# When is there too much snow?



## tunagod (Mar 16, 2017)

I skied at Pico today and the snow was off the charts. Legit 30" of powder with big drifts.  Blue trails were rendered useless unless you trekked it. The glades had hidden limbs everywhere. Knowing there wasn't much of a base in the trees you ski them differently than I would I am sure.....I am posing a question to the you guys that chase powder every storm. Is there a sweet spot for snow amounts? Most of you are way beyond my ski level and are laughing at this question, but curious what people think.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Mar 16, 2017)

lol "too much snow"


----------



## Tin (Mar 16, 2017)

tunagod said:


> I skied at Pico today and the snow was off the charts. Legit 30" of powder with big drifts.  Blue trails were rendered useless unless you trekked it. The glades had hidden limbs everywhere. Knowing there wasn't much of a base in the trees you ski them differently than I would I am sure.....I am posing a question to the you guys that chase powder every storm. Is there a sweet spot for snow amounts? Most of you are way beyond my ski level and are laughing at this question, but curious what people think.




LOL wtf? Time to get some different skis or try a new a new sport. Pico was nuts today. Intermediate trails especially because people who ski in jeans cannot ski powder and stuck to the groomed stuff. The woods were some of the best I've ever skied, except arounf the Outpost, and you could absolutely bomb down anything. Thigh to chest deep.


----------



## mlctvt (Mar 16, 2017)

did you see the pictures of Tahoe or Mammooth last month when they received 24 to 30 FEET of snow in February? They had to dig the lifts out, maybe that was too much , nah


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Mar 16, 2017)

i'm sad that i've needed to work all week. can't wait to get up this weekend and search out some leftovers in the woods.


----------



## tunagod (Mar 16, 2017)

lol ski in jeans exactly, correct on not having powder skis. Plenty of you are an incredible skier in all conditions no doubt. My guess is you don't ski with kids? You missed my question completely. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Mar 16, 2017)

i've been wondering what happened to tuna...

reincarnation?


----------



## andrec10 (Mar 16, 2017)

Never too much. This is blasphemy!


----------



## chuckstah (Mar 16, 2017)

I ran into a 9 foot storm cycle in Tahoe about 9-10 years ago. It was too much for my group as all the lifts, and most of the roads were closed.  Missed skiing 3 days, and had to divert to Heavenly over Kirkwood for another day,  and had to walk a good distance to get there. Is it too much snow?  No, but it can really f up a trip.  The skiing was epic when the lifts finally turned, but you didn't want to be the first one on anything with a runout back to the chair. 

Sent from my LGMS345 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## eatskisleep (Mar 16, 2017)

Having the right equipment can make a huge difference. Wide powder skis will make it easier to float in deep powder, even on the flatter trails. A tighter ski stance will help too with your legs closer together. 

As far as too much? It can happen, but if you are at a place like MRG where it is steep enough, that is a noter story.


----------



## Bumpsis (Mar 16, 2017)

Of course there can be too much snow! It all depends where and your level of experience with really deep snow.
 When I lived in W. New York and lake effects snow dumps came to places like Kissing Bridge which was just a low angle ridge ski area, too much powder would essentially stop your downhill progress if you decided to make turn. 

Being an eastern skier and not having too many chances to learn how to ski powder, I was faced with "bottomless" powder conditions during a trip to British Columbia. I was out of my "depth", really. Wide, powder skis don't help much if you don't know how to ski it. I've never encountered such conditions and it was intimidating. My quads were not ready for such work and the technique just did not click for me. Falling in such deep stuff was also a bit frightening because it was super tough to get up not having any resistance from your ski poles. This really undermined my confidence, also being aware of tree wells.
I'd like to think that I'm a fairly decent eastern skier, having Tuckerman's descents and number of other challenges out west  and in Europe under my belt. Yet, skiing "bottomless" powder without really know how to do this, was rather unnerving. Too much snow? Yes, I'm sure, for a number of us.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2017)

Tin said:


> LOL wtf? Time to get some different skis or try a new a new sport. Pico was nuts today. Intermediate trails especially because people who ski in jeans cannot ski powder and stuck to the groomed stuff. The woods were some of the best I've ever skied, except arounf the Outpost, and you could absolutely bomb down anything. Thigh to chest deep.


Was that you I saw cranking Newports and pounding Bud heavies in the lift line?

Don't mind Tin OP.  He's a little touched, but only bites small children.

His point on skis is worth considering though.  When it's super dry and light snow, a skilled skier can do fine on even the skinniest of skis.  When it's heavy snow, using skis below 90 is still really challenging for even the best skiers unless they are in great shape and can power through it.  Most still want to be on something 100+ in deep snow. 

Next time you find yourself out on a day like today, demo some powder skis, even out your weight distribution over the skis and I think you'll have an eye opening experience.   30" on the East coast is really special.  I think Ive had maybe 10 of those days in my 33 years of skiing. 

And to answer your question, no, there is never too much snow.  Rewind your calendar two weeks and there's your reason why.  February started off incredible and it all went away in a hurry at most Northeast mountains. 



Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Not Sure (Mar 16, 2017)

Theres only too much snow if it prevents you from getting to the ski area.....Pre position or stand in line for powder scraps.


----------



## JimG. (Mar 16, 2017)

I don't understand the question. What is too much snow?


----------



## bdfreetuna (Mar 16, 2017)

If it's too much for you, wait for other people to ski it and enjoy the woods once they're tracked out.

This recent storm snow is so light and dry I don't think there's such a thing as too much.


----------



## tunagod (Mar 16, 2017)

Guys we're drinking pbr's waiting in line at 815. Wish I was still in college. I do appreciate the responses. I am sure tin crushes it in all depths of snow, but for me today was a more difficult day than say 12" of powder a month ago, which is why I asked the question. No denying my level of ability either. Would fat skis make that much of a difference for an average skier?


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## sankaty (Mar 16, 2017)

I was at Pico today.  It's true that the snow was so deep that it could prevent forward progress in flattish sections, even with powder skis and good technique, but they had groomed sections in those places so it was possible to bail out if necessary.  Once those sections got slightly tracked, they skied great.

The rest of the mountain was sublime.  I did find some submerged obstacles in the trees though.  There's that leap of faith moment when charging through a drift where I wonder if it's actually a buried tree limb.  Ninety percent of the time it works out great, but that tenth time . . .


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2017)

tunagod said:


> Would fat skis make that much of a difference for an average skier?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



Absolutely yes


Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## sankaty (Mar 16, 2017)

+1

Wider skis with some rocker are a total game changer in deep snow and trees.  98mm is a good compromise width for eastern powder, but even wider is better if you can manage dedicated powder skis.


----------



## prsboogie (Mar 16, 2017)

Well ill give you this, it was a hell of a way to jump onto the forum. Welcome and no, never too deep unless you live where it's always deep! Then, well, still no!


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 16, 2017)

sankaty said:


> +1
> 
> Wider skis with some rocker are a total game changer in deep snow and trees.  98mm is a good compromise width for eastern powder, but even wider is better if can manage dedicated powder skis.


Yes, that's a good compromise

If I only was to have one pair of skis in the East and I skied North enough that powder and trees being open frequently was my common experience, I would buy something in the 95 - 100 range.

If those conditions where infrequent for me, but I still valued good performance the few days a season I got to ski them, 88-92 would be what I'd want.

Right now my everyday ski is a 90 and my powder ski a 107.  Love them both. I'm pretty particular about performance though. The 90s are mostly great, but leave something to be desired on the boilerplate days.  A 90 width is also still a bit too burly for proper ziplinning bumps.  

I finally tried a set of modern bump skis with Savemeasammy a couple weeks ago and holy cow what a difference.  Made me want a pair in a big way, but I'm guessing they wouldn't deliver what I want on boilerplate.  Going to a four ski quiver seems a bit much.  I'll probably eventually grab something in the 75-80 range that has great bite on the hard stuff, but also can zip well. I think something like a Head irally would fit the bill.

Ski manufacturing has gotten so advanced it really has me by the balls.  The manufacturers have gotten so good at producing equipment for specific conditions that once you try such a ski, it makes you not want to compromise.  

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Savemeasammy (Mar 17, 2017)

OP - this was alluded to by someone, but deep snow is great on steeps, but not so much on flats.  I was at Pico in the morning yesterday (and also another powder day in Dec).  Pico has some really flat runouts to the summit quad, and imo these runouts should have at least one groomer track in the center.  That would allow people to get some speed so they could venture back into the deep pow for a few turns.  As it was, there were a number of runouts that had a singletrack leading out.  Your results will vary of course.  If you are on fat, floaty powder boards, you will have an easier go of it.  

Off topic:  DHS, my F17 WC's have a regular tune with a 90 degree edge (rather than a beveled mogul tune).  I find they ski hardpack surprisingly well.  


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## SIKSKIER (Mar 17, 2017)

This


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 17, 2017)

Two categories.

1. Power outages and serious threat to life. Like what CA has dealt with this year, and I remember Hunter a number of years ago with 84" in a week, and the town kept losing power.  That is obviously too much snow.

2. "First World Problem" too much snow.  This can be split into two sub-categories.
     a. Inability to ski deep snow. Whether by inexperience, lack of ability, or inappropriate gear, this is a legitimate issue; but it's on          you, not the snow.
     b. Lack of steeps.  I was at Jack Frost on Wednesday.  They got 30" on Tuesday and another 5" on Wednesday.  The mountain               lacks any sustained vertical, and is very much like a stair step.  So you'd get 3-4 nice turns, then have to flounder and duck             walk to the next drop.  Repeat 3-4 times to the bottom.  It was better than not skiing powder at all, but I can see where the             more casual skier would get fed up with the process.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 17, 2017)

tunagod said:


> *Would fat skis make that much of a difference for an average skier?*



Definitely.

For the longest time, my only skis were 67mm underfoot, submarining in deep snow and I was a _horrendous_ tree skier.  Then I bought a pair of 90mm underfoot and it made an incredible difference, overnight I became a _bad_ tree skier.  Seeing such improvement, I bought a pair of Rossy S7's, which are 115mm underfoot and that helped in deep snow even move, making me merely a _poor_ tree skier.


----------



## kingslug (Mar 17, 2017)

The only way to learn to ski deep snow..is to go to places that get it. I floundered for years in Utah on my Skinny skis, then rented, then bought. It just takes practice, which is tough when we don't get anything deep. Its like skiing super steep narrow chutes, tough to practice that here. I t may sound crazy but I watched TGR and MSP films a million times and studied how they moved around. But then would have to go west to try it out. So any chance you get, even if its only 6 inches..practice.


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 17, 2017)

Do these fat skis that float along the surface make 30" of powder feel like 8"?


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 17, 2017)

Depends on the ski, the skier, the technique, the terrain, and the snow.


----------



## Cornhead (Mar 17, 2017)

Domeskier said:


> Do these fat skis that float along the surface make 30" of powder feel like 8"?


Not if you weigh 260lbs, but every bit helps. Haven't got stuck since I got 132mm underfoot. I had more fun at Belle Tuesday afternoon, much fluffier snow than Platty Wednesday. I think the wind packed it in, felt alot denser. More work to ski. Fluffier in the trees though.






Sent from my Moto G (4) using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## kingslug (Mar 17, 2017)

I ski a 105 in everything. I designed them for ice and powder. Yes 120's would be better in the deep stuff but murder on ice. Technique is the biggie though. I've seen people rip through 3 feet on 75 underfoot, old school style. They say they like to sink in and pop out. Wider skis are like water skiing. Which is how I describe it to people who have trouble in it. You can't use hardpack technique, you'll end up breaking something, like you leg.


----------



## Griswold (Mar 17, 2017)

Savemeasammy said:


> OP - this was alluded to by someone, but deep snow is great on steeps, but not so much on flats.  I was at Pico in the morning yesterday (and also another powder day in Dec).  Pico has some really flat runouts to the summit quad, and imo these runouts should have at least one groomer track in the center.  That would allow people to get some speed so they could venture back into the deep pow for a few turns.  As it was, there were a number of runouts that had a singletrack leading out.  Your results will vary of course.  If you are on fat, floaty powder boards, you will have an easier go of it.
> 
> Off topic:  DHS, my F17 WC's have a regular tune with a 90 degree edge (rather than a beveled mogul tune).  I find they ski hardpack surprisingly well.
> 
> ...



So your side edge is 90?  What is your base edge at?  Just bought mogul skis so am curious what edge bevels most people tune them to.  Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Quietman (Mar 17, 2017)

I don't need no stinking bevel!    90 on bottom and side for me


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 17, 2017)

Griswold said:


> So your side edge is 90?  What is your base edge at?  Just bought mogul skis so am curious what edge bevels most people tune them to.  Thanks



Kinda curious about the purported benefits of beveled edges for mogul skiing.  I have three pairs of mogul skis and have no idea what the shop does to the edges when I get them tuned.  If it's just for world cup skiers to go a little faster than their world cup skiing opponents, I think I'm good.


----------



## raisingarizona (Mar 17, 2017)

Griswold said:


> So your side edge is 90?  What is your base edge at?  Just bought mogul skis so am curious what edge bevels most people tune them to.  Thanks
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



What skis did you get? I need to get some mogul skis for next season.


----------



## Griswold (Mar 17, 2017)

raisingarizona said:


> What skis did you get? I need to get some mogul skis for next season.



K2 244 mamba.  Got them on eBay from a shop in Canada with look pivot 14 bindings included for about $500.  Considering the bindings retail for about $350, I thought it was a good deal.  Looking forward to trying them next weekend at killington.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## raisingarizona (Mar 18, 2017)

Griswold said:


> K2 244 mamba.  Got them on eBay from a shop in Canada with look pivot 14 bindings included for about $500.  Considering the bindings retail for about $350, I thought it was a good deal.  Looking forward to trying them next weekend at killington.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



Nice! I love the top sheet graphics on those. My first google was for Harts but they are freaking expensive. It seems like most of the serious bumpers are really into the Dynastars but I probably wouldn't know the difference anyways. How tall are you and what length did you go with?


----------



## Griswold (Mar 18, 2017)

raisingarizona said:


> Nice! I love the top sheet graphics on those. My first google was for Harts but they are freaking expensive. It seems like most of the serious bumpers are really into the Dynastars but I probably wouldn't know the difference anyways. How tall are you and what length did you go with?



Yeah, I wanted Harts too but they are more than I wanted to spend.  I'm 5"10 and got the 173's.  Also looked at the twisters too but ended up going with these because of the money difference.  Here is the exact link if interested.

http://m.ebay.com/itm/311778249243?_mwBanner=1







Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## prsboogie (Mar 18, 2017)

Griswold said:


> Yeah, I wanted Harts too but they are more than I wanted to spend.  I'm 5"10 and got the 173's.  Also looked at the twisters too but ended up going with these because of the money difference.  Here is the exact link if interested.
> 
> http://m.ebay.com/itm/311778249243?_mwBanner=1
> 
> ...



Same company just direct from them - price is in CAD funds 
http://www.corbetts.com/2017-k2-244-mens-mogel-skis-only/


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## mishka (Mar 18, 2017)

tunagod said:


> Guys we're drinking pbr's waiting in line at 815. Wish I was still in college. I do appreciate the responses. I am sure tin crushes it in all depths of snow, but for me today was a more difficult day than say 12" of powder a month ago, which is why I asked the question. No denying my level of ability either. Would fat skis make that much of a difference for an average skier?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



 12 inches is not the same as truly bottomless.  deeper it gets  hard to ski on skinny short skis.

There are many discussions on the subject "does it need to own wide powder skis". This thread is great example of it. Maybe for some it's would be one ONE day season when they need pow skis but that day can create memory of lifetime or miserable day and thread like this one ..... your choice

but on another hand.... in January  I found myself in mineral basin at Snowbird which was closed five days and three big storms with visibility about 10 yards. The only way I could determine direction and steepness of the slope by see many people down the slope who felt and looking for their skinny skis


----------



## bdfreetuna (Mar 19, 2017)

Either no bevel or negative 1 degree, maybe 2 degree bevel if you want to rip it up on ice. But this can get "hooky" if you aren't prepared to carve every turn. No bevel IMO best all-mountain, all-conditions.

I can't see basically detuning my entire ski just so slipping mogul lines is a little faster. I have old rock skis I don't maintain for that.


----------



## mikec142 (Mar 21, 2017)

Couple of thoughts.  Too much snow?  Maybe...

1.  If you can't get to the mountain.
2.  If the mountain loses power.
3.  If the lifts are buried.
4.  If the visibility is zero.
5.  And the real killer, the mountain is closed.

I was at Squaw Valley over President's Day weekend when they received about 7 feet of snow.  On our last day, there was literally only one lift running.

I'm primarily skiing on the east coast and ski on Rossignol Experience 88's.  Last year in Jackson I demoed the Soul 7's and loved them.  This year in Tahoe I started out on the Line Sir Francis Bacon's (104 under foot) and didn't love them.  Then switched to the Line Sick Day's which were 114 under foot and hated them.  Ended up with the new Nordica Enforcer 100's and absolutely loved them.  I wonder how they'd ski back home at Sugarbush on an average day.


----------



## Jully (Mar 21, 2017)

The Enforcer 93s are awesome and are better suited to the east coast. Skis very similar in my experience. Loved the demo I did of them this year.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Mar 21, 2017)

every time i see someone on the nordica enforcer 100s i think how much i like the look and shape of the ski. from what i've read it seems to be up my alley too in terms of being a bit on the stiff and stable side. cool ski. 

i don't think 100 is too fat for daily eastern use. i ski 105s every day. 118s out west.


----------



## tunagod (Mar 21, 2017)

Took everyone's advice. Researched and Demoed some skis at Wawa over the last couple of days. Salomon Qst 99, line 100's. Coming from a 73 mm what a difference. Night and day. I was hoping to try the enforcer but wasn't available for demo. I really liked the qst 99. Also got a great deal on them. 30 percent off . The whole package was under $500 with bindings, which I thought was a good deal. Thanks for everyone's advice. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Mar 21, 2017)

once you go fat you never go back

try some indie brands next time. moment, armada, dps, etc doing way more interesting things than rossi, atomic, salomon etc, in my opinion


----------



## cdskier (Mar 21, 2017)

KustyTheKlown said:


> once you go fat you never go back
> 
> try some indie brands next time. moment, armada, dps, etc doing way more interesting things than rossi, atomic, salomon etc, in my opinion



The main problem with indie brands is that it isn't as easy to find them to demo in some areas...I'd love to try some of those at some point though.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 21, 2017)

KustyTheKlown said:


> once you go fat you never go back



I disagree with this and I was an early adopter of Fat skis getting my first pair in 2000.  A set of 110 Rossi Axioms. Skied them every day that season, but I was ski bumming in Stowe during the biggest winter maybe ever for Northern VT.  Stowe had something like 440" that year, Jay well over 500. 

My daily now is a Steadfast 90.  I have a Vagabond 107 that I've taken out maybe five times and I've had great timing with a lot of fresh days this year.  Unless I'm in 8+ or it's heavy windblown that deflects tips easily, I'll take the narrower ski every time.  So much quicker edge to edge, much better at getting a high edge angle when carving and a lighter swing weight to maneuver faster in tight trees and chutes.

Having recently tried a modern bump ski, I'm really tempted at buying a pair for great bump days. Shocking performance compared to even something in the 80s. The conflict is I also want a hard snow carving ski as I know the performance will be vastly better than my Steadfasts.

Probably not next season, but when I do buy a new set of sticks it will be either a pure bump ski or a race inspired carving ski. Ideally I'd love to find something that splits the difference. The Head irally has reviews that it does just that, but I haven't demoed a pair.



Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Mar 21, 2017)

not my style, but this blurb from the i-rally review is intriguing. 

"KERS energy management system stores electrical energy in a chip. This energy is sourced from the kinetic energy which travels through the ski while you're tearing it up. When sensors detect chatter, resulting from icey conditions, this stored electric energy is strategiclly released in order to stiffen the ski and thereby improve your ability to sink the edge. Conversely, they remain softer in forgiving terrain, taking some of the work out of navigating bumps and trees."

robot skis.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 21, 2017)

Yeah, I've read about that robot stuff. Seems like a gimic to me. I'm mostly interested in the skis dimensions and construction combined with Heads reputation for making the best carving skis on the market in recent years.  I tried their WC Rebel SL race skis a few years ago and they were unreal on groomed snow.

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## goldsbar (Mar 22, 2017)

tunagod said:


> Took everyone's advice. Researched and Demoed some skis at Wawa over the last couple of days. Salomon Qst 99, line 100's. Coming from a 73 mm what a difference. Night and day. I was hoping to try the enforcer but wasn't available for demo. I really liked the qst 99. Also got a great deal on them. 30 percent off . The whole package was under $500 with bindings, which I thought was a good deal. Thanks for everyone's advice.



I have the Q98s, which are the forerunner to the QST 99.  Great ski for soft snow for a lighter skier like myself.  Terrific value even at full price.  Keep the 73s, though.  High 90s are just way too wide for typical EC days IMO and start to get clunky for aggressive and/or zipper type bump skiing.  Let's just say the majority of my days are not like last Sunday at Plattekill, where the Q98s were 100% perfect.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 22, 2017)

KustyTheKlown said:


> *i don't think 100 is too fat for daily eastern use.* i ski 105s every day. 118s out west.



Yeah, when the conditions get nice, but there's no reason to be skiing 100mm underfoot in the east until then.  

If I'm skiing early season groomers when the woods aren't in play, I'm on my 67mm skis.

My daily drivers once the woods open are 90mm underfoot, and my great conditions skis are 115mm underfoot.


----------



## Not Sure (Mar 22, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yeah, when the conditions get nice, but there's no reason to be skiing 100mm underfoot in the east until then.
> 
> If I'm skiing early season groomers when the woods aren't in play, I'm on my 67mm skis.
> 
> My daily drivers once the woods open are 90mm underfoot, and my great conditions skis are 115mm underfoot.



I found 90 handles groomers better than my 78 although they are diffrent skis. I skied the same conditions at Blue opening day last year with both pairs and 90 was more enjoyable . To each his own 

Question about lengths and ski surface area ,weight per square cm ? I haven't seen any discussion about this subject anywhere but seems like it would be relevant for choosing a pair for conditions . You would have to know surface area and your all up weight skis,bindings ,personal weight and clothing. Just curious if there are recomended parameters for diffrent conditions? Avation goes by "Wingloading" lbs per square foot. I understad ski stiffness would play a factor too.


----------



## cdskier (Mar 22, 2017)

My normal "early-season" or "hardpack" skis are 85 under foot. A few years ago I tried using my older skis that were 66 at the waist and hated them. Once we have "packed powder" or better conditions though, I'm on my 98 waist Nordicas. Under those surface conditions I prefer them to my narrower skis even on groomers.

So I agree to each his own. It is tempting to think about trying something even wider for true powder days, but I'm just not sure I could get enough use out of them to justify it at this point.


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 22, 2017)

When the width conversation comes up, I always point out, it's all about expectations and cost.  I think it's overly dismissive to say 90s, or even 100 is too wide for an everyday Eastern ski.  I currently ski on 89, and my next ski will likely be mid to upper 90s.  I don't really care whether I can put my hip to the snow and lay a trench on hardpack that I couldn't poke my pole through.  I just want to get down the slope in a safe and manageable way until I can find something softer that interests me more.  So if I slarve some turns, that's fine with me.  I'll gladly take that for some versatility in the trees, bumps, and whatever else I typically find (or try to find) on an average day.

But the nice thing about skis over the past 5-10 years, is that they make all different kinds of variations.  Fat skis can be stiff and put on edge.  Skinny(-ish) skis can be soft and floppy for deeper snow.  Width by itself is no longer the end all be all.


----------



## dlague (Mar 22, 2017)

St. Bear said:


> When the width conversation comes up, I always point out, it's all about expectations and cost.  I think it's overly dismissive to say 90s, or even 100 is too wide for an everyday Eastern ski.  I currently ski on 89, and my next ski will likely be mid to upper 90s.  I don't really care whether I can put my hip to the snow and lay a trench on hardpack that I couldn't poke my pole through.  I just want to get down the slope in a safe and manageable way until I can find something softer that interests me more.  So if I slarve some turns, that's fine with me.  I'll gladly take that for some versatility in the trees, bumps, and whatever else I typically find (or try to find) on an average day.
> 
> But the nice thing about skis over the past 5-10 years, is that they make all different kinds of variations.  Fat skis can be stiff and put on edge.  Skinny(-ish) skis can be soft and floppy for deeper snow.  Width by itself is no longer the end all be all.



I skied on a 97 back east and still ski it today in Colorado.  I kept them sharp back east but never really sharpened them here until end of February.  The past few weeks has required good edges.

I had planned on buying a 110-120 underfoot ski for Colorado but a local told me not to bother and felt that my currently ski should manage and they did.

I think the side cut makes all the difference in the world.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 23, 2017)

St. Bear said:


> I think *it's overly dismissive to say 90s, or even 100 is too wide for an everyday Eastern ski.*



It's really not about what you "can" do, it's about what's the best option at a given moment in time for those snow conditions.  Skis are merely tools.  You can use a flat-head screwdriver for many useful things, but it's specifically best at screwing in nails.  

 I'm fine on my 90mm underfoot skis on hardpack and they do well, but I'm being disingenuous if I claim they're "better" than my 67mm skis that are specifically designed for those conditions.  This is really all very obvious, of course, as Kjetil Jansrud or Travis Ganong could just as easily race FIS on 100m underfoot skis, but they don't.

I think 90mm is great as an "everyday eastern ski", but only once the conditions are good enough that they can shine, but not before.


----------



## Jully (Mar 23, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's really not about what you "can" do, it's about what's the best option at a given moment in time for those snow conditions.  Skis are merely tools.  *You can use a flat-head screwdriver for many useful things, but it's specifically best at screwing in nails. *



Agreed 100%


----------



## cdskier (Mar 23, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> You can use a flat-head screwdriver for many useful things, but it's specifically best at screwing in nails.



Hmm...I prefer a hammer myself for nails.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 23, 2017)

cdskier said:


> Hmm...I prefer a hammer myself for nails.



Good catch.  Using the screwdriver on nails would be more like using 115mm underfoot in typical November / early December eastern conditions.  It can be done, but it's really not best for the job.


----------



## dlague (Mar 23, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's really not about what you "can" do, it's about what's the best option at a given moment in time for those snow conditions.  Skis are merely tools.  You can use a flat-head screwdriver for many useful things, but it's specifically best at screwing in nails.
> 
> I'm fine on my 90mm underfoot skis on hardpack and they do well, but I'm being disingenuous if I claim they're "better" than my 67mm skis that are specifically designed for those conditions.  This is really all very obvious, of course, as Kjetil Jansrud or Travis Ganong could just as easily race FIS on 100m underfoot skis, but they don't.
> 
> I think 90mm is great as an "everyday eastern ski", but only once the conditions are good enough that they can shine, but not before.



Then the real questions is - If you are a one pair of skis skier then what now becomes the best tool?  I would not want to get a 67 underfoot ski to handle all conditions back east, likewise, I would not want to get a 115 underfoot either.  A 90-100 underfoot ski does satisfy a sweet spot for the one ski quiver (hate to use that term).

Buying gear for more than one person does not allow for an ice ski, a powder ski, mogul ski, or an all mountain with great conditions ski, etc.  in my case 97 underfoot with nice side cut has worked out well.


----------



## goldsbar (Mar 23, 2017)

Quivers can be built over time.  I still happily use my 2004 Fischer SC's (slalom-lite style ski).  The tech has changed the most on the wider skis.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 23, 2017)

goldsbar said:


> Quivers can be built over time.  I still happily use my 2004 Fischer SC's (slalom-lite style ski).  The tech has changed the most on the wider skis.



This is a very good point.  Two years ago I finally retired the aforementioned Rossi Axiom Powder skis I bought in 2000.  I guess they're not fully retired as I still have them, but they were replaced.  So, 15 years out of a powder specialty ski.  Unless I bust the Vagabonds, I fully intend on keeping them the same amount of time skiing them probably 5 days a season.  At 75 days use with well taken care of bases, the skis are only "middle aged".  It's really the bindings that will be toast at that point. I only replaced the Axioms because technology has changed to make the new powder skis that much better.  If there's no compelling technology changes 15 years from now for powder skis, maybe I'll just replace the bindings and keep the Vagabonds even longer. 

You should be able to get at least 150 days out of a set of well constructed skis provided you take care of the bases, don't stone grind the hell out of them and not rip an edge.  Adding a specialty ski whether it's for powder, hard snow carving or bumps just extends the life of your daily drivers.  

IMO it's a worthwhile investment for the added performance you get buying a ski designed specifically for certain terrain/conditions.  I make the same argument for snow tires. They're a worthwhile investment for the added performance they provide and extend the lift of my summer tires in the process.


----------



## chrisbk (Mar 23, 2017)

i've daily driven a pair of 125mm g3 empires for the last 2 seasons.  They're a suprisingly stiff fully rockered ski (lots of rocker in the tips).  I ski at Mad River Glen almost exclusively, trees and bumps, which is meaningful to this given conditions the last 2 years (lots of awfulness).  I only ski groomers with my kids or to get somewhere.  I've never had them tuned at all aside from some spray wax i put on twice this year (probably 60-70 days on them), and as i said they are full rocker so my effective edge is about 90cm 

my other skis are a 105mm line influence.  they are awesome...but i've only skied them 2x in the last 2 years.  i would highly highly highly recommend them to anyone who wants a wider ski that is great in the fluff but can also rail hardpack.  i think they are the "best" ski i've ever skied in terms of versatility.  i'd buy another pair if i saw them on sale for a backup.  i think 105-110 is probably the ideal size for a 1 ski quiver on the east coast.

But why haven't i skied the 105s?  the g3s may not be "best", but they are the most fun and that's why i have been skiing them.  i can run over any kind of crud, chopped powder, whatever.  they're like a steamroller; it doesn't matter.  stability landing jumps is excellent.  quicker edge to edge than you think, and they're probably lighter than the Lines.  it's a little more work in the bumps but at the same time their skiddy nature isn't a bad thing there.  if there is say 3+ inches of power, they become absolutely wonderful stiff floaty skis.  they were glorious on the deeper days this year.  when conditions are bad (eg all of last season), it's very interesting trying to handle them.  i enjoy that challenge however. it is a lot of fun and requires a real change in how i think about skiing icy stuff.  i think the challenge has improved my balance and stance and consciousness of my body position - in other words it has made me a better skier.  and you know what?  if there's a groomer that's in good condition?  they're fine. they like to go fast

point being, what's best isn't always "best".  don't get hung up on width.  i've gone from 74 to 87 to 105 to 125 and i am happy as a clam.  recently got my 4'11 wife to go from a 90 to a 108 and she hasn't looked back.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 23, 2017)

If what's best isn't always 'best" then why isn't Hart's latest mogul ski 120mm?

Don't get me wrong.  People can have fun skiing all sorts of different shapes and sizes of skis.  I say go for it.  That fact remains is that there is engineering science behind why certain skis are built the way they are.  There has been a tremendous amount of "blending" to create that "one quiver ski" in about the 85-105 range over the past ten years with some astonishingly versatile results.  However, that one "all mountain" ski always is giving up some aspects of performance that a skilled skier will notice.  I guess it boils down to the tolerance of the individual skier as to what performance aspect they are willing to give up.

  Personally, my tolerance is decreasing.  I really enjoy riding the perfect tool for the terrain/conditions at hand.  You ski better with the perfect tool.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 23, 2017)

dlague said:


> *Then the real questions is - If you are a one pair of skis skier then what now becomes the best tool? * I would not want to get a 67 underfoot ski to handle all conditions back east, likewise, I would not want to get a 115 underfoot either.  A 90-100 underfoot ski does satisfy a sweet spot for the one ski quiver (hate to use that term).



If I were forced to only own one pair of all-mountain skis for eastern conditions, I'd go with approximately 90mm underfoot. 

 I think that's about the perfect "Jack of all trades" there. 

It's not going to be awesome in the moguls, but it is capable.
It's not going to be a surfing powder ski, but it provides okay flotation for you to have fun.
It's not a 65mm FIS race ski, but you''ll still feel safe ripping turns at high speeds on groomers.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 24, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> If I were forced to only own one pair of all-mountain skis for eastern conditions, I'd go with approximately 90mm underfoot.
> 
> I think that's about the perfect "Jack of all trades" there.
> 
> ...


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. 



Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## jimk (Mar 24, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> Having recently tried a modern bump ski, I'm really tempted at buying a pair for great bump days. Shocking performance compared to even something in the 80s. The conflict is I also want a hard snow carving ski as I know the performance will be vastly better than my Steadfasts.
> 
> Probably not next season, but when I do buy a new set of sticks it will be either a pure bump ski or a race inspired carving ski. Ideally I'd love to find something that splits the difference. The Head irally has reviews that it does just that, but I haven't demoed a pair.
> 
> ...



What was the dedicated bump ski you demo'd and liked?

Like you, I have a pair of Vagabonds (107mm).  They are pretty much my daily driver out west.  And at places like Snowbird they are some of the skinniest skis in the tram line:lol:


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 24, 2017)

Savemeasammy let me borrow a pair of his Hart F17s.  They were  lightening quick snapping off turns.  Effortless

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## chrisbk (Mar 24, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> If what's best isn't always 'best" then why isn't Hart's latest mogul ski 120mm?
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  People can have fun skiing all sorts of different shapes and sizes of skis.  I say go for it.  That fact remains is that there is engineering science behind why certain skis are built the way they are.  There has been a tremendous amount of "blending" to create that "one quiver ski" in about the 85-105 range over the past ten years with some astonishingly versatile results.  However, that one "all mountain" ski always is giving up some aspects of performance that a skilled skier will notice.  I guess it boils down to the tolerance of the individual skier as to what performance aspect they are willing to give up.
> 
> Personally, my tolerance is decreasing.  I really enjoy riding the perfect tool for the terrain/conditions at hand.  You ski better with the perfect tool.





yeah i agree about the versatile ski size --- i'd lean to the 105 end of the spectrum because i think a 90mm is too limiting in crud and soft snow.


----------



## chrisbk (Mar 24, 2017)

i haven't demo'd these but will if i ever have the chance:  

https://4frnt.com/products/originator


----------



## Jully (Mar 24, 2017)

chrisbk said:


> i haven't demo'd these but will if i ever have the chance:
> 
> https://4frnt.com/products/originator



I'd love to demo those too. I'll be on the lookout for those next season for sure.


----------



## madriverjack (Mar 24, 2017)

Try the dynastar twisters if you get a chance. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## jimk (Mar 24, 2017)

chrisbk said:


> i haven't demo'd these but will if i ever have the chance:
> 
> https://4frnt.com/products/originator



I wanted a new Eastern front side ski this past fall and got a pair of Nrgy 80s.  They feel good on groomers/hardpack, but I wish I'd picked up something like those.  I'm not that into fast groomer carving, but if a ski like that would help me in the bumps - that's an old man's dream  I skied skinny skis for decades, so I'm not afraid to go back to something like 65mm.

A friend from Utah on his wider 4FRNT Devastator skis this January:


----------



## dlague (Mar 24, 2017)

Try doing that when you are buying gear for 6.


goldsbar said:


> Quivers can be built over time.  I still happily use my 2004 Fischer SC's (slalom-lite style ski).  The tech has changed the most on the wider skis.




Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Savemeasammy (Mar 24, 2017)

Griswold said:


> So your side edge is 90?  What is your base edge at?  Just bought mogul skis so am curious what edge bevels most people tune them to.  Thanks
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



Sorry.  Didn't see this til now.  By 90, I just mean that it's a regular tune, no bevel one way or the other.  I used to bevel the edges both ways at 2 degrees, but the regular hardpack trail skiing performance ranged anywhere from crappy to downright scary!  Each time I dialed it back a bit, and I found I enjoyed a .5/.5.  (This was on my f17 classics).  This summer I bought a pair of F17 WC's, and I decided to try skiing them with the factory tune.  I discovered that I liked it just fine (and in fact I used them for a while in a race league for gates).  That said, my technique is more straight down the hill than it is skidding, so sharp edges aren't as much of a penalty.  Sometimes when the bumps are bulletproof, I will ski with more of a skid, and I find the tails are a bit grabby, but I'm willing to live with it...

I don't see 244's out there very much, but I saw someone skiing some at Ragged last Sunday!


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 24, 2017)

madriverjack said:


> Try the dynastar twisters if you get a chance.



I second this recommendation.  Just switched from F17 classics and won't go back until mud and rock season.  They are great in NE ice bumps, probably because the lack of side-cut makes them easier to skid.  Looking forward to seeing how they perform in spring conditions.  The factory tune seems fine to me.


----------



## dlague (Mar 24, 2017)

chrisbk said:


> i haven't demo'd these but will if i ever have the chance:
> 
> https://4frnt.com/products/originator



I have seen those posted on here before.  I would like to give them a run for the fun of it.  However, I am not the type to hit moguls all day.  So at a 64 waist it becomes a functional ski for bumps and ripping groomers.  It would also work well for tracked out trees.  Geez, I think I am talking myself into them.  I have not skied anything under 87 underfoot in over 10 years.  

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 24, 2017)

dlague said:


> However, I am not the type to hit moguls all day.  So at a 64 waist it becomes a functional ski for bumps and ripping groomers.



Couldn't find the dimensions on those skis, but if they do not have a lot of side cut, they probably won't be much help in ripping groomers.  Hart's F-17 classics would be more appropriate if you want a bump ski that performs well on groomers too.

EDIT - Should have scrolled down...  Looks like these are pure bump skis.  Will be a pain to carve up groomers with, especially if you've been skiing shaped skis for the past 20 years or more.


----------



## sankaty (Mar 24, 2017)

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

The Magnums are for hard pack groomer days, which I try to avoid as much as possible, so I use them less the 20% of the time.  They are great for hard snow, but I find the stiffness a bit annoying for anything else.  I'm pretty lightweight (150 lbs) and prefer quick turns/bumps/trees to speed, so I don't need a very stiff ski for my preferred skiing.

The majority of the time is split between the Ones and the BWs.  I used to ski the BWs more, as I prefer the narrowness in bumps, but as I've gotten used to the 98mm over the years, I now prefer the Ones in more cases than the BWs.  The BWs are still my choice for days when I know there won't be any unpacked snow, and I love them in the spring corn bumps.

I used to have 67mm carvers instead of the Magnums.  On days when I'd start on the 67s and then switch to something wider during the day, I'd find the adjustment period annoying.  I like that my current hard snow skis are wider, as I maintain the wider hip/knee/angle swing required to get them on edge, which makes switching skis pretty seamless.


----------



## dlague (Mar 24, 2017)

Domeskier said:


> Couldn't find the dimensions on those skis, but if they do not have a lot of side cut, they probably won't be much help in ripping groomers.  Hart's F-17 classics would be more appropriate if you want a bump ski that performs well on groomers too.
> 
> EDIT - Should have scrolled down...  Looks like these are pure bump skis.  Will be a pain to carve up groomers with, especially if you've been skiing shaped skis for the past 20 years or more.


You can see the side cut but here are the dimensions. 90x64x80

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 24, 2017)

dlague said:


> You can see the side cut but here are the dimensions. 90x64x80
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app



Yep.  Even less side cut than the Twisters, which suck at those mandatory GS turns on groomers.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 24, 2017)

deadheadskier said:


> 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.




sankaty said:


> *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 (Mar 24, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> 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?


----------



## Not Sure (Mar 24, 2017)

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 (Mar 24, 2017)

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 (Mar 24, 2017)

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 (Mar 24, 2017)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> 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 (Mar 24, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> 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 (Mar 24, 2017)

Domeskier said:


> 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.



Make sure your Dome chinstraps tight before you huck it ."Ride em Cowboy"


----------



## Domeskier (Mar 24, 2017)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Make sure your Dome chinstraps tight before you huck it ."Ride em Cowboy"



I guess that might explain at least some of the laughter....


----------



## dlague (Mar 24, 2017)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Make sure your Dome chinstraps tight before you huck it ."Ride em Cowboy"


Too late!


Domeskier said:


> I guess that might explain at least some of the laughter....




Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Not Sure (Mar 25, 2017)

Domeskier said:


> I guess that might explain at least some of the laughter....








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 (Mar 25, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> 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 (Mar 26, 2017)

goldsbar said:


> 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 (Mar 26, 2017)

goldsbar said:


> 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.


----------

