Do you really need a wide ski for powder?

[cantunamunch]

If anyone in this thread needs 4-pin bindings, gimme a shout.

 

[Doug Briggs]

If anyone in this thread needs 4-pin bindings, gimme a shout.

Four has to be better than three.

 

[jmeb]

If anyone in this thread needs 4-pin bindings, gimme a shout.

I'm in for some cheap Dynafits.

 

[Ken_R]

Talk to Gary Wayne in Whistler. Those DPS are 40mm too skinny compared to what they build.

https://www.tetongravity.com/story/ski/Garywayne2013-Review-348

Yes you read that right. 180mm waist. Stop wasting your perfect pow days.

Cmon man. Those are a bit too much. Even for me.

 

[Monique]

You could not just bomb straight down like folks are doing now. You had to be able to turn, control speed, and avoid rocks and trees.

Huh. I didn't realize that bombing straight down eliminated rocks and trees.

 

[cantunamunch]

Cmon man. Those are a bit too much. Even for me.

There, there. I completely understand.

A lifetime of skinny ski indoctrination is so very hard to break.

Those pernicious, malignant, evil relapses? The ones that pose as 'the voice of reason'?

Ignoring them takes practice.

And you will have relapse days when you go back to your skinny 138s... we promise not to judge.

 

[Don in Morrison]

Talk to Gary Wayne in Whistler. Those DPS are 40mm too skinny compared to what they build.

https://www.tetongravity.com/story/ski/Garywayne2013-Review-348

Yes you read that right. 180mm waist. Stop wasting your perfect pow days.

How wide do they have to be before you can call them snowboards?

 

[jmeb]

Huh. I didn't realize that bombing straight down eliminated rocks and trees.

Not sure if you're joking or not....but really going straight does decrease this. When you turn you typically dig deeper into the snowpack. Its why turning on a trigger point is even more likely to trigger an avalanche than just skiing over it.

 

[cantunamunch]

How wide do they have to be before you can call them snowboards?

4'x8'?

Not sure if you're joking or not....but really going straight does decrease this. When you turn you typically dig deeper into the snowpack. Its why turning on a trigger point is even more likely to trigger an avalanche than just skiing over it.

I made this very point over in the tree well thread.

 

[Monique]

Not sure if you're joking or not....but really going straight does decrease this. When you turn you typically dig deeper into the snowpack. Its why turning on a trigger point is even more likely to trigger an avalanche than just skiing over it.

Oh. Yeah, I totally agree with this. I was picturing *exposed* rocks and trees. However, I am not sure how someone on skinny skis could intentionally avoid skiing over buried obstacles, aside from the same stuff that a smart person would do on fat skis today (look for other stuff sticking out nearby, be familiar with the slope even when it isn't covered in snow, just be smart about aspects ...)

 

[Roundturns]

There, there. I completely understand.

A lifetime of skinny ski indoctrination is so very hard to break.

Those pernicious, malignant, evil relapses? The ones that pose as 'the voice of reason'?

Ignoring them takes practice.

And you will have relapse days when you go back to your skinny 138s... we promise not to judge.

 

[Seldomski]

How wide do they have to be before you can call them snowboards?

I think the line is when each ski approaches the size of a monoski?

These guys' narrowest monoski is 190 mm.

 

[cantunamunch]

I think the line is when each ski approaches the size of a monoski?

These guys' narrowest monoski is 190 mm.

I don't find that a compelling boundary for two reasons:
First, hunting skis regularly go over that.

Second, skwalls
https://www.codaboards.com/skwall.php
http://www.skwalzone.org/

and teleboards

are narrower than that, and sometimes even narrower than some current mass market skis, say the DPS above.

 

[Roundturns]

My deepest powder day at Steamboat now probably 25 years ago I skied on Olin DX's (the red ones) I think they were like 68-69 underfoot ,205 cm. Came down Storm Peak in what was reported as 22 inches and had snow billowing up over my shoulders.

It was an unbelievable experience I never have forgotten and unfortunately never repeated. About 8-10 years ago I bought a pair of 131 waisted powder skis from an Indy mfg out of Utah. Forgot the name now their popular ski was named Maestro. Anyway my skis were great in powder but complete banana peel saucers out of powder.

When I would stop it felt like I was standing on a carpet somebody was pulling out from underneath me.

Took them to a tuner to get ground flat but they were too wide for the machine. Have a pair of 107 Chams but unfortunately have probably only skied them 20 days and 10 of those I could have been on my "regular skis". Powder for the vacationing skier is unfortunately too seldom.

 

[cantunamunch]

It was an unbelievable experience I never have forgotten and unfortunately never repeated. About 8-10 years ago I bought a pair of 131 waisted powder skis from an Indy mfg out of Utah. Forgot the name now their popular ski was named Maestro. Anyway my skis were great in powder but complete banana peel saucers out of powder.

Bluehouse. I'm pretty sure @Freaq had a pair of Bluehouse that worked pretty well; I had a pair of MR2 that were...too soft for much of anything outside the park.

 

[Noodler]

Lots of old school videos on the skinny skis, but how about something a bit more up-to-date...

 

[Rod9301]

Lots of old school videos on the skinny skis, but how about something a bit more up-to-date...

This was funny. A parody, right?
Turns in about 3 inches of fresh and acting like it was a super deep day.

 

[Eric267]

My deepest powder day at Steamboat now probably 25 years ago I skied on Olin DX's (the red ones) I think they were like 68-69 underfoot ,205 cm. Came down Storm Peak in what was reported as 22 inches and had snow billowing up over my shoulders.

It was an unbelievable experience I never have forgotten and unfortunately never repeated. About 8-10 years ago I bought a pair of 131 waisted powder skis from an Indy mfg out of Utah. Forgot the name now their popular ski was named Maestro. Anyway my skis were great in powder but complete banana peel saucers out of powder.

When I would stop it felt like I was standing on a carpet somebody was pulling out from underneath me.

Took them to a tuner to get ground flat but they were too wide for the machine. Have a pair of 107 Chams but unfortunately have probably only skied them 20 days and 10 of those I could have been on my "regular skis". Powder for the vacationing skier is unfortunately too seldom.

I have a pair of maestro from 2012 that I'm still using as an early season rock ski. One of the most fun shapes I've ever been on. Soft in the (super rockered) tips and tails but fairly solid under foot. Steep trees were a blast and crazy easy to pivot in the bumps even though they are 189-116.

Flat camber definitely made for tough times on hardback. When it was icy you had to "drift and hope" your turns and wait for them to get up on edge to engage. Not the best Tahoe ski since they lacked the backbone to really charge choppy Sierra cement . I had them in vail for a few weeks (2013?) when it really dumped almost every night I was there and they had absolutely no speed limit and felt super stable in the lighter Colorado pow.

I did get a good pair though.. Biggest complaint about bluehouse skis was there was major flaws in probably about 25% of the skis that came out of the factory

 

[Noodler]

This was funny. A parody, right?
Turns in about 3 inches of fresh and acting like it was a super deep day.

C'mon, it was at least 6".

 

[pchewn]

Lots of old school videos on the skinny skis, but how about something a bit more up-to-date...

BTW: That's a terrible idea to keep your skis, boots, and poles by the fire and then go right out and ski with them.