How do you decide if you are overpowering a ski?
-
Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.
How do you decide if you are overpowering a ski?
AdkLynn
Certified Ski Diva
AdkLynn
Certified Ski Diva
I agree with lisamamot, I'm an east coast skier, my new Yumis have served me well already at Whiteface, so much more confidence on boilerplate, still handle soft snow great! They carve well, but still can side slip and butter turns if I want. I would LOVE the Santa Ana 93s in my quiver for a powder day, maybe next year! My DH has the Enforcer 93s, loves them!
Basically, it means you're putting more energy into the ski than it's able to store by flexing. So you end up skidding your turns.
Thank you!
Albertan ski girl
Angel Diva
va_deb
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
@alison wong just curious, what other skis did you demo and in what lengths? And what were the conditions like on your demo day? (You may want to start a new thread of your own btw for all the skis you demoed.
MissySki
Angel Diva
Honestly, my rec as someone who mostly skis PA... keep your current skis or get longer skis (not sure what Dynastars you have?). My general experience as a PA skier has been that we don't need wide skis here or on most of the east coast. If you go out west, then sure... do premium rentals (demos) to give something like the Santa Ana a go. But I honestly wouldn't bother otherwise. But seriously what Dynastars do you have?Let me help you shop. lol If you're fine on them ignore me, that just seems like a very short ski at your size. I'm 3 inches shorter and 40 lbs lighter and was on 142s as an intermediate. Like right now I have two skis: 146 Kastle LX72s and 147 Yumis (72 and 83 at the waist respectively).
ETA: Also, just as a weird aside... 4 years ago as an advanced intermediate I went to Aspen. It snowed 6+ inches. I took out Kikus b/c POWDER. I ended up bouncing around on top of the snow like a doofus until our powder instructor sent me back in to find narrower skis. I didn't have the mass and it was like two surfboards strapped to my feet. So you don't necessarily (based on mass) need super wide skis in deeper snow. @MissySki was in my class and is closer to your size than me and she still ended up not on powder skis and instead on 80-something waisted skis in our powder lesson (she got sent back with me to find narrower skis).
As @tinymoose said, I did switch out from the Kikus on our trip to Aspen when we had a powder day some years ago right along with her (I remember it being WAY more than 6 inches though?!?!?! haha). Even now as I've progressed I have found that anything over 100 underfoot just seems to be too much work for me to want to deal with, and I'm still trying to hone my "powder skills" as an east coast skier and it seems that too much width and/or length just tires out my legs more than necessary (For me I think it's more due to my lack of technique in this area than my size but who knows, I still fight the snow too much in those conditions and that's easier on a smaller ski..). I'm 5'4 ~125lbs and would describe my skiing as more finesse than power. Skis I own range from low 80s underfoot to high 90s and lengths are usually somewhere in the mid to high 160s. I also LOVED the Santa Ana 93 I demoed, and that's on my list as a new powder/tree/trips west ski (I ski mostly in Maine at Sunday River), my current ski most often used for these purposes is a pair of old Rossignol S3w skis that are awesome but will need to be replaced eventually and aren't made anymore. I am tempted to try the 100 underfoot Santa Anas, but haven't found them available for demo around me yet..
I'd recently read that the issue with powder skis is a weight floating issue and that the variables involved are weight and speed. In other words a 200 # male can go (just making up numbers as examples) 15 mph and still float on a 120mm, and if he went 30mph could float on a 100mm ski. Contrast with a 250 # skier who'd need to go 30mph to float on a 120mm ski. That would make sense as to the popularity and allure of the super fat skis in this era of more and more skiers going off piste with average skills.
It also makes sense that a 100 # woman wouldn't do well on a fatter ski. She could probably float on an 82mm ski and anything extra just means more weight and work, and less control. I am curious as to the narrowest width a 100 # person could float on powder with. I don't suppose any of the members who fit in that category want to demo skis in powder in sequentially decreasing widths to answer that question. After the last few weeks of weather in CO & the west coast this might be the only time it's possible
It also makes sense that a 100 # woman wouldn't do well on a fatter ski. She could probably float on an 82mm ski and anything extra just means more weight and work, and less control. I am curious as to the narrowest width a 100 # person could float on powder with. I don't suppose any of the members who fit in that category want to demo skis in powder in sequentially decreasing widths to answer that question. After the last few weeks of weather in CO & the west coast this might be the only time it's possible
bounceswoosh
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I'd recently read that the issue with powder skis is a weight floating issue and that the variables involved are weight and speed. In other words a 200 # male can go (just making up numbers as examples) 15 mph and still float on a 120mm, and if he went 30mph could float on a 100mm ski. Contrast with a 250 # skier who'd need to go 30mph to float on a 120mm ski. That would make sense as to the popularity and allure of the super fat skis in this era of more and more skiers going off piste with average skills.
It also makes sense that a 100 # woman wouldn't do well on a fatter ski. She could probably float on an 82mm ski and anything extra just means more weight and work, and less control. I am curious as to the narrowest width a 100 # person could float on powder with. I don't suppose any of the members who fit in that category want to demo skis in powder in sequentially decreasing widths to answer that question. After the last few weeks of weather in CO & the west coast this might be the only time it's possible
Yeah, lots of factors, including that not everyone wants float. Although skinny ski lovers sometimes seem to think that "float" means you'll be hydroplaning if the ski is wide enough, which is never true. Look at the female skiers going fast on fat skis in movies in deep powder. They're still in it.
But perhaps @SkiNurse has some input on a floaty ski for a lighter weight woman. I believe she has Oracles and loves 'em.
elemmac
Angel Diva
Sounds like DH needs a bigger, badder snowboard!
SnowHot
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
You didn't stop at the shop to say hi!!
I was lonely. We need to ski together. You around today if the resorts open?
Yup, 4 Feet!!
This dude is gonna have a tough time finding his car.
santacruz skier
Angel Diva
I stopped by the day before ! We are on goldbend and power is out! Are you working?
I don't need information on a floaty ski for a lightweight woman as I haven't been 100 # since I was in sixth grade. I'm more curious about the mechanics and whether this is another area where women are being misdirected due to insufficient information.
I am all about the information gathering!
bounceswoosh
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I don't see a lot of misdirection out there, except in the assumption that because many women are lighter than many men, that all women are lightweight skiers and should be on narrower skis.
Very few companies make very fat skis specifically for women, whatever that means (women's skis range from "identical except for topsheet to men's ski" to changes in binding mount point, flex, materials, etc - the only commonality is that they are marketed to women).
Coalition markets to women exclusively and has a 114/118.
Fat-ypus has a 112. They previously sold both I-Rock and V-Rock, but they were identical except for lengths, so he merged the line and made all lengths available in the I-Rock. For a small ski manufacturer, this is very sensible, although it contributes to the impression of fewer options for women. But back to your point, how many women are looking for 126 underfoot? (Seems like all of my female ski buddies at Breck, but we seem to have a bit of an isolated subculture.)
I was responding to the post above and a few others, where a lighter weight woman was saying she didn't do well on fatter skis.
But to a point my biggest problem has been that I've been put on women's skis inappropriately in the past. During my skiing phases I've run from 160-220 # and never has a shop seemed to take that into consideration. It wasn't until I gained the knowledge and did the research that I've had good skis for my size and style.
Just like you've dialed down on what works for you I think we all benefit from a more granular understanding of the issues surrounding ski choices which would allow us to make better informed choices based on our individual characteristics.
Hence my (somewhat) joking suggestion that a 100 # skier take out sequentially narrower skis to find out what mm underfoot is the narrowest to float her. Not suggesting that's the ski to ski, but just to know.
WaterGirl
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Yes I reminded him last time he was waist deep that he has a powder board, although its one of his "older" boards. Admittedly this happens in the trees..... we get some rather large windrift and I can float thru or just break thru the top of the whoopdeees..... sometimes he can't.
SnowHot
Ski Diva Extraordinaire
No one is working today. If you need a place with power, come to Reno and stay at our house.
And, BTW at your size, you may like the shorter length a little better. You're itty bitty.
The power outage is due to three primary power lines supplying power to North Lake Tahoe have been taken out by mud slides. Not sure when they will be restored. :(
