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.
User avatar
MSU Alum
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 5:33 pm
Location: Wasatch Back
Ski style: Old man - New school!
Favorite Skis: Rustler 10
Favorite boots: Crispi Evo
Occupation: Retired

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

Post by MSU Alum » Sat Feb 08, 2020 6:07 pm

fisheater wrote:
Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:21 pm
I never skied anything so firm. Same week every year, the week that spanned February into March.
Thanks. Yeah, we had a couple of winters without big powder days....right after I bought big powder skis! Figures.

User avatar
twopass
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 3:47 pm
Location: BC Coast
Favorite Skis: Tatra Gopher High 12's
Favorite boots: Red Wing

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

Post by twopass » Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:10 am

Paul Parker once wrote nobody needed anything wider than 80mm at the waist for any conditions or some such thing.

I got some almost new CR 112's 80 waist I thinkin' will make great resort boards. amiright?
"I really have had enough of illogical detraction by association as a way of avoiding logical argument by an absurd extension of ad hominem argument to third parties."



User avatar
lowangle al
Posts: 2741
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:36 pm
Location: Pocono Mts / Chugach Mts
Ski style: BC with focus on downhill perfection
Favorite Skis: powder skis
Favorite boots: Scarpa T4
Occupation: Retired cement mason. Current job is to take my recreation as serious as I did my past employment.

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

Post by lowangle al » Mon Feb 17, 2020 8:26 am

That's about the width I'd be looking to use for resort groomers, especially with my T4s. I'm looking forward to skiing a more narrow ski at the resort but I'm still happy with wide ones for the bc.



User avatar
jyw5
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:52 am

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

Post by jyw5 » Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:11 pm

Cannatonic wrote:
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
It's a blizzard outside, so I will resurrect this discussion.

I have the Rossignol S7 with 110mm underfoot. Im only 5ft8in at no more than 150lbs with clothes/gear. I ski like a champ on these. If you watch me on my Nansen, you would think I just started skiing yesterday.

Fat skis have their place.

It's a tale of two skiiers. I see alot of people on skis not less than 95mm. I also see alot of skiiers on skis not more than 60mm. Not too many are in between.

My Rossi S7 powers through all that crud and I can ski steep lines through trees, couloirs, and hop spring icy hard pack moguls. But as I miserably found out a few yrs ago, they failed badly on a wind and suncrusted Alaskan glacier. I had to take the skis off and walk...and get yelled at by my friend who flew me in.

There's nothing wrong with fat skis if you are willing to carry the weight. Also, when its been dumping bottomless dry powder and getting windloaded by 60mph winds (like today in Alaska), fat skis and splitboards just work.

At a ski resort, fat skis work great all over the mountain -- just as advertised. I like to warm up on a few groomers then have a 2hr champagne and white wine lunches or a few beers with my wife and friends then slide down effortlessly on a few double blacks in the afternoon. Can't even begin to do that on any other setup. And honestly, 99% of skiiers would never be able to even cover 10% of a ski resort if you forced them to ski on 54mm Asnes skis!! They made these skis for the masses. I don't like that ski resorts and the backcountry have gotten so crowded because of this advanced technology...but I also cannot be that upset because the same tech has allowed me to climb and ski mountains that were limited to experts 50yrs ago.

If you have been reading my posts, you already know, I have like 7 pairs of skinny light weight skis. I would love to use a few of them at a ski resort...but the experience on those skis are entirely different than the S7. I embrace skis of all shapes and sizes.
Last edited by jyw5 on Sat Dec 11, 2021 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 2969
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:25 am
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: Bumps, trees, steeps and long woodsy XC tours
Occupation: Confused Turn Farmer

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

Post by Woodserson » Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:17 pm

I've got skis 110 under. For sure there's a place.

But look at the DPS Pagoda... 105? 110? It's a stiff as a 4*4. The flex is tuned for skiing groomers but on a powder chassis, meaning pasty-faced-office-dad will feel core with these on his feet but they will do him little service on either the groomed or in the powder. It's crazy making.



User avatar
jyw5
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:52 am

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

Post by jyw5 » Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:42 pm

Woodserson wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:17 pm
I've got skis 110 under. For sure there's a place.

But look at the DPS Pagoda... 105? 110? It's a stiff as a 4*4. The flex is tuned for skiing groomers but on a powder chassis, meaning pasty-faced-office-dad will feel core with these on his feet but they will do him little service on either the groomed or in the powder. It's crazy making.
wow. i didnt know that. i haven't looked at wide skis in 5 yrs. There are admitting a shitload of posers out there. SMH every friggin day. lol



User avatar
Stephen
Posts: 1458
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:49 am
Location: PNW USA
Ski style: Aspirational Hack
Favorite Skis: Armada Tracer 118 (195), Gamme (210), Ingstad (205), Objective BC (178), Nordica Enforcer 94
Favorite boots: Alfa Guard Advance, Scarpa TX Pro
Occupation: Beyond
6’3” / 191cm — 172# / 78kg, size 47 / 30 mondo

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

Post by Stephen » Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:48 pm

Woodserson wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:17 pm
But look at the DPS Pagoda... 105?
But they’re expensive, so they gotta be good, right?



User avatar
Woodserson
Posts: 2969
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:25 am
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: Bumps, trees, steeps and long woodsy XC tours
Occupation: Confused Turn Farmer

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

Post by Woodserson » Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:00 pm

Stephen wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:48 pm
Woodserson wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:17 pm
But look at the DPS Pagoda... 105?
But they’re expensive, so they gotta be good, right?
The mind boggles at the price tag. Boggles.



User avatar
Stephen
Posts: 1458
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:49 am
Location: PNW USA
Ski style: Aspirational Hack
Favorite Skis: Armada Tracer 118 (195), Gamme (210), Ingstad (205), Objective BC (178), Nordica Enforcer 94
Favorite boots: Alfa Guard Advance, Scarpa TX Pro
Occupation: Beyond
6’3” / 191cm — 172# / 78kg, size 47 / 30 mondo

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

Post by Stephen » Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:18 pm

667918E1-9A88-4330-B62D-4C1E5EF798E3.gif
.
I should be doing something productive….



User avatar
riel
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:31 pm
Location: New Hampshire
Ski style: BC XC
Favorite Skis: Asnes Gamme, Ingstad & Støretind, Fischer Mountain Cross & E99
Favorite boots: Fischer BCX675
Website: https://surriel.com/
Contact:

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

Post by riel » Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:20 pm

Woodserson wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:00 pm
Stephen wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:48 pm
Woodserson wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:17 pm
But look at the DPS Pagoda... 105?
But they’re expensive, so they gotta be good, right?
The mind boggles at the price tag. Boggles.
It's like their sole purpose in life is making our Asnes skis look cheap.



Post Reply