-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Skis for carving in powder
Longitudinal softness is better in pow yes. Torsionally stiff is fine. It you want to be able to flex the ski into a curved surface.
Lol. To me when I first moved to UT it has helped to look at the mountain differently and see different lines to ski with snowboarders and tele skiers and see how they approach things as well as other alpine skiers.
I'm 6'1/2" and around 200-210+ lbs. I've had no problem with the 190s and did not find them much work at all, but I'm not really a finesse skier. There's a pretty good amount of rocker on them, so I never considered the 184 version. Other skis I often ride are 185 Blizzard Cochise's which I also don't find to be too much if that helps provide context. I'm not sure if you spend a lot of time in tight moguls, they 190s would be the best choice though. I'll tell you though - I hadn't had skis this long since the 1990's, and was a bit apprehensive, but I got over that on my first run, and they are unbelievably stable off any jumps / small cliffs too - it's almost unreal.
Here's a picture of my 190 Moment Bibby's on the right, and my 188 Moment PB&Js on the left. The second picture is the base and rocker profile to give you a sense of their running length too. They're both quite stiff.
I know what you mean too. On boiler plate, the shape of the ski combined with the hard surface, the weight applied to the middle bends the ski and you use the tip to start cutting a nice groove as the ski moves forwards, the bottom corner of the edge, and a small portion of the ski base supports the turn forces and you carve a turn, leaving two pretty thin tracks behind you (or four thin tracks behind you if your toes are dragging in the snow due to your skinny skis, high tipping angles and fat feet and you don't boot out on ice). As you go the edge continues to cut the groove deeper. If you have some skills, the best ski for this is one with traditional camber, because you can always feel what is going on at the tip, and if you have some tip rocker, there will be a moment of faith where you can anticipate the full contact experience to come. The compensation is the rocker or early rise helps make engagement process smoother and more forgiving for a lot of skiers.
In deeper snow the greater surface area at the tip and tail causes more force to be applied there and the skis bend. That in conjunction with the ski moving forward allows you to initiate a a turn with the tip, and as the ski moves forward snow compresses under the tip and the rest of the ski rides along that compressed snow with tail following tip, and a continued compressing the snow surface underneath it. Rocker allows the ski to be made stiffer to accommodate higher speeds with more stability, without compromising its ability to bend into the turn, but again takes away some feeling of initial tip engagement, unless the snow is really deep. Same compensation as for hard snow - forgiveness.
Unfortunately I can't help you on which modern ski to buy, not enough experience on modern equipment in those conditions. Back in the day I skied lots of deep snow, but I was only into "carving" (as defined above) super-g turns for thrills, and doing hockey stops for speed control. I didn't even think about porpoising, although I no doubt was doing so between turns due to the lower amount of force being exerted out of the apexes. My idea of a great powder carving ski is a 15 year old Volant (in the longest length of course).
I am not positive I understand, but all three statements suggests to me that porpoising is something done intentionally. And, @slowrider comment about submerging the tip, intentionally, made me realize that a ski porpoises up only if it goes down. So, maybe something about my technique is causing my skis to submerge. I think I'll pick up that matter in a Ski School thread.
As for ski selection, I've read up on the Moment Bibby. I'll have to try that one. And, I'm also thinking I just have to experiment - with width, longitudinal stiffness, degree of camber, earliness of rise being of first-order significance.
Back in the old days, turning in powder and powder "farming" were a big thing. They even had "figure 8" contests to see who could make the best looking overlapping tracks. It's simple physics, really. Under load the skis bent and curves were made, with bent skis and a little tipping. Take the load off the skis and they straighten, between turns. In addition, without the load the skis did rise to or near the surface. This rising up out of the denser snow allowed those folk who augmented their turn initiation with some rotary to get an initial steering angle to have an easier time of it. Unloading the skis also released you from the turn so you would cross over the skis. Point of interest, one of the teaching methods to get folk used to skiing powder was to have them rhythmically weight and un-weight their skis and then add in the turns once they had that down.
Not that I spent much time trying to make perfect powder eight turns or powder farming; All I wanted to do in those days was ski faster, like my role models (Ken Read and Steve Podborski) and instead of farming the powder, I skied in the exact same tracks in order to accomplish that
. I was only skiing deep snow because that's what they had on the back side where I wouldn't get in trouble with ski patrol for skiing too fast.
In my defense, I got better. I now enjoy all skiing, bumps, steeps, non-steeps, groomed runs, trees, deep snow, ice, even slow skiing on groomed green runs.
Not that I spent much time trying to make perfect powder eight turns or powder farming; All I wanted to do in those days was ski faster, like my role models (Ken Read and Steve Podborski) and instead of farming the powder, I skied in the exact same tracks in order to accomplish that
. I was only skiing deep snow because that's what they had on the back side where I wouldn't get in trouble with ski patrol for skiing too fast.In my defense, I got better. I now enjoy all skiing, bumps, steeps, non-steeps, groomed runs, trees, deep snow, ice, even slow skiing on groomed green runs.
Yes.
Powder skiing, as opposed to Freshie skiing, is when the ski is moving forward and is fully supported in unpacked snow by the pressure developed underfoot. Powder skiing is therefore all about fluid dynamics and pressure management. Seeing your ski tips, the perceived need for the tips to exit the snow to start or finish the turn, and wanting a super wide ski all result from not understanding that.
Once your skis leave the base and achieve full flotation in the fluid snow, it's all about managing the center of pressure underneath you, much more two footed skiing, and much more care in unequal edge angles.
Yeah, sort of, but not really. I mean we need to have good balance, steering, and timing in both powder and packed snow, but in very different ways. The techniques are not the same. If this was the case this thread wouldn't exist and everyone would be a confident powder skier. But they aren't, they know they aren't, and the reason they aren't is because the techniques are different.
On packed snow you can pressure the tips aggressively in a turn, in powder if you do the dive klaxons will go off and you likely will go over the handlebars. In packed snow you can be at 80/20 left/right weight distribution, whereas in powder your 80% foot will sink and your 20% foot will rise and you will not like the asymmetrical forces and alignment issues that result. In powder you are much more even footed much more of the time. In packed snow you can skid at any rate of speed. In powder if you attempt a skid once the skis are in flotation (IE the direction of flow diverges significantly from the direction the skis are pointed in) the gods will surely smite thee.
In powder there is a center of pressure on the ski, and you ride this center of pressure slightly ahead, directly over or slightly behind it. As conditions change (speed, snow density, hitting the base, etc) the center of pressure changes slightly, and you need to move to adapt to that. More to the point you need to intrinsically know where you need to move, and go there instinctively as needed.
There is no edge hold in powder skiing. As mentioned before, the feeling of carving in powder, which I think can more accurately be called tracking, is when the skis are in reverse camber, the skis are tipped, and in the fluid medium the skis track the direction the arced ski wants to move through in the fluid.
In a turn, side cut only matters on a surface. Let that sink in. In a powder turn, side cut will affect the pressure distribution and the flex of the ski, but the side cut is not interacting with a surface. In a turn, side cut only matters on a surface.
Releasing the reverse camber has a different result in powder. Because you are in flotation the when the camber is released to begin the next turn, the angle of attack* increases, centripetal forces decrease, and your depth in the snow decreases as you transition to the next turn. This gives the 3D feeling. Your speed and technique determine your depth in the snow.
Powder skiing on really fat skis is more like a parachute. You can steer by venting sides of the chute and control your direction, but the chute keeps you centered below it at all times, just like the very fat ski keeps you on the surface at all times. In neither case do you control the angle of attack. As the chute becomes more rectangular, as it becomes an airfoil shape instead of a open teacup shape, it then is able to control the angle of attack, and control and utilize the forces that result. Not a perfect analogy, I know.
Said another way, with fat skis you are essentially skiing the boundary layer between snow and air. There is no "up". With narrower skis you are skiing the inside, there is left, right, up and down.
One of the most important transitions there is for a powder skier is when you can stop looking at your tips to gauge their depth, even stop caring if they are at or near the surface, and instead depend on the feeling under your foot telling you where the center of pressure is and the sensation/drag on the front of your legs(and chest if you're lucky) telling you how deep you are.
I did an experiment years ago to test a reverse camber theory out. Find a foam sofa, open cell foam with medium to soft density. Put on your ski boots, place the skis on the sofa, and click in. When I did my skis were in reverse camber. The foam exerts a uniform proportional force in relation to the distance the foam is compressed, just like fresh snow does. Your weight is distributed along the length of the ski as the construction of the ski dictates. If it's a rigid 4x4, there will be no bend. If it's a literal noodle, it will look like a foot print. However my ski settled into a nice arc. This is what happens in the snow when your ski is supported by the pressures of powder skiing. As you ski straight down the hill in powder, your ski is already in a sight arc under you. When on the base it is flat on the snow. Supported by pressure, the ski takes a shape dictated by the pressure, which is an arc.
Now that I think about it, because the ski is already in reverse camber, wouldn't rocker not matter much when fully immersed? Just like rocker doesn't matter much once the edge is fully engaged on packed snow. Rocker matters more in the transition.
*Angle of attack: The difference between the direction the ski is moving in the snow vs the direction ski is pointing
Last edited:
How about if you think about it as "how much bend is in the ski at the given amount of float"? Surface-planing skis therefore reduce to "float with minimum ski bend" and so forth through boot-deep and knee deep.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Posts
- 6,341
No offence intended but I am just not going to get this. I'm pretty glad I ski by feel rather than thinking hard about it and that for me wide skis relative to any given 3D snow feel good and natural. I accept that some ski shapes plane more easily but I think the on the snow vs in the snow is just lazy characterisation. If "on the snow" was real there wouldn't need to be as much competition for lines on a powder day as the first people through would barely trash the snow. I have never seen this miracle happen.
None taken and I agree that on vs in is sloppy shorthand for an entire multidimensional spectrum of sensation, pressure and feedback.
I disagree with the second statement in that on the snow as a concept does not preclude lateral slough, lateral relative to the skiers line of travel that is.
I disagree with the second statement in that on the snow as a concept does not preclude lateral slough, lateral relative to the skiers line of travel that is.
There's plenty of skis that didn't get a mention - anyone still like Volkl's 1-2-3 line for carving powder? - some IMO worthier. One also needs to be careful with marketing terms - all too often 'powder carver' means they aspire to a combination of powder and carving on non-powder
Volkl 1-2-3 are a pretty standard powder design you can find in many skis. Full rocker, tapered tips/tails. Not a carving ski at all.
The Shamans were very different and very unique -- huge shovel, fat waist, full camber, minimal taper. It was a carving design basically upsized for float.
Slight tangent from the OP topic...This is interesting to read, being a snowboarder myself. I learned to carve a turn on a board, much sooner than I ever really learned to carve on skis (unless you count the "carving" I did when I was in elementary school). I've never felt the need to have my foot over the edge either. The feeling is probably emphasized even more since my feet are fairly small, so most snowboards I ride are technically "too wide" for me. Not saying it's right or wrong...but makes me curious about the dynamics of snowboarding that we as snowboarders translate to skiing techniques that other skiers do differently. I use a lot of "feel" in my skiing, as well. Mainly I feel what my feet are doing, where they're pressuring, and how they're affecting the pressure of my skis on the snow.
Thank you for emphasizing my earlier point. Sure, Volkl 1-2-3s have trouble carving on hardpack but they can carve (and even skate!) powder. Hardpack carving doesn't give us a good indicator for what a ski will do in the deep, and marketing terms which merge the concepts are very misleading.
My problem is, they will rise. See photo.
Oh, right.
Yes, on steeps or moguls, I do that, tucking my feet under me and engaging early. Not good in powder?
Got it.
I feel loss of control on account of porpoising. See photo.
Yes, I want to get there.
Makes sense, unless. Unless its the rocker causing the porpoising?
I've attached a photo of me. Not going very fast, not so steep. But, on this run, it was one porpoise after another, the tips rising steeply up. I would try pressuring forward, but I couldn't stop it.
Then look at this video.
I'm not skiing this fast and am no comparison, but see 0:33 and 1:05, how the skis shoot up. I want to avoid that.
The various definitions of "carving" in powder are spot on. Tail follow tips, etc. In the video, at 1:50, the skis are close enough to the surface that they can be seen. To me, they look like they are "carving". I want to do that, whether at surface, near surface, or far below surface. Looking at it more closely, is he accomplishing that with high upper-lower body separation with high angle, and also with high leg extension? I would not think to do that. I'd expect the skis, with the edges facing down, the high-surface area bases not supporting me from underneath, I'd expect the skis to sink way down (dive klaxon). Then, I'd be faced with the skis shooting back up in transition, exactly what I don't want. That said, this didn't happen at the end of the 1:50 turn.
Anyway, back to the photo. This is what i mean by porpoising.
To me it looks like he's got a big unweight and, as he's letting the skis cross under the body he's
also steering the skis into the new engagement.
In other words, I don't think his skis are supporting a large fraction of his body weight during the transition.
I do suspect his upper body is further down the mountain relative to his skis than yours seems to be at similar spots.
also steering the skis into the new engagement.
In other words, I don't think his skis are supporting a large fraction of his body weight during the transition.
I do suspect his upper body is further down the mountain relative to his skis than yours seems to be at similar spots.