Proud owner of almost new Every Thangs!!!!

[midwif]

For those of you who know the saga of my search for the successor to the iC 160's, here is the conclusion to the story.
For those of you who don't care, well, I don't blame you.

I spent last week at the Harb Blue/Dark Blue camp working on technique. Humbling, exciting with lots of tidbits in my head to work on. Conditions were great there for a groomer ski clinic. Packed powder with a small smattering of fresh snow, almost each day to keep the surface freshened up.

HH offered me the opportunity to demo the Every Thangs in 156. My fellow camp mates remarked how much more stable my skiing looked with much less chatter than the iC's. Other, less traveled slopes had some crud conditions and small areas of 4 " powder. The ET's were great, smooth thru the chopped up snow, great on PP and previously demoed on boilerplate....grea t.

However, while the spirit was willing, the wallet was weak.....but the willpower even weaker when offered these demo babies with bindings for $300.

So YES, I am the proud owner of these skis.

Okay, so how does one wax the top sheet??

[jim-ratliff]

Congratulations Lynn.? Good to hear that your demo experiences worked so well, and that you got to try what are now YOUR skis in such a variety of conditions.

Especially nice that others could see the difference in your skiing and provide feedback in addition to you being able to feel the improvement.

I know your iC160's had a waist of 64 or thereabouts and that the ET's (I like that abbreviation) are 72mm.? Do they take noticeably more effort to tip or get on edge than the narrower skis.?? At 110lbs, you only need a 55mm waist to have the same float as the "standard" 175lb guy on 85mm waists, so 72mm is like skiing on 95-100 mm waists??

From a Michael Barrett post out of the archives:
The following is copied over (with slight modifications) from http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultim...=000089#000016 , in the EpicSki Academy Planning forum:

One should be very careful about extrapolating from one's own experience using normal width skis in soft snow when making ski recommendations for people of substantially different weights. Here's why:

Lets assume that there is some validity to the oft-heard claim that mid-80's skis are the best thing since sliced bread for average weight guys (say, 175 lbs) in soft snow. Then, one can estimate the width of a ski that would give the same amount of float to a skier of a different weight. Here's a table that does this:

(lbs)..(mm)
100.....49
120.....58
140.....68
160.....78
180.....87
200.....97
220....107
240....117
260....126

Thus, if you are a little slip of a 120 lb woman, you will have the exact same float on a 58 mm wide pair of skinny boards that Mr. Average Guy (at 175 lbs.) has on his 85 mm "lite-fat" skis.

[midwif]

Interesting concept. However, I must admit that I no longer weigh 110. Last weigh-in was 117, my more common wintertime weight.
I spent the last day of clinic on the ET's. My coach told me that I tip very well, actually, almost too much. So being able to get these over on edge does not seem to be an issue.
 Counter acting needs work and to be held longer thru the turn to keep momentum, which I lose because I face the tops of my skis too soon. Could see it clearly on tape. When FORCED to ski right behind HH with the instructions to KEEP UP and not let the 5 men behind me bottle neck up, well,,,,,,,needless to say, no keeping up with HH occurred. I let loose and tried to go as fast as I could following his tracks. Laughing all the way because of the futility, but having a good time failing in this instance.

These skis felt easier to tip on edge, once I got used to them, than I would have expected. Something in the construction of the last couple of years of skis, seems to allow a wider waist to work in ways that narrower waisted skis only allowed. Anyway, that seems to be my perception from my demo experience and what others have written here.

Ron C. found his Wateas 94 to handle well on groomers despite being delegated as a powder ski. I think since that article quoted by Michael was written, there have been advancements in ski technology that supports a wider waisted ski for everyday use, in addition to more interesting snow conditions.

[Ron]

Hey gang, I finally got my logins and all working so I am glad to back!  Lynn; AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  You have outgrown those 60's on off-piste conditions and you have tapped into my favorite rant. Wider skis. yes, wider skis on soft and ungroomed, broken and pow just rock, not two ways about it. I still like my skinny skis (Contact LTD's, 72 wide) for harder snow and some soft but I just like wider skis. PS- i just bought a pair of Watea 84's for my groomed day at Steamboat and are moving my Dynastars gome for east coast general skiing.  The 94's are now my all-time favorite ski capable of knee-high pow, slabbed broken crap and even groomed firm snow however, i prefer a narrower ski for that stuff (Although I will try to avoid such things as groomed hard snow!)

I thought you skied the other ones at Steamboat much better as well. That's a killer deal of 300!  good job and welcome to the club!  I am so happy to hear of your progess and that you are turning into a ripper'. I am psyched to ski with you next december.

Regarding Michaels post, i don't want to speak for him but I think he would agree that in addition to width of the ski, you have to factor in other things like stiffness, flex pattern, torsional stiffness, weight and mounting points. I think the chart is still correct. I don't know much about your new babies but it sounds like a ski that is letting you push your comfort zones with speed. Speed is good isn't it?

Post some pics from the camp.  Mucho congrats!

[midwif]

Thanks Ron!!
I would post pics, IF I HAD TAKEN ANY!!! Brought the camera, made sure it was charged, but never brought it out! Just never "got around to it".
Had a great time at camp. And yes, was feeling more comfort with the idea of speed.

Looking forward to skiing with you guys again!

Lynn

[Gary]

Congrats Lynn....
That is an awesome ski...just curious what bindings are on it?

Sounds to me like camp was challenging and exciting. Both great factors in keeping the drive to improve our ski skills.

Here's hoping you get to take those babies out for some boot high plus and soft and broken snow olympics!

Best,
Gary

[midwif]

Hi gary

bindings are railflex 9. Not the RF 11 with the swivel heel.

I am light enough and unaggressive enough to probably not need the heavier duty bindings.

These skis feel half the weight of the i'C 160's and yet chatter less, handle ice better and crud more limberly. Like them a lot. Now, if a lot of powder, will just be falling anyway, since I have so little chance to ski in the stuff, so am not concerned. And there are always demos!!

Lynn