Bored Again. BIG ski related.

**Professor** · 03-13-2007, 02:13 PM

So reading the pontoon mounting thread on the main page got me thinking. Is it that ski companies are not listening to the demands of the better skier, or is it that the market for truly BIG skis is so small, there really is no market? If a companies own skiers are saying bigger skis are necessary (ie longer pontoons), why is it that they think they cant sell any? Personally I would buy a longer Sumo if it were available and if something like the Hellbent or Rockers were longer, I would consider them as well. But I dont want to give up any more stability than I already have by going down to a 190 twin tip. If there were some bigger options, wouldnt people buy them? Just curious if there really is a market for some longer skis. And "yes" I know the Katana is going to come out in a 197 and Salomon is making the 198 AK and I applaud both companies for making those skis, but both of those are 110ish under foot, and really arent "that" wide anymore. I guess the bottom line inquiry is, are the ski companies behind the times and behind demand, or is the demand so limited that they are making the right business decision? So there is your homework for the evening....

Oh and one more thing, if this thread becomes another argument about what skis I should try..... You all get an "F" on this exercise

**El Chupacabra** · 03-13-2007, 02:14 PM

Have you tried the 159 Public Enemy?

**Professor** · 03-13-2007, 02:15 PM

Yes, but it was too much ski for me in the halfpipe.

**El Chupacabra** · 03-13-2007, 02:22 PM

In all seriousness, there's probably just a very small market for 195cm+ skis.

Joe Public has been preached at for the last 10 years about how all the "new" skis are shorter and you don't really need anything more than a 170, maybe 180 if you're really tall or heavy.

With more mainstream manufacturers (K2, Salomon, etc) coming out with weird sidecuts and cambers, maybe lengths will change too.

Offhand, I can't think of any ski company -- large corporation or tiny independent -- that makes a 205cm ski or larger. (With the exception of that guy in Utah making solid wood skis, and not counting speed skis or jumping skis.) Are there any?

**laseranimal** · 03-13-2007, 02:23 PM

snowsprite got a pair of 150 Pow Pluses, those are big for her

my guess is that there just isn't a market for that kind of ski anymore so why make the molds. There are just so few people who can charge it harder then Highway Star and even he's on 190 Big Daddies. I can't even think of any retail ski that's 200cm or longer on the market today. Sure the team athletes, and a few select amateurs can ski that kind of a board, but with the majority of the skiing population deciding that 165-175 is much easier to ski on the groomers and the other part demanding a fat ski that has versatility you're really not gonna see something longer then a 190-195.

oh and make sure you mount at 0 or -2 on those 159 PE's, Highway Star says thats the sweet spot

**laseranimal** · 03-13-2007, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

With more mainstream manufacturers (K2, Salomon, etc) coming out with weird sidecuts and cambers, maybe lengths will change too.

I think thats gonna be the only thing that brings long skis back

**lemon boy** · 03-13-2007, 02:30 PM

If companies steer their marketing ship back toward long boards then the lemmings will follow.

I predict that instead of marketing the new funshapes as 205s they'll start marketing them by running length. Dude, my new toons are like 185s! Sick!

As a normal longish ski skier I've been wondering for a week or two: now that I've skied 190cm 120s...do I want the 198s? I'm undecided as yet.

**Professor** · 03-13-2007, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by laseranimal

oh and make sure you mount at 0 or -2 on those 159 PE's, Highway Star says thats the sweet spot

I mounted those skis in 4 different spots from -2 to +2 and they were way too much for me. I think my old Atomic Big Feet just work better in the park.....

Now back to important things..... Take the Pontoon. The guys skiing them for the most part are saying the lengths are fine. Tons of smaller guys are skiing the 189 with no problem. Designer of the ski says, ski them longer, but there is nothing longer than the 189. Same issue with Spats and Praxis, 186s that everyone says are awesome in the trees. So where is the big fat ski that also is stable enough to haul ass even when it isnt very smooth? There are 195ish skis out there, but nothing really wide. Squads, XXLs, LPs, all in a 195ish length, but the widest is 109. Then you have the big skis I mentioned above for next year. But so far, I have not heard one report of the XXL being a ton of ski and unmanageable. So why not more longer lengths in some of the other shapes, that would still be easier to ski than the same length in a traditional shape/build? I realize the market may not be huge, but I have always understood that the biggest ski in a companies line is a marketing tool. Look back at race skis, they exist because people buy skis that LOOK like the skis they see on the podium. If the average skier sees someone just nuking through avy rubble on 195 Praxis, arent they more likely to buy a shorter length of that ski for themselves?

Oh and a quick edit, since it will come up. Yes, I know these skis are marketed as "pow skis". But the Explosive and Snow Ranger were marketed the same way. Anybody still consider the Explosiv a "pow only" ski? I think if my Sumos were a 195 or 200, I doubt I would even bother skiing my Squads again.

**Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo** · 03-13-2007, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

In all seriousness, there's probably just a very small market for 195cm+ skis.

Joe Public has been preached at for the last 10 years about how all the "new" skis are shorter and you don't really need anything more than a 170, maybe 180 if you're really tall or heavy.

That is always my take on it. Leroy Jenkins and were just talking on the lift the other day about how many comments we get on our AK Swallowtails and how big they. One lady the other day called them water skis. Granted most of the comments are about girth(and they are only 95 at the waist) but even comments about length are frequent. When I got my Lotus 120's mounted the first question the guy asked was if I was going to Canada or Alaska with them.

edit: what flip said, most skiers don't enjoy or feel comfortable going machlooney, especially in variable conditions

**flip** · 03-13-2007, 02:44 PM

No market for it. This board is it's own microcosm. In a cabin of proficient but traditional skiers, they are all terrified of my collection of ~180cm length skis (which I realize are teeny by this board's standards) and one of the strongest of the bunch demoed 163 Sugar Daddies on a powder day, then decided he liked his skinny carving skis better even in powder. They consider hooking a good thing.

99% of skiers don't ski fast.

**pechelman** · 03-13-2007, 02:45 PM

its a small demand much like the need for big&tall clothing stores.

and really a 190sumo would be plenty of ski for most folks and what they want it to do as a powder ski.

**bio-smear** · 03-13-2007, 02:47 PM

I skied El Chup's 200cm yellow AK Rockets one day when I was hard up for a pow ski. But then, I could reach down and bend the tip up to my nose with my pinky finger. You shoulda seen me rail those noodles. Long skis kick ass!

If Jamie Pierre can rage on Pocket Rockets, I think all this long ski business is for short penised gentlemen.

**El Chupacabra** · 03-13-2007, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by flip

No market for it. This board is it's own microcosm.

Yep.

I spent last Saturday at Homewood, a small locals resort at Tahoe, since Mrs. C. had a women's ski clinic there. I was bored in about 90 minutes but had to hang out all day. Riding the lifts there by myself, on Scott P3s (84mm waist), nearly every chair ride someone commented on how "fat" they were and how they must be really good in powder.

Probably 30% of the skiers at Homewood were on skinny straight skis, rear entry boots, etc. But everyone seemed to be having a great time, despite the lack of anything challenging. The place has a good vibe to it.

**El Chupacabra** · 03-13-2007, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by bio-smear

I skied El Chup's 200cm yellow AK Rockets one day when I was hard up for a pow ski. But then, I could reach down and bend the tip up to my nose with my pinky finger. You shoulda seen me rail those noodles. Long skis kick ass!

Those got passed along to Dave the sometimes-tele skier. He loves them. I got them originally from StormDay for Art, who took one look at the 200cm of yellow loveliness, and declined. Wuss.

**Professor** · 03-13-2007, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by pechelman

and really a 190sumo would be plenty of ski for most folks and what they want it to do as a powder ski.

I think for most people looking for a pow ski, the 190 is probably too big. But there are also a bunch of people that arent just using it as a pow ski and would like something longer. Isnt that part of the market big enough that "some" skis should be built to fill the niche? Rossignol finally realized there was a market for Squads after denying the existence of those skis for a long time. So is it "no market" or is it the manufacturers simply defining the market at this time? Another way to look at it, are the manufacturers simply behind the times on their own, or are they behind the times because the majority of the skiers out there really dont know what is going on with skis?

**lemon boy** · 03-13-2007, 02:52 PM

while it's true that this board is its own micorcosim...that's not to say that there aren't ski areas that are JUST LIKE US.

A recent visit to the bird showed tons of skis that are totally in line with this board's preferences whereas at my home hill you hardly see anything over 100mm.

**El Chupacabra** · 03-13-2007, 03:03 PM

Sort of obvious question, not sure if it's been asked yet, but...

What's the Professor Pro Model ski then? 200cm, 130mm underfoot, no twin tip, traditional sidecut, stiff like a 194 Squad?

Can anyone bend a ski like that? or is the point that the ski simply does not bend?

Speaking of inflexible skis, I passed along the 163 Atomic Tele Daddys to a friend of Pig Bodine's last night. Checking them out a bit before I sold them: tip= relatively soft; tail= bit stiffer; under-foot-section= UNBENDABLE. Putting the tail up flat on the workbench, I could not bend the center part of that ski at all. Weird. I wonder why they're designed like that.

**jerr** · 03-13-2007, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by lemon boy

while it's true that this board is its own micorcosim...that's not to say that there aren't ski areas that are JUST LIKE US.

A recent visit to the bird showed tons of skis that are totally in line with this board's preferences whereas at my home hill you hardly see anything over 100mm.

I agree. Ski choice seems to be a cultural thing for the masses. And as such is driven by the loudest voice - usually the big ski companies. Which makes perfect sense really. So I'd say the suppliers are driving the demand by telling people what they want. But most people seem happy with this.

A friend of mine rides 100 days+ a year, and absolutely rips, skis on 163 AR3's. He keeps telling me how good they are and that I should give up my 'fat skis'? This just goes to show that the ski company's ideals propagates all skill levels.

On a slightly different note, here's a terrifying thought -

The older crew will be able to remember when snowboards became popular. It changed powder days for ever. All of a sudden ski fields were tracked out in a matter of runs. Fast forward to "in 5 years time!" Picture a powder day and everybody is on a (perhaps) longer (certainly) wider ski = powder days will last 1 run, only!

So maybe progress isn't totally in our best interest. And then there's the Fischer 207?

**The Harbl** · 03-13-2007, 03:07 PM

WOW, such long skis?

Have you ever considered you may have a technical problem that is forcing you to stay on long skis as a crutch? 175cm skis are typically long enough for most adult male experts. PMTS may be able to break down your technique and offer solutions to improve your skiing. Please have a look at our web forum and online instructionals:

http://realskiers.com/pmtsforum/index.php
http://www.harbskisystems.com/lessonindex.htm

Sincerely,

Harald Harb

**mc_roon** · 03-13-2007, 03:11 PM

um...no. 175cm is not long enough

**Professor** · 03-13-2007, 03:12 PM

Since I am bored and I did start this, here is my take on a few of the questions....

1) I think ski companies are behind the times. Whether that is due to the average skier or due to price of building protos, I dont know. I do know that Squads existed for a long time before being brought to market. Now after 2 seasons on the market, they may be outdated. I would be interested to see what prototypes the team riders already have. I do know the new Scratch is over 110mm under foot and a bunch of sponsored guys that normally were on 189 Squads have simply switched to the new Scratch (even though it is ugly as hell)

2) Marketing shorter skiers to the average skier worked well as skis simply got wider. Again, look at the Explosiv, people going from Snow Rangers to Explosivs almost always went down at least 10cm and were totally happy. I dont think those same lengths work with twin tips and new shapes. With longer shovels, ramped/twin tails, reverse camber, you lose effective edge and lose stability when you get out of the sweet spot. The more you lose that stability, the less the ski can "save" you when things go bad. I dont know about you guys, but things dont always go as planned. When that happens or if I hit something unexpected, I may need more stability than if I am just making turns.

3) On a personal note, I dont want a true "pow only ski". If I had my choice I would have one ski that skis great in the pow, but can handle everything else. Now I know that wont work for east coast ice and blower Utah pow. But I have better things to do than ski when it is really hard all over the mountain, so I dont really need it to handle ice. What I do need is something that can handle a lot of varying conditions. A short super soft ski will always be a "one hit wonder". Someone pointed out the 200 Yellow AK Rockets. I actually really liked that ski. The length was great for stability, but it was easy to turn because of the flex. That ski was an awesome everyday ski at Snowbird. But as skis got wider and turns got bigger and bigger, it simply became outdated. Make that same ski and make it 120ish under foot, and I will put a deposit down right now (but please dont make them recyclable like the last version)

**Arty50** · 03-13-2007, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Professor

Another way to look at it, are the manufacturers simply behind the times on their own, or are they behind the times because the majority of the skiers out there really dont know what is going on with skis?

The squads are a bad example because Rossi was one of the last holdouts in the fat revolution. They still kinda are. I mean, what's Rossi's fattest board? 104? Are you kidding me?

There's lots of fun stuff going on with ski manufacturing right now. If I were at this level 15 years ago, I'd be on a pair of super stiff 215s. Now I'm happy as can be on a pair of 190 Gotamas. Why? I mean, it's a short noodle for god sakes! OMFG!@##! But like I said, ski manufacturers have figured out there's more to making a ski than length and stiffness. You can play with the shape, the progressiveness of the flex, the camber, the width, etc. There's so much more you can do now. Before stability was only gained by length and stiffness, now there's a few different ways to achieve that.

Hey look, I'm not going to go out and buy a pair of 168 Gotamas. But I don't see how a 197 really helps me for most of the skiing I do. Sure if I'm at the top of an Alaskan face, I might want that ski. But then again, the 190s seemed pretty perfect in that situation too.

**Professor** · 03-13-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

Sort of obvious question, not sure if it's been asked yet, but...

What's the Professor Pro Model ski then? 200cm, 130mm underfoot, no twin tip, traditional sidecut, stiff like a 194 Squad?

Can anyone bend a ski like that?

I better answer this before I schedule my lessons and realize I shouldnt even ski anymore since I know so little about the subject.

I dont think they need to be as stiff as a 194 Squad. Dont get my wrong, I love my Squads, but for certain things. Going fast is amazing, going slow simply sucks. They are also too stiff in the shovel to be that much fun in deep pow. For reference, they run into the same pow problems as the 193 Monster 103s. For my preferences, somewhere between the flex of the Squads and the Sumos, if it has a flat tail a 195 would be fine, I would want traditional shape and a decent rise to the shovel. And after skiing the Sumos on a groomer, I think 120-125 under foot and I could still ski it as an everyday ski. But I am not saying that is what someone should build.

I am just concerned that as the newer shapes, especially those that are rockered, like DP 138s, Praxis, Toons, Spats, Hellbents, etc become more and more popular, they may leave fewer and fewer options for someone that is thinks stability is a high priority.

**Arty50** · 03-13-2007, 03:25 PM

Hmmmm...then again...I did love the 193 Blowers...damnit...

**SquawMan** · 03-13-2007, 03:30 PM

hey Arty50,,,, hit Slim up to demo his Sumo's.....and prepared to be amazed

your Gotama's will be collecting dust on any day where there is > 6 inches fresh

I'm not kidding