Are my skis holding me back?

[JohnMoore]

Why this trend to wide skis exists is beyond me. (Except on those great powder days)

Maybe it's the skiing equivalent of the move towards 4x4 cars with off-road capability in the car market. It says something about your 'lifestyle', even though you may never actually take the car off city asphalt.

Having said that, I think a lot of people (myself included) are looking to extend their skiing away from the pisted slopes somewhat, and wider skis do look as if they will offer that 'four-wheel drive' which makes it easier, particularly for less accomplished skiers. Perhaps you don't need that extra flotation if you ski really well, but I know from my own recent experience that venturing off the piste into real powder can be pretty disconcerting if you're not used to it.

If you are really saying that a pair of narrow-waisted slalom skis are all one requires to ski the gamut of conditions you meet at the typical resort (off-piste areas included) then I'm glad to hear it. I don't want to have to have a different pair of skis for each extra centimetre of snow on the ground. I may be doing cat skiing in British Columbia in March, though, and I suspect that's where the real powder skis will be necessary (particularly if it continues to snow there like it has so far this year).

[Mr. T]

There was a time when in Volume 1 of Everybody can be an Expert Skier when narrow waisted skis were not recommended to skiers who were knock-kneed and wide skis were not suitable for bow-legged skiers. What happened of those caveats? Are we assuming that every skier, after sitting through an alignment session, stands perfectly aligned and can choose freely from the menu of skis available today? Also, while I understand the industry pushing one fashion after the other to sell, I still find handling powder or chopped up snow easier with relatively wide skis.

I remember my Big Sky Camp 2 years ago. Of course, on groomers my Monster i.M70 were great, but as soon as we moved to ungroomed territory, I switched to the 75 and I was happy to have done so. I remember the last day when a guy in my group had to quit and he was the only skier on sub 70mm width skis. True, I also remember another guy in my group who was out of control on the Monster i.M75 on the groomers and ungroomed alike and who hit me twice. But, are we now saying that for an all-Mountain camp, we should be on 65mm wide skis?
Maybe 170cm long or shorter? But, what if one is 220lbs, or more?
What happened of the incredible versatility of, say, Head Monster i.M 75 and more recently Monster i.M 88?

I think that some skiers buy wide not because they follow ski fashions, but because they found that a slightly wider skis is more versatile under their (large) bodies.

I also found that wide skis were a good tool to do drills. For example, doing one ski skiing, if I can do on a 75mm wide skis, I could do it on a 70mm skis and at 65 it was almost too easy. But, those who did the drills on 65mm wide skis, could not do it on wider skis and at 75mm looked like trained seals at the zoo. Idem for carving: it is more difficult, I agree, but is it all bad learning to work the edges on wider skis?

I confess that this thread has left me more than a little confused and puzzled about what I should be using. It has been a long time favorite adn beloved trick of many a PSIA examinee to go to the exam with the shortest and narrowest shaped skis he or she could find. You are going to look good while carving, you are going to find bumps ruts very manageable, etc... maybe it is a little bit more difficult to do pivot slips and the like since the edges tend to engage more easily than on wider skis. Yet.. I thought good skiing is not about shortcuts, but solid skills, no matter the skis under the boots.

[RadRab]

Bs"D

Mr.T,
I think the confusion you are referring to was answered by Harald earlier in his responses to me on similar questions. I am just acting as an editor in bringing a mix of the main parts of those responses and others to try and summarize and clarify the whole issue.

But first, I will try and state in my own words what I believe is the crux of what we can now understand in Harald's expert advice. And, I say now because it is possible that Harald himself has somewhat changed his own understanding and philosophy on wide skis, including the im88 that he raved about at the end of last year as a versatile ski, after gaining more experience on them. He is only human. He can have a less than perfect theory on how a particular ski will behave or affect our skiing or bodies, but we should be appreciative that at least after actual extended experience, we can get the most insightful expert advise in the final analysis.
In the end, he still likes the im88, and it does have a place. It just might not be where he/we originally thought. Just as he is not afraid to go against all current trends if he thinks they are faulty, I am glad he isn't afraid to adjust his own earlier thinking. [And, even in his first posts about the im88, when he said things like ...and it carves and holds on ice..., perhaps he only meant as a back up, and never intended that someone should choose it - or any wider than 72mm waist - for an all mountain ski. Maybe it is only our understanding that has adjusted.]

In short:
Narrow waisted carving skis are the best choice for just about any good technical skiing (not just for the learning stage, but certainly for it).
Wide skis have their place, but only in true deeper powder, or pistes with at least soft snow (probably best for crud on piste).
A ski like the im88 is his choice for powder - mainly because of its particular characteristics in powder - not because of its versatility. But, its edge hold on hardpack, just for the time that you are forced to deal with it, is still a plus (like he said on a much earlier thread: "...and it won't scare you or embarrass you if you hit hardpack on the lower part of a mountain after skiing the powder at the top"). Nevertheless, if he can avoid that altogether he would prefer. He feels that the Supershape gives him that freedom since it is so versatile, covering those days when powder and hardpack are found together.
[I believe that the Supershape (not the im88) is the one that deserves to be given the award for Ski Of The Year. We don't care as much about what the 88 does on the groomed - won't choose it there anyway, and there are others that can do what it does in the powder. But, which other ski besides the SS could truly be a one ski quiver for all but the deepest days?]

The quotes:

?Diana and I ski on narrow skis in the general slalom category. ...because they are easier to ski on and they require less effort. ... Wide skis require more tipping effort even on packed snow, (they are impossible on hard snow) as they hurt the knees when skied with carving movements."

"If I want to feel G forces carving at 15 mph, you can?t do it with M88?s. My knees begin to hurt after three runs on wide skis, unless the snow can be compressed under foot and there are wide open slopes ahead with few skiers."
"I rarely use the Monster 88 because at some point in the day you will encounter groomed slopes with hard snow and bumps coming off the powder slopes."
"BtW Super Shapes are great in powder under 12 inches deep and much easier to turn."

"I?d rather ski the M88 than the Heli Guide or the Sugar Daddy type powder skis because the M88 is a laminate ski, better rebound, stable at high speed and it has more side cut, making it easier to turn in all situations, even in bottomless snow."
"I don?t like to float on the top of powder, I prefer to ski in the powder compressing the snow and flexing to rebound. The super wide heli powder skis float on top, which allows relative beginner powder skiers to ski powder. I don?t like or need that type of ski, I prefer to feel the real essence of powder, which is the interaction of going down into it and coming back up to the surface for every turn. Staying on the top and swishing back and forth is like skidding on groomed slopes."

By the way, the end of the last quote also answers your other point about not taking shortcuts. Ironically, it is the wide skis that might be the "cheaters", not the narrow ones.
And, even if you don't agree with Harald's view on powder skiing, or have your own preference to surf it (there are accomplished powder skiers that have "converted" to widebodies), it doesn't change his very important universally correct take on what everybody should use on all other conditions.
Finally, I will gloat a little. I think I was wise not to jump on the im88 bandwagon. I was convinced early about the SS and love them - more versatile even on piste than my 1100SW. But, I wasn't sure about the im88 as a better powder ski than my Legend 8800 even if it would be better on piste.
Based on what I learned from this thread (to relegate my powder ski to powder only), I will stick with my 8800s which certainly fall into the same general category of non-surfers.

Hope this helped.

[Harald]

Since I found from other sources, I?m being quoted all over the internet, I don?t appreciate that by the way, what comes up on the PMTS forum, stays on the PMTS forum, at least that?s my take, let me make absolutely clear what I am saying about the skis.

IM88?s are great skis, but they are expert skier skis. They are not much fun on packed if you want to connect turns and ski all conditions as they will begin to torque the knees unless you have a wide open area where you can blast at forty MPH. (soft snow OK, because they tip easily in soft snow, as there is much less resistance to tipping)

I don?t recommend narrow skis because they carve, that is an assumption that is misleading. . I recommend them because they are more forgiving to learn to ski with, and they tip easier and they help skiers hook up the edge and give them that feeling earlier. After a skier can carve or hook up on narrow skis, they can decide to ski on anything they like. I won?t impose my ideas on anyone?s ski decisions, I just don?t like to see skiers struggling, (especially when they come to my camps and struggle in front of me despite all the attempts to teach them to balance with speeds that are within their ability level and they have a ski that requires much higher speeds and abilities to balance) with skis that are way over their heads, with skis that don?t make any sense for their level of skiing.

[RadRab]

Bs"D

If you are referring to me, you must be referring to the quote that followed the below introduction:
"...read the following quote from, IMO, the greatest instructor/coach of our day. This is pure gold:"
I then followed it up, in a later post, with the affirmation of whom I was obviously hinting to:
"...And, yes, I definately hold PMTS in the highest esteem...."

I thought entering into "innocent" conversation about equipment and then, after gaining their trust, segueing into technique issues and suggesting PMTS solutions, was a clever way to "infiltrate" behind "enemy lines" and get them to recognize, appreciate, and admit they have what to learn, and from where they need to get it.
But, if you prefer not, I will certainly respect that wish.

Either way, if you are also connecting it to the present subject of narrow vs wide and the related im88 question, you must understand the weight your words carry. We accept them based on your established expertise, and form dicisions around them - even if they demand new adjustments to thinking based even on your own previous statements. They should not only be quotable, but should not be self contradictory or non-quotable.

You wrote above about wide skis:
"After a skier can carve or hook up on narrow skis, they can decide to ski on anything they like. ...I just don?t like to see skiers struggling,...with skis that are way over their heads, with skis that don?t make any sense for their level of skiing."

I just hope you are not trying to imply that wide skis are only less desirable for less accomplished skiers, because this was clearly not the inference from your earlier quotes (or your inclusion here of: "I won?t impose my ideas on anyone?s ski decisions"):

"Diana and I ski on narrow skis in the general slalom category. ...because they are easier ..."
"If I want to feel G forces carving at 15 mph, you can?t do it with M88?s. My knees begin to hurt after three runs on wide skis, ..."
"I rarely use the Monster 88 because at some point in the day you will encounter groomed slopes with hard snow... ."

I'm sorry, I know it must be a pain to be taken for every word. But, it comes with the territory.
We all agree here that you are THE source. We have all benefited tremendously from you and your work on and off this forum. We give you the deserved accolades (and try to help spread the word). You have to give us the right to scrutinize (and quote) your words and ideas.

[Harald]

Rad, I have never had the slightest issues with your posts, questions or understanding. I believe you are a gentleman and a fine skier, I hope to meet and ski with you someday. I do believe there are some wider skis that can be beneficial to intermediate skiers. I don?t think IM88 are those skis. There are easier wide skis to ski on including IM75 or 77 this year. The IM72 is a great everyday ski. We just prefer the SS or slalom skis even 1200 laminates, until things get all mountain serious.

My concern is when I am quoted on other forums, I?m not talking about you, that only small snippets are copied and transferred. The readers on the other forms get a very small view of a much larger picture, but they form their opinions about PMTS and me based on the snippets.

When ever someone sends me a copy of a post or thread from the Epic Forum, I?m dismayed by the ignorance, lack of investigation and assumptions these people make about skiing. Many of these people call themselves ski instructors. They have no background or expertise, yet they spew forth volumes of garbage. Many believe PMTS is the Phantom Move, that PMTS skiers can?t ski, that we can?t ski bumps because we don?t teach rotary movements, that World Cup skiers concentrate on using steering of the legs. These people are justifying their failing system. Not one word they utter makes a shred of sense.

They only read what they have to and they misrepresent everything they don?t know, which is almost everything about skiing. I can?t believe these people take themselves seriously. Then of course there is a whole organization build around this thinking.

The ugly part is that beginner skiers have almost no choice, but to fall into their trap. They only find out they were duped after years of frustration.

Please point out to me, as you said, I contradicted myself about the wide ski issue, where did I do this, as I?m sure I can clear it up.

[Max_501]

But, which other ski besides the SS could truly be a one ski quiver for all but the deepest days?

The Atomic Metron M11 and B5 qualify for SL radius skis that rock all over the mountain.

I also think the Head IM77 if you like a slightly larger radius.

All these skis are solid carvers on the groomed and rock off piste.

[RadRab]

Bs"D

Harald, first of all, thank you for your comments, and clearing up the quote matter.

As far as the contradictions go, I don't want to go backwards - it is enough if we can come to a clarity here.
I honestly could quote all kinds of conflicting statements, but I don't have the energy since it is about 3:30am for me. But, more importantly, I also believe that you probably know exactly what you mean, and perhaps your own chosen words just didn't convey the meaning faithfully enough to avoid confusion.

I think it would be very helpful to everybody if you would use a different format at this juncture to conclude the discussion with practical knowledge (like Mr. T wrote: "I confess that this thread has left me more than a little confused and puzzled about what I should be using.")
I suggest to just list your advised (Head) ski models that fit into your different catagories for different level skiers. I have made a list that I think covers the various statements over the course of the thread. But please define your "all mountain serious".

Hardpack/groomed - intermediate level
Hardpack/groomed - advanced-expert level

"all mountain serious" - intermediate level
"all mountain serious" - advanced-expert level

Deeper than 12" Powder, no hardpack to be found - intermediate level
Deeper than 12" Powder, no hardpack - advanced-expert level

Thank you very much in advance. I'll hope to find in the morning a "Don't Get Held Back by Your Skis Harb Guide to Ski Selection for Everyone - so you can focus on the movements". Just another important service to your faithful and appreciative followers.

[Harald]

Don't confuse yourself with details and fact, just make skiing easier on yourself. I have said enough on this topic. I leave the rest to the intelligent interpretation of my posts to the loyal readers of this forum, and I stand by them, as I don't find them confusing just informative. Information is often in the eye of the beholder's interpretation.

[Heyoka]

All I know is that the i supershape....
OK, I'll let it rest.

The Rad seems kinda sideways at the moment. Rad is looking for black and white -- but skiing is a colorful sport. Just ask Klaus Obermeyer or the Bogners.

Dalbello's are great boots -- I love them! But I've seen others complain about them.

Head? Bitchin skis. But I've seen a few skiers struggle on the i supershape.

The Rad keeps looking for an answer to replace his beloved Legend's. I think, the Rad "is thinking too hard about the loan." If the banker has to think too hard about the loan -- they don't make it.

[milesb]

Rad, please stop this insanity.

[JohnMoore]

I don't see what's insane about asking for clarification on the subject. I'm a bit confused myself.

[Harald]

Paul has a point as does Miles, I have never seen any of you ski; you want me to give you a precise answer about what skis you should ski on. I would be giving you bias based on what I like, not information designed for your needs if I did that. You have to make a decision based on the information provided. Read the ski reviews on Real Skier and if you can test the skis from a ski shop, you?ll find what you need. Dissecting the minutiae after many lengthy posts has to get old.

[realskie]

Down goes Fraser, one more time and the gig is up!!!!!

[Harald]

Rad, I?m sorry you are defensive about footbeds and skis. I have provided numerous posts about the skis and in recent months extensively about footbeds.

Reliable information from many sources is available regarding your questions, from my web site, PMTS.org and even links to the presentations I made to the International Congress of Skiing and Science on the topic of alignment and footbeds. My Expert Book 1 goes into great detail about footbeds etc.

I gave you the explanations about why skis work for certain situations, what more do you want?

If you want a personal consultant, I?m afraid I have other clients and customers I have to work with on a daily bases. I leave my home at six in the morning and I return often after 9:00pm, sorry if I have not attended to your personal needs and given you, your free personal advice and responses you seem to be demanding.

In simple terminology, I don't understand want you are driving at. If I have contridicted myself about skis and the way they work, point it out, don't keep extending a topic that is going around in circles.

I think you are out of line and are being highly unreasonable about this issue.


Rad wrote:

I'm sorry, I know it must be a pain to be taken for every word. But, it comes with the territory.

HH responds:

I will determine what is in my territory.

Your requests go beyond reasonable responses or needs of forum members. The topics you are asking about, which I tried to respond to you about, in a nice way, are available from many sources, including mine, which have been posted on countless occasions.

Frankly, one might get bored with responding to the same question about footbeds when the information is easily found and I?ve covered this ground endlessly.

I am sorry you are torqued and you did not get the personal attention you want.

Unless there is new ground to cover or this topic is approached from a new direction, I will no longer respond or post on subjects that have been covered in depth and that I have answered.