researched and Demoed some skis at Wawa over the last couple of days. Salomon Qst 99, line 100's. Coming from a 73 mm what a difference. Night and day. I was hoping to try the enforcer but wasn't available for demo. I really liked the qst 99. Also got a great deal on them. 30 percent off . The whole package was under $500 with bindings, which I thought was a good deal. Thanks for everyone's advice.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
 

KustyTheKlown

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
2,384
Points
48
Location
Brooklyn
once you go fat you never go back

try some indie brands next time. moment, armada, dps, etc doing way more interesting things than rossi, atomic, salomon etc, in my opinion
 

cdskier

Active member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
3,767
Points
38
Location
NJ
once you go fat you never go back

try some indie brands next time. moment, armada, dps, etc doing way more interesting things than rossi, atomic, salomon etc, in my opinion

The main problem with indie brands is that it isn't as easy to find them to demo in some areas...I'd love to try some of those at some point though.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
25,627
Points
38
Location
Southeast NH
once you go fat you never go back

I disagree with this and I was an early adopter of Fat skis getting my first pair in 2000. A set of 110 Rossi Axioms. Skied them every day that season, but I was ski bumming in Stowe during the biggest winter maybe ever for Northern VT. Stowe had something like 440" that year, Jay well over 500.

My daily now is a Steadfast 90. I have a Vagabond 107 that I've taken out maybe five times and I've had great timing with a lot of fresh days this year. Unless I'm in 8+ or it's heavy windblown that deflects tips easily, I'll take the narrower ski every time. So much quicker edge to edge, much better at getting a high edge angle when carving and a lighter swing weight to maneuver faster in tight trees and chutes.

Having recently tried a modern bump ski, I'm really tempted at buying a pair for great bump days. Shocking performance compared to even something in the 80s. The conflict is I also want a hard snow carving ski as I know the performance will be vastly better than my Steadfasts.

Probably not next season, but when I do buy a new set of sticks it will be either a pure bump ski or a race inspired carving ski. Ideally I'd love to find something that splits the difference. The Head irally has reviews that it does just that, but I haven't demoed a pair.



Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app
 

KustyTheKlown

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
2,384
Points
48
Location
Brooklyn
not my style, but this blurb from the i-rally review is intriguing.

"KERS energy management system stores electrical energy in a chip. This energy is sourced from the kinetic energy which travels through the ski while you're tearing it up. When sensors detect chatter, resulting from icey conditions, this stored electric energy is strategiclly released in order to stiffen the ski and thereby improve your ability to sink the edge. Conversely, they remain softer in forgiving terrain, taking some of the work out of navigating bumps and trees."

robot skis.
 

deadheadskier

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
25,627
Points
38
Location
Southeast NH
Yeah, I've read about that robot stuff. Seems like a gimic to me. I'm mostly interested in the skis dimensions and construction combined with Heads reputation for making the best carving skis on the market in recent years. I tried their WC Rebel SL race skis a few years ago and they were unreal on groomed snow.

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app
 

goldsbar

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
497
Points
0
Location
New Jersey
Took everyone's advice. Researched and Demoed some skis at Wawa over the last couple of days. Salomon Qst 99, line 100's. Coming from a 73 mm what a difference. Night and day. I was hoping to try the enforcer but wasn't available for demo. I really liked the qst 99. Also got a great deal on them. 30 percent off . The whole package was under $500 with bindings, which I thought was a good deal. Thanks for everyone's advice.

I have the Q98s, which are the forerunner to the QST 99. Great ski for soft snow for a lighter skier like myself. Terrific value even at full price. Keep the 73s, though. High 90s are just way too wide for typical EC days IMO and start to get clunky for aggressive and/or zipper type bump skiing. Let's just say the majority of my days are not like last Sunday at Plattekill, where the Q98s were 100% perfect.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,679
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
i don't think 100 is too fat for daily eastern use. i ski 105s every day. 118s out west.

Yeah, when the conditions get nice, but there's no reason to be skiing 100mm underfoot in the east until then.

If I'm skiing early season groomers when the woods aren't in play, I'm on my 67mm skis.

My daily drivers once the woods open are 90mm underfoot, and my great conditions skis are 115mm underfoot.
 

Siliconebobsquarepants

Active member
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
2,646
Points
38
Location
Lehigh County Pa.
Website
www.youtube.com
Yeah, when the conditions get nice, but there's no reason to be skiing 100mm underfoot in the east until then.

If I'm skiing early season groomers when the woods aren't in play, I'm on my 67mm skis.

My daily drivers once the woods open are 90mm underfoot, and my great conditions skis are 115mm underfoot.

I found 90 handles groomers better than my 78 although they are diffrent skis. I skied the same conditions at Blue opening day last year with both pairs and 90 was more enjoyable . To each his own

Question about lengths and ski surface area ,weight per square cm ? I haven't seen any discussion about this subject anywhere but seems like it would be relevant for choosing a pair for conditions . You would have to know surface area and your all up weight skis,bindings ,personal weight and clothing. Just curious if there are recomended parameters for diffrent conditions? Avation goes by "Wingloading" lbs per square foot. I understad ski stiffness would play a factor too.
 

cdskier

Active member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
3,767
Points
38
Location
NJ
My normal "early-season" or "hardpack" skis are 85 under foot. A few years ago I tried using my older skis that were 66 at the waist and hated them. Once we have "packed powder" or better conditions though, I'm on my 98 waist Nordicas. Under those surface conditions I prefer them to my narrower skis even on groomers.

So I agree to each his own. It is tempting to think about trying something even wider for true powder days, but I'm just not sure I could get enough use out of them to justify it at this point.
 

St. Bear

New member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,946
Points
0
Location
Washington, NJ
Website
twitter.com
When the width conversation comes up, I always point out, it's all about expectations and cost. I think it's overly dismissive to say 90s, or even 100 is too wide for an everyday Eastern ski. I currently ski on 89, and my next ski will likely be mid to upper 90s. I don't really care whether I can put my hip to the snow and lay a trench on hardpack that I couldn't poke my pole through. I just want to get down the slope in a safe and manageable way until I can find something softer that interests me more. So if I slarve some turns, that's fine with me. I'll gladly take that for some versatility in the trees, bumps, and whatever else I typically find (or try to find) on an average day.

But the nice thing about skis over the past 5-10 years, is that they make all different kinds of variations. Fat skis can be stiff and put on edge. Skinny(-ish) skis can be soft and floppy for deeper snow. Width by itself is no longer the end all be all.
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,789
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
When the width conversation comes up, I always point out, it's all about expectations and cost. I think it's overly dismissive to say 90s, or even 100 is too wide for an everyday Eastern ski. I currently ski on 89, and my next ski will likely be mid to upper 90s. I don't really care whether I can put my hip to the snow and lay a trench on hardpack that I couldn't poke my pole through. I just want to get down the slope in a safe and manageable way until I can find something softer that interests me more. So if I slarve some turns, that's fine with me. I'll gladly take that for some versatility in the trees, bumps, and whatever else I typically find (or try to find) on an average day.

But the nice thing about skis over the past 5-10 years, is that they make all different kinds of variations. Fat skis can be stiff and put on edge. Skinny(-ish) skis can be soft and floppy for deeper snow. Width by itself is no longer the end all be all.

I skied on a 97 back east and still ski it today in Colorado. I kept them sharp back east but never really sharpened them here until end of February. The past few weeks has required good edges.

I had planned on buying a 110-120 underfoot ski for Colorado but a local told me not to bother and felt that my currently ski should manage and they did.

I think the side cut makes all the difference in the world.
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,679
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
I think it's overly dismissive to say 90s, or even 100 is too wide for an everyday Eastern ski.

It's really not about what you "can" do, it's about what's the best option at a given moment in time for those snow conditions. Skis are merely tools. You can use a flat-head screwdriver for many useful things, but it's specifically best at screwing in nails.

I'm fine on my 90mm underfoot skis on hardpack and they do well, but I'm being disingenuous if I claim they're "better" than my 67mm skis that are specifically designed for those conditions. This is really all very obvious, of course, as Kjetil Jansrud or Travis Ganong could just as easily race FIS on 100m underfoot skis, but they don't.

I think 90mm is great as an "everyday eastern ski", but only once the conditions are good enough that they can shine, but not before.
 

Jully

Active member
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
2,482
Points
38
Location
Boston, MA
It's really not about what you "can" do, it's about what's the best option at a given moment in time for those snow conditions. Skis are merely tools. You can use a flat-head screwdriver for many useful things, but it's specifically best at screwing in nails.

Agreed 100%
 

BenedictGomez

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,679
Points
48
Location
PRNJ
Hmm...I prefer a hammer myself for nails.

Good catch. Using the screwdriver on nails would be more like using 115mm underfoot in typical November / early December eastern conditions. It can be done, but it's really not best for the job.
 

dlague

Active member
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
8,789
Points
36
Location
CS, Colorado
It's really not about what you "can" do, it's about what's the best option at a given moment in time for those snow conditions. Skis are merely tools. You can use a flat-head screwdriver for many useful things, but it's specifically best at screwing in nails.

I'm fine on my 90mm underfoot skis on hardpack and they do well, but I'm being disingenuous if I claim they're "better" than my 67mm skis that are specifically designed for those conditions. This is really all very obvious, of course, as Kjetil Jansrud or Travis Ganong could just as easily race FIS on 100m underfoot skis, but they don't.

I think 90mm is great as an "everyday eastern ski", but only once the conditions are good enough that they can shine, but not before.

Then the real questions is - If you are a one pair of skis skier then what now becomes the best tool? I would not want to get a 67 underfoot ski to handle all conditions back east, likewise, I would not want to get a 115 underfoot either. A 90-100 underfoot ski does satisfy a sweet spot for the one ski quiver (hate to use that term).

Buying gear for more than one person does not allow for an ice ski, a powder ski, mogul ski, or an all mountain with great conditions ski, etc. in my case 97 underfoot with nice side cut has worked out well.
 
Top