-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Finesse and Power?
- Thread starter SkiOAP
- Start date
'Finesse' means a ski that reacts to more subtle, technical input. These skis usually need less speed/force to bend and ski well.
'Power' skis need more powerful input for the same output. These skis need more speed, you can charge them more. Strong or big skiers really like these, as they bust through difficult snow more easily. If you're not that strong or heavy, these power skis may blow your legs and ski you (instead of you skiing them).
'Power' skis need more powerful input for the same output. These skis need more speed, you can charge them more. Strong or big skiers really like these, as they bust through difficult snow more easily. If you're not that strong or heavy, these power skis may blow your legs and ski you (instead of you skiing them).
We are going to work in this, in the meantime, does @Cheizz 's answer help?
Topic of finesse vs power came up previously in this thread. If you are impatient, you can start at post #6 without missing much.
Great definition. It gets the point across for the questioning buyer with a minimum of words.
Finesse = It goes around things.
Power = It goes through things.
Power = It goes through things.
If you run a bit to the 'wide body' side of life a ski that leans to the power side of the scale can become more finessable.
It's more about rhythm and line choice.
Finesse skis you tell them to turn at a particular spot and they do it. Turn by turn navigation. Go here, next go there.
Power skis are are skis that you give them a heading. And then you guide them on a path.
So I think the skiers thought process is different.
If your in a mogul field and find you want to make 2 turns on a weird shape bump, that's more a finesse thing.
If you are a mogul field and decide to absorb over a weird shaped bump and maintain a steady rhythm, that's a power thing.
Finesse skis you tell them to turn at a particular spot and they do it. Turn by turn navigation. Go here, next go there.
Power skis are are skis that you give them a heading. And then you guide them on a path.
So I think the skiers thought process is different.
If your in a mogul field and find you want to make 2 turns on a weird shape bump, that's more a finesse thing.
If you are a mogul field and decide to absorb over a weird shaped bump and maintain a steady rhythm, that's a power thing.
Last edited:
We need both finesse and power for skiing.
The Onion recently ran an exposé entitled 'Threats to Gravity: You Might Fly Off the Earth!' with special reporting by Clifford Banes.
I may have been born in the dark, but it wasn't last night.
There is a sucker born every minute.
Years ago I read the Real Skier definition of finesse skier versus power skier (rather than ski), found their definition just undercurrent macho, and went with my own experience for the two meanings, informed by Real Skier definitions but using something different.
Man, for me, that thread @KingGrump sent this thread to was just a rabbit hole, for me lots of abstraction, not much connection.
Fortunately, I could relate to his post with the two skiers who were examples of power and finesse type skiers, probably because his examples were real life, vivid, and the two words were apt in that situation/comparison.
In my experience, with similar examples of skiers I've known, often it has seemed like the finesse skier is more likely to explore - or need to deal with - what the ski likes to do, tends to do well, and then he/she does riffs on that as a baseline, experimenting with where that will go; while the true power skier can just get almost any ski to do what he/she wants it to do, with real power to overcome the ski's inherent tendencies more easily, and just do what he/she feels like doing as a baseline, what the situation and snow call for, rather than having to - or wanting to - pay as much attention to the tendencies of the ski. By these examples, a power skier can have a lot of finesse also - or not; and vise versa.
* * * * *
Then, for me, in that other, "rabbit hole" thread, things got mirked up when @KingGrump went on to characterize Stein Erickson as a power skier, when to me he seemed to be a real combination of finesse and power in his skiing, with a lot of touch as an elite skier, whatever angle turn he happened to be making, however much he was imposing his own style on that pair of skis. (He did high and low angles both routinely on nearly every run.) And he skied with his legs as if glued together, very erect at that time, old school, no matter what characteristic Stein rotation and counter rotation with body/shoulders and arms he was using, with that style he was so well known for: you could spot him in an instant among a crowd of top skiers.
At one point in my life, I skied near/"with" Stein for two weeks nearly every morning to noon, two hours or so on Ruthie's Run on Aspen Mountain. It was his routine to do that every day, at that time, and it was mine also, as it happened. We'd start out up top where the lift ended, and finish the run two-thirds of the way down the mountain, where the lift started, at about the same time, occasionally going close to in sync, at near the same speed for run after run, though I'd speed up or hold back at times so as to keep up but not bother him. At some point, we took to going up on the lift together sometimes, after a few days. We said very little. Just skied. (I was pretty young, under twenty.) Usually, he was just in front of me on the run, but I'd lose track of him often and find myself ahead or farther behind without meaning to be.
At any rate, I got to watch him ski a lot up close, and many months and years later found I'd learned accidently, by osmosis, to do a good imitation of that distinctive turn of his, without trying. It was fun, and not something I was doing back before that, nor for those few weeks. (However I was skiing, Stein had no problem, or he would not have been going up on the lift with me, or skiing at times in sync; nor would I with him.)
Man, for me, that thread @KingGrump sent this thread to was just a rabbit hole, for me lots of abstraction, not much connection.
Fortunately, I could relate to his post with the two skiers who were examples of power and finesse type skiers, probably because his examples were real life, vivid, and the two words were apt in that situation/comparison.In my experience, with similar examples of skiers I've known, often it has seemed like the finesse skier is more likely to explore - or need to deal with - what the ski likes to do, tends to do well, and then he/she does riffs on that as a baseline, experimenting with where that will go; while the true power skier can just get almost any ski to do what he/she wants it to do, with real power to overcome the ski's inherent tendencies more easily, and just do what he/she feels like doing as a baseline, what the situation and snow call for, rather than having to - or wanting to - pay as much attention to the tendencies of the ski. By these examples, a power skier can have a lot of finesse also - or not; and vise versa.
* * * * *
Then, for me, in that other, "rabbit hole" thread, things got mirked up when @KingGrump went on to characterize Stein Erickson as a power skier, when to me he seemed to be a real combination of finesse and power in his skiing, with a lot of touch as an elite skier, whatever angle turn he happened to be making, however much he was imposing his own style on that pair of skis. (He did high and low angles both routinely on nearly every run.) And he skied with his legs as if glued together, very erect at that time, old school, no matter what characteristic Stein rotation and counter rotation with body/shoulders and arms he was using, with that style he was so well known for: you could spot him in an instant among a crowd of top skiers.
At one point in my life, I skied near/"with" Stein for two weeks nearly every morning to noon, two hours or so on Ruthie's Run on Aspen Mountain. It was his routine to do that every day, at that time, and it was mine also, as it happened. We'd start out up top where the lift ended, and finish the run two-thirds of the way down the mountain, where the lift started, at about the same time, occasionally going close to in sync, at near the same speed for run after run, though I'd speed up or hold back at times so as to keep up but not bother him. At some point, we took to going up on the lift together sometimes, after a few days. We said very little. Just skied. (I was pretty young, under twenty.) Usually, he was just in front of me on the run, but I'd lose track of him often and find myself ahead or farther behind without meaning to be.
At any rate, I got to watch him ski a lot up close, and many months and years later found I'd learned accidently, by osmosis, to do a good imitation of that distinctive turn of his, without trying. It was fun, and not something I was doing back before that, nor for those few weeks. (However I was skiing, Stein had no problem, or he would not have been going up on the lift with me, or skiing at times in sync; nor would I with him.)
Last edited:
Totally agree with this. Except for the "undercurrent" part. Hogen is even worse in that regard. Glad I'm not the only one who hears that.
Edit: Having read the linked thread I see that I'm repeating myself again again..
Last edited:
I have been trying to understand these words forever!!! Take a look at this ranking from a magazine. They are basically ranking skier ability, skier style (finesse/power) and skier weight. However, all these are very highly correlated to each other. I can't say that all reviewers mean that, but in this case they are synonyms. You could just use one of these qualifier and get 95% of the information provided!
This definition doesn't totally make sense to me. Here is why I am struggling with this. A ski that would react well to subtle inputs (i.e., little) would need to be stiff to transmit these small commands to the snow. This doesn't seem to be how the word "finesse" is used in practice in most ski reviews, where such ski is often associated to be for beginners / light / low speed skiers, right? On the other hand, a ski that needs more input to produce the same output (i.e., your definition of a power ski) would need to be soft. This is the opposite of what strong / heavy / fast skiers would want. I agree however that stiff skis will transmit more terrain features to your legs. Softer flex is much more comfortable to ski.
Hogen seems to associate finesse to skiers who like to skid / drift. This definition doesn't make sense to me either, but maybe just because "finesse" in french (my native language) means doing something with skill or precision. Not necessarily doing something in a "delicate and less dynamically way to conserve energy". Anyways, if we are talking about skidding vs carving, then that would be synonym with "playful vs precise" skis and that is related mostly to torsional stiffness.
I don't know why these words stuck with the industry. They are so imprecise. Maybe it is a polite or poetic version of classifying beginners/advanced skis??!
This is definantly where we disagree, IMHO skis are very subjective in feel where you think they are numbers. To each their own and to each of the readers own in how they discern what determins what they want in a ski.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Posts
- 6,337
The chart above shows what a nonsense the whole thing is and that "finesse" and "power" are as much marketing terms as anything else as it presents a measure somewhere between 6 & 8 for each ski.
Maybe "finesse" has become a euphemism for softer, more flexy, more compliant ski and "power" similarly for stiffer, harder rebounding, harder work ski. Does one have to have the ultimate in finesse to ski a "finesse" ski? I suspect not. Will a power ski de facto kill you if you're not 100% on it all the time? No.
I think of say in the past 10 years contrasting the Rossi Soul 7 with the Blizzard Cochise. Both do their jobs as advertised. A broader range of skill sets could enjoy the Soul 7 whereas the Cochise had broad utility for those who knew how to use it (had the weight to use it). You simply had to know what you were getting into with either ski and adapt your skiing appropriately.
Maybe "finesse" has become a euphemism for softer, more flexy, more compliant ski and "power" similarly for stiffer, harder rebounding, harder work ski. Does one have to have the ultimate in finesse to ski a "finesse" ski? I suspect not. Will a power ski de facto kill you if you're not 100% on it all the time? No.
I think of say in the past 10 years contrasting the Rossi Soul 7 with the Blizzard Cochise. Both do their jobs as advertised. A broader range of skill sets could enjoy the Soul 7 whereas the Cochise had broad utility for those who knew how to use it (had the weight to use it). You simply had to know what you were getting into with either ski and adapt your skiing appropriately.
Your history shows that you are very jaded to towards marketing but IMHO it is not marketing at all. I don't recall one manufacturer every using "finesse" or "power" in an ad for their skis. ... "This is the ultimate finesse ski..." .
I think you have this backwards.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Posts
- 24,967
Sometimes the ski changes depending on the size. Often can tell just by an obvious thickness difference in the next size up.
Then there’s shape/profile. You wouldn’t call a DPS Wailer a power ski with the very turny mid section and all it’s profile shaping.
Then there’s shape/profile. You wouldn’t call a DPS Wailer a power ski with the very turny mid section and all it’s profile shaping.