So, a person who’s been enjoying a DPS with a 138mm waist and skis in the Utah backcountry will get a dramatically different design than someone who been skiing on a 75mm waist on-piste at Vail.

I guess most of the skis designated for really deep powder like the fat LINEs, Lotus 138, Völkl Kumo etc. have way more bearing surface than your suggestions. How come you see a 165cm/90mm ski suited for deep pow, whereas some people think 185cm/120mm skis are alright for pow.

One of the Wagner skis referrals (Sven B.) also got a pretty wide ride designed for him…

The first generation of superfat powder skis, based on the original Atomic Powder Magic, had a 115mm waist. The binding was mounted closer to the inside edge. This meant it was practically impossible to load the lateral (outside) edge of either ski. If you edged the right ski to start a turn to the left, you could unweight the left ski but it was pretty tough to load the left edge of the left ski. This forced you to do all the work with the outside ski, unless you were skiing a more-or-less skidded intermediate technique with the skis fairly flat on the surface of the snow — which is how most people skied these.

It was quite different from the polished evenly-weight, simultaneously edged technique developed by expert skiers using GS skis in powder. But it opened deep powder to intermediate skiers and saved the heliski business from bankruptcy.

Seth

Going full circle………. technique was extension / retraction (up and down)……… and we only sunk about 5 inches in the crud.

Assymetrical mounting……….. didn’t several manufacturers try that with their boutique skiis? Kept tuners active.

That was the same year we put modern bindings on old skiis. Am I recalling the results of our research correctly??? …. Equipment does affect skiing style…… or how we look skiing under the chair, and how much energy it takes to make a turn.
;>) Ryan

The Bigfoot, BTW, was a Kneissl. The next year we got the first Kneissl Ergo and the original 203cm Elan SCX GS ski, and the 90mm Atomic Guide and Volkl Explosiv. The shorter toon skis arrived a year later.

Seth

WE all agreed that it was a ski-like experience…. on the mashed potatoe snow, the skied stayed under us ………. but/and it was a ’slappy’, bouyant experience ………. rock-a-belly, rodeo.

How did bearing surface relate to that ski? Hmmmmmmmm… was it an Atomic?? same era as the Kastle ‘Big Foot’.

Because it has a more radical sidecut, in powder the longer ski with the 65mm waist will sink deeper at the middle and the tip and tail will float more. You’ll have more trouble bringing the middle of the ski back to the surface, and a lot more trouble pivoting the ski because there’s more resistance at the ends of the lever (the longer ski). It’s going to require better edging and balance skills, in both soft snow and on firm surfaces. In fact, with an appropriate flex pattern, the longer ski is not a powder ski at all, but a radical carver — something midway between a modern World Cup slalom or GS ski. I wouldn’t take it anywhere near powder.

For example, will a 165cm with a 80mm waist (and roughly 1400cm^2 bearing surface) have the same stability as a much longer and skinnier 180cm ski with a 65mm waist (that has a similar 1400cm^2 bearing surface)?