# How wide are your skis underfoot?



## gores95 (Jan 29, 2007)

Just curious as to what other ECers are skiing.  If this needs to be moved to Gear forum so be it...I thought it would get more action here.

I have a one ski quiver, Atomic Izor 9.7 that is 72mm underfoot.  I know many are going fatter even with the lack of powder in our area (or my area!).  I am an intermediate/advanced and ski mostly blue/black groomers with some glades thrown in.  Don't like overwhelming bumps either.  Hey I'm 39 you know!!!

Anyway do most of you have something more substantial underfoot?  I just wonder if it makes sense to add a second ski to my collection, something 85mm or bigger underfoot?  With our mostly had packed icy conditions would a bit fatter help in that regard?  I know in powder it certainly helps!

Thanks.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jan 29, 2007)

72, and 85


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 29, 2007)

my three skis are 62, 79, 89


gores95 said:


> I am an intermediate/advanced and ski mostly blue/black groomers with some glades thrown in.  Don't like overwhelming bumps either.
> 
> SNIP
> 
> I just wonder if it makes sense to add a second ski to my collection, something 85mm or bigger underfoot?  With our mostly had packed icy conditions would a bit fatter help in that regard?


*no*

you want edge grip on icy groomer conditions? check out the waist of skis being used by pro racers for slalom and GS. race skis are still under 70mm under foot. certainly no need to go above 75-79 max if you ski mostly groomers.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jan 29, 2007)

67, 72, 79


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jan 29, 2007)

70 and 78...the 78 is as wide as I would go for skiing in the east.


----------



## koreshot (Jan 29, 2007)

80, 83, 99, 115

115 not used on EC, but have used 99 a couple of times with decent results.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 29, 2007)

64 and 75


----------



## awf170 (Jan 29, 2007)

78 and 89.  After skiing on the ones with a 89mm waist for the first 10 or so days of the season it was a great feeling to ski something skinnier.  Being able to hold an edge on groomed terrian is great feeling.

My two ski quiver is kind of wierd and doesn't really make much sense.  Fat skis for moguls, glades, and powder.  Skinny skis for groomers and crud.


----------



## eastcoastskiier (Jan 29, 2007)

68, 72, 74, 84.....   the 84 are my park skis, and they handle pretty decent( as decent as a super soft park ski can handle)

from how your describing you skiing ability and terrain i would make you max no more then 82... and you will be fine hitting nose level.  Any wider and its gonna be more work then benifit when getting it over on edge while riding the groomers.  between a 78 and a low 80 would br optimal if you really like riding the 'powder' on the side of the trail allowing you to float over everything..


with most skis now they are also blowing out the tips with the waste allowing you to go even shorter and still having PLENTY of surface area to float on


----------



## gores95 (Jan 29, 2007)

Thanks for the responses.  One thing I probably should have mentioned....I am 6' 195 lbs. so not sure how graceful I'd be on those 62 or 64mm carvers!  

Steve/Boss you guys a little lighter than me I would assume?  Should a near 200 pounder be on skis so thin?

One other thing...I am taking the Izors with me this weekend to SLC for a four day trip.  Is 72mm OK for Utah even in powder?  I know they haven't had much snow recently but if we get dumped on I may demo a fatter ski.


----------



## Grassi21 (Jan 29, 2007)

68 here.  I'm probably an intermediate.  Honestly I don't know what constitutes beginner/intermediate/advanced.  That would probably be a decent thread.  Anyway, I spend most of my time on blues and blacks, always groomed (not much else besides groomers where I've been skiing lately).  I just started playing in the bumps.


----------



## koreshot (Jan 29, 2007)

gores95 said:


> Thanks for the responses.  One thing I probably should have mentioned....I am 6' 195 lbs. so not sure how graceful I'd be on those 62 or 64mm carvers!
> 
> Steve/Boss you guys a little lighter than me I would assume?  Should a near 200 pounder be on skis so thin?
> 
> One other thing...I am taking the Izors with me this weekend to SLC for a four day trip.  Is 72mm OK for Utah even in powder?  I know they haven't had much snow recently but if we get dumped on I may demo a fatter ski.



On hard snow:
Width under foot primarly helps with float in soft snow, something you are not all that concerned with since you are primarily a groomer/hard snow skier.  So why get a wider ski and sacrifice hard snow grip and edge to edge agility if you don't really need to?  When it comes to your size, at 6 feet and 195 lbs, you have a lot of leverage and strength which can overpower shorter and softer skis.  So on hard snow, I would worry about flex and length of the ski more than the width under foot.  If you are really aggressive and feel like the current skis are getting overpower on hard snow, get something stiffer and/or longer for better high speed stability.

On soft snow:
Yeah, at your weight and height 70mm under foot is not ideal for Utah soft snow and powder.  Not saying it won't work, cause there are plenty of skiers that do just fine, but a wider ski will make the job easier and more fun IMO.  I am 6'2" and 225lbs and on my trip to Utah I felt like 99mm under foot was a bit narrower than I would have liked (2+ feet of fresh snow).


----------



## WWF-VT (Jan 29, 2007)

66 mm Fischer RX-8


----------



## tirolerpeter (Jan 29, 2007)

There is no need to go wider unless you start skiing a lot of powder.  I actually have skied 12"+ powder with my 164cm Volant Platinums (w/107cm tips, 70mm waist, and 96mm tails).  It all depends upon how hard you are willing to work.  Wider skis reduce effort considerably.


----------



## snoseek (Jan 29, 2007)

82 cm. for me. work good on everything


----------



## eastcoastskiier (Jan 29, 2007)

if your going out to utah i would recommend something in the upper 80s  

take your skis and test them for the first day, if you stay on the packed powder then you may not have a bad time.. but they get alot of tossed up snow on the side of the trials and you may not float as much as you could be...

the second day your out there go to a shop and demo a mid-fat to fat ski in the upper 80 range..  it will be alot better ride due to the added surface area and float......

have fun!


----------



## Birdman829 (Jan 29, 2007)

69 and 90 for me.


----------



## f2racer (Jan 29, 2007)

63mm (2004/5 Atomic SL:11) and 67mm (2005/2006 Fischer RX6).


----------



## JD (Jan 29, 2007)

112mm. I have two pairs.


----------



## John84 (Jan 29, 2007)

70 and 70


----------



## Flan (Jan 30, 2007)

66

Head Cyber XP-80's 118-66-102 (can you say sidecut).


----------



## east coast ripper (Jan 30, 2007)

126/74/105  i'm 6'1  210,  mid 70's is plenty of width for east coast.  i am heading to jackson hole 1st week in march though, and am a little concerned that i may be to narrow under my feet for out there.  i hope not though.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 30, 2007)

gores95 said:


> Thanks for the responses.  One thing I probably should have mentioned....I am 6' 195 lbs. so not sure how graceful I'd be on those 62 or 64mm carvers!
> 
> Steve/Boss you guys a little lighter than me I would assume?  Should a near 200 pounder be on skis so thin?


i am 6'1' at 210# and have no problem on 64mm race style skis for groomer days.


----------



## DEVO (Jan 30, 2007)

75, 76, 79, 98


----------



## SkiDork (Jan 30, 2007)

65 and 113


----------



## gores95 (Jan 30, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> i am 6'1' at 210# and have no problem on 64mm race style skis for groomer days.



Not sure why I pictured you as a little skinny guy!!!!  

My bad.....


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jan 30, 2007)

Atomic SX 10  w/65 mm waist and 170 length
Dynastar Speed SX 63     w/63 mm waist --178 length ( rock skis)

I am 6'1'' 205 lbs  in good athletic shape , luv to RIP .Hey SX 10's don't like going slow  Ski opening chair till 3;30,  ski Blacks /blues  all but bumps --i am 63 yo :blink:


----------



## midweeker (Jan 30, 2007)

62. 79. 90


----------



## jack97 (Jan 30, 2007)

64, two at 70. 

Me, 5 foot 7 inches, 145 lbs. Another thing that should be factored is the length of the ski, I go from 160 to 170.


----------



## bvibert (Jan 30, 2007)

gores95 said:


> Thanks for the responses.  One thing I probably should have mentioned....I am 6' 195 lbs. so not sure how graceful I'd be on those 62 or 64mm carvers!
> 
> Steve/Boss you guys a little lighter than me I would assume?  Should a near 200 pounder be on skis so thin?



I'm 6'4" at 230ish and ski on a pair of 65mm skis that rip on groomer days.  I haven't gotten to try them in any east coast 'powder' days so I can't comment there.


----------



## Greg (Jan 30, 2007)

6' 1", 165 lbs., advanced skier. My 2006 AC3s are 74 mm underfoot. My favorite terrain is variable natural snow (crud, bumps, powder). I also really enjoy bumps which is why I think the AC3 is a good all-mountain compromise. The 2007 AC3 is 76 mm underfoot and gets great reviews.

Moving to Gear.


----------



## goldsbar (Jan 30, 2007)

There seems to be a big push towards wider skis these days.  Just take a look at the posts on epic or tgr.  For general EC skiing, though, it doesn't make any sense at all.  Most of our skiing is on groomed hardpack or icy bumps.  We all dream about those powder days in the woods but it's not the usual reality (Jay Peak, etc. perhaps).  I have a pair of Metron M11's that are 76mm underfoot and can still carve up the groomers very well.  I wouldn't go much above that for an everyday EC ski.  I can't recall what my Fischer WC SCs are - somewhere in the mid or upper 60's - but they do hold an edge better (not exactly a fair comparison).  Narrow skis allow for higher edge angles and quicker turns.

That being said, wider skis can take you up a couple of levels in soft snow and/or mixed conditions.  It's almost like cheating.  The skill level of the general powder/crud skier out West has gone down dramatically.  Powder used to take skill.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 30, 2007)

K2 Recons - 119/78/105 @ 174cm -18m
Head iRace - 112/66/98 @ 177cm - 16m
Hoping to have Head Supershapes soon - 121/66/106 @ 160cm 10.4m


----------



## tjf67 (Jan 30, 2007)

AC-4  84 under foot 125/84/119.
Great ski they eats things up


----------



## DEVO (Jan 30, 2007)

Like I said in the thread I started here:

http://forums.alpinezone.com/13069-...kiing-east-coast-groomers-98mm-waist-ski.html

I spent one day skiing on my 98mm waisted Rossi Scratch BC's and the next day on my 79mm waisted Dynastar Legend 8000 and found that that they didn't ski that differently.  Maybe it was because even though the scratches are much wider, the two skis are similar in sidecut/turn radius and camber.  Even though I still think a mid 70's to lower 80's wide ski is ideal for the east coast, I think you can ski a wider ski here and really enjoy it.  Volkl Mantras, Salomon gun's, etc come to mind.  I would ski the scratch's every day if that was my only ski.  After skiing it on groomers for a day, I plan on skiing them much more than I had planned.


----------



## koreshot (Jan 30, 2007)

goldsbar said:


> That being said, wider skis can take you up a couple of levels in soft snow and/or mixed conditions.  It's almost like cheating.  The skill level of the general powder/crud skier out West has gone down dramatically.  Powder used to take skill.



I see where you are coming from, but thats the same thing as saying that the invention of shaped skis has made an average hard snow skier worse... the skis turn for you... its like cheating.

Yes, powder skis help dramatically in powder, and make a transition from hard snow skiing to soft snow much easier.  Yes it allows some skiers that normally wouldn't venture off piste to get out there. But for many powder skiers, including myself, the difference is that people going off piste can now focus on other aspects of skiing rather than suffering through a bunch of overemphasizes jump turns :grin:


----------



## goldsbar (Jan 30, 2007)

Puck it said:


> Hoping to have Head Supershapes soon - 121/66/106 @ 160cm 10.4m



10.4m ?!?! That's a tight turn radius!


----------



## tjf67 (Jan 30, 2007)

I read through a lot of the posts.  IMO what determines the edge grip is the rigidity of the ski but more so the side cut.  The larger the side cut the more grip I get.  My AC4 have more grip than any of the other skis I have owned except for my atomic metrons.  I dont remember the excact dimensions but they had a ton of side cut.  I could stand right on them and they would grip just about anything.  
I always say I am not going any fatter and I always seem to.  
I ski Whiteface.  I have a little exp on hardpack


----------



## skibum9995 (Jan 30, 2007)

64, 65


----------



## koreshot (Jan 30, 2007)

tjf67 said:


> I read through a lot of the posts.  IMO what determines the edge grip is the rigidity of the ski but more so the side cut.  The larger the side cut the more grip I get.  My AC4 have more grip than any of the other skis I have owned except for my atomic metrons.  I dont remember the excact dimensions but they had a ton of side cut.  I could stand right on them and they would grip just about anything.
> I always say I am not going any fatter and I always seem to.
> I ski Whiteface.  I have a little exp on hardpack



Yup.  Grip on hard snow is probably mostly determine by the stiffness of the ski.  Actually skis with very sharp sidecuts keep less of the edge on the snow when not fully bend into a carve, which probably results in less grip.  So strictly mechanically speaking, edge tune and stiffness is probably key for edge grip. But that needs to be balanced with a sidecut that will allow you to carve the turns you are trying to make.  Otherwise one will be forced to skid the ski into sharper turns, giving the sensation that there isn't as much carving edge hold.


----------



## jack97 (Jan 30, 2007)

tjf67 said:


> I read through a lot of the posts.  IMO what determines the edge grip is the rigidity of the ski but more so the side cut.  The larger the side cut the more grip I get.  My AC4 have more grip than any of the other skis I have owned except for my atomic metrons.  I dont remember the excact dimensions but they had a ton of side cut.  I could stand right on them and they would grip just about anything.
> I always say I am not going any fatter and I always seem to.
> I ski Whiteface.  I have a little exp on hardpack



I definitely agree on the torsional rigidity for edge grip on hardpack. The factors for a lot of side cut (or narrow waist) is short turns and edge to edge quickness. EC trails can be narrow and twisty. Having a ski that can do all these things helps big time. 

And when I am on a wide trail, the only time I can make a medium turns is on weekday, weekends are too crowded.


----------



## 2knees (Jan 30, 2007)

68mm.  volant genesis gold.  110-68-98  175cm

i have a pair of volkls also but no idea what the waist is.  i would guess its less then the volants.


----------



## goldsbar (Jan 30, 2007)

tjf67 said:


> I read through a lot of the posts.  IMO what determines the edge grip is the rigidity of the ski but more so the side cut.  The larger the side cut the more grip I get.  My AC4 have more grip than any of the other skis I have owned except for my atomic metrons.  I dont remember the excact dimensions but they had a ton of side cut.  I could stand right on them and they would grip just about anything.
> I always say I am not going any fatter and I always seem to.
> I ski Whiteface.  I have a little exp on hardpack



Here we go:

*Torsional stiffness is very important - a ski should not twist.  This is much easier to accomplish with a thin ski.  It is also much easier to accomplish in a ski that is generally stiff.

*Stiffness - stiffer is not better.  Softer is not better.  The correct stiffness for your weight, desired turn and speed is best.  Faster & heavier = stiffer; Stiff ski at slower speeds = no fun and impossible to carve

*Length - shorter = more pressure on the contact patch = better grip

*Sidecut - not sure on this one but I think it really relates to your turn shape.  If you want to make short turns, use a slalom style.  Long turns, more of a GS side cut.

*Edge tune - obviously, sharper is better.  Other factors apply such as base and side edge bevel.  Most peope equate more side edge bevel - say 3* - with better grip but this can have the effect of "locking" the ski into a turn

*Riser plates - higher boot = higher leverage = higher grip

*Skier ability - now here's the big one.  If you don't understand terms like carving rr tracks, counter balancing and counter rotation, then you're never going to get good grip skidding down the mountain regardless of your setup.  Took me a very long time to figure that out.


At least that's what I've been able to take away from various message boards...


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Jan 30, 2007)

Atomic Metron M10  122/74/108


----------



## jack97 (Jan 30, 2007)

goldsbar said:


> *Riser plates - higher boot = higher leverage = higher grip



I 've also seen the trend that recreational slaloms are higher in the middle than an all mountain. Alleviates some of the problem of booting out. And helps getting to the edge quicker due to the higher leverage than a flatter ski. 

Kind of curious if the new mid fats are getting higher in the middle to take advantage of this too. Last year, I thought the Atomic & Volkl mid fat was slighty higher than the all mountains that I have grown use to.


----------



## drjeff (Jan 30, 2007)

I've got 76mm on my 172cm Atomic B5 Metrons,  which looks really, really skinny compared to the 131mm they are at the tips!


----------



## eastcoastskiier (Jan 30, 2007)

when looking for your everyday all mountain side cut..  between 13-16 are GREAT for east coast, for me anyways it seems to be the best of both world, you can make a sharp enough turn on those tight trails.. and when the mountains are empty and your ripping those groomers your still able to draw out and hold a great edge


----------



## Jay's Dip Powcher (Jan 30, 2007)

eastcoastskiier said:


> when looking for your everyday all mountain side cut..  between 13-16 are GREAT for east coast, for me anyways it seems to be the best of both world, you can make a sharp enough turn on those tight trails.. and when the mountains are empty and your ripping those groomers your still able to draw out and hold a great edge



how do you like the Z10's?

And I am skiing 76, 80 and I just got a pair of P-Rockets 90.  I went from 69 waist Rossi Zenith z3's to K2 Enemy's 76 (I think) last year to 1080's 80mm  this year to now a pair of PR's 90mm in the mail. This progression for me has been really good. the 1080's have me performing the best I ever have on groomers and I feel more stable and more fluid. I do the occasional Jay trip and am looking forward to seeing how they do in the tree's. Cheating or not they work and not just on POW which we seem to never get.
Note I have been skiing since I was 7 years old and never had a lesson and am not pretty on the slopes but get it done in control and have a blast. Fatter is better in my case and if you are making your judgemments without actually skiing fatter waisted skiis please give it a go as science is not everything especially when it comes to something as diverse as skiing habits and comfortability. Unlock those knees and have some fun!:-D


----------



## eastcoastskiier (Jan 31, 2007)

Jay's Dip Powcher said:


> how do you like the Z10's?
> 
> And I am skiing 76, 80 and I just got a pair of P-Rockets 90.  I went from 69 waist Rossi Zenith z3's to K2 Enemy's 76 (I think) last year to 1080's 80mm  this year to now a pair of PR's 90mm in the mail. This progression for me has been really good. the 1080's have me performing the best I ever have on groomers and I feel more stable and more fluid. I do the occasional Jay trip and am looking forward to seeing how they do in the tree's. Cheating or not they work and not just on POW which we seem to never get.
> Note I have been skiing since I was 7 years old and never had a lesson and am not pretty on the slopes but get it done in control and have a blast. Fatter is better in my case and if you are making your judgemments without actually skiing fatter waisted skiis please give it a go as science is not everything especially when it comes to something as diverse as skiing habits and comfortability. Unlock those knees and have some fun!:-D




i think the enemy's are 84 under foot... but neither here nor there.. i ahve the red Z10ti binding and i really like it.. the new Anti Friction Plate is much better then the Sperical one they they used to use. and on release check its performed flawlessly so far.. the only thing i dont like about it, and its the same with all Z10's is that they all sound like there is a small bead inside, so when your holding our skis and shake them you hear this rattling noise.. Im not a fan of it.. once your skiing though they perform great and you dont here it at all.  Make sure you get a wide brake kit for it. the standard brake on the Z10 is an 80, and i believe its an 85 on the Z12(?)  but you can 'adjust' (pry) that one to fit fine..


i have the Salomon Gun Boots, and looked at the ski's to match, but ended up getting the K2 Fugatives for just Pure Park.. How are you liking them so far?


----------



## SkiDog (Jan 31, 2007)

eastcoastskiier said:


> i have the Salomon Gun Boots, and looked at the ski's to match, but ended up getting the K2 Fugatives for just Pure Park.. How are you liking them so far?




I for one...love my GUNS......

M


----------



## bigbog (Jan 31, 2007)

*EC waists...*

68mm - Fischer RX6s w/their RF system (luv em')
81mm - Dynastar 8000s w/Z12ti(Salomon)  (*So far, a terrific combo;-))


----------



## Jay's Dip Powcher (Jan 31, 2007)

eastcoastskiier said:


> i think the enemy's are 84 under foot... but neither here nor there.. i ahve the red Z10ti binding and i really like it.. the new Anti Friction Plate is much better then the Sperical one they they used to use. and on release check its performed flawlessly so far.. the only thing i dont like about it, and its the same with all Z10's is that they all sound like there is a small bead inside, so when your holding our skis and shake them you hear this rattling noise.. Im not a fan of it.. once your skiing though they perform great and you dont here it at all.  Make sure you get a wide brake kit for it. the standard brake on the Z10 is an 80, and i believe its an 85 on the Z12(?)  but you can 'adjust' (pry) that one to fit fine..
> 
> 
> i have the Salomon Gun Boots, and looked at the ski's to match, but ended up getting the K2 Fugatives for just Pure Park.. How are you liking them so far?



I really like the 1080's a lot, they are soft but I seem to get them on edge well and I have had them going full tilt and no chatter and no wandering at all. This is why I purchased the Pocket Rockets, similar ski but w i d e r. Took advice from a good friend Devo said this would be a good everyday ski for me as I mounted Fritschi's on the 1080 for touring days. I do not do the park but it get's great reviews for that because of the snap they have and are surpisingly agile. Great ski I think , at least for me and will get another pair when I beat these to death.


----------



## KevinF (Feb 1, 2007)

koreshot said:


> skis with very sharp sidecuts keep less of the edge on the snow when not fully bend into a carve, which probably results in less grip.



I'd think you'd need to lay that ski way, way over in order to have any appreciable amount of the edge off the snow.  Anybody capable of skiing with their hips inches off the snow is capable of carving, so it's kind of a moot point.


----------



## KevinF (Feb 1, 2007)

My skis are:

Elan SLX (slalom ski) -- 65mm waist
Elan Speedwave 12 -- 70mm waist
Elan Magfire 10 -- 75mm waist
K2 Apache Recon -- 79mm waist

I use the SLX primarily for night-league racing at Nashoba -- that thing is a serious ice skate.  The Speedwave12 and Magfire10 are my primary skis for normal east-coast skiing.  I don't think I've ever used the Recon's here on the East.

Going much over mid-70s makes it hard for me to feel when the edges are starting to engage, when I'm really running on a flat ski, etc.  I feel like I have to lay my Recon's over really, really far to get a good carve going on them.


----------



## hrstrat57 (Feb 1, 2007)

Volkl Allstar=70
Fischer RX8=66
Volkl Explosiv=95


----------



## Puck it (Feb 2, 2007)

East coast ripper will not ski into Corbet's.  I heard you are going with a guy that will blow your doors off.  You might as well stick to the bunny slopes there.


----------



## koreshot (Feb 3, 2007)

KevinF said:


> I'd think you'd need to lay that ski way, way over in order to have any appreciable amount of the edge off the snow.  Anybody capable of skiing with their hips inches off the snow is capable of carving, so it's kind of a moot point.



Its a matter of uneven edge pressure too. I think the drawbacks of aggressive sidecut (say less than 20m radius) come into play on very steep terrain and chutes, where your hip is inches away from the snow.  The problem gets worse on concave surfaces, something that is pretty common in steep, narrow spaces.   

The point is probably moot for EC carving skis on groomers, but not so for skis used off piste.


----------



## eastcoastskiier (Feb 5, 2007)

jack97 said:


> I 've also seen the trend that recreational slaloms are higher in the middle than an all mountain. Alleviates some of the problem of booting out. And helps getting to the edge quicker due to the higher leverage than a flatter ski.
> 
> Kind of curious if the new mid fats are getting higher in the middle to take advantage of this too. Last year, I thought the Atomic & Volkl mid fat was slighty higher than the all mountains that I have grown use to.




i hav been looking and most midfats now, and most skis in general all have mounting plates/lifter plates already attached, giving you some 8-10mm of lift...

this yeah actually on the K2 Ricon Apache and Stryker the did build up the ski in the waste, but not quite the amount a lifter plate gived you. hen hey built up the walls even more to the sidewalls of the ski match right up with th binding which is desined to direct your energy directly to your on snow edge... I demod the new system last year, but frankly forget which ski felt like what


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 5, 2007)

goldsbar said:


> Here we go:
> 
> *Torsional stiffness is very important - a ski should not twist.  This is much easier to accomplish with a thin ski.  It is also much easier to accomplish in a ski that is generally stiff.
> 
> ...




The side cut does make a difference to me.  You lean into the cut and you have the bow of the ski engaged on the surface.  On Ice/Hardpack the side cut naturally shapes around and you have more edge on the surface without having to bend the ski.  Without as much bend you dont get the snap loose affect when the edge looses grip on the ice.  I put all my weght on the edge with with the center of my foot for even pressure through out the ski and it seems to hold best.


----------



## wa-loaf (Feb 7, 2007)

Elan Ripsticks - 178cm 107/66/95

Supercross race skis I use for night racing at Wachusett. They also handle really well in crud and bumps.


----------



## bigbog (Feb 15, 2007)

Jay's Dip Powcher said:


> how do you like the Z10's?


*Jay's DP*,
 Z12s.....nothing surprising.  I know that skiers _in the know_ go either way with them, but they are stiff laterally.  Have let me go twice when I needed.

$.01


----------



## salida (Feb 15, 2007)

BD Verdicts - 98mm waist, 190 cm
Atomic Stomps - 88mm waist, 176 cm
Elan M12's - 69mm waist, 176 cm
Volkl P50's - 65mm waist, 188 cm

Contrary to popular belief with the right technique and some sharp edges those fat skis that everyone raves about can be skied really well on hard pack and ice.  If they are stiff enough they feel like real fat race skis almost.  They are damn fun on some hardpack in my estimation, super stable.  Here is a pic to show you what I mean.

Porter


----------



## bigbog (Jul 12, 2007)

*new Armada ARVs added..(92mm)..WooHooo..*

160 Fischer RX6s (68mm)
175 Armada ARVs (92mm) ...my smile just got an inch bigger last night after putting in the order.;-)   Were at a great price...will see how they fare through the horror-show crud-mornings.


----------



## Greg (Jul 13, 2007)

Greg said:


> 6' 1", 165 lbs., advanced skier. My 2006 AC3s are 74 mm underfoot. My favorite terrain is variable natural snow (crud, bumps, powder). I also really enjoy bumps which is why I think the AC3 is a good all-mountain compromise. The 2007 AC3 is 76 mm underfoot and gets great reviews.
> 
> Moving to Gear.



I'll be adding something in the 60's underfoot this season (bump ski).


----------



## JimG. (Jul 13, 2007)

66 mm


----------



## koreshot (Jul 16, 2007)

salida said:


> BD Verdicts - 98mm waist, 190 cm
> Atomic Stomps - 88mm waist, 176 cm
> Elan M12's - 69mm waist, 176 cm
> Volkl P50's - 65mm waist, 188 cm
> ...



Lies!  Don't you know anything?  The only way you can carve is with GS and Slalom skis that are too short and are no more than 65mm under foot!

In all seriousness, I agree - fat skis can carve and carve rather well.  I have seen people lay down trenches on the groomers with Gotamas - a pretty stiff fat ski with 105mm under foot.

I will be trying the theory out with a pair of super stuff and burly Atomic Powder Pluses this year.


----------



## Marc (Jul 16, 2007)

koreshot said:


> Lies!  Don't you know anything?  The only way you can carve is with GS and Slalom skis that are too short and are no more than 65mm under foot!
> 
> In all seriousness, I agree - fat skis can carve and carve rather well.  I have seen people lay down trenches on the groomers with Gotamas - a pretty stiff fat ski with 105mm under foot.
> 
> I will be trying the theory out with a pair of super stuff and burly Atomic Powder Pluses this year.



Hey koreshot, any trips to SA planned?

I hope you still have your Bro's.


----------



## madskier6 (Jul 16, 2007)

My current all mountain skis are 76 mm underfoot.  Atomic Metron B5.  They're great at carving, hitting some fluff and all other conditions we generally experience here in the East.  They also do surprisingly well in bumps despite their stiffness & lots of sidecut.

I'm planning on getting a pair of Vokl Gotamas (105 mm underfoot) this year to use as my powder boards.  I love the way they feel both in deep powder & cut-up crud.


----------



## koreshot (Jul 17, 2007)

Marc said:


> Hey koreshot, any trips to SA planned?
> 
> I hope you still have your Bro's.



Howdy Marc, been a while.  Still have the Bros, sitting in the closet waiting for the snow to fly.

Unfortunately no south america trips planned this year - or next year - or for the next 17 years... not until my toddler daughter grows up and goes to college... :roll:


Hope all is well with you.  I plan on making a few trips up to VT this year so hopefully we can get together.


----------



## Terry (Jul 18, 2007)

126-74-105  Rossi Z9's for this year. In the past it was 68 underfoot on my Volkls.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 18, 2007)

koreshot said:


> Lies!  Don't you know anything?  The only way you can carve is with GS and Slalom skis that are too short and are no more than 65mm under foot!
> 
> In all seriousness, I agree - fat skis can carve and carve rather well.  I have seen people lay down trenches on the groomers with Gotamas - a pretty stiff fat ski with 105mm under foot.
> 
> I will be trying the theory out with a pair of super stuff and burly Atomic Powder Pluses this year.


I was surprised how well the Volkl Mantras carved despite being 93mm wide. Actually, I had more fun with them on the groomed than in powder interestingly enough. So yes, fat skis can carve and ski powder because the manufacturers are trying to design fat one ski quivers in addition to the mid-fat. The mid-fat is still far more versatile and for someone just looking to ski groomers most of the day (80% or better) a 70mm ski is still the best choice. There is a reason race skis are still made less than 70mm at the waist and its because those style skis are superior for laying down railroad tracks. Obviously, the average skier not dedicated to carving and groomers exclusively would benefit from a fatter ski that also excels off the groomed. I still maintain the dedicated skier would do well to invest in multiple skis to really maximize performance as the one ski quiver may be cheaper but the fatter you go the more you do sacrifice in terms of variable performance and versatility but the same is true the narrower you go too.


----------



## awf170 (Jul 18, 2007)

Personally I hate the idea of making a fat ski carve as good as possible.  I would way rather have my fat ski be good in the bumps instead of the groomers.   This is coming from the perspective of someone who never carves turns, so it might be a bit skewed.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 18, 2007)

awf170 said:


> Personally I hate the idea of making a fat ski carve as good as possible.  I would way rather have my fat ski be good in the bumps instead of the groomers.   This is coming from the perspective of someone who never carves turns, so it might be a bit skewed.



That's why I'm using a race ski that's only 66mm underfoot...much better in bumps.

It's funny because nobody today would ever buy my skis (Fischer RX8's) to ski powder, but those suckers ski powder so much better than any straight ski I ever had it isn't funny. So, to me, they're great in deep snow.

I'm glad I learned to ski on straights...I think I appreciate new technology more than most and it allows me to get away with using one ski for all conditions. I'm not fussy.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 18, 2007)

JimG. said:


> I'm glad I learned to ski on straights...I think I appreciate new technology more than most and it allows me to get away with using one ski for all conditions. I'm not fussy.


I started skiing on straights and skied them for about 15 years before my first pair of shaped skis (that were still 198cm, my longest straights were 204cm). If using older technology makes you appreciate newer technology, then I have used the long straight skis and can certainly appreciate the differences. But that appreciation only makes me more fussy not less  Its all good though, I enjoy the fact that two people can see something from different perspectives even with similar historical understanding (granted, you have had a lot more time to appreciate the straight skis than I did  ).


----------



## snoseek (Jul 18, 2007)

i'm a big fan of fat skis (i ski 82 and 92 widths), but there is something to be said for sinking a little. imo a truly advanced skier can fly through powder on almost any ski. that being said fat skis have made my own personal experience much much better.


----------



## koreshot (Jul 19, 2007)

JimG. said:


> That's why I'm using a race ski that's only 66mm underfoot...much better in bumps.



Indeed short slalom type skis are better in the bumps that most fatty long boards, but I didn't think that my 2001 Rossi 9S 167cm shorties were particularly good in the bumps either.  Too stiff and too turny/hooky.  IMO out of the popular ski designs one sees on the hill, the softer twin tips in the 70-80mm range are solid in the bumps.  I'm investing in a pair of Legend 8000s for trees and bumps based on some rave reviews and their reputation for quick, playful turning (also very tame sidecut and light design) - also have heard B2s are nice.

That said, skill is still #1 factor.  I am sure you could put a good bump skier on a hair of 185 GS race skis and he would still kick my butt no matter what ski I am on.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 19, 2007)

koreshot said:


> Indeed short slalom type skis are better in the bumps that most fatty long boards, but I didn't think that my 2001 Rossi 9S 167cm shorties were particularly good in the bumps either.  Too stiff and too turny/hooky.  IMO out of the popular ski designs one sees on the hill, the softer twin tips in the 70-80mm range are solid in the bumps.  I'm investing in a pair of Legend 8000s for trees and bumps based on some rave reviews and their reputation for quick, playful turning (also very tame sidecut and light design) - also have heard B2s are nice.
> 
> That said, skill is still #1 factor.  I am sure you could put a good bump skier on a hair of 185 GS race skis and he would still kick my butt no matter what ski I am on.



You bring up a good point about ski stiffness. And before the RX8's I was a confirmed twin tip guy. But then alot of the twin tips got really really soft and I didn't like them at all; then I put the RX8's on my feet and it was a done deal.

As much as they are race derived, I've always been a bit astonished at how flexible my RX8's are. I'd never have considered them if I hadn't demoed them because they contain a titanium layer and I never wanted metal in a ski I would take into bumps. But they ski great in bumps, very quick. And the metal makes them quite usable for crud busting and spring snow.


----------



## eastcoastskiier (Jul 21, 2007)

i tested out the new series from rossignol, formerly the B series (B1, B2, B3 B-squad..) they modified the skis a little bit in this line-up adding about 2mm to the waist on them, and they will be refering to them by their waist width this year. But i tested the ski that was 'the B2' and it was great. It had alot of pop, very lively, and when i was on it, I HAD FUN.   

when i first started skiing, i assumed a ski was a ski was a ski.. and thast nobody could REALLY tell the difference.. then i started testing, and have learned that that could not be more wrong. granted there are some similar models..  i couldnt believe it when i tested a pair of 'dead' skis.. yes i got from the top to the bottom in one piece, but they were BORING, uke:no life.  those new B2 had so much energy, i swear they kinda reminded me of like a new dog, hoping all around, getting into everything.. maybe putting me on a ski like that is a bad idea, but hell I'll HAVE A BLAST

---sorry about the tangent
HORRAY MID-FATS!!


----------



## big_vert (Jul 22, 2007)

Dynastar Legend 8000 - 81mm
Dynastar Legend 8800 - 88mm
Dynastar Pro Rider - 97mm
Dynastar Skicross 10 - 67mm

I usually use the 8000's in the east, exept in the unlikely event that there's some fresh, then I bring out the 8800's. The ProRiders are for the West.
The Skicross 10's come out when I get stuck having to do groomers all day because of ice (ahh, err, "hardpack").


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 13, 2007)

from 70mm for my "beer league" race ski (Volkl All Star) to 76mm, 79mm, 84mm, and 95mm for my fat skis.  Got plenty of days on the fat skis last spring...almost the only thing I skied from St Paddys day until the end.  EC skiers can get plenty of use out of fat or wider mid fats...a two ski quiver of something in the low to mid 70mm range and a wider ski in the mid to upper 80mm range would be a good bet for most ECers.  76mm is the narrowest ski I take out on the hill other than race nights.


----------



## lloyd braun (Aug 14, 2007)

78mm
87mm
89mm (AT setup)
95mm


----------



## mlctvt (Aug 14, 2007)

68mm Volkl 5-Stars
80mm Dynastar Legend 8000


----------



## SkiDog (Aug 17, 2007)

90mm
103mm

both are set up with touring binders.

M


----------



## snowmonster (Aug 17, 2007)

74 - Rossi Z9
94 - Rossi B4

Hoping that we get great snow so that the B4 gets a good eastern workout!


----------



## mishka (Aug 17, 2007)

68mm Volkl 5-Stars
79mm Dynastar Legend 8000
76mm Rossi B2
70mm Atomic R:10.20


----------



## Ski Diva (Aug 17, 2007)

73 mm - Fischer Vision 73s
87 mm - Volkl Queen Attivas


----------



## mattchuck2 (Aug 19, 2007)

66 and 78 Alpine
70 and 97 Tele

Looking to get a fatter alpine (92-106) if I can scrape together enough cash.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 23, 2007)

75


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 23, 2007)

My Elan S12s are 67mm underfoot and my Atomic LT11s are 66mms underfoot..I want to buy a pair of fat skis this season..I skied on my buddies K2 Public Enemies at Grand Targhee which are 85mm underfoot and they were sa weet...


----------



## thaller1 (Aug 23, 2007)

2 @ 76
92
96
106

going for an 84 next


----------



## prisnah (Sep 19, 2007)

only ones I really use are my Line Chronic Blends and those are a 90. I have a bit of trouble with them on icy days in the bumps, but other than that they seem to work out pretty badass even on the EC. Similar to the PE's


----------



## Greg (Sep 19, 2007)

Greg said:


> I'll be adding something in the 60's underfoot this season (bump ski).



Picked up the Cabrawlers - 92-66-82 - skinny skis, baby!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 19, 2007)

Greg said:


> Picked up the Cabrawlers - 92-66-82 - skinny skis, baby!



Wowser and I thought my old Elan S12s...112-67-100 were skinny...yikes..I guess you can always rent fat skis on a powder day..


----------



## Greg (Sep 19, 2007)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Wowser and I thought my old Elan S12s...112-67-100 were skinny...yikes..I guess you can always rent fat skis on a powder day..



I'll be on the AC3s (74mm) if there's more than 4" of new snow. I actually would like something a bit wider in the 78-82mm range.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Sep 19, 2007)

Am most likely gonna pick up some Scott Missions to replace my Public Enemies.  Going from a 85 to a 89.  Still have my Rossi Mutix, but dont know what they are under foot.  Maybe around 70?


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 19, 2007)

Greg said:


> I'll be on the AC3s (74mm) if there's more than 4" of new snow. I actually would like something a bit wider in the 78-82mm range.



I want to get some Elan Magfires which I think are 76mm in the waist..but with alot of sidecut..they'd be good carvers and also good in crud..Poe


----------



## Rushski (Sep 19, 2007)

Rocks - 67
Carvers - 66
Midfats - 82


----------



## Birdman829 (Sep 20, 2007)

69mm (165 Fischer RX9s for early season groomers, ice, bumps)

93mm (179 Bluehouse MRs for pow, trees, groomers, bumps, whatever I feel like)


----------



## snoseek (Sep 20, 2007)

92 mm in the middle, i'll probably never go much skinnier again. rock skis are 78.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 21, 2007)

2002 Bandit X - 67ish, not marked or if so under the binding

2007 Bandit B2 - 78

1999 Rossi Axioms - 120 I'm guessing - HUGE


----------



## ajl50 (Sep 25, 2007)

me: 68 and 98
GF: 68 and 95


----------



## nhski (Sep 26, 2007)

Atomics TM EX....84
Bandit XXX....90
Mantra's.....94


----------



## castlerock (Sep 26, 2007)

*More Mantra*

94


----------



## nhski (Sep 26, 2007)

didn't realize you have the Mantra's too.  Great ski eh?


----------



## castlerock (Sep 26, 2007)

Schweet! The Rockets broke down, the ptex separated from the core on both skis....No more cap/foam sticks for me. I've always been a Volkl fan. I had G4s before the Rockets, I even had P9s way back....


----------



## nhski (Sep 26, 2007)

castlerock said:


> Schweet! The Rockets broke down, the ptex separated from the core on both skis....No more cap/foam sticks for me. I've always been a Volkl fan. I had G4s before the Rockets, I even had P9s way back....



I totally agree, no more cap and no more foam.  Wood is the way to go for me.


----------



## bigbog (Sep 27, 2007)

*.....*



Greg said:


> Picked up the Cabrawlers - 92-66-82 - skinny skis, baby!



I like the reduced sidecut on those as well Greg!.....


----------



## ERJ-145CA (Oct 13, 2007)

73 & 78


----------



## bvibert (Oct 13, 2007)

90-65-81 on my new bump skis..


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 21, 2013)

bvibert said:


> 90-65-81 on my new bump skis..


what are your NEW bumps ski specs?


----------



## o3jeff (Mar 21, 2013)

I'm on 85's


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 21, 2013)

K2 PE's = 85mm (my AT ski)
Dynastar Huge Troubles = 115mm


----------



## timm (Mar 21, 2013)

81, 88, 105

at: 81, 98


----------



## 57stevey (Mar 21, 2013)

Currently 65, 84 (Dobermann RC, Afterburner)

Working towards 78, 98 (Top Fuel and something S3-like)


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 21, 2013)

today 84 (afterbuners 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 SUV Steve)


next season (hopefully) 98


----------



## Edd (Mar 21, 2013)

88 and 98 but I'm probably going to get a carver in the mid 70s. 

It's been a good season but I've hit a number of days during which I can't get the carves I want because of ultra scratchy terrain.


----------



## bigbog (Mar 21, 2013)

72   sadwalk...the hunt for BC ski all ended with a walk-mode boot(in my size) getting sold out..everywhere...arrggghh.
Some Line Prophet 90s up at local shop....hmmm


----------



## Puck it (Mar 21, 2013)

90, 98, 117


----------



## xwhaler (Mar 21, 2013)

100 daily driver


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 21, 2013)

89.  I'll look to add a powder ski whenever I move back to NH.


----------



## 57stevey (Mar 21, 2013)

gmcunni said:


> today 84 (afterbuners
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They served me well! But now that I am committed to a 2-quiver, they are on borrowed time.


----------



## WWF-VT (Mar 22, 2013)

About 80% of the time this season I have been on 95 underfoot Volkl Bridges. Spent one day on 68 ? underfoot Fischer RX-8 and early season skied mostly on Fischer Watea 78's.  My Watea's are shot after 5 seasons.


----------



## jrmagic (Mar 22, 2013)

78 and 110


----------



## Warp Daddy (Mar 22, 2013)

Im still on 65's  have couple prs of Atomic SX 10's my ginsu skis for hardpack ,This is our most prevelant condition and my ski buddies and i still like to let em run most of the day . 

 I want to pick up something fatter for crud skis .    The SX. 10 are heavy enough to get thru it , but i think a rockered fatter ski might be a better tool for that and those rare powder days . Not sure what  ski yet , but will be doing some demos to find out


----------

