# Waist size...



## Tin (Mar 5, 2014)

I took about 8 years off from skiing because of hockey and when I got back into it I realized that everyone was on some giant waist skis. Aside from powder what are the benefits over the bigger waists? Is there a guide for what is ideal for bumps, trees, etc or all personal preference?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Mar 5, 2014)

Well my waist size is a 36 in case you were wondering 

I personally don't think waist size matters a whole lot in the bumps. Skis with more shape are easy to maneuver but the stiffness of a ski is the real equalizer. Softer skis are easy to flex which makes it easy to drive the tips down. In the trees, a wider waist gives you more float. If you are skiing tightly spaced trees you want a light ski so sometimes it's a balancing act between waist size and weight. Basically, there is no right or wrong way. There is no perfect ski and each one has trade offs. Decide how you primarily want to use the ski and you will have an easier time making a decision.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Mar 5, 2014)

I'm skinny, therefore my skis are skinny.  

The waist on my skis is about 65.  My tips are probably as wide as a lot of the waist size of many skis at 103.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## dlague (Mar 5, 2014)

My skis are more of an all mountain ski with dimensions of 131-87-119.  Having had a more narrow ski before these float a little more.  The side cut is important in this case which allows the ski to arc nicely.  I have a partial twin tip which is fun to play on.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Puck it (Mar 5, 2014)

98 for everyday. 118 for pow days.


----------



## Tin (Mar 5, 2014)

Ever have a problem with the 118s in heavier type snows Puck It? How are they on an everyday basis?


----------



## yeggous (Mar 5, 2014)

88 for my daily driver, 110 for soft snow


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 5, 2014)

yeggous said:


> 88 for my daily driver, 110 for soft snow
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



how are the E88s on hard pack?  bumps? and in 6ish inches of snow?

My daily driver is a Fischer Motive 84.  I'd rate them an A- on hard pack, B- in bumps and a D in anything over 6 inches of snow, especially if the snow is heavy.

I like them and got them specifically for hard snow performance knowing I would be skiing a lot of NH hard pack when I moved here and wouldn't get to enjoy the N. VT powder frequency.  I feel I somewhat overcompensated for hard snow performance and gave up too much elsewhere as a daily driver.  The E88's are certainly on the radar as a replacement down the line.

That will come after soft/powder ski replacement though.


----------



## snoseek (Mar 5, 2014)

96 and 114. the 96 is my daily driver and plenty good for firm conditions, back east maybe something mid 80's for hardpack would be appropriate....I don't race so I don't need a stiff mid 60's ski


----------



## Smellytele (Mar 6, 2014)

89 on my every day skis. 115 on my powder skis. Another thing is the rocker vs non rocker. Even on 115 I still have a camber (non rocker) so they are okay on harder pack, groomers and such. When you add the rocker you kind of limit yourself to powder. My 115 Black diamond Amperages can handle just about any condition that my 89's can handle.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Mar 6, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> 89 on my every day skis. 115 on my powder skis. Another thing is the rocker vs non rocker. Even on 115 I still have a camber (non rocker) so they are okay on harder pack, groomers and such. When you add the rocker you kind of limit yourself to powder. My 115 Black diamond Amperages can handle just about any condition that my 89's can handle.



Depends on whether you go full rocker or not. That can make a big difference


----------



## Cheese (Mar 6, 2014)

68mm GS carver
68mm SL carver
74mm Bumps & crud
117mm Powder



deadheadskier said:


> The E88's are certainly on the radar as a replacement down the line.



That's what's missing in my quiver as well.  I have no desire for anything between the 88 and my 117s.  I skied the Kastle FX84 which I also enjoyed though so now I'm torn between that and the E88.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 6, 2014)

Tin said:


> Ever have a problem with the 118s in heavier type snows Puck It? How are they on an everyday basis?



They are actually 117's.  I made a typo.  They are Skilogik Rock Star's with full rocker.  I wish I had gone woith the 188cm instead of the 178cm.  They in pow and slop.  However, they are horrible on hardpack.  If you have never seen them.  These are it.


----------



## Smellytele (Mar 6, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Depends on whether you go full rocker or not. That can make a big difference



Correct. My 115's have camber but do raise up at the ends a little more than "normal".


----------



## bigbog (Mar 6, 2014)

If you go off-resort a bit the crud and windblown-crud present a real need for some shovel stiffness...no pivoting between trees in windblown stuff, but where the snow is better I think skiers do have more choice...and some added width definitely helps in more dense, NE pow.  Less hooking up...etc.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 6, 2014)

70 mm and 108mm .... I sold an 84 and 94 to get the 108. I do miss the 84 some so will probably fill that hole for next season.


----------



## yeggous (Mar 6, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> how are the E88s on hard pack?  bumps? and in 6ish inches of snow?
> 
> My daily driver is a Fischer Motive 84.  I'd rate them an A- on hard pack, B- in bumps and a D in anything over 6 inches of snow, especially if the snow is heavy.
> 
> ...



The E88 rips on hardpack. They are great in crud, and decent in bumps. When the snow gets excessively soft and deep you're better off going wider. Something around 100 under foot with be better in spring slush, but given the gripper nature of the 88 on hard snow it is worth the trade. As for your six inch dump, they don't do so well when it is untracked. Their snub nose tends to submarine when the snow gets more than a few inches deep. Wait an hour or two until it turns to cut up crud and that is where the 88 comes into its own.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Cheese (Mar 6, 2014)

Tin said:


> I took about 8 years off from skiing because of hockey and when I got back into it I realized that everyone was on some giant waist skis. Aside from powder what are the benefits over the bigger waists? Is there a guide for what is ideal for bumps, trees, etc or all personal preference?



When you go wide on hard pack you sacrifice edge to edge transition quickness.  If one is trying to support an upright object from tipping using the base, build a wider base.  A skier is an upright object so widening the base (ski width) makes it harder to tip.  Harder to tip translates to a longer transition time and more work for the skier.  If there's no concern about how quick a ski can be transitioned edge to edge or how much work it is to get the ski on edge, disregard this post.


----------



## SandwichTech (Mar 6, 2014)

I ski Cannon 99% of the time and like a 78mm carver for any day.  Even when I have other widths available, I find that instead of checking conditions I just grab the 78s and go.


----------



## hammer (Mar 6, 2014)

70mm and 88mm...bring out the 70s for hardpack and the 88s for everything else, sure the 88s would be fine for all that I do.


----------



## SandwichTech (Mar 6, 2014)

Cheese said:


> When you go wide on hard pack you sacrifice edge to edge transition quickness.  If one is trying to support an upright object from tipping using the base, build a wider base.  A skier is an upright object so widening the base (ski width) makes it harder to tip.  Harder to tip translates to a longer transition time and more work for the skier.



This is a great analogy for an effect that is often difficult to explain.


----------



## Cornhead (Mar 6, 2014)

40", oh _ski _waist size, 98mm as an every day ski. I'm considering going narrower, 88mm. I demoed a pair of Blizzard Bushwhackers that I liked a lot. They were more nimble than my current ski, Volkl Mantras. Now I'm torn between metal, or non metal, construction. The Bushwhackers are metal only under foot. They are more playful, better in the bumps, than the Mantras. I did notice you don't get the energy return out of turns on groomers that I get with the Mantras. I would expect edge hold to be better on hardpack with a metal ski also. I'm going to try the Blizzard Brahma Saturday and see what I think, two sheets of metal, same as the Mantra. Maybe I'll pick up some used, true powder skis for those rare times there needed here in the East, and trips out West. I could've used a pair a few times at Snow Ridge this year too. It would help if I got that "waist" size down too, tough to float 250lbs. :lol:

Puck it, the graphics are awesome on the Rock Stars.


----------



## Cheese (Mar 6, 2014)

yeggous said:


> Wait an hour or two until it turns to cut up crud and that is where the 88 comes into its own.



Wait out the fresh powder?  I wish SO MANY more people would do this.  Please let this advice go viral!


----------



## MadMadWorld (Mar 6, 2014)

yeggous said:


> The E88 rips on hardpack. They are great in crud, and decent in bumps. When the snow gets excessively soft and deep you're better off going wider. Something around 100 under foot with be better in spring slush, but given the gripper nature of the 88 on hard snow it is worth the trade. As for your six inch dump, they don't do so well when it is untracked. Their snub nose tends to submarine when the snow gets more than a few inches deep. Wait an hour or two until it turns to cut up crud and that is where the 88 comes into its own.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app



Solid advice!


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 6, 2014)

Cheese said:


> Wait out the fresh powder?  I wish SO MANY more people would do this.  Please let this advice go viral!


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 6, 2014)

5 days in CO, my demo ski waists went 106, 102, 112, 98, 105, 117.  Skied a wide variety of terrain from soft snow, bumps, and even hard groomers (in CO! *gasp*).

Many of us, myself included, get caught up in waist width, but for the most part we're talking about an inch of difference, max.  80mm to 100mm, to even 110mm, really isn't as big of a difference as ski length, flex, rocker, and other variables.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 6, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> 5 days in CO, my demo ski waists went 106, 102, 112, 98, 105, 117. Skied a wide variety of terrain from soft snow, bumps, and even hard groomers (in CO! *gasp*).
> 
> Many of us, myself included, get caught up in waist width, but for the most part we're talking about an inch of difference, max. 80mm to 100mm, to even 110mm, really isn't as big of a difference as ski length, flex, rocker, and other variables.



So size does matter?


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 6, 2014)

Puck it said:


> So size does matter?



Yes, but don't tell my wife that.


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 6, 2014)

SandwichTech said:


> I ski Cannon 99% of the time and like a 78mm carver for any day.  Even when I have other widths available, I find that instead of checking conditions I just grab the 78s and go.



Pretty sure I've see you on the hill (admired the skis).  Do you guys have anything to demo?


----------



## dlague (Mar 6, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Depends on whether you go full rocker or not. That can make a big difference




Full Rocker in New England is only good on snow days which are far and few if you can only get out on weekends!  Full rocker on Hard Pack sucks!  If you can afford a quiver of 3-4 pairs of skis then it fits in.


----------



## dlague (Mar 6, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> 5 days in CO, my demo ski waists went 106, 102, 112, 98, 105, 117.  Skied a wide variety of terrain from soft snow, bumps, and even hard groomers (in CO! *gasp*).
> 
> Many of us, myself included, get caught up in waist width, but for the most part we're talking about an inch of difference, max.  80mm to 100mm, to even 110mm, really isn't as big of a difference as ski length, flex, rocker, and other variables.



If you ski on narrower skis then the first few runs on a wider ski takes a little getting used to.  Going from 72 to 85 no biggie but going from 72 to 115 - well there is a difference.  Differences between the sized you mention once again no biggie.


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 6, 2014)

dlague said:


> If you ski on narrower skis then the first few runs on a wider ski takes a little getting used to.  Going from 72 to 85 no biggie but going from 72 to 115 - well there is a difference.  Differences between the sized you mention once again no biggie.



I had never skied anything bigger than 89mm underfoot before Sat, and I would say that the difference was negligible.

You're right that 72 to 115 would be a big difference, but I would also argue that those skis are going to be built completely differently in terms of flex and side cut and camber, that makes it an apples to oranges comparison.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 6, 2014)

Personally, I notice a HUGE difference between something in the 85 range vs 100.  IMO 15 mm  makes an exceptional difference in how ski handles with factors like camber/rocker/metal being equal.


----------



## jrmagic (Mar 6, 2014)

I have a 78 and a 110 and I've had so much fun with the 110 that I only skied the 78s once this year. The 110s are a very cambered multi radius twintip with with no metal inside. I absolutely agree with what Cheese said about them not being as quick in transition but they are quick enough and surprisingly beefy enough to rail big turns at speed and her soft enough for the bumps except when they are rock hard. Basically they are just more fun so they have become my dIky driver.


----------



## steamboat1 (Mar 6, 2014)

I've been a 36" waist for as long as I can remember.:-D


----------



## Brad J (Mar 6, 2014)

Have 65 SL for early season , 65 for GS race, 88  daily driver , 94 soft snow and pow, 96 for a AT setup


----------



## SandwichTech (Mar 6, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Pretty sure I've see you on the hill (admired the skis).  Do you guys have anything to demo?



Right now we have a 166cm Root 78 in a Flex 3 and a 175cm Root 88 in a Flex 2 available for demoing.  Just send me a PM to make arrangements.


----------



## bigbog (Mar 6, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> .....Basically, there is no right or wrong way. There is no perfect ski and each one has trade offs. Decide how you primarily want to use the ski and you will have an easier time making a decision.



+1


----------



## Cheese (Mar 13, 2014)

SandwichTech said:


> This is a great analogy for an effect that is often difficult to explain.





yeggous said:


> The E88 rips on hardpack.



Unfortunately for me at least, most reviews are like this one where edge to edge transition speed isn't even a factor.  I don't judge skiers at speed and I often discount the speed performance of a ski for the same reason.  Any expert can half carve and half skid down a steep pitch effortlessly.  Only the best can ski the same terrain slowly.  A carve doesn't have to hold much when turns are only half finished.  To ski a steep slope slowly, the carve needs to be far stronger and hold for far longer.  The slow skiing situation requires a ski with a tight turn radius, a good amount of stiffness for edge grip and very fast transition speed.  5 turns down a black diamond with a 20 foot hockey stop at the end, meh.  20 carves and the last one ends in full 560º loop carve to stop, *dayum*!


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 14, 2014)

Tin said:


> I took about 8 years off from skiing because of hockey and when I got back into it I realized that everyone was on some giant waist skis. Aside from powder what are the benefits over the bigger waists? Is there a guide for what is ideal for bumps, trees, etc or all personal preference?



So, did you get some real powder skis yet?  Let me recommend the Head Boneshaker 191cm, I picked mine up last summer.  Full sidewall, wood core, mild rocker, 146/125/135, ~11.5lb without binding, mount -1.5cm from the furtherst back line with 18-din FKS.  Really stable jumping and dropping, and pretty manuverable in the woods.  Of course, you're only going to want to ski these in 2-4ft+ deep mostly untracked powder, so you're going to need to know where to find powder.  Great ski!


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 14, 2014)

My advice, be honest about the type of terrain and conditions you will be skiing on and the type of skier you are.  Skiers, like bicyclists, tend to gravitate toward what the elite uses, which is often not what is best for the non-elite.  Another wrinkle is that a lot of east coast skiers gravitate toward a ski that is better suited for the Rockies.  

If 95% of your skiing is not on powder days, don't get a ski meant primarily for powder, even if that's considered to be the "ultimate" ski and "ultimate" snow condition.  For the vast majority of east coast skiers, my strong recommendation is a ski that is responsive and a very solid carver.  It should make you confident in the typical New England conditions.  Only until you have that pair of skis should you venture out and get something else to round out your quiver.  

And don't be fooled by an "all mountain" ski if you are not truly an "all mountain" skier.  Even if you were, anything with the word "all" in its title is going to involve compromises.  I am not opposed to an "all mountain" ski, I just think that it is pushed on too many people as the best option.  

Of course if you are a park skier, adrenaline junkie, etc. - your mileage may vary.  Be if you aren't,  be honest about that fact and don't those people, or their fanboys, talk you into something that isn't your best option.


----------



## Tin (Nov 14, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> So, did you get some real powder skis yet?  Let me recommend the Head Boneshaker 191cm, I picked mine up last summer.  Full sidewall, wood core, mild rocker, 146/125/135, ~11.5lb without binding, mount -1.5cm from the furtherst back line with 18-din FKS.  Really stable jumping and dropping, and pretty manuverable in the woods.  Of course, you're only going to want to ski these in 2-4ft+ deep mostly untracked powder, so you're going to need to know where to find powder.  Great ski!



Motorhead? What's wrong they don't make an Indigo Girls version?


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 14, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> My advice, be honest about the type of terrain and conditions you will be skiing on and the type of skier you are.  Skiers, like bicyclists, tend to gravitate toward what the elite uses, which is often not what is best for the non-elite.  Another wrinkle is that a lot of east coast skiers gravitate toward a ski that is better suited for the Rockies.
> 
> If 95% of your skiing is not on powder days, don't get a ski meant primarily for powder, even if that's considered to be the "ultimate" ski and "ultimate" snow condition.  For the vast majority of east coast skiers, my strong recommendation is a ski that is responsive and a very solid carver.  It should make you confident in the typical New England conditions.  Only until you have that pair of skis should you venture out and get something else to round out your quiver.
> 
> ...



Ok.................only an extremely small section of the skiing public is on elite level ski gear, under 1%.  If you don't know this, you don't even know what elite level gear is.

I have an active quiver of around 15 pairs of skis, but if I had to have only one ski.......guess what?  It would be an all mountain ski!  Being on a carving ski is only good if you ski icy groomers at Jiminy Peak all the time, futher north and a carver is going to be a disadvantage.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Nov 14, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Ok.................only an extremely small section of the skiing public is on elite level ski gear, under 1%.  If you don't know this, you don't even know what elite level gear is.
> 
> I have an active quiver of around 15 pairs of skis, but if I had to have only one ski.......guess what?  It would be an all mountain ski!  Being on a carving ski is only good if you ski icy groomers at Jiminy Peak all the time, futher north and a carver is going to be a disadvantage.



I feel a Tom Skerritt monolog coming....


----------



## Tin (Nov 14, 2014)

Good morning gentleman, the temperature is 110 degrees.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 14, 2014)

Tin said:


> Good morning gentleman, the temperature is 110 degrees.


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 14, 2014)

Tin said:


> Good morning gentleman, the temperature is 110 degrees.



What, are still doing Hot Yoga? 

We could wax on indefinitely about the virtues of skinny vs fat skis, and as much as I love discussing the technicals of skiing and gear, I fear I'd bore myself to death with this crowd :lol:. I own skis with waist width between 64 - 120, and ski them all in the east, and west. Different tools for different applications.

For those fearing the fat, consider this: Both a mono ski, and a carving snowboard is ~200 mm wide. If they can be carved, your two planks ~100 each can too. Will they be as quick as a 64mm race ski? No. Will they hold as well on race course ice? Depends on the driver, but usually no; but if you're not racing, you probably don't care.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 14, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Ok.................only an extremely small section of the skiing public is on elite level ski gear, under 1%.  If you don't know this, you don't even know what elite level gear is.
> 
> I have an active quiver of around 15 pairs of skis, but if I had to have only one ski.......guess what?  It would be an all mountain ski!  Being on a carving ski is only good if you ski icy groomers at Jiminy Peak all the time, futher north and a carver is going to be a disadvantage.


A couple of clarifications:
1) I never said that many people use elite gear.  I said that many people want to gravitate toward elite gear.  Big difference.
2) I have no doubt that a skier such as yourself would choose an all-mountain ski if you could just have one ski.  I also have no doubt that this would be a good choice for you.  But I stand by my argument that for the most common type of skier (a non-expert who skis a few days per year), an all-mountain ski may not be their best choice.  My point was simply that he should avoid an "all mountain ski" if he is not an "all mountain skier".  (go back and you will see that I said exactly that... I'll wait... good...)  I find it hard to believe that this would be contentious.  

BTW, did Killington open first as you predicted?


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 14, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> ...  But I stand by my argument that for *the most common type of skier* (a non-expert who *skis a few days per year*)




What? Blasphemy!!   Your common tourist skier from Texas maybe, not the most common type of skier. And where did Tin ( the OP ) say he only skied a few days a year? I still think you're wrong.. well I don't know .. first you have to define an All Mountain ski, the meaning has gotten sloppy as of late.  For that matter, you need to define what you mean by "ski that is responsive and a very solid carver"  There are a lot of solid carvers I wouldn't put an intermediate skier ( one who skis only a few days a year ) on. An intermediate level All Mountain ski would be a better platform for a weak skier.


----------



## WWF-VT (Nov 14, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> So, did you get some real powder skis yet? Let me recommend the Head Boneshaker 191cm, I picked mine up last summer. Full sidewall, wood core, mild rocker, 146/125/135, ~11.5lb without binding, mount -1.5cm from the furtherst back line with 18-din FKS. Really stable jumping and dropping, and pretty manuverable in the woods. Of course, you're only going to want to ski these in 2-4ft+ deep mostly untracked powder, so you're going to need to know where to find powder. Great ski!



So with your active quiver of 15 skis do you use these about two hours a season when your beloved Killington is blessed with 2-4 ft of untracked powder ?


----------



## Domeskier (Nov 14, 2014)

WWF-VT said:


> So with your active quiver of 15 skis do you use these about two hours a season when your beloved Killington is blessed with 2-4 ft of untracked powder ?



Are you kidding?  I bet HS is currently skiing 2-4ft of untracked powder left over from last season in one of his secret stashes!


----------



## MadMadWorld (Nov 14, 2014)

Tin said:


> Good morning gentleman, the temperature is 110 degrees.





Puck it said:


>



Ahhh here it is...


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 14, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> What? Blasphemy!!   Your common tourist skier from Texas maybe, not the most common type of skier.



In 2006/2007 skiers averaged 11 days per year.  


Having had 8 years off, I assumed that the OP was not returning as an expert.  At least not yet.


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 14, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> In 2006/2007 skiers averaged *11 days* per year.
> 
> 
> .



I don't call them skiers. You need to at least double that to be called a skier.


----------



## darent (Nov 14, 2014)

my powder skis are 65 underfoot, that way I get more face shots!!


----------



## St. Bear (Nov 14, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> So, did you get some real powder skis yet?  Let me recommend the Head Boneshaker 191cm, I picked mine up last summer.  Full sidewall, wood core, mild rocker, 146/125/135, ~11.5lb without binding, mount -1.5cm from the furtherst back line with 18-din FKS.  Really stable jumping and dropping, and pretty manuverable in the woods.  Of course, you're only going to want to ski these in 2-4ft+ deep mostly untracked powder, so you're going to need to know where to find powder.  Great ski!




You win some, lose some.
It's all the same to me.


----------



## St. Bear (Nov 14, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> I don't call them skiers. You need to at least double that to be called a skier.



Ah shucks.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 14, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> I don't call them skiers. You need to at least double that to be called a skier.



That explains things.  


.


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 14, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> That explains things.
> 
> 
> .



There is nothing wrong with being a once in a blue moon skier. I use to golf 3 times a week years ago, I called myself a golfer then. I get out a couple times a year now, if that; I no longer call myself a golfer. 

But nice deflection from your argument of the right ski for these said sometime skiers is a carver.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 14, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> In 2006/2007 skiers averaged 11 days per year.
> 
> 
> Having had 8 years off, I assumed that the OP was not returning as an expert.  At least not yet.



You would assume wrong.  Tin rips.  Did so right from the start of last season.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 14, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> You would assume wrong.  Tin rips.  Did so right from the start of last season.



Add him to the list of ski offs to avoid!


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## MadMadWorld (Nov 17, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Add him to the list of ski offs to avoid!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone



This was in a discussion early. He is similar to a trail that is marked as a black diamond in a blue square. He is an intermediate but since he tries to keep up with us, we let him think that he is advanced.



Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## Tin (Nov 17, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> This was in a discussion early. He is similar to a trail that is marked as a black diamond in a blue square. He is an intermediate but since he tries to keep up with us, we let him think that he is advanced.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone




I have to agree because my body is black and blue after a day of skiing. 


And thank you DHS.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 18, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> A couple of clarifications:
> 1) I never said that many people use elite gear.  I said that many people want to gravitate toward elite gear.  Big difference.
> 2) I have no doubt that a skier such as yourself would choose an all-mountain ski if you could just have one ski.  I also have no doubt that this would be a good choice for you.  But I stand by my argument that for the most common type of skier (a non-expert who skis a few days per year), an all-mountain ski may not be their best choice.  My point was simply that he should avoid an "all mountain ski" if he is not an "all mountain skier".  (go back and you will see that I said exactly that... I'll wait... good...)  I find it hard to believe that this would be contentious.
> 
> BTW, did Killington open first as you predicted?



What does gravity have to do with this?  Are you saying that people are posers for emulating elite level skiers?  Are you saying that most people who ski midfat and fat skis don't need them?

I think you should stick to giving ski advice to gapers from Texas.


----------



## Highway Star (Nov 18, 2014)

WWF-VT said:


> So with your active quiver of 15 skis do you use these about two hours a season when your beloved Killington is blessed with 2-4 ft of untracked powder ?



I'll use them about 2 to 10 days a year depending on how much it snows.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 18, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> What does gravity have to do with this?



I'm assuming that this was a joke and that you know what the term "gravitate" means.  


.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 18, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> In 2006/2007 skiers averaged 11 days per year.



Where does that stat come from?  Seems high.   I thought it was significantly fewer days than that due to the impact from many 1 or 2 day per season skiers.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 18, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Where does that stat come from?  Seems high.   I thought it was significantly fewer days than that due to the impact from many 1 or 2 day per season skiers.


The mean is skewed by pass holders.  The mode is probably MUCH closer to your number.  I got the stat from a trade group's paper.  IIRC it was from the equipment manufacturerer's trade group, but I don't remember for sure.


----------



## Tin (Nov 18, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> What does gravity have to do with this?  Are you saying that people are posers for emulating elite level skiers?  Are you saying that most people who ski midfat and fat skis don't need them?
> 
> I think you should stick to giving ski advice to gapers from Texas.



I can defy gravity and turn my 105s like they are Hart F17s. Quadzilla up in this bitch. Come at me bro!


----------

