New rant... Backcountry/wide skis and telemarkers

This is the World Famous TelemarkTalk / TelemarkTips Forum, by far the most dynamic telemark and backcountry skiing discussion board on the world wide web. We have fun here, come on in and be a part of it.
Harris

Rank: XCD Pinhead
XCD Pinhead
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 5:08 pm

New rant... Backcountry/wide skis and telemarkers

Postby Harris » Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:03 pm

Practically every, if not all tele skiers I see at our ski areas are sporting new BC skis to ski inbounds. And a lot of alpine skier are doing the same. The marketing scheme of the ski industry is "the all mountain ski." Bullshit; no such creature exists. Fat skis suck on groomed snow, or in bumps, or on pretty much any inbound condition one will encounter outside the first few hours after a major overnight dump. So why do people run a ski designed to float when for 90% of it's expected use it will suffer turning efficiency in general conditions. Ah, people say "I can turn a fat ski anywhere." Bullshit. I mean yeah, you can skid and change direction on anything, including 2 by 4s, but... There is no such thing as a single ski quiver. This rant isn't against those who always want to pose as "BC" hardcores, or those who can only afford one ski and got duped by the marketing BS, this rant is against the ski industry. An interesting and funny piece on ski width I attach...


Nick BC

Rank: XCD Enthusiast
XCD Enthusiast
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 10:04 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC
Ski style: Free heel Resort/Backcountry
Favorite Skis: Voile Vector BC, Salomon QST 99 and G3 Stinger XCD
Favorite boots: Scarpa TX and T3
Occupation: Retired Community Planner

Re: New rant... Backcountry/wide skis and telemarkers

Postby Nick BC » Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:07 am

Agreed, if you’re mostly skiing groomers wide skis are harder on the knees. After 45 years of skiing I’ve zeroed in on 95 mm underfoot as an optimum waist width for Whistler, on and off piste. In the Spring when the snow is firm I have a pair of 85mm underfoot skis, which are super light and romp up the skin track.” Horses for courses” as my old uncle used to say.

Cannatonic

Rank: XCD Guide
XCD Guide
Posts: 777
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:07 pm

Re: New rant... Backcountry/wide skis and telemarkers

Postby Cannatonic » Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:18 pm

OMG this guy is me! anyone familiar with my own rantings knows I've been railing against wide and shaped skis since the internet first opened in the 90's! :lol: I'm actually eerily similar to the guy in the video! Skinny middle-aged guy with a wild look in my eye - can't understand why young skiers are using these horrible clunky, heavy skis to cruise down the mountain. Been pointing out how GS racers still use 1980's dimension skis. The ski companies actually make them change out & hold fat slalom skis on the podiums after GS and DH races!

He's SO right! People don't even learn how to turn skis properly these days! That's why tele is less popular - you need to master independent leg action, hip angulation, etc, big fat shaped skis can't be skied this way, the skills never develop. If you ski with independent leg action (standing on the outside ski), adapting to tele is not difficult.

I believe the whole movement & propaganda toward today's skis was specically done to reduce the value of used skis and make everyone buy new gear. Skiing stopped growing in the 80's and 90's and there was lots of old gear sitting around.

User avatar
Woodserson

Rank: XCD KNIGHT
XCD KNIGHT
Posts: 1239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 am
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: Bumps, trees, and steeps and long woodsy XC tours
Favorite Skis: DH: Voile Objective and V6, Altai KOMs, Atomic Vantage 85, XC: Gamme 54, Classy Woodies
Favorite boots: T4, Alaska
Occupation: Retro Rager-grouch

Re: New rant... Backcountry/wide skis and telemarkers

Postby Woodserson » Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:53 pm

Harris wrote:So why do people run a ski designed to float when for 90% of it's expected use it will suffer turning efficiency in general conditions.


BECAUSE it makes them feel like Scott Schmidt, Daron Rahlves, Seth Morrison-- they are sitting their lives in a cubicle dreaming of powder days, they buy the ski that enables this dream even though the reality is much, much different.

I see lots of people skiing terribly, and I mean terribly, on giant non-cambered fully-rockered skis on groomed trails. But they got the image down!

I somewhat reference this in my review on the Camox Freebird:

I'm not jumping big cliffs, I'm not skiing bottomless pow everyday. Life is NOT a ski movie. I want a ski that reflects MY ski life, hard bumps, no snow, no big airs, sometimes pow, crappy snow in Tuckerman Ravine, tight trees... not my imagined ski life. The 17/18 Camox Freebird does this. It does not feed into some crazy desk-bound daydream that I'm Seth Morrison or Coombs (rip) or Schmidt or whoever and I need a 115mm underfoot ski with 2 layers of titanal.

The 17/18 Camox FB looks at me and says, "you know, you're pretty ugly but I love you anyway." My kind of ski!

User avatar
Woodserson

Rank: XCD KNIGHT
XCD KNIGHT
Posts: 1239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 am
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: Bumps, trees, and steeps and long woodsy XC tours
Favorite Skis: DH: Voile Objective and V6, Altai KOMs, Atomic Vantage 85, XC: Gamme 54, Classy Woodies
Favorite boots: T4, Alaska
Occupation: Retro Rager-grouch

Re: New rant... Backcountry/wide skis and telemarkers

Postby Woodserson » Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:24 pm

Part of the problem also is that non-fat skis aren't made long enough. I would LOVE to have a longer Objective for instance, but it stops at 178cm. This makes it useless in deep snow. My 203cm Authier Slalom skis were the shizz when I was 18... deep snow, weightless, aaahhhhh

A mid-80 waisted ski with some nice rocker, R:18, at 188cm would be dreamy.

(I'm going to be unapologetic about rocker, it is super nice to have especially in bumps. I know it makes for a slower ski but damn, if it's engineered correctly is sure is sweet)

Here's another example-- so close, this would be awesome BUT... 180cm is the max
https://www.black-crows.com/eu/fr_en/product/vertis/

Cannatonic

Rank: XCD Guide
XCD Guide
Posts: 777
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:07 pm

Re: New rant... Backcountry/wide skis and telemarkers

Postby Cannatonic » Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:43 pm

oh yeah, I remember one of my best friends rocking the neon-pink Authiers back in the day.....you make a good point about hopes & dreams - people are buying the skis they would use if they were skiing big faces in Alaska, not groomers & bumps at the local hill

User avatar
lowangle al

Rank: XCD KNIGHT
XCD KNIGHT
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:36 pm

Re: New rant... Backcountry/wide skis and telemarkers

Postby lowangle al » Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:19 pm

I haven't skied groomers for a while but 85 sounds wide for me, I'm thinkin 70.

User avatar
Woodserson

Rank: XCD KNIGHT
XCD KNIGHT
Posts: 1239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 am
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: Bumps, trees, and steeps and long woodsy XC tours
Favorite Skis: DH: Voile Objective and V6, Altai KOMs, Atomic Vantage 85, XC: Gamme 54, Classy Woodies
Favorite boots: T4, Alaska
Occupation: Retro Rager-grouch

Re: New rant... Backcountry/wide skis and telemarkers

Postby Woodserson » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:31 pm

This is a constructive rant. I approve of this rant. There should be a CHUCK FLANNEL APPROVED RANT badge I can post on threads.

I have another one for later!

lowangle al wrote:I haven't skied groomers for a while but 85 sounds wide for me, I'm thinkin 70.


SO---- Asnes makes the Rabb 68 in a 188cm... some rocker, 18m radius, it's a bit light, probably around 1300g a ski in the 188 since it's kind of touring specific but may make a nice T4 ski for groomers. That's my plan, at least.

User avatar
lowangle al

Rank: XCD KNIGHT
XCD KNIGHT
Posts: 1114
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:36 pm

Re: New rant... Backcountry/wide skis and telemarkers

Postby lowangle al » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:25 pm

That sounds like a good plan Woods, that's a nice looking ski.

User avatar
Rodbelan

Rank: XCD Pinhead
XCD Pinhead
Posts: 337
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:53 am
Ski style: Very stylish
Favorite Skis: All of them; old, new...
Favorite boots: T2X & T4 for off piste; BD Axis for groomers; Merrell for XCD

Re: New rant... Backcountry/wide skis and telemarkers

Postby Rodbelan » Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:11 am

That fat ski market is just that; another market segment that wasn't covered, giving a good opportunity for the business to make money. Of ourse, there is a use for fat skis; not on groomers though. In the BC, when conditions are tough (wind slab, crud, etc) fat skis are pretty good! For me, fat is 88 underfoot (K2 Wayback). My go-to skis are 78 (K2 Shuk). In the spring corn, the Sahale (an indecent 69 underfoot) is excellent. Sometimes, I use that last one on groomers... But I agree with most of what that guy is sayin' in that vid... I am laughing a lot when I read some of the fat ski description: «Made for pow, but just as good on groomers»... You will see; when the vein will get dry, they will sell back skinny skis to all these guys that got rid of them in order to get & ski fat ones... I am desperate a bit: We are just a bunch of followers...


Return to “Telemark Talk Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests