A Peter quote regarding wide skis that I had never considered.

[Gary]

So a train leaves Snowville with Ron on board traveling at 4 mph and is scheduled to arrive at Mogul Town in 3 hours...

How far is Snowville from Mogul town and does Ron have on the correct outfit?

However, Ron is correct, the less skilled skier needs more time for mid - flight corrections because they may not create the angles necessary for accident avoidnence.

The appropriate move for Gary in this situation is to apply a stiff arm or Kung Fu move to the perpitrator.

G

[brussell11]

Guys, I'm really loving this thread, by the way, and as a new person to the forums, your thoughts are all appreciated.  I will freely admit that I am one of those people who may be putting too much stock into the fat/non-fat argument (like starbucks, no)?  But it's hard to ignore, and i'd love thoughts on this. I'm switching from east coast based ice capades on a fast carver to the swiss alps.  I love the groomed, feel totally confident in any trail situation, etc.  But my goal for this year is to LEARN how to ski off piste and become comfortable with off piste technique (pow, crud, etc).  I must confess, I like everything i've read about the monsters, and will probably end up with a 05/06 77 170CM (no chip) that I just found on sale (awesome).  So I'm happy, right? RIGHT? Wrong.  Too bad the allure of the 82 keeps calling to me. 'buy me. i'm fat. you're fat (i'm 5'9, 190), lets' all be fat together' and now i'm in a tizzy cause i don't know what to buy!!  Am i falling sucker for the fattie marketing?  Should I stick with the 77s which, by all accounts, are a VERY solid all mountain ski?  I'm not going to be in utah pow-pow every day, or even every weekend (alps pow is not as prevalent, as you all know)...In short...advice would be oh so welcome!

BR

[jbotti]

Brussell 11, I have never been on the IM 77's or the IM 82. I own the previous generation of the IM 77, the IM 75 chip which in it's day was the best all mountain ski around (and this was only three years ago which kind of proves that we are all victims of the marketimng hype). I also own the IM 88's which are a wider version on the IM 82's.

In answering your question, I think the bottom line is to ask what are you most interested in the ski being able to do well, and what are you willing to trade in other areas of ski performance. Both the IM 77's and the IM 82's are excellent skis. The width of the ski below the boot is only 5mm which is about half the width of a finger. The turn radius is slightly smaller on the 77's (at 16.5) vs the 82's at 17.7. The IM 82 will be a better ski in powder (with a little bit better float) and in crud and chop. The im 77 will be easier to manage in the fall line while carving tighter turns. If this is important, buy the Im 77. If this is not the IM 82 may be the better ski for you.

Lastly, I think the 77 is a bit friendlier and a bit more forgiving than the 82.

Obviously if you can afford a two ski quiver, you are better off getting a carving ski for hard snow (Head Super Shape, Fischer Rx8 etc) and a powder/crud ski for when it snows (Head IM 88's and a whole list of comparable skis). Actually for what you might pay for new IM 82's you might be able to get 2 pairs of new skis. There are some great deals araound now and you could get a carver and a powder ski for less than $800 total. Just my $.02 (and my perpetual dislike for mid fat skis). JB.

As for the IM 82. I saw some at good prices at level nine sports www.levelninesports .com
I think they were selling them for $649 with last years bindings.

[Ron]

The 82 is just as desribed above but it is a bit quciker and has more energy. Its not user friendly though- back seat drivers will be eaten.

[Gary]

Ok Mr. B....Since you're coming off "loving the groomers" and wanting to ski more back side....

Hang with the 77's for a season or two...You can find plenty of front side stuff that's cruded up or piled up to hone your skills for handling the back side. I also had the 77's (well the chip version) and came up the same way JB did, from the 75's.

Learn to handle the increase width on front side crud, ski the edges where the granular 6'8" get's pushed. As you skills improve and you're ready to tackle more terrain, you could move up to the 82's or 88's with your body weight.

Grab th 77's if the deal is sweet and enjoy a fine verstile ski that you can grow in to.

Best,
Gary

[Ron]

very wise mr Cassara! 

No boots yet as of 2:04. I checked the tracking number, they are due today!  Atomics are due tomorrow

[jim-ratliff]

brussell

I would go with a carver for "your" ski and then rent wide skis for any days when the conditions or the desire lead you off-trail.

I think you need a softer ski for first trips off-piste. Michael is probably a better source, but the original Volant Chubb was a good ski and they brought that ski back a few years later (but I think there were two Chubbs at that time and you would want the more forgiving one).  Depending on weight, the blue Salomon (Pocket Rocket?) would be another good choice, but it was pretty soft.  I'm sure there are others, but I'm just not that knowledgeable about "first powder skis."

[jbotti]

Good memory Jim. The Volant Chubbs and the Salomon Pocket Rockets are Peters choices for the easiest and softest powder skis. I owned a pair of Pocket Rockets and they are an incredibly forgiving ski. The problem is there isn't much there, there if you know what I mean. I think the bulk of the salomon free ride skis (85mm waist and above) are all pretty soft. As a rental for ones first days in powder and crud, it's a good choice. Anyone who has any technique will outgrow these skis awfully quick. I think the Atomic Sugar Daddies are known as a soifter and freindlier ski. The Fischer free ride line is quite user freindly IMO, and they are all sandwich construction skis with some real substance. I like the Atua's alot.

But I think Brussells 11 is intent on getting a midfat. Can you tell that some of us are not big fans of midfats?

[jim-ratliff]

Anyone who has any technique will outgrow these skis awfully quick.

I absolutely agree with above. The ski he wants to buy the second year won't be the one he rents year 1.

Glad to hear your assessment of the Pocket Rocket.  I think BR weighs around 200 and didn't know if that was too heavy for the PR or not.

I understand his midfat dilemma, and it will be OK with me whatever he does.  But I would own a primary ski for my primary skiing and rent for where I want to learn, and then buy a second ski next year once I'm past that initial learning curve.  (and I still have my mid-fat K2 Axis X's (107-70-97) that I stopped using to go back to a slalom sidecut).  The K2's were 'pretty good' at everything.

[brussell11]

Gents,

Thanks much for the excellent advice on this obviously very popular issue!  I will be keeping, and continuing to use my carvers (the oldie but goodie Volkl V4 SANS motion, thank you very much) for the crisp brilliant hardpack days.   I know they aren't the newest/greatest boards, but I love them; they haul a**, and they are rock solid on the groomed.  So it would seem more logical, by all accounts, to go to the opposite end, and buy some big boys for the off piste days and learn that way.  Here is my dilemma, however.  I am attracted to the idea of the 1 ski quiver.  The alps, at least where I have skiied, seem to throw everything at you possible in a given day.  You'll ski ice to get to the powder, but then have to backtrack through crud to get home...Or am i just falling victim to marketing? Is the argument against the mid fat that they are jack of all trades/master of none (ok at everything, but not brilliant)??  I think I may have just unintentionally asked another question...   But, as stated, I am really enjoying these forums!

I think that I may take the advice from Gary (not that i disagree with the other advice) of sticking on the 77s for a year or two, really getting proper crud/basic pow technique down on the frontside edges. If there is a fantastic day(s) out there, and I'm feeling more confident with my newfound abilities (i hope) on the 77mm, then I'll just have to rent a pair of Kahru fat bodies and go for broke!! I just question if I'd use an 82 or 88 to its full abilities if i'm learning in the FIRST instance how to ski off piste!  It sounds, if I may sum up, that there is no advice AGAINST the I.M 77...but I have a hunch this board is filled with proper off-piste skiers who are too nice to admit that mid-fats are for newbies like me!!  But as stated, I just want a ski with a little extra beef that I can learn/evolve on. It sounds like the 77 may meet this requirement.  Proper technique always trumps gear, obviously, so perhaps I will look at this ride as a stepping stone/training wheels to the backside. 

Best, all, and thanks again.

Ben

[Ron]

Is the argument against the mid fat that they are jack of all trades/master of none

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gary]

Ben, I believe you've made a wise choice...the transition from your carvers to the 77's is a nice step to hone your skills.

The talk about the super fats I personally think is for the boys with the most toys....You'll find at your weight the 77's will take you into shin high powder no problem. They will be manageable and as your skills improve and you are now looking for deeper snow, then you might think about something say 85-90mm waisted. Again depending on how often you might encounter conditions those skis are designed for.

You? have to be honest with yourself on where and how often you ski those conditions. The other nice thing about the 77's is when the mountain is a cruded up and your carvers are getting tossed around, the 77's will plow through the nasties and keep you smiling.

Ron, those mid-fats I think are probably the most versatile for those skiers who are skiing in conditions say up to knee high.

Not sure there's any argument against mid-fats.....With all the talk about the super fats, I've skied the Rossi B3, 95mm at the waist.... who the heck wants to ski those all day unless you're in heavy wet or? knee high all day....it's really a matter of conditions, practicality, affordability, and whose hauling your extra skis around!

Now if you had a ski caddie.....

Keep in mind if you're at a resort and been in the bowls or tree line all morning....you're going to get 3,000 foot of groomed, hard pack or pushed around piled snow when heading out...I think for the majority of skiers, I think skis betwee 77 and 88mm will service that combination of terrain well.

Best,
Gary

[Ron]

The 77's will be just fine, I think the 70-75 are the width that gets lost, no real value.

[Gary]

Ok, ya see Mr. throw a branch into the spokes kind of guy...

All those good skiers with great skis in that range are just steaming....

There IS plenty of value cause you've got weight, side cut, and maybe the need for just one ski the does it all.

For your penance.....you must buy some red "long johns" with the escape hatch in the back and wear them for 3 days at Beaver Creek.


We'll be sure to post the picture!

[Ron]

Any other options?