Atomic Powder Cruise: Good??
Charles Scott
I've skiied on the Volant Chubbs and loved them. My friendly dealer is
offering me a pair of Atomic Powder Cruises for a good price, with the
option of giving me a pair of Chubbs if I don't like the Powder Cruise
skis after two or three times on 'em. Has anybody tried the Atomics and
what do you think of them? The dealer told me he found the P.C.s to be
more lively than the Chubbs, springing you out of the turns, and that you
have to be "on top of them," as you would on a good race slalom ski. I
normally ski a Rossi 7S, so I don't mind a lively ski. Any help is much
appreciated.
Charles Scott
Ray Nurmi
Why Why Why can't people just learn how to ski powder and crud on G.S.
skis. Don't you people realize what weenies you look like with those
ridiculous "fat boys"(you are what you ski, I guess.) All you have to do
is make a little effort to learn how to ski tough snow. Besides, its so
much more rewarding to get face shots. Its like you need these fat skis to
make deep snow seem like shallow snow. Shit--you're taking the fun right
out of it. Get off the crutch, lose the training wheels you putz!
Otherwise every expert skier who's blowing past you're wedge-turning ass
on a deep powder day is going to see you with your Chubbys and think
nothing other than "what a Gaper."
The answer, I repeat, is not the Volant Stubb, its good solid technique.
Simple good technique. If you can't commit yourself to the sport enough to
acquire that technique you don't deserve to be getting in my way on a
powder day. Why spend all that money anyway, just take a few more hours
and a few more days to ski the deep and you won't need (and you won't
want) those ugly peices of shit.
Alan Boucek
In article <4qkrc4$m...@btc1.up.net>, Ray Nurmi <rnu...@up.net> wrote:
>
> Why Why Why can't people just learn how to ski powder and crud on G.S.
> skis. Don't you people realize what weenies you look like with those
> ridiculous "fat boys"(you are what you ski, I guess.) All you have to do
> is make a little effort to learn how to ski tough snow. Besides, its so
> much more rewarding to get face shots. Its like you need these fat skis to
> make deep snow seem like shallow snow. Shit--you're taking the fun right
> out of it. Get off the crutch, lose the training wheels you putz!
> Otherwise every expert skier who's blowing past you're wedge-turning ass
> on a deep powder day is going to see you with your Chubbys and think
> nothing other than "what a Gaper."
> The answer, I repeat, is not the Volant Stubb, its good solid technique.
> Simple good technique. If you can't commit yourself to the sport enough to
> acquire that technique you don't deserve to be getting in my way on a
> powder day. Why spend all that money anyway, just take a few more hours
> and a few more days to ski the deep and you won't need (and you won't
> want) those ugly peices of shit.
You've obviously never skied on chubby skis, or Chubbs for that matter.
They're often the right tool for the job. Chubbs, in particular (and Volkl
Snow Rangers) ski like 'real' skis- both have GS sidecuts, and both
encourage 'proper' technique. They are not training wheels, though they
did dramatically accellerate my learning curve for powder skiing, and they
are not cheaters, except that you might find people skiing them still
getting face shots long after your legs have turned to mush. None of the
'real' powder skiers I've skied with recently have had your nasty attitude
towards fat skis, nor have any of the guides that I've skied with (they
were on them too)
Perhaps the antidote to your nasty attitude would be to require that you
use the same skis Alf Engen used in the 30s and 40s- hey, they were real
powder skis, and if Alf could do it, a real hero like you should be able
to. Get over it.
--
Alan Boucek abo...@panix.com
New York, New York
Butt Dawg
Chubbies? A male friend of mine described them like this: "It's like
getting a blowjob from a guy. It feels great until you look down."
Personally, I find the holier than thou attitude that seems to go with
Chubbies to be more offensive than the skis themselves.
Andrew
Paul Brunner
In <aboucek-2406...@aboucek.dialup.access.net>
Let the barking dogs bark. I'm sure that when Head and Hart came up
with steel skis, the retrograds also stated that only wooden skis and
bear traps would do. And then they developed fibreglass skis, which I
remember got all sorts of badmouthing at first.
I have skis for different conditions. If its icy, I ski Volkl slaloms.
If I go cruising it's Volkl RS. And if it's deep powder, I get on my
Chubbs and leave all the powder hounds eating my dust. So get real and
come up to 1996. And if your sense of esthetics can't stand the fact
that WE ski on YOUR slopes, well, EXCUUUUUUUUUUSE you...
Bruno Melli
Paul Brunner (lo...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: I have skis for different conditions. If its icy, I ski Volkl slaloms.
: If I go cruising it's Volkl RS. And if it's deep powder, I get on my
: Chubbs and leave all the powder hounds eating my dust.
I'm going one step further. If it's deep powder I'm snowboarding.
If you are going to "cheat" you may as well cheat all the way :-)
bruno.
Carl and Anna
Ray Nurmi wrote:
>
> c...@vcn.bc.ca (Charles Scott) wrote:
> >I've skiied on the Volant Chubbs and loved them. My friendly dealer is
> >offering me a pair of Atomic Powder Cruises for a good price, with the
> >option of giving me a pair of Chubbs if I don't like the Powder Cruise
> >skis after two or three times on 'em. Has anybody tried the Atomics and
> >what do you think of them? The dealer told me he found the P.C.s to be
> >more lively than the Chubbs, springing you out of the turns, and that you
> >have to be "on top of them," as you would on a good race slalom ski. I
> >normally ski a Rossi 7S, so I don't mind a lively ski. Any help is much
> >appreciated.
> >
> >Charles Scott
>
> skis. D
(Vitriolic denunciation of fat skis deleted)
Jeremiah (aka Ray Nurmi)
I own a pair of Snow Rangers and have had a great deal of fun on them,
which in itself is enough reason to justify their existence. However, I
do maintain that they are a very effective training tool for learning how
to ski deep powder on GS skis. The transition from skiing the groomed
that most people learn on to skiing crud/powder is a difficult one for
many people, and I think the fats are an effective solution to making the
transition easier.
Carl(r)
Rhett M. Stroh
In utter confusion, Carl and Anna (no...@popd.ix.netcom.com) spewed forth:
: Ray Nurmi wrote:
: >
: > Why Why Why can't people just learn how to ski powder and crud on G.S.
: > skis. D
: (Vitriolic denunciation of fat skis deleted)
: Jeremiah (aka Ray Nurmi)
: I own a pair of Snow Rangers and have had a great deal of fun on them,
: which in itself is enough reason to justify their existence. However, I
: do maintain that they are a very effective training tool for learning how
: to ski deep powder on GS skis. The transition from skiing the groomed
: that most people learn on to skiing crud/powder is a difficult one for
: many people, and I think the fats are an effective solution to making the
: transition easier.
: Carl(r)
if I'm lucky enough to find the all-killer-no-filler pow-pow day again next
year, I think I'll rent a pair of the fat-sters so I can try to ease this
transition. Of course, I'll have to sacrifice practicing those arm-waving
aerials...
And if you think that's wimpy, then DON'T FUCKING BITCH while I'm clogging
up the trail re-assembling after a yard sale! (careful what you wish for!)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rhett Stroh "The Eunuch Of Unix" |
| rms...@gdesystems.com |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jbagnell
In article <aboucek-2406...@aboucek.dialup.access.net>, abo...@panix.com says...
>
>In article <4qkrc4$m...@btc1.up.net>, Ray Nurmi <rnu...@up.net> wrote:
>>
>> Why Why Why can't people just learn how to ski powder and crud on G.S.
we should ride one too.
There is a very rapid transition in design and construction materials now
on the market. I believe that fat boys and parabolics will give former
*plank* skiers the feedback from these skis that upper end ski owners
have experienced from radical sidecut skis. The first Salomon monocoques
come to mind. Once experienced, the market will turn to the upper end
stuff. The difference in price does not justify dabbling in parabolics,
save it for the good stuff!!
Ciao for now
Alan Boucek
In article <4qmc6b$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, butt...@aol.com (Butt
Dawg) wrote:
> Chubbies? A male friend of mine described them like this: "It's like
> getting a blowjob from a guy. It feels great until you look down."
with a handle like buttdawg, one would expect that you'd get more excited
in such circumstances.
> Personally, I find the holier than thou attitude that seems to go with
> Chubbies to be more offensive than the skis themselves.
>
As if the skis themselves can impart a holier-than-thou attitude.
Vail- holier-than-thee
Ray Nurmi
Carl and Anna <no...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I wrote:
>>
>> Why Why Why can't people just learn how to ski powder and crud on G.S.
>> skis. D
>
> (Vitriolic denunciation of fat skis deleted)
>
>Jeremiah (aka Ray Nurmi)
>
>I own a pair of Snow Rangers and have had a great deal of fun on them,
>which in itself is enough reason to justify their existence. However, I
>do maintain that they are a very effective training tool for learning how
>to ski deep powder on GS skis. The transition from skiing the groomed
>that most people learn on to skiing crud/powder is a difficult one for
>many people, and I think the fats are an effective solution to making the
>transition easier.
>
>Carl(r)
Well, I guess that makes some sense. Thanks for putting that into
perspective. I just don't think a training tool is worth $500. I guess
its also frustrating for me to see people who don't have the necessary
skills (that can only be acquired by working through some frustration and
being dedicated to the sport) skiing the stuff and enjoying it so much. I
feel like my ability to wallow in truly bottomless Pow on 210 Atomic Arc
RS's or my 215 RD Giant Coyotes is being devalued by these things. Its
like if the price of a ferrari went down so low that everyone was trading
in their pintos and chevettes for a Testarosa. Then the guy who spent
$250K for one the year before feels burned... I guess that's the root of
my problem-maybe I should e-mail Scott B. A. for some furthur insight
into my feelings..
Crested Butte- Powder standard; Powder skis optional.
Ray Nurmi
abo...@panix.com (Alan Boucek) wrote:
>In article <4qkrc4$m...@btc1.up.net>, Ray Nurmi <rnu...@up.net> wrote:
>>
>> Why Why Why can't people just learn how to ski powder and crud on G.S.
>> ridiculous "fat boys"(you are what you ski, I guess.) All you have to do
>> is make a little effort to learn how to ski tough snow. Besides, its so
>> much more rewarding to get face shots. Its like you need these fat skis to
>> make deep snow seem like shallow snow. Shit--you're taking the fun right
>> out of it. Get off the crutch, lose the training wheels you putz!
>> Otherwise every expert skier who's blowing past you're wedge-turning ass
>> on a deep powder day is going to see you with your Chubbys and think
>> nothing other than "what a Gaper."
>> The answer, I repeat, is not the Volant Stubb, its good solid technique.
>> Simple good technique. If you can't commit yourself to the sport enough to
>> acquire that technique you don't deserve to be getting in my way on a
>> powder day. Why spend all that money anyway, just take a few more hours
>> and a few more days to ski the deep and you won't need (and you won't
>> want) those ugly peices of shit.
>
>You've obviously never skied on chubby skis, or Chubbs for that matter.
>They're often the right tool for the job. Chubbs, in particular (and Volkl
>Snow Rangers) ski like 'real' skis- both have GS sidecuts, and both
>encourage 'proper' technique. They are not training wheels, though they
>did dramatically accellerate my learning curve for powder skiing, and they
>are not cheaters, except that you might find people skiing them still
>getting face shots long after your legs have turned to mush.
Well, actually this winter when I worked in a ski shop I had the occasion
to try both the Atomic Powder Plus and the Volant Stubb. I had previously
kept my opinions about them being a cheater ski for no-technique pussies
to myself. However, after actually trying them myself I feel qualified to
attest to their utter uselessness for an expert skier. BTW-my legs don't
turn to mush on alpine skis-every once in a while on Tele gear but never
on alpines.
None of the
>'real' powder skiers I've skied with recently have had your nasty attitude
>towards fat skis, nor have any of the guides that I've skied with (they
>were on them too)
>
>Perhaps the antidote to your nasty attitude would be to require that you
>use the same skis Alf Engen used in the 30s and 40s- hey, they were real
>powder skis, and if Alf could do it, a real hero like you should be able
>to. Get over it.
>
Well, I ski on 210 narrow telemark skis from the mid-'80s on occasion with
low-cut broken in leather tele boots. That counts for something I think.
In fact that's what I do at the beginning of the season to get my strength
up and my balance into shape. I've seen the equipement you spoke of, it'd
be a challenge but I'd love to try it(the folks at the Ski Hall of Fame
and Museum up the road don't seem to want to let me take the stuff
out-imagine that!)
>--
>Alan Boucek abo...@panix.com
> New York, New York
It sure must suck to have to go heli-skiing to get any powder.
-Jeremiah Baumann
Almont CO/Big Bay MI
Carl and Anna
> >>
> >> Why Why Why can't people just learn how to ski powder and crud on G.S.
Jeremiah,
You're obviously a good skier, and undoubtably better than I from your
postings. I wish I could ski powder like you probably can, but the sad
fact is that I've done more face plants into deep untracked than I care
to think about. The Snow Rangers help me gain the confidence that I need
so that, perhaps, I can keep up with you in the powder some day. From
your perspective, perhaps it is cheating a bit; from mine, it gives me a
capability I've never had.
Carl(r)
Butt Dawg
Carl and Anna <do...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The transition from skiing the groomed that most people learn
> on to skiing crud/powder is a difficult one for many people,
> and I think the fats are an effective solution to making the
> transition easier.
I find that transition easier to make if you are carrying a good head of
speed. Next time you're hauling down a groomer with a bunch of
powder/crud next to it, point your skis in the direction of the crud, lean
back a bit, hold your hands up and forward (like you would if you were
anticipating losing your goggles) and emit a heart-felt "yee ha" as you
strike the transition zone. If you survive the next 50' it won't matter
what kind of skis you have, although I would think the shorter Chubbies
would be better for the tuck & roll technique, where as the 210 Atomic
Arcs that Jeremiah (aka Ray Nurmi) spoke of might provide some needed high
speed stability.
Andrew
PSIA Associate - Retired
Hugh Grierson
In article <4qkrc4$m...@btc1.up.net>, Ray Nurmi <rnu...@up.net> wrote:
>Why Why Why can't people just learn how to ski powder and crud on G.S.
>skis.
GS skis? What a weenie. What's wrong with your SL race skis? What,
they dive too much? So work on your technique.
Of course if you wanted to make it easy then you'd use your snowboard
(you _do_ have a snowboard also, don't you?).
Or just let everyone use whatever the hell they like and don't give them
grief for it. Sheesh.
jobewan
> I find that transition easier to make if you are carrying a good head of
> speed. Next time you're hauling down a groomer with a bunch of
> powder/crud next to it, point your skis in the direction of the crud, lean
> back a bit,
B.D. - I wouldn't recommend leaning back much myself - instead try lower your center of
gravity by getting into your knees a bit. Also, slow down the timing and increase the
determination of your skiing moves.
Holding your line with persistance in a turn is magic in crud and powder. Lowering your
cg will give you more stability and confidence, and making use of your knees is just
good skiing.
Lastly, do it as much as you can. Rhythm and poise in pow are directly proportional to
the number of turns made.
Let's turn 'em
Jobewan Kinobe
Charles Scott
Well, I guess nobody has skiied the Powder Cruises....
I don't care what anybody else skis or doesn't ski--if it works for you,
great. I can ski pow with my Rossi 7SKs, but at Blackcomb we
occasionally get some rather heavy, wet snow and the fat skis work
beautifully in it. For me, the fat ski is just another one to have in
the quiver. Ski and be free.
Charles Scott
jobewan
>
> jobewan (job...@mesa-tech.com) wrote:
> : B.D. - I wouldn't recommend leaning back much myself - instead try
> : lower your center of gravity by getting into your knees a bit.
> Also, slow down the timing and increase the
> : determination of your skiing moves.
>
> the middle of crud) If the transition is going to slow you down
> significantly there is nothing wrong with leaning back to account for
> that slowdown. Just don't stay on the tails once you have slowed down.
>
> bruno.
Sounds fine to me!
Bruno Melli
Tom Donnelly
> > >I own a pair of Snow Rangers ... and I think the fats are an effective solution to making the transition easier.
> > Well, I guess that makes some sense. Thanks for putting that into
> > perspective. I just don't think a training tool is worth $500. I guess
> > its also frustrating for me to see people who don't have the necessary
> > skills (that can only be acquired by working through some frustration and
> > being dedicated to the sport) skiing the stuff and enjoying it so much. I
> > feel like my ability to wallow in truly bottomless Pow on 210 Atomic Arc
> > RS's or my 215 RD Giant Coyotes is being devalued by these things.
>GS skis? What a weenie. What's wrong with your SL race skis? What,
>they dive too much? So work on your technique.
>Of course if you wanted to make it easy then you'd use your snowboard
>(you _do_ have a snowboard also, don't you?).
>Or just let everyone use whatever the hell they like and don't give them
>grief for it. Sheesh.
I think I'll add a note about skiing spring crud. The last time I skied
Mammoth it was nice for a while in the morning. Firm enough, and we saw
someone on powder skiis where they were a disadvantage. Later in the day,
the corn has over softened, and you sink into your own ruts about 10-12
inches. The snow also gets inconsistent- sometimes you sink way in and
sometimes you hit firmer ground. I was having a hard time in the ungroomed
stuff. And it is not due to lack of technique. Powder is easy. It takes
Massive efforts to turn in this stuff, and even when you can do it, it really
isn't fun. I noticed that the powder ski user was having an easier and funner
time, floating better on the surface. This was under chair 23, especially the
lower parts that get softer and flatter. In this case the wider skiis are not
just a learning tool.
Furthermore, like the last quote says, The only people who were really doing well
were the snowboarders. Another reason to become a good boarder.
Tom Donnelly
ML
>wedge-turning ass on a deep powder day is going to see you with
>your Chubbys and think nothing other than "what a Gaper."
Well, some of us ski because we enjoy it and others, apparently
to impress people they don't know.
--
Mark
75334...@compuserve.com
Hugh Grierson
In article <4qrm5s$e...@btc1.up.net>, Ray Nurmi <rnu...@up.net> wrote:
>hugh.g...@trimble.co.nz (Hugh Grierson) wrote:
>>GS skis? What a weenie. What's wrong with your SL race skis? What,
>>they dive too much? So work on your technique.
>Well, if you must know, my former SL race skis(they're race skis but I
>don't really race slalom anymore) are used primarily for bumping. Yes I
do
>in fact ski powder with them but I've found them to be a bit short-205-
>for going really fast in the powder so I usually stick to my GS and
SuperG
>skis when the going gets deep.
You know Ray (Jeremiah?), sometimes I think we're not so different. We
both like skiing so much to have lots of skis in the quiver so we can
choose the best tools for the job. Sure we can ski fast, warp speed
fast, on slalom skis, or ski the bumps on DH boards if necessary, but we
know that there are better tools. Tools that let you go faster, harder
and bigger for the same effort. Or to look at it another way, tools
that make the same job easier.
But then I go back to your original post when you said...
>Why Why Why can't people just learn how to ski powder and crud on G.S.
>skis. Don't you people realize what weenies you look like with those
>ridiculous "fat boys"(you are what you ski, I guess.) All you have to
>do is make a little effort to learn how to ski tough snow.
..and I think maybe we are different after all.
CO SLATRAT
Why don't you all go up to BC for some helicopter skiing with your
"regular" width boards and see if you can last for a week
My bet is that if you survive, you'll never want to do it again without
specialty skis that allow you to get the most out of the terrain and, more
importantly, the most for your heli-skiing $$$$$$$$$$
Fat Boys RULE
Ray Nurmi
Who the hell can afford to go heli-skiing anyway? Probably someone who
spends too much time at work and not enough time at the ski area learning
to ski the crud and pow fast with good technique.
Ray Nurmi
hugh.g...@trimble.co.nz (Hugh Grierson) wrote:
>In article <4qrm5s$e...@btc1.up.net>, Ray Nurmi <rnu...@up.net> wrote:
>>hugh.g...@trimble.co.nz (Hugh Grierson) wrote:
>>>GS skis? What a weenie. What's wrong with your SL race skis? What,
>>>they dive too much? So work on your technique.
>[...]
>>Well, if you must know, my former SL race skis(they're race skis but I
>>don't really race slalom anymore) are used primarily for bumping. Yes I
>do
>>in fact ski powder with them but I've found them to be a bit short-205-
>>for going really fast in the powder so I usually stick to my GS and
>SuperG
>>skis when the going gets deep.
>
>You know Ray (Jeremiah?), sometimes I think we're not so different. We
>both like skiing so much to have lots of skis in the quiver so we can
>choose the best tools for the job. Sure we can ski fast, warp speed
>fast, on slalom skis, or ski the bumps on DH boards if necessary, but we
>know that there are better tools. Tools that let you go faster, harder
>and bigger for the same effort. Or to look at it another way, tools
>that make the same job easier.
>
Yeah yeah yeah! Right on! That's it thats what I mean. read on....
>But then I go back to your original post when you said...
>
>>Why Why Why can't people just learn how to ski powder and crud on G.S.
>>skis. Don't you people realize what weenies you look like with those
>>ridiculous "fat boys"(you are what you ski, I guess.) All you have to
>>do is make a little effort to learn how to ski tough snow.
>
>..and I think maybe we are different after all.
I've skied both and found the G.S. skis require more time and effort to
perfect in crud and pow but the rewards are so much more...well-
rewarding. I like to sink to my chest and get face shots but when I tried
the Stubbs I couldn't sink, it was like I was skiing in a whole lot less
snow. I also felt like I couldn't open my turn radius up like I love to do
with my G.S. racers in powder. I felt restricted to the symmetrical powder
turn which is fun-one of my favorite things in the world in fact- but I
don't like to have it be my only option.
So now when I see the fat skis on someone I think that they're
cheating...themselves out of face shots and big arcing fast Super G powder
leaners and all those wonderfull deep-snow dynamics that happen with the
skinnies. Deep snow on fat skis feels like shallow snow to me. Maybe that
will make it clearer why I feel the way I do. Its not out of ignorance, I
think, its out of the knowledge that powder for me is more fun, more
rewarding on my Arc RSs. I will make an effort to ski the Miller Soft next
season, I think that may be a better ski than any of the newer fat skis
but that's just a hunch. Untill then-that's my story and I'm sticking to
it.
Alan Boucek
> I've skied both and found the G.S. skis require more time and effort to
> perfect in crud and pow but the rewards are so much more...well-
> rewarding. I like to sink to my chest and get face shots but when I tried
> the Stubbs I couldn't sink, it was like I was skiing in a whole lot less
> snow. I also felt like I couldn't open my turn radius up like I love to do
> with my G.S. racers in powder. I felt restricted to the symmetrical powder
> turn which is fun-one of my favorite things in the world in fact- but I
> don't like to have it be my only option.
> So now when I see the fat skis on someone I think that they're
> cheating...themselves out of face shots and big arcing fast Super G powder
> leaners and all those wonderfull deep-snow dynamics that happen with the
> skinnies. Deep snow on fat skis feels like shallow snow to me. Maybe that
> will make it clearer why I feel the way I do. Its not out of ignorance, I
> think, its out of the knowledge that powder for me is more fun, more
> rewarding on my Arc RSs. I will make an effort to ski the Miller Soft next
> season, I think that may be a better ski than any of the newer fat skis
> but that's just a hunch. Untill then-that's my story and I'm sticking to
> it.
It really depends on the fat ski. I'm not sure which ones you demo'd, but
the newer mid-width skis, like the Chubbs and the Snow Rangers certainly
allow good skiers to turn big GS turns in the pow. They're quite a bit
more flexible at slower speeds in trees than GS skis. There are times when
it's nice to pop off a few very short turns to make a clean line through
tight slots in the trees.
Depending on your weight, you certainly could have had too much float from
some of the fatter skis. I weigh around 220 in the winter- I don't have a
problem skiing *in* the snow on the Chubbs- I can get face shots on a
snowboard... I don't feel like I get enough float on my 208 GS boards
(they were fun on the steeps at CB though).
I've skied with people on Millers (never been on them myself), it sounds
like they're a bit too soft for aggressive skiing. It seems to me that
many people who skied on Millers in the past have gone over to the Volkl
Snow Rangers, which are a much stiffer ski- they feel like a Volkl GS ski-
you *might* like them, and you don't need to ski them much shorter than
your 'regular' skis.
Chubby skis are also lots of fun in cut up crud, mashed potatos and wind
slab. Just because you're able to ski crud and crust on your skinny skis
doesn't mean it's going to be fun.
Patrick Chase
In article <aboucek-0207...@aboucek.dialup.access.net>, abo...@panix.com (Alan Boucek) writes:
|> It really depends on the fat ski. I'm not sure which ones you demo'd, but
|> the newer mid-width skis, like the Chubbs and the Snow Rangers certainly
|> allow good skiers to turn big GS turns in the pow.
Yes, to an extent. I'm used to 208 K2 GS Race's for all-mountain non-mogul
skiing, and I've used the Snow Ranger for several days, in both 190 and 200
cm. lengths. The Snow Ranger is nice for tight spots (trees!), flatter
slopes (that's the real problem with narrow skis in powder, as far as I'm
concerned: if the snow's too heavy and you need to head down a gentler
slope, you're hosed no matter how good you are), and lower speeds. In
these kinds of situations, the Ranger remains lively and responsive where
the K2 would be sluggish.
Where I do not like the Snow Ranger is at higher speeds, particularly
in chopped-up conditions (just about any ski will do well at speed in
pristine powder, because there are no nonuniformities in the show to
push it away from the desired track). The 190 in particular does not track
anywhere near as cleanly as the K2, while the 200 is better but still
inferior. I'm not saying the Snow Ranger is bad in this regard (it isn't):
I'm saying that it isn't as good as the K2, which is the best ski I've
found to date for such conditions. The Snow Ranger has other strengths,
and I do like them enough that I almost bought a pair this past season.
One other issue I had with the Snow Ranger: although it carves OK on
hardpack, skiing it there feels bizarre to me. I'm used to skis with
60-65 mm waist widths (often with lifter plates) and I've gotten
used to feeling the edge in a certain range of locations with respect
to my foot. The Snow Ranger places the edge in a very different
location (closer to the bottom of the foot vertically, and farther
out laterally) and therefore has a very different edge-feel. This
doesn't really come into play in soft snow, since edge-feel is far less
direct there anyway.
Just my $0.02,
-- Patrick
Carl and Anna
Patrick,
Good analysis. One more bad point about the Snow Rangers, which'd likely
be true for any fattie, I think. If you plan on skiing like Stein with
your ankles locked, you're gonna have a big problem with your tips and/or
tails overlapping. You'll look very un-Stein like as you do some painful
face plants.
Other than that, they're a great ski and a whole lot of fun.
Carl(r)
Patrick Chase
In article <31DA36...@popd.ix.netcom.com>, Carl and Anna <no...@popd.ix.netcom.com> writes:
|> Patrick,
|>
|> Good analysis.
Thanks!
|> One more bad point about the Snow Rangers, which'd likely
|> be true for any fattie, I think. If you plan on skiing like Stein with
|> your ankles locked, you're gonna have a big problem with your tips and/or
|> tails overlapping. You'll look very un-Stein like as you do some painful
|> face plants.
Just about everybody who skis like Stein (excepting the man himself, of
course :-) seems to periodically end up executing some rather ungainly
maneuvers. That locked-ankle stance only works if you are skiing easy
terrain, or if you happen to have been born with superhuman balance.
Stein was, most people (including me) weren't. I therefore prefer a
somewhat more open stance...
This leads to the reason why I don't think that blindly imitating great
skiers is the best way to improve: quite often, their technical
ideosynchracies are a reflection of what their natural talent and
balance allow them to get away with, rather than being a fundamentally
better way to ski that we should all imitate. I think that Tomba
(especially in his early days!) provides an excellent contemporary
example. Eriksen's locked stance and his characteristically asymetric
upper-body motions also fit the bill IMHO. I've tapes of Killy that look
downright ugly, until you ignore his contortions and start paying attention
only to what the skis are doing...
-- Patrick
Alan Boucek
> Patrick,
>
> Good analysis. One more bad point about the Snow Rangers, which'd likely
> be true for any fattie, I think. If you plan on skiing like Stein with
> your ankles locked, you're gonna have a big problem with your tips and/or
> tails overlapping. You'll look very un-Stein like as you do some painful
> face plants.
>
> Other than that, they're a great ski and a whole lot of fun.
Is skiing like Stein an ideal to aspire to? As far as I can tell,
Stein-like technique is only useful on groomed slopes with modern ski
equipment. In ungroomed interesting terrain, it's probably too stiff- a
more relaxed posture and technique is usually more effective. Look at
Stein's home turf- probably the most over-groomed ski area on earth, and
it out-Vails Vail.
To some of us that ideal of the body in a taught arc and locked ankles
looks pretty silly.
Carl and Anna
Alan,
Did I say that Stein's style was something to emulate? Huh? Huh? Huh?
Nope. It works for some, it impresses TWITs, but it's not at all
efficient and the balance truly suffers. I merely observed that if one
did like to ski like Stein then there'd be a problem with the ski width.
Carl(r)
Dang P Quach
can someone answer a few question for me. i started skiing
2 years ago but never really got into it until last january.
i would like to learn more about the equipments and terminology
that people used.
In article <31D484...@nosc.mil>, Tom Donnelly <donn...@nosc.mil> writes:
|> Why can't people just learn how to ski powder and crud on G.S. skis.
what is crud?
what is it about gs skis taht make them difficult to ski powder and crud
|> > > being dedicated to the sport) skiing the stuff and enjoying it so much. I
|> > > feel like my ability to wallow in truly bottomless Pow on 210 Atomic Arc
|> > > RS's or my 215 RD Giant Coyotes is being devalued by these things.
|> >GS skis? What a weenie. What's wrong with your SL race skis?
what's rs, rd, and sl?
thanx.
--
NAME: Dang Quach
LOGIN NAME: lu...@wpi.wpi.edu
John Bagnell
I don't wanna ski like him, I just want his job and paycheck!!
ciao for now
Hugh Grierson
>>... Tools that let you go faster, harder and bigger for the same effort...
>
>Yeah yeah yeah! Right on! That's it thats what I mean. read on....
Cool...
> So now when I see the fat skis on someone I think that they're
>cheating...themselves out of face shots and big arcing fast Super G powder
>leaners and all those wonderfull deep-snow dynamics that happen with the
>skinnies. Deep snow on fat skis feels like shallow snow to me.
Sure, and I understand why you don't like fat skis yourself. Myself, I'll
admit that I've never even tried them. Never felt the need, crud is no big
deal. But I really don't give a shit if they help someone else. More power to
them. And so I don't understand why you seem to care so much. Just do your
own thing.
Markku Kivinen
CO SLATRAT wrote:
>
> Why don't you all go up to BC for some helicopter skiing with your
> "regular" width boards and see if you can last for a week
>
> My bet is that if you survive, you'll never want to do it again without
> specialty skis that allow you to get the most out of the terrain and, more
> importantly, the most for your heli-skiing $$$$$$$$$$
>
> Fat Boys RULE
Based on my experience from CMH Gothics in Feb/March '96, fat boys are
useful because most of the skiing outside the trees is so flat that
normal skis would would kill all the speed. Speed means more
vertical/skier -> More $$$ for CMH -> Fat boys are recommended and
therefore used. There is some very good steeper skiing available but the
guides won't take large groups of people there because of several risk
factors. As an expert skier I would like to choose the terrain myself and
use regular skis, but given the restrictions fat boys are the only
reasonable choice out there.
Markku
Alan Boucek
of course, people who really aspire to ski like Stein (as opposed to
actually skiing like Stein) would never be seen skiing in real powder.
They wait until the grooming machines have created that uniform corduroy
that DV (the uberVail) delivers. I have no doubt that TWITs love DV, since
it is a very Platinum card friendly kind of place.
Ray Nurmi
This will of course sound silly but: I will always respect Stein for the
skill and innovation he brought to skiing. I can't see why anyone
wouldn't. I raced up until this winter in Crested Butte and I have never
really seriously tried to master his technique. Its outdated and I know
that I, at 19, have no right to even try. But I know of a former Austrian
national team racer who still skis at nearly 80 years of age, I find his
technique to be so gracefull and strong that I cannot imagine anyone who's
seen a truly good example of that particular way of skiing who hasn't at
least wanted to try it. Stein himself is somewhat of a hero to me in that
he accomplished so much at such a young age, and he started to bridge the
gap between the rigid world of alpine racing and the carefree world of the
all-mountain power free skier(remember his awesome backflips.)
All this is, of course, in the context of the 90s-having seen Ingemar
Stenmark come and go and Alberto Tomba dominate the world cup tech. events
for quite some time. The fact is that race technique changes a lot,
equipement changes just as fast, probably invoking change in technique as
often as responding to it. Really, anyone who is not prepared well enough
to try to imitate a racer's technique (being on the wrong type of
equipement...not having enough skill or knowledge of how to do it...) is
going to give that racer's style a bad reputation. It seems that in ski
racing history, Stein has been one of the few racers whose technique was
seen as really graceful and whose technique was imitated by nearly
everyone of his time. In contrast to Stenmark or Tomba, for example, who
both had somewhat quirky styles that work well when properly executed but
are not popularly regarded as "stylish" for use on your everyday ski
outing. Consequently, Stein's technique was over-imitated by those who
make his powerful, graceful turns look downright silly- the fact that this
happens is no reason to entirely discount that way of turning. Its only
reason to find your own way of getting it down and work with that instead
of trying so hard to fit someone else's mold-a wasted effort no matter how
you look at it. And good reason to get a chuckle or two out of the
wannabes who_try__so___hard.
Jeremiah B.
Crested Butte- Will the real Stein....
bob novak
.
>
>To answer your question I think they're great! I bought a pair last
year to complement my quiver. In difficult conditions like wind blown
crusty snow when everyone on skinny skis is worying about breaking thru
and wrenching their knees, I'm on top and making lovely S's from top to
bottom. That was the situation doing the interconnect in the Wastach
last February.
Specifically I've found the Atomics to be:
1) Nice in deep fluff
2) Superb in cut up crappy snow (and deep spring slush!)
3) and they're stiff enough that if you want to put them on the
corduroy and let em run, they'll do that too!! (I've probably
been at about 40 mph crusing with em.)
4) And>>> they hold well in ice and will carve up the backsides of
bumps.
What do I think of my Powder Cruises? :-) 'nough said!
Oh, for u flamers who want to call me a wuss, I do go into the
backcounty on my Kastle Speed Machines and Volkl SLP20's too, and will
strap on a 172 cm board and ride there too. I get in over 40 days a
year and average over 31,000 feet a day. I push it hard and I push it
long!
By the way, I DO NOT work for Atomic.
Ray Nurmi
WOW! you ski 40....40 days a year! That's AMAZING! That's what I get
before new years. You go into the backcountry?? Didn't you say you skied
21 different ski areas and skied 40 days?? Doesn't leave much room for
slogging. ;(
Obviously you don't work for Atomic, I think their employees are
generally hardcore skiers, not Texans. ;|
Crested Butte-the ski season is at least 160 days. ;)
-Jeremiah B.
-->no one here ever agrees with me on anything, anyway<--
bob novak
In article <4rtpt1$r...@btc1.up.net>, rnu...@up.net says...
>
>>
>WOW! you ski 40....40 days a year! That's AMAZING! That's what I get
>before new years. You go into the backcountry?? Didn't you say you skied
>21 different ski areas and skied 40 days?? Doesn't leave much room for
>slogging. ;(
> Obviously you don't work for Atomic, I think their employees are
>generally hardcore skiers, not Texans. ;|
>
>Crested Butte-the ski season is at least 160 days. ;)
>
>-Jeremiah B.
>
>-->no one here ever agrees with me on anything, anyway<--
>
hard for my days since I'm either 12 hours by car or a min of $150 (if I'm
lucky) by plane from the nearest skiing (backcountry or otherwise). My
season normally starts in August and September at Mt Hood move on to Summit
County in October and normally runs thru June at A-Basin. Last year my
backcountry skiing was limited to 2 days near Val Di Fassa and Arabba in the
Italian Dolomites, 1 near Lech, Austria, 1 in the Wasatch, and 1 at Loveland
pass. Not as many days as I'd like, but I'll put the quality of these
days against the best of anyones.
Lighten up. If you are against change, you should go back to 8 foot long
wooden skis that don't have steel edges and you should never ride a lift.