Cheap resort/hardpack setup.

[lilcliffy]

Hi Ben,

Just catching up on this discussion...

I am not familiar with the specific skis you mention above- but I have a fair amount of experience with "all-mountain" alpine skis (i.e. relatively stiff, torsionally rigid, traditional camber underfoot, with slight rockered tips?)

I have a pair of Atomic Ti (can't remember the actual specific model- rarely use them) all-mountain skis that I use when skiing at groomed/serviced hills/resorts (very rarely). The specs on my Atomics would be similar to those Fischers- think mine are a little fatter than that Fischer FX 7.0 (I currently have alpine bindings on them).

Traditionalists can have a tendency to think that all fat skis are meant for powder- these skis (as you already know) are not powder but are designed to offer stability and parabolic sidecut on steep hard snow. I can literally burn a strip right off the mountain side on my Atomics.

Again- I don't know these skis are those boots specifically- but as a rigid ski gets fatter- I do you need a more and more rigid boot/binding to be able to control it at speed.

In short- I have no idea whether that Garmont SG boot is rigid enough to control that FX 7.

[bgregoire]

Traditionalists can have a tendency to think that all fat skis are meant for powder- these skis (as you already know) are not powder but are designed to offer stability and parabolic sidecut on steep hard snow. I can literally burn a strip right off the mountain side on my Atomics.

Thanks for your input Lifcliffy. So you consider a 70mm waist alpine ski fat? I'm confused with all of this. I'm just looking for a dead cheap ski I can slap my hammerheads on and have fun learning on the groomers when powder is simply not to be found. I read someplace that a 63mm waist is more racer oriented. I don't have the experience yet to head down racing style. And I don't want a stiffer boot than my Syner-Gs. Anyway. I could get either the 63 waist or the 70 waist for less than 50$. What to do...? Wait?

Also wondering what is the slimmest waist ski that is compatible with the Hammerheads. The bindings seems quite wide as I think it may catch easily if on a 63 waisted ski. I don't know for sure tough.

[lilcliffy]

(found this thread hard to follow!)

Ben- not sure if I made my point...you already have the boots and bindings...touring flexibility and weight is not an
issue...I would pick the widest, most rigid, parabolic ski that you think that boot/binding will easily handle at speed.

Perhaps you already have the answer- but IMO the answer to your original question can be found in the limitations of that boot/binding.

[lilcliffy]

No- (at least in this day and age!) a 70mm waist is not "fat" for an alpine ski in general- I just mean that not all "fat" alpine skis are designed for powder.

Unfortunately I know very little about "big mountain" telegear- I really have no idea what the limitations of that boot/binding are. But- when it comes to all-mountain skis- I am not a traditionalist- I would find something as fat and rigid as that boot/binding will handle. The exta width on a rigid ski offers both increased stabilty at speed; and the opportunity for extreme parabolic sidecut profile for extremely efficient turns.

[teledance]

Personally I would not want a ski under 74 in the waist and my groomer skis are 84 underfoot, old Volkl G3 skis replaced with the RTM series. Skied many skis with leather and voile 3 pc. With improving technique you can ski above the limits of the boot binding combo if the ski is good. Ripping sweet turns on the groom is quite fun for awhile.