All mountain vs. on-piste skiing

I've always looked at 'all mountain' skis as on-piste skis. Therefore, I am confused.

all mountain skis are for all of the mountain, so whether you're in bounds or out of bounds all mountain is a happy medium for both.

'on piste' very Euro of you. Now days the kids just call it skiing.

Generally, all Skis work well on snow ... once you get your head around that, you will realize you can ski what ever you want where ever you want.

You just have to pick a ski that suits your style and your area. Dont worry so much about how its branded / marketed. I know a guy who hauls on traditional side cut skis, 90mm under foot in the back country. Another buddy rocks hellbents in the park.

DrailI've always looked at 'all mountain' skis as on-piste skis. Therefore, I am confused.

This so much

Op it will come down to how you want to ski. If your all about lots of tight radius turns then a nice short ski with a tight side it will be ideal. If you however prefer to jib around and make the piste into a park you may find a park ski will be more fun. As for all mnt skis they cover so much of the market these days but if you went for somthing like an atomic blackeye or a head magnum you would get a great carving ski whic is wide enough to still handle some fresh snow. So all mnt carvers would probably be my suggestion to you.

It does make sense if you really are going to ski corduroy exclusively. Just like any specialized ski, a piste ski is only good on piste and is teh suck if you want to try new terrain, I would be surprised if wherever you're skiing doesn't have a single bump run. Some of the more race oriented brands make all mountain skis that have a pretty versatile flex and sidecut, but have a narrower than common waist and can still rail a turn on hard snow.

and fyi, there is a gear talk forum

DrailI've always looked at 'all mountain' skis as on-piste skis. Therefore, I am confused.

There are a lot of differnt skis which fall under all mnt now. For example an on3p jmo and a head magnum ti are both classed as all mnt skis, but they will ski very differently. I good way I like to look at is you can spilt all mnt up. Have all mnt carve and all mnt. An all mnt carve ski will still differ from a purely carving ski. For people who want to still ski hard and technically but venture off th piste a bit the all mnt carve skis are ideal. More versatile then pure carving skis but you won't sacrifice carving performance like you would going to a big softer all mnt ski. Of course there will be skis that crossover somewhat but just thinking of all mnt as piste skis is not really correct.

A nice pair of slalom boards are a blast on nice groomers. Seriously, they are. The radius will press you into the ground and it's always fun to have a turn so sharp you can slide your hip on the ground.

I have a pair similar to these, only the RS version. A blast to ski and the microchip crap or whatever they put in the tail actually works if your pop the turn enough and drive with your shins and knees.

Assuming you never stray off-piste, these will always serve you well for groomers.

tomPietrowskijust thinking of all mnt as piste skis is not really correct.

Sure it is. It's my opinion, and you'd be a fool to argue someone on a subjective opinion.

DrailSure it is. It's my opinion, and you'd be a fool to argue someone on a subjective opinion.

I totally agree wit that but in an informative forum like this it's good to give the best information to help people learn.

tomPietrowskiI totally agree wit that but in an informative forum like this it's good to give the best information to help people learn.

And as someone who has a quiver which I am always expanding and tweaking, I would not consider an all mountain ski worthy of anything but groomers, moguls, and a bit of park. I wouldn't take anything off piste that isn't at least 110mm underfoot. So that IS my best information I can give. Anything else and I'd be lying.

DrailAnd as someone who has a quiver which I am always expanding and tweaking, I would not consider an all mountain ski worthy of anything but groomers, moguls, and a bit of park. I wouldn't take anything off piste that isn't at least 110mm underfoot. So that IS my best information I can give. Anything else and I'd be lying.

Ok so for where you ski that is your experience, but there are many areas where you could easily ski powder on a mid 90's ski.

If you're never going to leave the pistes, and never ski park, then on-piste carving skis are fine. Most people other than beginners ski off-piste sometimes, hence why off-piste skis are popular: They are versatile. They can carve groomers, they can charge through bumps, they can stomp cliffs, they are often twin tips and so can be used for skiing switch, they perform well in the park. If you are never going to do any of those things, on-piste carving skis are great for you.

DrailI've always looked at 'all mountain' skis as on-piste skis. Therefore, I am confused.

That's because you are used to skis with an off-piste focus. True all mountain skis are meant to compromise, to do well on-piste and off-piste. I feel the same way as you, all-mountain skis feel like on-piste carvers to me, but that's because my daily drivers are 117mm rockered pow skis (which I use on-piste a fair amount as well). I am used to big, wide, off-piste skis. I assume you are in a similar situation. However, all mountain skis can still handle off-piste fine, and they're designed to be able to. If someone is never going to ski off-piste they'll get carving skis or park skis.

Sh4dowhence why off-piste skis are popular

Meant to say hence why all-mountain skis are popular

The pigeon hole definitions given to skis have far more to do with marketing than anything else. Most skis fall into multiple categories ... As an example, If you go online and buy a pair of Line Sir Francis Bacons, they will be categorized as 'all mountain skis', 'powder skis', or 'twin tip skis' .... none of these categories have anything to do with on piste vs off piste.

Personally, I have a pair of skis for deep days and a pair for days that are not deep. Sometimes my pow skis come to the resort (on-piste), some times my other skis go touring (off piste).

I just think defining skis based on resort or non resort use solely is not valuable. Neither is the vague, generalized and non specific categories off "all mountain" "carving" "powder" or "twin tip".

...I would suggest buying a ski you like, and not worrying about how its defined. I have bought skis based on look, feel, performance, and endorsement before ... but never based on the "category" it fit into.

DrailAnd as someone who has a quiver which I am always expanding and tweaking, I would not consider an all mountain ski worthy of anything but groomers, moguls, and a bit of park. I wouldn't take anything off piste that isn't at least 110mm underfoot. So that IS my best information I can give. Anything else and I'd be lying.

Guys, guys, quit the bitch fits, for years I had to ride hand me down skis from my brothers, and they were 92 underfoot with barely any tail and I had a grand time shredding pow, riding switch, and carving up the groomers, it doesn't matter what ya ride, its how ya ride it. With that said, it is nice to have specialized skis in certain conditions to max out your fun factor but thats your choice.

All mountain refers to the entire moutnain. Unless you live at keystone or breck where they groom every fucking run then on piste skis will limit you unless you literally only ski groomers.

Piste=groomed trail, or at least in my opinion.

All mountain = everything on the mountain, glades, bumps, trees, cliffs, etc....

Get a mantra and be done with it old man.

As someone who always had a quiver of twins and couple years back bought true carving / racing skis....the difference is black and white. I can carve EC ice to the most dangerous levels at most speeds and still hold and edge

DrailSure it is. It's my opinion, and you'd be a fool to argue someone on a subjective opinion.

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it cannot be subjected to criticism. Opinions can be wrong if they make a logical error (facts prove statements true/wrong, logic proves opinions true/wrong). For example- if all opinions are true, then my opinion that there are false opinions is necessarily true. Therefore, false opinions can and do exist.

Definition is the starting point of argumentation, so we need to agree on some definitions first and see if the products fall into those boundaries which we set.

DrailAnd as someone who has a quiver which I am always expanding and tweaking, I would not consider an all mountain ski worthy of anything but groomers, moguls, and a bit of park. I wouldn't take anything off piste that isn't at least 110mm underfoot. So that IS my best information I can give. Anything else and I'd be lying.

To my last point, I think you would agree that a ski that is designed for groomers, moguls, and park is definitely a mixture of a few categories & playgrounds... "All Mountain" is kind of a daunting thing to define because it means different things to different people in different parts of the world. Is it "i ski all of the trails on the mountain" or is it "I ski everywhere within the resort" or simply "I ski everywhere". Ultimately, I think most people will argue that it means I ski both on and off-piste. And if you do that, being on a 110mm waisted, full rocker, non-metal laminate ski is not going to be fun on days that bullet-proof. Likewise, a 72mm full camber double ti-laminate GS ski with a 16-DIN system binding is going to suck ass in 3 feet of powder. There are for sure skis out there that ski both on and off piste really well and they are equally fun at both. And I would disagree with you in that a 100mm waisted ski couldn't be fun on a pow day. While I do think that wider is better, if the Jackson Hole Air Force ripped deep lines on 68mm skis, we can for sure shred a pow day with 100m underfoot.

Generally speaking these are the categories that tend to exist:

A ski designed purely for piste/groomers will have a good amount of sidecut, tradtiional camber (maybe a bit of imperceptible tip rocker), a narrower waist for edge to edge quickness (think sub 80mm), and an integrated binding.

A ski that is more of an all mountain "frontside" ski has similar traits to the piste ski but will have a bit of tip rocker and a bit wider waist (think 80-90mm).

A ski that is more of an all mountain "backside" ski will be typically flat mount, generally a non-twin tip, tip & tail rocker with camber underfoot (sometimes fully rockered or totally flat, depending on the brand), 90-100mm waist

A ski that is more of a directional freeride ski, will have similar traits to the all mountain "backside" ski but typically bigger, better, faster, more in most respects.

A ski that is more of a directional twin tip will have similar characteristics of the all mountain "backside" ski but being a twin & aesthetic appeal to match its demographic.

A ski that is more of freestyle twin tip will vary in longitudinal stiffness from model to model for its purpose (competition driven or more of playful construction) that can also vary in waist width from 85-95mm.

A ski that is more a backcountry/powder freestyle ski will offer a playful construction coupled with a wide waist width and rocker story to match.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but a way to show that many/most of the skis we talk about about can fit into these categories.

But at the end of the day, there is not one single ski that can do everything perfectly well. Just like there is not one car or mountain bike that can do everything perfectly well. A quiver will have to be assembled if you really love and want to do everything. And if the OP only stays on piste (no park, no powder, etc) then a piste ski is going to be awesome for him. I would hope, however, that he tries something wider with a bit of rocker and he would find the off-piste awesomely fun as well. Simply put- having the right tool for the job makes things easier and ultimately more fun.

I will definitely try off-piste at some point. But, I am getting back into skiing after not skiing for a while. My focus right now is to only be doing groomers and if I ever get into off-piste skiing, I would buy an all mountain or powder ski down the road.

My question is related to the fact that I will only be doing on-piste skiing in the medium term. I understand that an all mountain ski adds flexibility to what you can and can't do. But, I do not want to pay for an all mountain ski if I am not going to be going off piste. It feels like I am investing in the wrong product and not getting the most bang for my buck. I am sticking to on-piste, and if and when I decide to do off-piste, I'd just buy another set of skis.

lovestokkI will definitely try off-piste at some point. But, I am getting back into skiing after not skiing for a while. My focus right now is to only be doing groomers and if I ever get into off-piste skiing, I would buy an all mountain or powder ski down the road.

My question is related to the fact that I will only be doing on-piste skiing in the medium term. I understand that an all mountain ski adds flexibility to what you can and can't do. But, I do not want to pay for an all mountain ski if I am not going to be going off piste. It feels like I am investing in the wrong product and not getting the most bang for my buck. I am sticking to on-piste, and if and when I decide to do off-piste, I'd just buy another set of skis.

What I purposefully left out of my mega post is ski construction. Generally speaking, a construction that utilizes a full wood-core, laminated with metal will hold an edge very well on the groomers. Some of the best all mountain skis use this construction but also a slightly wider waist/general profile to float in softer snow (90-100mm waist).

In my opinion, if you got something around 90mm it will be really fun on piste and also off piste provided you have a construction that allows it to hold an edge on hard snow.