Yep. Even less side cut than the Twisters, which suck at those mandatory GS turns on groomers.
-
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?
- Thread starter tunagod
- Start date
Yep. Even less side cut than the Twisters, which suck at those mandatory GS turns on groomers.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Yeah, for me it's the Line Prophet 90s, which I bet I ski 90% of the time. They're getting long-in-the-tooth though (they still have life, but much battle scarring).
I bought new in the wrap Fischer Watea (96mm) for $145 on clearance but still haven't mounted them. I might just do that and see how they are, never skied them, bought them due to the silly price and the fact I'd heard a lot of good things.
Hate to judge another man's quiver, but this seems a bit overlappy. Why not buy a fat ski? Or a narrow early season ski?
sankaty
Member
There is a bit of overlap between the Ones and BW, but I have no regrets. The overlap means that in most conditions I'm not desperately wishing I'm on the other pair, and there is a fair amount of differentiation as is. The Ones are much better in deep snow (perhaps for more reasons than width alone), and the BWs are significantly more agile in tight bumps.
The Magnums are fairly different from the other two because they are so much stiffer (and I keep them much sharper). I basically traded a pair of old Fischer RX8s for them, which were much narrower. I just prefer wider skis even on groomed slopes these days.
I've had all the skis for 3-4 years now. If I were to start from scratch, I'd go wider on the top end (as you suggest). Someday I'll try something in the 105-110 range, but I have so much fun on my Ones in powder, it's not a priority.
Perhaps I don't know what I'm missing, but right now I feel I have a ski I'm happy skiing for all the conditions I encounter. That's the main criterion of success for a quiver, no?
Not Sure
Well-known member
This thread has morphed into a ski discussion but is interesting non the less. People are focusing on widths but what about lengths? I'm behind the curve on the "latest" ski trends. Being a short 5'5" 160lbs I'm thinking if I walked into a ski shop I would be sold shorter skis than I'm on now .I like the stability at higher speeds that the extra length affords, my B2's are 170 and steadfast 174 .Still coaxing my Rossi B'2s for one more year and added the Steadfasts as a BC ski but have skied them on slope. May mount downhill bindings on them eventually . My B2's are 170 and steadfast 174. Having not skied shorter shaped skis would I be dissapointed if I went shorter or going wider make up for it?
Very happy with the Steadfasts!
Very happy with the Steadfasts!
St. Bear
New member
I think length is more straightforward in regards to East vs West than width. It's so wide open out West, that you can go longer and just cruise. In the East, the ability to make short quick turns is essential, even if you're not going into the woods, the trails are narrower and much more crowded.
My everyday Eastern skis are 179cm and my powder skis are 186cm.
My everyday Eastern skis are 179cm and my powder skis are 186cm.
I'm 5'10" 160ish. I'm on 170 Volkl Kendos (Pre rocker models). I was worried they'd be short. But they hold well at speed. It's a nice mix. I can still go into the bumps or the woods and maneuver around easily. Yet they'll be stable at speed, good on ice and I can lay some good trenches on the cord. I believe they're 88 underfoot, so they do well in the fresh stuff.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
So as I mentioned before, I think many people ski on daily-drivers that are frankly too wide for typical eastern conditions, and my opinion is much the same with regards to length in that I think many people ski on skis that are needlessly long. The former I believe stems from the "wide ski revolution" syndrome, and the latter I believe stems from the old mantra that still erroneously persists that, "you stink at skiing unless you're on long skis" belief.
And both of these phenomenon are why people laugh at me from the lifts when i'm ripping groomers and kustying the4ft kliffs on my ski blades.
Not Sure
Well-known member
I guess that might explain at least some of the laughter....
dlague
Active member
Not Sure
Well-known member
That's Ok ! Heres a great song to listen to while your "Going against the flow" ripping bumps on your blades
My 20yr old crush Dale Bozzio the "Original Lady Gaga!
goldsbar
New member
Yup! The length=expert thing went away for a while, but seems to have come back over the last few years. WC slalom skiers would go under 165cm if they were allowed. The wide=expert thing seems to be abating. Outside of Alta/Bird/Jackson where they truly get a lot of snow, the vast majority of people are skiing well under 100mm even in many western areas.
To each his own. The arguments some people made on this thread for wide skis are compelling for their style of skiing.
I don't know...I see a ton of wide skis at Sugarbush all the time. Cham 107s in particular seem to be extremely popular there (even this weekend where there was really little need for wide skis). I also see plenty of Mantras.
As for length, recommendations started to trend upwards again when rocker designs started coming out from what I've seen.
benski
Active member
I think it's regulars vs couple time a year skies. Of the last three ski shops I have been to on the east coast the one near sugarbush was selling much fatter skis than the other two and I think this is why.
Similar threads
