Snow Drought and Fat Skis

[Svend]

Well said, Liam.  And I agree.  As I just don't ski that way most of the time, short turn radius is definitely not something I look for in a ski.  But versatility is.  I like a ski that will do what I want, go where I want it to go without complaint, and hold my size and weight at speed.  I really don't hold much importance to the turn radius numbers when checking out new skis.  They just don't mean as much as people think they do, IMHO.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the whole turn radius thing is really only a suggestion as to what a given ski can actually do.  Eg: I own a pair of 88mm skis, somewhat stiff in flex and on the heavy side, but with a 23m turn radius, no rocker.  With the right technique, I can flick them around in short snappy turns without blinking.  Similarly, a couple of years ago I spent a few hours on the Head SS Magnum at 13m TR, and found they didn't behave much different than my Head SS Speeds that I owned at the time, which had a 16m TR.  In my mind, the TR numbers meant nothing.  As we always say, this often depends more on the skier than the skis.

[LivingProof]

As I mentioned in my previous post, the whole turn radius thing is really only a suggestion as to what a given ski can actually do.  Eg: I own a pair of 88mm skis, somewhat stiff in flex and on the heavy side, but with a 23m turn radius, no rocker.  With the right technique, I can flick them around in short snappy turns without blinking.  Similarly, a couple of years ago I spent a few hours on the Head SS Magnum at 13m TR, and found they didn't behave much different than my Head SS Speeds that I owned at the time, which had a 16m TR.  In my mind, the TR numbers meant nothing.  As we always say, this often depends more on the skier than the skis.

Svend,

As Max frequently asks "got video". Can't agree with your thinking on this one unless the natural turnshape is skidded. I do exercises all the time with friends where we try to stay in each other's carve track. My Supershapes cannot match the long radius made by a GS ski and they cannot turn within my radius. The skill of the individual skier rules and someone like Max or John Botti or Helluva or Bush can bend into tighter, but, the common man....no.

I would agree that the difference between the Magnum and Speed is not great, but, I know the Magnum is not equal to a basic Supershape with respect to tight turn radius.

[Svend]

I suppose I should elaborate a bit, and be more specific.  Granted, I know there are skis that are so torsionally and laterally stiff that all they want to do is stay within their stated turn radius.  I demoed a Dynastar a few years ago that was like that, and although I've never been on a true race ski, I can imagine they behave similarly.  But....for many (most?) recreational skis, including many high performance models, I think that other factors play an influence on how a ski can turn outside of the TR spec.  Skier weight, ski tip/tail stiffness (relative to the rest of the ski), overall torsional and lateral stiffness, skier technique (power input, fore-aft weight balance, angulation, rotation, inside/outside ski weighting), speed, edge tune, sidecut geometry (sp. not just the TR, but where the curves are placed and their shape), all play a role.  That said, I think my statement that the TR spec is just a suggestion as to a ski's turning preference is quite valid.  True, if pure geometry were the only factor at work here, then all skis would turn as per their spec.  But in the real world, I think it just doesn't go like that.

As for short turns on my 88mm skis, I'm a big guy and can bend a stiff ski.  Further, the tips and tails on these skis are much more pliant than the midsection (Mythic Riders; mixed construction -- cap fore and aft, sidewall underfoot), and therefore bend readily if some leg power is applied in the middle of a turn.  No skidding needed; just put weight more forward, give a solid push with the legs to arc the skis, retract and unweight the inside ski a bit, and around they come.  Not bad for a 23m ski.  And fun to do....

As for rotation....hey, I'm OK with that.  I know that some here seem to consider it to be poor form, but I honestly have never been overly concerned with what is pure form or what isn't.  If I need to use some lower body rotation to bring the skis around quickly, then I'll do that, and consider it a great technique to have in my repertoire to be used when I need it.  I pursue good technique and varied tools as a means to ski better and ski more terrain (= more fun), but not to be a purist and impress others.

Interesting discussion....thank s for the feedback.

Happy New Year to all!

[Liam]

SL skis make high G turns at 20MPH. GS skis require closer to 40MPH and at least 2x the run width. If you have the space GS skis are a blast (unless you do a heluvarelease, in which case they suck).

What's your point?? 

I wasn't talking about race stock skis.   There are plenty of skis that will make gs (or much larger) carved  (or what turn style floats your boat) turns at speeds far less than 40 mph.   You don't need a GS ski to make a gs turn.  I had a Hart Phoenix (with a nice vist speed lock plate and binding) out on the hill today.  The turn radius in the 180 is a 17.5-it bend at speeds far less than 40mph and it is a wonderful tool for medium to large turns at any speed.

As for Sl turns...it makes short turns nicely, too (in the surprising moguls that developed on our limited terrain during this warm week it was wonderful)--but like I said, except for some terrain specific demands, I don't do the the sl turns so much anymore.

I have no idea what speed is required to make a carved sl turn on that ski.

Liam

[HighAngles]

The ability to make consistently great short SL turns, no matter the terrain or conditions, is a true benchmark of skier skill.  Medium to long radius turns provide more time to get things right and are therefore a bit more forgiving of technique problems.  However, it is quite common to still see a lot of "park-n-ride" going on in skiers who think they are making great longer radius turns.

Back on topic - I also agree that skis have gone far too wide for most skiers real needs as daily drivers.  I think that we will see a bit of a backlash from consumers and eventually some manufacturers will come around and bring back more narrower skis.  For me I've settled on the 3 ski quiver (70s, 90s, 110s), but I still have a bunch of stuff that falls in between.  Even with last season's great snow I spent most of my time (>80%) on skis that were 92mm underfoot or less (with much of my time spent on a 76mm).  I find it hard to believe that there's really anyone that should call a ski that's over 100mm wide their daily driver for resort skiing.  A ski that wide requires too much of a compromise unless there's a good amount of fresh snow.

[jbotti]

HA, I agree with you 100% except for your expectation of skier backlash. It's my sense that most skiers are thrilled with the new products, the wider skis and highly rockered skis that are very forgiving of backseat driving and other things common with the intermediate skier skill set. While I hate the skis and feel that most skiers would be better served with quality instruction (emphasis on quality) than by buying highly rockered skis, the new technology is getting intermediates into more difficult terrain and in general they are having more fun. I think the products and the widths are here to stay.

[Liam]

I answered your question about why SL "SHAPED" skis are the most desirable for hard snow and groomers. When compared to a GS "SHAPED" ski they give the high G feel at lower speeds requiring less run width.

Physics.

BS.  Physics doesn't determine one skier's aesthetic preferences over another.  You like short turn because you like them, not because of science.   

If that's your preference, you'll seek out skis that you think will aid in that pursuit.

I'm saying, that even for groomer skiing, I'm no longer interested in locking into a rigid corridor and skiing and endless stream of highly focused short turns.  And for me, skiing skis that are better at stretching out the radius, exploring every and any trail edge to edge...and finding every knoll or undulation to perhaps play on and catch just a little air is my goal.  For me (and not because Isaac Newton says it's so) short turns are for moguls and trees...and not even always there either.

Yesterday, I skied on all three skis I owned, and it turned out my Nomad SFT 181's were the best tool to achieve these ends.

Green Trails and Beastie Boy were also there and, by the day's end, were of a like mind.

BTW, Beastie Boy, you were getting a lot dynamic action out of those New Experience 98's...your changing my mind on whether or not that ski could be called nimble!


Oh, yesterday turned into a very soft-spring snow day at our bump, people on skis between 90-110mm waists were having all the fun.

[LivingProof]

I'm saying, that even for groomer skiing, I'm no longer interested in locking into a rigid corridor and skiing and endless stream of highly focused short turns.  And for me, skiing skis that are better at stretching out the radius, exploring every and any trail edge to edge...and finding every knoll or undulation to perhaps play on and catch just a little air is my goal.  For me (and not because Isaac Newton says it's so) short turns are for moguls and trees...and not even always there either.

Yesterday, I skied on all three skis I owned, and it turned out my Nomad SFT 181's were the best tool to achieve these ends.

Oh, yesterday turned into a very soft-spring snow day at our bump, people on skis between 90-110mm waists were having all the fun.

Admittedly, I spend too much time fretting over some technical stuff and getting a little PO'd when I feel my downhill ski skidding out. As a small eastern "bump-mountain" skier, I share Liam's thoughts about just going out, especially when skiing with friends, and just having some fun. On a good morning, I can get 20 laps in 4 full hours and just can't grind it out every run on the 5 trails I ski. I often think of wider skis as the "not me" skis - the alter ego at work. Cruise faster, look for a little air (and I mean little), feel the wind, smile, investigate anything of interest, ski very relaxed like a noodle, socialize...whateve r. All the technical skills built up don't leave in these periods, and, I believe the skills enable the kid in me to just go play.

Perhaps those who patrol can describe what it's like just going shift after shift, working at something the rest of us consider as playing. It's gotta be mentally fatiguing doing run after run, especially at a small mountain. One way of keeping it fresh is to have different skis (I would think). I have a lot of sympathy for my golf instructor, just standing out all day giving lessons in hot sun.

Not having a storage locker does impede one's ability to make a switch mid-day to a crud type ski, but, there were days this year when I would have loved to have the new Dynastar's to plow through some built up crud as the temp's increase.  Note to self: midweek, put them in the car and make a change as the crust turns to dust.

BTW, this past Thursday, I skied the most crowded trail conditions evahhh! Got there at 8, left at 10. Standing in a lift line, the hill looked like a crowded expressway. One of my skiing thoughts is "make good decisions on the hill" - we left so the body would be in one piece to  ski another day. Come on cold, we need a lot more trials on my bump to be open.

[LivingProof]

I think you missed the point. You can make a high G carved turn on a SL sidecut at slower speeds and in less room. That is why they are desirable to many of us. I've been able to have lots of fun on my SL skis the last couple of weeks. Carved turns on GS skis weren't really an option because of the lack of terrain (less terrain means more skiers per open run).

Max,
Come to my little 1000 ft mountain with 5 open trails and watch the GS equipped kids and recreational racers get up to 40 ( with GPS devices to prove it ). They scare the S***t out of everyone else. It may not be right to permit them to do so, it is very dangerous to others, but, it's reality.

I will never buy the argument that GS speeds can't be reached by recreational skiers and, therefore, no sense in buying them. Using the same logic, nobody would buy a Porshe, but, we know some do.

[HeluvaSkier]

40 is slow for GS skis.

[LivingProof]

40 is slow for GS skis.

Not under my feet!    

I hear you are finally gettin' some (lake effect white stuff). Enjoy