Big Mountain Skis: how are they evolving?

Post your questions/comments about Gear here

Big Mountain Skis: how are they evolving?

Postby Mr. T » Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:26 pm

I must confess that I am a little puzzled. It used to be that when one mentioned big-mountain skis, everybody understood we were talking about long and fat skis. I hardly ever saw anyone with big-mountain skis below 180cm (and maybe these skiers where 5'8"-5'10") and more often than not you could see the big guns at 190cm+. Today, I went pretty much from forum to forum to sort of study the trend, and it appears as if there is a new fashion even in this category: i.e. go short.
Big mountain skis like Head i.M 88 are available in 164cm, suggested at 175cm and available at 186cm (but if go into a store you will find they have perhaps 2-3 pairs only in the 186cm size).

Now, I only tried the Salomon Pocket Rocket in this group of skis in the past. They were fun, but you would not find me very happy if they were my only pair of skis in the Midwest where most of what we ski is ice or icy snow. I got them long and they were working pretty well although short turns and bumps were not easy, not for me anyway. So my experience is limited or, let me be totally honest, is pretty much null.

This year, I really do not know why, I feel sort of the urge to buy a pair of these skis. Maybe I am getting old and think that it is now or never. I do not know, really. But I am very, very skeptical to get a big ski like a Monster i.M 88 in a lenght shorter than my normal skis. Actually, it looks a bit ridicoulous to me: we want big mountain skis to ski everywhere, or at least, so we thin, but we tame them down so that we can handle them.

I know that Harald told me that the i.M 88 in 175cm is enough ski for him and he skis 10x better than me. So, even if I am quite heavier than he is, I am still very confused. Somebody like me (6'2", 215-220) should be on a 186cm. Plus, Harald next to the 175 looks fine while on the contrary, myself in boots next to the same skis would look like I just stole the skis from a kid. Yet, even according to Head website if I wanted the i.M 88 I should be on a 175cm, but in my opinion their algorithm is a little bogus as it looks at height and not weight really. In any case to get a 186cm I should tell them that either I am a very tall skier or I am "always the first one down to the chairlift line".

I wonder if anybody has any comments on this topic? I am and likely will remain confused about the topic. Ideally, I would like to ski everywhere, and do not want to look like a seal performing at the zoo when I ski on groomed terrain. Yet, I still feel that there is something wrong in going short when buying big-mountain skis.

Did I get this entire story of the new big mountain skis completely wrong, or is it the case the there are a lot of skiers going for a very tough ski to handle and then tame it down to "pretend" they can ski it?
Mr. T
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 7:57 am
Location: California

Trying to stay away....

Postby Heyoka » Tue Nov 01, 2005 7:59 am

But Mr. T looks like he/she/it needs some help. That's if of course anything I post is to be considered help...

Mr. T,

Forget about what you "think" is right. Go with what feels good. The only thang (Rusty) I can say for sure is that the 186 i88 is too much ski for ANYONE, except when skiing big lines REALLY fast. For example if I was going to tuck Forever here at Vail, I'd put on the 186's. Other than that, no way.

For your size, the 175 is your ski. That, I can guarantee.

I'm 6'2" 205 after lunch and a beer. I make lousy turns, but do my best. I ski the i88 in a 175.

It seems Mr. T. suffers from the same disease as I; "Short skis suck". Well Mr. T? Have I diagosed you correctly? If so, do not worry. You won't feel like no "Short <bleep> man" in the lift line on your 175 Monsters -- no no. On the contrary. They'll be watching you, so they can steal your skis.

This i88 is all the rage now. Just remember. You heard it here first. You he/she/its owe me now.
"Thanks Heyoka, you're the he/she/it"!
Heyoka
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Hole in the Sky

Postby Mr. T » Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:11 am

I was more thinking about real float in powder.. The i.M 75 at 177 are fine but not in deep powder. Under my weight they still sink too much unless I go very fast. I have other pairs for use on groomed or pseudo-powder. I was really looking for a big mountain ski without going over the board.

I have people telling me to get a Gotama, or a Big Daddy... but those things are too much for me... I just do not want to go big and then burn the advantage by going shorter.
Mr. T
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 7:57 am
Location: California

Postby Finnlander » Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:13 pm

I agree Mr.T should go with his gut reaction and go for the longer ski. My experience is you learn to love and ski well what you buy and use regularly. As a veteran of the steep and icy Vermont slopes Skiing mostly on 210 cm GS skis of the 60s and 70s, upon moving to the Left Coast I bought my first "all mountain" shaped ski a few years back,a pair of Dynastar 4X4 Outlands in 197cm. I considered these originally to be too short, but learned to love 'em. In fact I recently saw and considered a "really short" identical pair in 190cm, and am considering a purchase.
I'm 6ft and 210 lbs and have got a few miles under my boards, but do believe if i'm not learning, i'm going backwards.
I've demoed a lot of the shorter and fatter current skis, and have found a point of diminishing returns as far as stability at speed is concerned with boards under 180 cm. This is strictly my feeling and need not apply to any one else.I find that if you keep turning these little guys they do just fine. Just keep em on edge if you want to crank up some speed.
No one ski can do it all.Go with what you like for most of your skiing, and fine tune your gear as you progress and meet different conditions. The best skiers don't rely on a one ski quiver. A lot of the best young locals at Tahoe are living on shoestrings, but they seem to manage their gear o.k
Bottom line, get and enjoy the 186es, but keep an open mind. If some of the best skiers and teachers (Harold and Lito) are going shorter and wider, who are we to argue,But we still have to be happy with what we buy and use.
Good Luck.
Finnlander
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:45 pm


Return to Gear

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests