While it's not necessary, I think it's helpful...especially for people that are learning to ski powder for the first time, or someone that has tried it and struggles with the up/down, floaty, hoppy movements. This is in the same way someone learning to carve will find it easier to learn to carve if they have a proper frontside oriented ski. Yes, people CAN learn to carve on a wider ski, but why make it harder on yourself? Learning to ski powder is the same thing...a wide, rockered ski is going to make all of the movements easier to learn.Some people told me "not necessary to use those fat skis to ski the powder. There were no wide skis like now back when and that is not that long ago". A good point.
Yes, that part.It's the flexion and extension of the legs. Notice that his upper body is quiet.
Come do a Taos Ski Week and it may become more obvious.I do not know how you can ski the mogul like this though....... I sure cannot.
I love bumps. I just misunderstood Jilly.Come do a Taos Ski Week and it may become more obvious.
Agree.While it's not necessary, I think it's helpful...especially for people that are learning to ski powder for the first time, or someone that has tried it and struggles with the up/down, floaty, hoppy movements. This is in the same way someone learning to carve will find it easier to learn to carve if they have a proper frontside oriented ski. Yes, people CAN learn to carve on a wider ski, but why make it harder on yourself? Learning to ski powder is the same thing...a wide, rockered ski is going to make all of the movements easier to learn.
Spot on from my experience as well. I've found I prefer wider skis in the east than I do when I've skied fresh snow on the west coast. This is completely due to the snow density. You can get bogged down so easily in heavy snow if you're not floating on top of it. Whereas in light fluffy snow you can ski "through" it.With heavier deep snow, makes much more of a difference. Last time I was at Big Sky, I got Rossi Soul7, 106mm, and that wasn't really wide enough. Didn't really have a choice because the wider model wasn't available.
Did they give you a reason why? I really don't understand the motive to steer people away from a ski that was made for those conditions.My Alta instructor doesn't want anyone on skis wider than 100mm for a powder lesson. I knew that was true for me, but I thought it was because I'm petite. Then my Massanutten ski buddy wanted to do a powder lesson after an April snowstorm. He's a big man well over 6 ft and the recommendation was the same in terms of ski width. He's low advanced just starting to work on how to enjoy powder turns.
Spot on from my experience as well. I've found I prefer wider skis in the east than I do when I've skied fresh snow on the west coast. This is completely due to the snow density. You can get bogged down so easily in heavy snow if you're not floating on top of it. Whereas in light fluffy snow you can ski "through" it.
Did they give you a reason why? I really don't understand the motive to steer people away from a ski that was made for those conditions.
That's interesting that you also had an instructor that recommended going narrower in a powder lesson. I'm really interested in hearing why those instructors are recommending it. Is it a technique thing...something that is harder to achieve when on a wide (100+) ski?My first powder lesson in Aspen, the instructor had some of us go to narrower skis. And his discussion focused a lot about skiing with the same technique as usual down under the pow. Perhaps very situationally dependent with the type of snow and his technique preference? As someone who had never skied in that much fresh snow before.. it was up to my knees.. the narrower felt less unwieldly to me than the ones I started on that were over 100 as well. I thought I was going to die after that lesson regardless, it was great but too long for a first timer and I was EXHAUSTED!
Big Sky is one place I haven't been to yet.... is the snow heavy/deep like the Sierras?With heavier deep snow, makes much more of a difference. Last time I was at Big Sky, I got Rossi Soul7, 106mm, and that wasn't really wide enough
I would guess because you don't each people to ski in deep powder by starting them there. What a Level 3 instructor is hoping to teach is good technique so that the student isn't relying as much on the gear to make the right things happen. Plus we are talking about Alta with fluffy snow.Spot on from my experience as well. I've found I prefer wider skis in the east than I do when I've skied fresh snow on the west coast. This is completely due to the snow density. You can get bogged down so easily in heavy snow if you're not floating on top of it. Whereas in light fluffy snow you can ski "through" it.
Did they give you a reason why? I really don't understand the motive to steer people away from a ski that was made for those conditions.
It can be. Bridger actually gets more low density snow than Big Sky. Has to do with the winds and weather patterns in Montana.Big Sky is one place I haven't been to yet.... is the snow heavy/deep like the Sierras?
If they're the Soul 7 which is the ski in marzNC's photo, they're 106 underfoot.In fact his ski type is the Rossi on the left of @marzNC first picture.
Depends on the length.... BF has (and refuses to ski on anything else) the Soul 7's from 5 + years ago and his are 164's...... think 102 or 104 underfoot.If they're the Soul 7 which is the ski in marzNC's photo, they're 106 underfoot.
100%! Plenty of people prefer skinnier skis for skiing in all conditions…everyone should ski what they like on the slopes.As long as the width of the waist is working for you, that is what counts. Because one loves to be on 106 or whatever, does not mean others would, even under the same condition.