Bear with me--maybe resort skis can be even shorter.. 172--168...

[cantunamunch]

I think this is partially where the logic breaks down..

You say partially - I say completely

Olympic mogul competition is about as contrived as track bike racing - and the gear reflects that.

Hmmm, that's a good idea. Starting a "We should all be on steep geometry aero fixies" thread in 3..2..1..

 

[James]

Comparing what's on the feet of mortals such as the forum members here vs. what's on the feet of an Olympic caliber athlete seems like a kind of ridiculous comparison.

If you're in a race on a prepared surface where you know in advance what you'll be encountering and what style of turning you'll be doing then you can optimize your equipment choices accordingly. Most of us aren't so lucky. When I drop into a bump run, I have no idea what snow conditions are, what the obstacles will be or what the bump shapes will be. So I choose a ski that will work across a spectrum of snow conditions and turn shapes. My ski choice doesn't correspond to what a competition bump skier uses.

Yeah, but what size are they?

 

[jack97]

Olympic mogul competition is about as contrived as track bike racing - and the gear reflects that.

One can use the same logic in the slalom events.

 

[jack97]

When I drop into a bump run, I have no idea what snow conditions are, what the obstacles will be or what the bump shapes will be. So I choose a ski that will work across a spectrum of snow conditions and turn shapes.

One thing I find with some skiers is that they are adaptive skiers.

Turns out, a competition bump ski is my everyday ski, I've adapted to it. It has some shape and handles speed well. They are still close to an all mountain ski circa 2000. As far as I recall, skiing back then was still fun.

BTW, I am considering a fat rocker for those powder days since I like the concept and it makes sense. The problem is powder is rare and chasing that type of snow is limited in my case so is it worth the cost.

 

[cantunamunch]

One can use the same logic in the slalom events.

Yes, but with one critical difference - the contrivance in SL (hard snow and flat grooming) is much more commonplace in civilian skiing than that of comp bumps.

Turns out, a competition bump ski is my everyday ski, I've adapted to it. It has some shape and handles speed well. They are still close to an all mountain ski circa 2000. As far as I recall, skiing back then was still fun.

 

[François Pugh]

Turns out, a competition bump ski is my everyday ski, I've adapted to it. It has some shape and handles speed well. They are still close to an all mountain ski circa 2000. As far as I recall, skiing back then was still fun.

BTW, I am considering a fat rocker for those powder days since I like the concept and it makes sense. The problem is powder is rare and chasing that type of snow is limited in my case so is it worth the cost.

Apparently we have different definitions of speed.
Völkl 100-eight handles well in deep non-powder snow (I haven't tried it in light powder). You should try a pair if you are considering getting a fat rockered ski.

 

[James]

Turns out, a competition bump ski is my everyday ski, I've adapted to it. It has some shape and handles speed well. They are still close to an all mountain ski circa 2000. As far as I recall, skiing back then was still fun.

Yes, but what size?? That's the thread.

 

[Don in Morrison]

You say partially - I say completely

Olympic mogul competition is about as contrived as track bike racing - and the gear reflects that.

Best way to fix that is to go back to using natural bumps made by normal people for mogul competitions.

 

[tball]

I'm very happy skiing a 174 cm all mountain ski at 5'10" 175lbs.

I also have 170's rock skis that I use primarily in low-tide bumps. Also have 177 all mountain skis that are a tad long in the bumps, but give me more surface area for powder and crud. And, finally, 181 powder skis that could be longer for powder, but I love because they work great in the bumps for what they are.

The right 170ish skis don't seem short until I'm in soft 3D snow. 170 is fine in firm 3D snow.

 

[David Chaus]

I'm very happy skiing a 174 cm all mountain ski at 5'10" 175lbs.

I also have 170's rock skis that I use primarily in low-tide bumps. Also have 177 all mountain skis that are a tad long in the bumps, but give me more surface area for powder and crud. And, finally, 181 powder skis that could be longer for powder, but I love because they work great in the bumps for what they are.

The right 170ish skis don't seem short until I'm in soft 3D snow. 170 is fine in firm 3D snow.

It’s like.....we’re twins. Only difference is I’m 5’10” and 145lbs.

 

[jack97]

Yes, but with one critical difference - the contrivance in SL (hard snow and flat grooming) is much more commonplace in civilian skiing than that of comp bumps.

I didn't know civilian carry salt

 

[jack97]

Yes, but what size?? That's the thread.

Said back before the thread diverged about height length. Off the shelf skis don't come in 1cm increments, so you take what you can get. IMO, what's more important than length is the flex pattern and stiffness. Dynastar Twister and K2 Mamba has the same thickness underfoot, while my Volkl and Elan has more materiel in the same area. The Volkl on boiler plate can hold an edge better then the Twister, reminds me of my "cheater" SL ski from way back.

For newbies, going shorter on bump skis helps in terms of minimizing cross tips.

 

[cantunamunch]

I didn't know civilian carry salt

Don't need it - the rain is giving us clear ice slab

 

[SSSdave]

Turns out, a competition bump ski is my everyday ski, I've adapted to it. It has some shape and handles speed well. They are still close to an all mountain ski circa 2000. As far as I recall, skiing back then was still fun...

Same here on my 65mm at boot Twisters. Though obviously not as smooth or as flexible in turn styles on mountain terrain as current AM mid fats or able to land stable air, I still go out there and have fun making shorter turns with style just like I did decades ago when all of us were on such skis. And on groomed snow although they don't provide as sweet a rebound as best dedicated rec slalom skis, one is hardly going to notice that in my very dynamic short turn form on groomers because have learned how to adapt to efficiently ride my skis in fun ways. Out here in Tahoe, I do however ski a fair amount of deeper fresh snow and the Twisters are simply so much less fun in such conditions than a longer wider fat tool that I have the Rossi S7 178cm 140 110 118 mm.

 

[tball]

who cares about comp bump skiing.... its displine based on subjective pre determinded form and has nothing to do with function. I am certain that for heel slamming down a perfect bump line that 170cm are probably about all you want. Basically what I am saying is look at people who actual do what you do. If you want to just heel push down bump line, go for some 170 bump skis. If you want to do anything else especially off piste in 3d snow go longer.

What I am saying is who skis down the hill pushing the heals all the ways. There is very little in common with comp bump skiing and all mountain skiing.

how didnt this thread end at Competition bump skiing is irrelevant to actual all mountain skiing?

Having seen competition bump skiers out of the course I can tell that with some rare exception most of them are awful all mountain skier, they literally can only make one turn all over the place, Mosley is the only exception......

I just don't understand the hate for bumpers.

Every competitive bump skier I've skied with also skis bumps extraordinarily well outside the course.

All of the very best all-mountain skiers I know are also excellent zipper line bump skiers.

Yes, comp bump courses are contrived. Every skiing competition is contrived in its own unique way.

There is nothing more contrived than trying to make perfect antiseptic turns on this:

Stop the brutal grooming!

 

[jack97]

Stop the brutal grooming!

The winch cat came along in late 80's and snuffed out the steep bump trails. Before the winch, machines had a problem maintaining traction on these trails and would slide out. Once I saw a steep trail not groomed, it had GS type bumps, the patrollor said, the only guy who knows how to operate the winch was out sick the nite before... so it didn't get groomed.

Presently, the last refuge for natural bumps are under the lifts, it takes too much time to groom around the towers and have become a liability grooming so close to them. Stop the oppressive grooming.

 

[jmeb]

....
Presently, the last refuge for natural bumps are under the lifts, it takes too much time to groom around the towers and have become a liability grooming so close to them. Stop the oppressive grooming...

I don't know where you're skiing, but this is just not the case at most major resorts out West. Perhaps the last refuge at your home mountain or a small selection of places. But it's not generally the case.

 

[François Pugh]

Before the winch cat, the only way to find relatively steep runs that did not have bumps on them was to head off the trail map. I have no problem with groomed steep runs. They are a personalized fun roller coaster, where I design the turns, and to some extent, the elevation changes, pretty much like the off-trail, only different snow conditions (and skis to suit).

 

[David Chaus]

One reason I like Schweitzer is the Lakeside chutes. They are half dozen or more steepish runs, somewhere between single black and double black. One or two are groomed, the rest get bumped up. Best of both worlds.

 

[Josh Matta]

@tball I would love to see video of someone who is comp bump skier, and a great all mountain skier, be prepared for the any example to be MAed by me and others....

First I do not hate bumpers, I just see no point to a skiing style is entirely subjectively based. IF the judging changed in bump skiing, the way people skied bumps would change, there is nothing objectively better about comp bump skiing, than a more varied all encompassing approach, that I espouse. Objectively speaking in what way is comp bump skiing better than round line bump skiing? There are tons of subjective reasons that people who idloize comp bump skiers can bring up, but objectively whats better about?

Is comp bump skiing the fastest way down a bump run? no, you can GS turn or straight line though bump fields much faster.....

IS comp bump skiing the most efficient way though a bump run? no you use much less effort skiing a slow line fast, over the fast line slow of comp bump skiing.

I comp bump skiing the least impactful way though a bump field? no, lateral impact on the knee and other joint have to happen as nature of fast line slow skiing that is comp bump skiing.

The thing is comp bump skiing function follows form, The form is a contrived way of doing that is only based on tradition, not on anything objectively tangible, unless you can think of a way comp bump skiing is objectively better? Can you? There for by conclusion the skis being used in a subjective competition should not be brought into a conversation what makes a good all mountain ski,but hey people can ski on what ever they want, for whatever reason they want. I just look at thing with no opinion, just from an objective stand point.

BTW @DavidA brmas what idea did i misrepresent? Did I attack you or you character personally like you did mine by calling me a buzzkill? All I am going to say is do not let those my pesky observation, get in the way of your subjective thinking.