• 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?

BenedictGomez

Active member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,653
Points
38
Location
PRNJ
You just described the Nordica Steadfasts, which is what I ski 80% of the time. I wish I had bought a second pair to "cellar" for when I wear mine out.

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.


I've got three pairs, 98mm Blizzard Ones, 88mm Blizzard Bushwackers, and 85mm Blizzard Magnum 8.5 Ti.

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

New member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
225
Points
0
Location
Central CT
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?

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?
 

Siliconebobsquarepants

Active member
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
2,638
Points
38
Location
Lehigh County Pa.
Website
www.youtube.com
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!
 

St. Bear

New member
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,946
Points
0
Location
Washington, NJ
Website
twitter.com
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.
 

Glenn

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,675
Points
38
Location
CT & VT
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

Active member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
10,653
Points
38
Location
PRNJ
This thread has morphed into a ski discussion but is interesting non the less. People are focusing on widths but what about lengths?

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.
 

Domeskier

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,054
Points
36
Location
New York
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.
 

goldsbar

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
497
Points
0
Location
New Jersey
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.

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.
 

cdskier

Active member
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Messages
3,731
Points
38
Location
NJ
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.

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

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
1,113
Points
0
Location
Binghamton NY
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.

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.
 
Top