# Skinny bump skis....worth it????



## Greg (Feb 27, 2008)

Just had to... :lol:


----------



## Beetlenut (Feb 27, 2008)

I would if I had your hill near by!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Feb 27, 2008)

Sure they're worth it..but only if you like to ski rock hard groomers..in a power wedge turkey tuck with a giant neon green fanny pack and stretch pants..Susie Chapstick ain't got nothing on Greg..lol


----------



## 2knees (Feb 27, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Sure they're worth it..but only if you like to ski rock hard groomers..in a power wedge turkey tuck with a giant neon green fanny pack and stretch pants..Susie Chapstick ain't got nothing on Greg..lol



you're trying too hard.  

just relax, like your boyfriend says, and let it happen naturally.


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 27, 2008)

I want to build out my quiver, but first I want a fatter ski and a true GS race ski. Then I'd consider a bump ski, but my current skis rock the bumps pretty good.

BTW: Elan is coming out with a true bump ski next year. It's designed by Glen Plake.


----------



## Grassi21 (Feb 27, 2008)

2knees said:


> you're trying too hard.
> 
> just relax, like your boyfriend says, and let it happen naturally.



This is one of the cases where I truly :lol:


----------



## snoseek (Feb 27, 2008)

I wouldn't mind having a pair of rockin bump skis for when everthing is tracked up, I'm starting to sort of enjoy bumps the last couple of years.

Question to those that have dedicated bump skis-do they really attack bumps more than say an all mountain ski or a ski like say 1080 foil?


----------



## powbmps (Feb 27, 2008)

I would say a dedicated bump ski makes quite a difference in the bumps.  They just want to _turn_.  Of course once you ski on them you'll never want to go back to those wider, heavier skis in any conditions ;-).  

I left my Scott P3's (84mm underfoot) at home today and skied my Twisters in the 10" of fresh.  I was loving them even when the snow was cut up.   

Maybe I'm just a moron living in denial......


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 27, 2008)

Not for me. I ski some bumps probably 66% of the days but the mid-fats take care of them just fine for my needs. When I used to be all bumps, all the time, I had considered it. Certainly worth while if you show up to a hill with only the intention of skiing bumps and do so often.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 27, 2008)

wa-loaf said:


> BTW: Elan is coming out with a true bump ski next year. It's designed by Glen Plake.




Will they come in a size other than 207????


----------



## jack97 (Feb 28, 2008)

powbmps said:


> Maybe I'm just a moron living in denial......



I could be another, been on my twister all season even before bumps have formed. To me they are worth it. The ski shape, mounting bindings forward and the forward lean adjustment in my boots allows me to "throw in the extra turn" in the trouble spots. Kind of cool when I do it and feel it get done quickly.


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 28, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> Will they come in a size other than 207????



:lol:


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 28, 2008)

I certainly would love to give a modern day bump ski a shot.  I loved my Rossi 4M's back in high school.  

Right now a pair of five year old Bandit X's serve as my bump ski in waiting.  Once spring skiing arrives and bumps are all that's available to me, they'll see a fair amount of use.


----------



## JD (Feb 28, 2008)

Yes, they keep the bumpers outta the goods.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 28, 2008)

JD said:


> Yes, they keep the bumpers outta the goods.



Funny, I feel the same way about midfats, keeps most out of the bumps.


----------



## SkiDork (Feb 28, 2008)

wait for Bloodlines


----------



## powbmps (Feb 28, 2008)

Hopefully they will be priced similar to the Twisters and not like the Volkls or Harts.


----------



## SkiDork (Feb 28, 2008)

powbmps said:


> Hopefully they will be priced similar to the Twisters and not like the Volkls or Harts.



amen brutha...

TW - the last I saw, they're gonna be available in lengths from 125 -> 201...

WOW!


----------



## jack97 (Feb 28, 2008)

SkiDork said:


> wait for Bloodlines



Do you know the dimensions?


----------



## SkiDork (Feb 28, 2008)

jack97 said:


> Do you know the dimensions?



Yes I do but you have to wait until I get home and can access my Yahoo e-mail.  But I know they've got a classic bump ski dimension..  Thats why Iceman is so excited about them....


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 28, 2008)

SkiDork said:


> Yes I do but you have to wait until I get home and can access my Yahoo e-mail.  But I know they've got a classic bump ski dimension..  Thats why Iceman is so excited about them....




what manufacturer?


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 28, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> what manufacturer?



Those are the Glen Plake Elans.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 28, 2008)

wa-loaf said:


> Those are the Glen Plake Elans.



The Bloodlines are?


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 28, 2008)

Yes


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 28, 2008)




----------



## jack97 (Feb 28, 2008)

wa-loaf said:


> Those are the Glen Plake Elans.



Do you think his wife will switch over....

http://www.natives.co.uk/news/2006/03/chamjam/bdbkimplake600.jpg

Damn,that mamba sure looks nice!


----------



## powbmps (Feb 28, 2008)

What's with the horse theme?


----------



## 2knees (Feb 28, 2008)

snoseek said:


> I wouldn't mind having a pair of rockin bump skis for when everthing is tracked up, I'm starting to sort of enjoy bumps the last couple of years.
> 
> Question to those that have dedicated bump skis-do they really attack bumps more than say an all mountain ski or a ski like say 1080 foil?



I've been focusing on bumps, with marginal success, for a long time.  This is the first year i've ever used a dedicated bump ski.  I can honestly say it makes a difference in terms of the quick turn radius and for me, the weight/strength combo.  I think they are rough in loose/cut powder but i dont really have the best form to begin with.


----------



## jack97 (Feb 28, 2008)

snoseek said:


> Question to those that have dedicated bump skis-do they really attack bumps more than say an all mountain ski or a ski like say 1080 foil?



Ditto on what 2knees said. Also an all mnt ski has wider tips, when you get into a bump field that is tightly packed and with deep troughs you want a narrow stance. Hard to do with a wide tip ski, for me sometimes my tips still cross.... that's the kiss of death.


----------



## Brettski (Feb 29, 2008)

Dynastar Vertical Assaults 203

Tail washes out on gig gs turns, but what a springy ski

It's hard to choose between them and my Pocket Rockets


----------



## Greg (Feb 29, 2008)

snoseek said:


> Question to those that have dedicated bump skis-do they really attack bumps more than say an all mountain ski or a ski like say 1080 foil?



Without question. In fact, I think my bump skis have helped me to improve my form a lot, even when on the mid fats. Bumps skis turn quick, are super light, and the tails never hook up on backside of the bump. On a day predominantly of skiing moguls, it's the only way to go. As much so as fat skis are the right tool for powder days it seems.


----------



## snoseek (Feb 29, 2008)

I'm convinced that next year I will be skiing the jane with some new bump skis. I suppose if there is no new snow this is the way to go. My ski quiver right now is not diverse enough.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 25, 2008)

Head Mogul skis for $149. Only 171s, but I figure some of you might be interested:

http://www.levelninesports.com/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=317064


----------



## 2knees (Mar 25, 2008)

wa-loaf said:


> Head Mogul skis for $149. Only 171s, but I figure some of you might be interested:
> 
> http://www.levelninesports.com/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=317064



whaddaya mean only 171's. those are my exact skis!!!  :lol:


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 25, 2008)

2knees said:


> whaddaya mean only 171's. those are my exact skis!!!  :lol:



Ahh . . .er . . .sorry? I thought that was short for a mogul ski.


----------



## jack97 (Mar 25, 2008)

2knees said:


> whaddaya mean only 171's. those are my exact skis!!!  :lol:



Been meaing to ask, how do you like them? Are they stiff compare to the volants you had?


----------



## 2knees (Mar 25, 2008)

wa-loaf said:


> Ahh . . .er . . .sorry? I thought that was short for a mogul ski.



no need to apologize at all.  It was funny.  trust me, i had to come to grips with the length when i bought them.  I've gone from a 205 to a 195 to a 193 to a 175 to a 171 in the last 12 years or so.  See a trend?  In 5 years i'll be like trailboss skiing on a pair of 80cm childrens skis saying i'm ripping it up.  :lol:


----------



## 2knees (Mar 25, 2008)

jack97 said:


> Been meaing to ask, how do you like them? Are they stiff compare to the volants you had?



bro, the volants were like the skiing equivalent of your grandfathers cadillac.   smooth as a babys bottom on groomers but once the driving gets a bit hairy, its all over the place.  anything would be stiff compared to those pieces of garbage.

But i love these Heads.  I was worried cause i heard they were super stiff but i havent noticed too much of an issue.  On real hard bumps, they do tend to shoot out on me, but that is as much operator error as anything else.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 25, 2008)

ah, I assumed since they were skinny they were still long.


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 26, 2008)

Fat shovel carving skis stink in the bumps. The tip digs into the snow like a spoon. You have to keep your feet together in the bumps and swivel your skis. You have to learn how to do this technique on flat groomers before trying it in the bumps. Watch the experts on tv. Pay attention to what skis they use. It's not the ski anyway, it's the skier. What do I know, I still stink in moguls. Ed.


----------



## bvibert (Mar 26, 2008)

wa-loaf said:


> Head Mogul skis for $149. Only 171s, but I figure some of you might be interested:
> 
> http://www.levelninesports.com/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=317064



That's where I got mine (181) from.  They were only $99 over the summer though, so the price may go down again.  I think it was up a little higher than $149 during the peak of the winter.


----------



## jack97 (Mar 26, 2008)

bvibert said:


> That's where I got mine (181) from.  They were only $99 over the summer though, so the price may go down again.  I think it was up a little higher than $149 during the peak of the winter.




Yup, peaked at $169, it might go down again in mid summer. Sounds tempting at 99 but I spent my cash on boots and helmet....stuff long overdue and now is the time to get them.   Anyhow, kind of interested in feeling out my other skis with the new boots.


----------



## JimG. (Mar 26, 2008)

ed-drum said:


> Fat shovel carving skis stink in the bumps. The tip digs into the snow like a spoon. You have to keep your feet together in the bumps and swivel your skis. You have to learn how to do this technique on flat groomers before trying it in the bumps. Watch the experts on tv. Pay attention to what skis they use. It's not the ski anyway, it's the skier. What do I know, I still stink in moguls. Ed.



Alot of rotary. And you're right about the learning process. And about it not being the ski but the skier.

Which kind of contradicts what you said about carving skis. Which is kind of correct nonetheless.

Anyway, I think sometimes people talk about their equipment too much when it's just a matter of getting out there and turning whatever you have on your feet. Skis today are SO much more technically superior to what we had 15 years ago that I have to laugh when hairs get split.


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 27, 2008)

It's not the ski, it's the skier. I have a friend who is a world champ who had a pair of K2s with large sections of the edges missing. He went through icy bumps like he was on train tracks. Yes, skis do help but a lot of people whine too much about their gear. You have to practice on the groomers first doing tight turns with knees and feet together. Experts lose points in mogul contests if their feet come apart. Besides, the National Ski Patrol website has an article on how to avoid knee injury, and one of the tips is to keep your feet together. I just don't understand this "new" concept of keeping feet a foot or so apart with shape skis. Then again, I have a lot of instructor friends who are great athletes and they call instructors that tell their student "nice wide stance now".......... destructors. SORRY! Ed.


----------



## Greg (Mar 27, 2008)

ed-drum said:


> It's not the ski, it's the skier. I have a friend who is a world champ who had a pair of K2s with large sections of the edges missing. He went through icy bumps like he was on train tracks. Yes, skis do help but a lot of people whine too much about their gear. You have to practice on the groomers first doing tight turns with knees and feet together. Experts lose points in mogul contests if their feet come apart. Besides, the National Ski Patrol website has an article on how to avoid knee injury, and one of the tips is to keep your feet together. I just don't understand this "new" concept of keeping feet a foot or so apart with shape skis. Then again, I have a lot of instructor friends who are great athletes and they call instructors that tell their student "nice wide stance now".......... destructors. SORRY! Ed.



I do agree to an extent. You're not going to realize the benefit of a bump ski until you reach a certain level. I also agree on the narrower stance thing. That was one of the biggest limiting things in the bumps for me last season and I worked on it a lot. When I started with the Cabrawlers this year, I was able to lock that stance much easier and hold it through the run. I've been able to take that technique back over to the mid-fats too. So, while I do agree it is more the operator than the equipment, I do believe the right equipment can facilitate learning certain techniques quicker and easier.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 27, 2008)

ed-drum said:


> It's not the ski, it's the skier. I have a friend who is a world champ who had a pair of K2s with large sections of the edges missing. He went through icy bumps like he was on train tracks. Yes, skis do help but a lot of people whine too much about their gear. You have to practice on the groomers first doing tight turns with knees and feet together. Experts lose points in mogul contests if their feet come apart. Besides, the National Ski Patrol website has an article on how to avoid knee injury, and one of the tips is to keep your feet together. I just don't understand this "new" concept of keeping feet a foot or so apart with shape skis. Then again, I have a lot of instructor friends who are great athletes and they call instructors that tell their student "nice wide stance now".......... destructors. SORRY! Ed.



You can't effectively carve a turn with your feet and knees locked together. I'm sure your Russian Ski Team buddy can tell you that. At tight stance is great for bumps, powder and trees; basically anything that requires a short radius turn. If you want to go out and rail groomers or run GS gates you need a wider stance. A well rounded skier can do it all and one size/stance does not fit all.


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 27, 2008)

I thought we we talking about bumps and the skis that go with them. Of course you open up your stance when carving a turn. I don't keep my feet together all of the time. If I'm skiing powder and do a narrow stance, I would sink like an anchor. The trick to skiing bumps is to keep your back straight and bend the knees and ankles like a spring. I also ski on the tails of my skis SOMETIMES. There are no set rules. The only skiing rule is, DON' T FALL DOWN! Ed.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 27, 2008)

ed-drum said:


> I thought we we talking about bumps and the skis that go with them. Of course you open up your stance when carving a turn. I don't keep my feet together all of the time. If I'm skiing powder and do a narrow stance, I would sink like an anchor. The trick to skiing bumps is to keep your back straight and bend the knees and ankles like a spring. I also ski on the tails of my skis SOMETIMES. There are no set rules. The only skiing rule is, DON' T FALL DOWN! Ed.



Sorry, you started talking about carving skis, so I thought you were making a general reference to skiing. Not just bumps.


----------



## MR. evil (Mar 27, 2008)

I am by no means an expert in this subject as I just started to ski bumps this season. I still have a long way to go before I would even consider myself an average bump skier.

Up until this season I was skiing on a pair of first generation shaped skis. They had a side cut, but were not nearly as wide as today’s typical all mountain skis. With my old skis I generally skied most conditions with a really tight stance, (feet touching) and my tips were about ½” apart. At the beginning of the season I purchased a new pair of DynaStar’s. Off hand I cannot remember what the dimensions of the ski are, but they were about the same width on average as most of the other all mountain skis in the shop. But due to the width I have had to adjust my stance. I can no longer ski with my feet touching or my tips over lap by more than an inch. It was actually a big adjustment for me to change my stance. 

A couple of weeks ago I picked up a pair of bump skis. Being much narrower than my all mountain skis I can once again ski with a tight stance, feet touching. I have only used them a couple of times so far, but for me they are much easier to use in the bumps simply because of the tighter stance. The funny thing is that my skinny bump skis are almost the same width as my old shaped skis. If my old shaped skis were not so heavy I would have considered using them as my bump skis. 

This begs me to ask, do they make bumps skis simply because all mountain skis have gotten to fat? Did they even make bumps skis 10 years ago?


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 27, 2008)

As far back as I can remember, they started making bumpers in the 1970's. They were softer than race or recreational skis. I don't like skis TOO wide in the shovel, they are (to me) carvers. The point I'm trying to make is that when I was younger, we had skis that were soft medium and hard. Now there is everything under the sun. When I was getting my boots fitted this month, I asked the ski tech when are the skis going to stop getting getting fatter in the shovel and he said that ski companies wouldn't have anything to sell if they didn't stop changing them every year. Remember "soft" boots? What happened to them? People should just "do it" rather than think about their equipment, style, clothes, etc.. It's like driving a car. If you stop analyzing everything so much, it becomes fluid. Our music teachers used to tell us, "get your heads out of those charts!"  Ed.


----------



## jack97 (Mar 27, 2008)

MR. evil said:


> This begs me to ask, do they make bumps skis simply because all mountain skis have gotten to fat?



The trends does seem to go fatter, I have some k2 and volk all mnt skis, circa 2003-4. The tips are around 109. That would prob be considered a skinny tip by today's standard.
Also, they are making the skis taller to help prevent boot out. That was one of my motivation in getting a mogul ski. I was getting by with my old all mtn skis but I wanted to get skinny and flat just to try it out. So far, lovin it.


----------



## mondeo (Mar 27, 2008)

ed-drum said:


> The only skiing rule is, DON' T FALL DOWN! Ed.



I thought the rule was, if you aren't falling every once in a while, you aren't pushing yourself hard enough.

But anyways, I agree that its mostly the skier, and partly the skis; someone who skis bumps on a regular basis would do them better with Atomic race skis than someone who's never been in them on bump skis; I was just trying to point out the reasons behind using bump skis, and due to not having read the entire thread, probably was making a redundant point.

Now, to the question of are they worth it or not... It depends. If you spend a couple hours skiing bumps here and there, probably not. But if you're someone like me (and I think a few others here) and only ski for bumps (either in them, traveling to them, or practicing on groomers for them,) then yes, they are worth it. In between, the answer is somewhere in between.


----------



## JimG. (Mar 27, 2008)

MR. evil said:


> I am by no means an expert in this subject as I just started to ski bumps this season. I still have a long way to go before I would even consider myself an average bump skier.
> 
> Up until this season I was skiing on a pair of first generation shaped skis. They had a side cut, but were not nearly as wide as today’s typical all mountain skis. With my old skis I generally skied most conditions with a really tight stance, (feet touching) and my tips were about ½” apart. At the beginning of the season I purchased a new pair of DynaStar’s. Off hand I cannot remember what the dimensions of the ski are, but they were about the same width on average as most of the other all mountain skis in the shop. But due to the width I have had to adjust my stance. I can no longer ski with my feet touching or my tips over lap by more than an inch. It was actually a big adjustment for me to change my stance.
> 
> ...



You learn quickly young grasshopper.

Yes, they've always manufactured straight skis. 15 years ago that's all you could get.


----------



## JimG. (Mar 27, 2008)

mondeo said:


> I thought the rule was, if you aren't falling every once in a while, you aren't pushing yourself hard enough.
> 
> But anyways, I agree that its mostly the skier, and partly the skis; someone who skis bumps on a regular basis would do them better with Atomic race skis than someone who's never been in them on bump skis; I was just trying to point out the reasons behind using bump skis, and due to not having read the entire thread, probably was making a redundant point.
> 
> Now, to the question of are they worth it or not... It depends. If you spend a couple hours skiing bumps here and there, probably not. But if you're someone like me (and I think a few others here) and only ski for bumps (either in them, traveling to them, or practicing on groomers for them,) then yes, they are worth it. In between, the answer is somewhere in between.



No falls no balls.

I'm switching back to my much straighter AT skis this weekend. Because they are easier to ski in big bumps.

But I actually like my RX8's in the bumps most of the season.


----------



## ed-drum (Mar 28, 2008)

Actually, I don't count how many days a year I ski.  I count my falls. If I ski (which I have) 100 days a season, I average about 10 falls or so. ED. :roll:


----------

