Midfat vs. Cross ski, & a quiver question

[Damian Sanders]

I swear this started off as a serious legitimate question.

It was, and is a very good question. Problem is, you have two guys (Tony and Uncle Crud), who don't really know what "all around skiing" is on the east coast, and thus don't have the right perspective to answer you question accurately, so they end up spewing bad advice.

I've heard what you have said, that you want a solid all around ski that excells on ice. You'll be skiing bumps and trees and soft snow with it, since it's still an all around ski. This is perfectly reasonable. The wider ski you already have (8800) is really a more powder specific ski, but it doesn't mean you can't have another ski that is just as wide but focused more on hard snow.

What Tony and Uncle Crud fail to realize is that waist width only accounts for about 10-20% of ski's hard or soft snow performance. It's entirely possible to have a ski that's wider than your 8800's, but is better all around and on hardpack - such as the Legend Pro......even though the 8800 is narrower, due to the flex it's a better powder ski. There are plenty of 65 to 80mm waist skis built in the last 10 years that are excellent powder skis - they fall into the "narrow powder ski" category these days.

For the kind of skiing you want to do, I am quite sure sure you will not be all that happy on a narrow carving ski like the allstar. It's just not going to give you the performance all around that you are looking for. A beefier mid-fat is exactly what you are asking for, and is where you should focus your search.

[Tony]

I've heard what you have said, that you want a solid all around ski that excells on ice.

What Tony and Uncle Crud fail to realize is that waist width only accounts for about 10-20% of ski's hard or soft snow performance.

Wrong.

I realize both sidecut and flex are important criteria for a ski's performance.

Irregardless, when we are talking about "a solid all around ski that excells on EC ice", a 70-80mm stiff ski will perform better than a 80-90mm stiff ski.

Taking it to a extreme, if it wasn't like this all WC honchos would be on 90mm twin tips like the PEs and not GS and SL planks.

[Damian Sanders]

Wrong.

I realize both sidecut and flex are important criteria for a ski's performance.

Irregardless, when we are talking about "a solid all around ski that excells on EC ice", a 70-80mm stiff ski will perform better than a 80-90mm stiff ski.

Taking it to a extreme, if it wasn't like this all WC honchos would be on 90mm twin tips like the PEs and not GS and SL planks.

Not quite dude....they don't run WC courses through the woods, moguls and thin cover. You're making the classic "race ski comparision" which doesn't hold water at all. The difference in edge hold across the range of 75-90mm waist skis (with similar constructions) is pretty damn minimal, while the difference in soft/mixed snow performance is major.

Oh, and if you want to talk about race skis, why are people skiing GS on 66 to 70mm waist skis, instaid of 60 or 61mm skis??? Hummmmm.....seems like a bit more width is a good thing, even for the WC.

What dogwonder has to figure out is how much ICE does he actually ski. If he really does spend 30% of his time skiing on 50-80% sheet ice, then yes, he should probably get a carving ski to ski ice with. But if you're skiing in VT most of the time, you're just not going be forced to ski 50-80% ice, it's going to happen rarely....most days out you can find soft snow somewhere. I have 25 days in this year so far, and I've only spent about 2 hours on my "ice specific ski" (73mm waist, 192cm long, and more versitile than an allstar, BTW)............there was only one time night skiing in MA where I felt like I should get that ski out. Every other day has been on wider skis, which handled any ice I encountered just fine.

[flip]

Irregardless

I believe the word you're looking for is "irregardably"

[Tony]

Not quite dude....they don't run WC courses through the woods, moguls and thin cover.

Again,

an short turning 70-80mm will perform better in tight trees, moguls and thin cover than a 80-90mm. plank

I didn't even bother reading the rest of you post though, with such a stupid first sentence.

[Damian Sanders]

Again, a short turning 70-80mm will perform better in tight trees, moguls and thin cover than a 80-90mm plank.

Completely false.

A 170cm, 75mm waist ski with a 15m sidecut with metal will be nowhere near as good as a 180cm, 85mm waist ski with a 20m sidecut without metal, on trees, thin cover and bumps, for an advanced/expert skier.....all things being equal.

On top of that, if the wider ski has lighter bindings with less lift, and other design differences to improve soft snow performance, there will be an even bigger difference in performance.

Lets compare exactly those two types of skis from Volkl's lineup only......we'll take me as an example as the skier. I'm 6'1", 185lb, all around expert with some racing background. I can handle any ski built in the last 15 years, no prob (including DH boards).

The two Volkl's most similar to the above comparison (though slightly longer to fit me right) would be:

Volkl AC3, 177cm, with Marker R14 Binding (118-76-104, Radius 18.4m) (w/metal)

VS.

Volkl Karma, 185cm, with Look P18 Binding (119-87-111mm, Radius 22.3m) (no metal)

Now.......which is going to be better in bumps, trees and thin cover? Which is going to be lighter and easier to ski on? Which is going to be more fun off the groomed? Should be a pretty damn easy question to answer.....It's amazing how you can be so blatanty wrong.....it's like you don't even ski....

[Tony]

A 170cm, 75mm waist ski with a 15m sidecut with metal will be nowhere near as good as a 180cm, 85mm waist ski with a 20m sidecut without metal, on trees, thin cover and bumps, for an advanced/expert skier.....all things being equal.

In my book, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL means same contruction (both metal or not metal) and same lenght (both 170 or 180).

Still mantain my statement, a 70-80mm will perform better in tight trees, moguls and thin cover than a 80-90mm plank ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (including SAME construction, length, bindings, etc, etc.)

This is getting boring.

Post some pics of your ex-gf the stripper, please.

[uncle crud]

Ok there buddy, I'm quite sure you don't know what you are talking about now....and you probably don't ski in the east. Please, please, please, take it back to epicski.

75-90mm waist skis with the right construction/design have plenty of hold on ice, and have the bonus of being very good all around in mixed snow. They are an excellent choice for the east. 70mm skis these days are typically groomer oriented and not as good in variable/mixed snow. You are not paying attention to the original poster, and are pushing your own agenda/ego. He wants a solid all around east coast ski (off piste, trees, etc) that is also good on ice - a cross ski or carving ski is NOT the right choice for that.

I'm happy you like your heads. I ski the im88 in a 186cm with lifted S916's as my all around east coast resort ski (but 90% on piste, since I'm trying to not destroy them). Anywhere from ice to powder. They hold pretty damn well on ice, considering the excessive base bevel from the factory. If you can't ski yours on ice, that's not my problem.

So, you've never met me, never seen me ski, never learned anything about me yet you are convinced I obviously know nothing.

I see your game, Damian. It's called Put Down Everyone Who Disagrees With You Because You Are Terribly Insecure.

Why would I want to "go back to EpicSki," Damian?

Why do you automatically assume that a suggestion to try a race ski comes from EpicSki?

Is it because you can't deal with race skis yourself? If not, then please explain your negativity toward race skis.

Is it because you define yourself by being part of the TGR Maggot group and part of that identity includes abuse heaped toward EpicSki? If I've guessed wrong here then how about explaining your reflexive leap to the EpicSki affiliation putdown.

Does scathing EpicSki make you (here I mean you personally, not "you" generically) a better skier?

What makes you think I admire the people at EpicSki?

Most of all, how do you get the idea that I and others do not know what we are talking about, and the converse, that you are the only one who does?

Let's hear your wisdom on these points, Damian. Let's hear facts and rationale, not put-downs or taunts.

A 170cm, 75mm waist ski with a 15m sidecut with metal will be nowhere near as good as a 180cm, 85mm waist ski with a 20m sidecut without metal, on trees, thin cover and bumps, for an advanced/expert skier.....all things being equal.

So how about you define "expert" and then explain why racers aren't experts because they don't use the Damian Sanders Choice of Skis? Can you help us with that one, Damian? And while you're at it, tell us why it is that you know so much more than Daron Rahlves, Ted Ligety, Bode Miller about what skis to use if you have "expert" level skills. Please.

My guess is you are just arguing for the sake of argument because you can't go ski because you really don't ski very much because you spend all your time arguing with people and calling them ignorant of skiing and ski equipment. But if you can prove otherwise I really do welcome your doing so.

[Tony]

And when I thought this thread was dying........

[uncle crud]

Still mantain my statement, a 70-80mm will perform better in tight trees, moguls and thin cover than a 80-90mm plank ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (including SAME construction, length, bindings, etc, etc.)

There's nothing pussy or wimp-like about admitting that even narrower waisted and skinnier profiled skis are even better in tight trees and thin cover.

That is, unless you define your skiing prowess by the width of your skis, in which case you probably aren't even 1/2 the skier you pretend to be on the internet. Certain people in this thread seem to fit that profile, and many on this website fit that profile.

It's not too unlike people who need 7" or 8" of travel on a MTB just to ride anything that has a few rocks or roots. They think they're badass freeriders because they ride the bikes that truly badass freeriders and DH racers ride, but the truth is that the bike doesn't make the rider skilled any more than riding a hugely fat pair of skis makes someone equal in skill to Sage Cattabriga-Alosa or Micah Black or Seth Morrison.

People can copy their heroes to the ends of time and that won't improve their skills. All it improves is the way they look standing in a lift line or carrying their skis from their car to the base area.

[uncle crud]

And when I thought this thread was dying........

No, there's nothing more amusing than Damian Sanders and people who act like him on the internet. Nothing at all. I needed a laugh this morning. Reading the Damian Sanders statements provides that laugh. Although I'm sure the comedy I find here isn't the same type that he thinks he's providing.

[Damian Sanders]

So, you've never met me, never seen me ski, never learned anything about me yet you are convinced I obviously know nothing.

I see your game, Damian. It's called Put Down Everyone Who Disagrees With You Because You Are Terribly Insecure.

Why would I want to "go back to EpicSki," Damian?

Why do you automatically assume that a suggestion to try a race ski comes from EpicSki?

Is it because you can't deal with race skis yourself? If not, then please explain your negativity toward race skis.

Is it because you define yourself by being part of the TGR Maggot group and part of that identity includes abuse heaped toward EpicSki? If I've guessed wrong here then how about explaining your reflexive leap to the EpicSki affiliation putdown.

Does scathing EpicSki make you (here I mean you personally, not "you" generically) a better skier?

What makes you think I admire the people at EpicSki?

Most of all, how do you get the idea that I and others do not know what we are talking about, and the converse, that you are the only one who does?

Let's hear your wisdom on these points, Damian. Let's hear facts and rationale, not put-downs or taunts.



So how about you define "expert" and then explain why racers aren't experts because they don't use the Damian Sanders Choice of Skis? Can you help us with that one, Damian? And while you're at it, tell us why it is that you know so much more than Daron Rahlves, Ted Ligety, Bode Miller about what skis to use if you have "expert" level skills. Please.

My guess is you are just arguing for the sake of argument because you can't go ski because you really don't ski very much because you spend all your time arguing with people and calling them ignorant of skiing and ski equipment. But if you can prove otherwise I really do welcome your doing so.

You're still a jackass, it doesn't matter if call yourself Uncle Crud or Gonzostrike.......

I've already explained my outlook on skis previously in this thread. Feel free to read it again.

[Damian Sanders]

In my book, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL means same contruction (both metal or not metal) and same lenght (both 170 or 180).

Still mantain my statement, a 70-80mm will perform better in tight trees, moguls and thin cover than a 80-90mm plank ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (including SAME construction, length, bindings, etc, etc.)

This is getting boring.

Post some pics of your ex-gf the stripper, please.

I'm making a perfectly vaild comparison between two well established types of ski - a midfat carver and a midfat freeskiing ski, that are apropriately sized for a certain skier - that's equal enough. The freeskiing setup will be better on variable terrain, while the carver will be better for carving. It's very simple, but you can't seem to get it.....all you can do is pick nits, while I continue to make one valid point after another. You should have given up about 50 posts ago.

Oh....and anybody who's spent alot of time skiing thin cover will tell you that wider is better.....all the way up to skiing 4" of dust on rocks - 115mm powder pluses work great for that.

[Tony]

It's very simple, but you can't seem to get it.

No.

It's easy but quite complex, actually.

Still,

no logical argument nor reasons why an 80-90mm plank will perform better in tight trees, moguls and thin cover than a 70-80mm ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (including SAME construction, length, bindings, etc, etc.).

checkmate in two moves here.

the freeskiing setup will be better on variable terrain, while the carver will be better for carving.

This is a generalization that I tend to concur but has been added due to lack of logical argument for the 70-80mm vs. 80-90mm. statement above

[MTT]

I am so glad I took the time from my busy day to read this thread.

I have nothing to contribute as far as Ski selection goes.

All I can add is that I have a very nice pair of Atomic SX11 (Cross style) skis.
I have no use for them now that I have the correct types of Fat Skis.

My 179 Stiff Bro's will do naything the 180 SX11's can do (BETTER)

The SX11's are harder to use on anything but groomed runs.

I used to use the SX11's for everything (They were my only skis)
But now I have seen the light and no longer have any use for them.

[crashnburn'd]

I'm so smart. LOOK AT ME!!!! ME!!!! MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

[Damian Sanders]

no logical argument nor reasons why an 80-90mm plank will perform better in tight trees, moguls and thin cover than a 70-80mm ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (including SAME construction, length, bindings, etc, etc.).

checkmate in two moves here.

Yawn.....the only one you're (check) mating with is your self.....doublegrip style.

Although it makes no sense to indulge you, lets make another comparison.

So you're saying you want the following criteria held equal:

- Construction (including base/edge material, overall design, internal material, etc)
- Length
- Bindings
- Skier size and ablity
......and what else....?

The other factors I can think of would be:

- Overall stiffness
- Flex profile
- Sidecut radius
- Sidecut shape
- Binding lift
- Tip and tail profile
- Weight

So, do those factors have to be held equal for the sake of this comparison? Or can they vary? Is waist width the only factor that can change? Please let me know what would satisfy you. Are there any more factors?

Personally, with all of the above above factors being held the same, I would say that the wider ski would be better in trees, powder, funky soft snow, crud, minibumps/sluffbumps, and thin cover, while the narrower ski would be better on true moguls and ice. I think there would be no major difference on packed powder or well groomed snow, aside from edging effort.

Purely a theoretical comparison.....but it still supports my previous points. Overall, I think the previous comparision between the AC3 and Karma makes more sense, and shows the differences better.

[Damian Sanders]

I am so glad I took the time from my busy day to read this thread.

I have nothing to contribute as far as Ski selection goes.

All I can add is that I have a very nice pair of Atomic SX11 (Cross style) skis.
I have no use for them now that I have the correct types of Fat Skis.

My 179 Stiff Bro's will do naything the 180 SX11's can do (BETTER)

The SX11's are harder to use on anything but groomed runs.

I used to use the SX11's for everything (They were my only skis)
But now I have seen the light and no longer have any use for them.

Thanks for that................

[Tony]

while the narrower ski would be better on true moguls and ice.

and trees and thin snow.

checkmate.

thanks for playing.

[Damian Sanders]

and trees and thin snow.

checkmate.

thanks for playing.

Nope, just because you say so doesn't make it true. Sorry.

Thin Cover: When skiing on thin cover, floation is one of the most important factors. If I'm skiing on anywhere from 4" to 12" of light snow with ZERO BASE underneath, floation is super, super important to keep off the rocks. Skiing the widest ski possible gives you a fighting chance. Having a softer or decambered tip helps to keep the tip up a little bit, and helps pivoting slightly. Since you're still going to hit rocks anyway, a straight sidecut and heavy ski will work best to plow though everything while making pivot turns. Thus, my ski of choice for such conditions is the 180cm Atomic Powder Plus - straight, fat, heavy and virtually indestructable. Please refer to the trip report below....on the first day I had out my launchers, but the 2nd day I took out the P+ which worked much better. I skied Double Dipper (solo, at 4:30pm) with about 4" of cover at the bottom:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=66421




Trees: East coast trees are highly variable. If it's basicly mogul-trees on packed snow and good cover, well then, obviously a narrower ski is going to work better. However, if the cover is less than perfect, a wider, straighter ski is going to be more predictable when glancing of submerged objects. If the snow is variable, a wider ski is going to be better. If it's powder, the wider ski is going to be better. So, I would say the majority of the time, a wider ski is going to be better in the trees. Personally, I don't ski on tree-moguls, so a narrow ski is never going to work better for me in the trees.

For more info on skiing thin cover powder, you should also check out my other big TR from this year, here:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=70296







In the future, I suggest you be a bit more careful who you pick fights with, jong.

[Tony]

Fact #1: I wouldn't consider any of those photos "thin cover".

Fact #2: Shouting "Jong" on the Internet doesn't make you wiser.

Fact #3: This on/off you call a "fight", well.... it's not. I am pretty sure given your "online personality" that you have never been involved in a "real" fight.

What about those other pics now...

[PlayHarder]

Can we all agree that if 10 skiers of comparable ability do 2 runs down the same terrain, one on narrow carvers and one on wider midfats, some will prefer the skinny skis and some the wider ones?
And then stfu about it.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and would assume that Dogwonder isn't going to wander into the shop and throw down cash on a pair of skis just because 2 out of 3 dorks on the internet recommended them. Maybe, he could demo a couple of the recommended narrow skis and a couple of the fatter ones and decide for himself.
Personally I'd be on the mid 80's waisted skis, but I've never skied east of the rockies, so I honestly have no idea what his conditions would be like.

[Damian Sanders]

Fact #1: I wouldn't consider any of those photos "thin cover".

Fact #2: Shouting "Jong" on the Internet doesn't make you wiser.

Fact #3: This on/off you call a "fight", well.... it's not. I am pretty sure given your "online personality" that you have never been involved in a "real" fight.

What about those other pics now...

Game Over, you lose. I've owned you so many times in this thread already I'm amazed your computer still works. Anyway, you stopped making vaild points 3 pages ago. I'm done, thanks for playing.

Cheers,

Damian

[Damian Sanders]

Can we all agree........

Nope, internet message boards aren't about agreeing.

[Tony]

I'm done, thanks for playing.

Cheers,

Damian

You quit.

Fine.

Now that is all over...

can you send your ex-gf pics, please?