A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

No, this won't be the first thread to talk about fat skis, nor shall it be the last!  And what the heck is a "fat" ski anyway.  Over 90mm under foot?  Over 100mm?  120mm+?  But I digress.  Putting aside studies about sore knees and such, let's have a practical discussion about the effectiveness of skiing them in all kinds of conditions.

I bring this up now because I got a new setup last spring.  Nordica El Capo skis (107mm under foot) with Marker Baron (AT) bindings.  While I put them to use in Tucks last May, over MLK at Whiteface I took them with me and put them to use on resort groomers (and a little bit of powder).  

Did they ski differently than my 90mm Nordica Helldivers?  Yes.  Were they ineffective or unwieldy on the groomers?  Absolutely not.  Yes, it seemed easier to lose a carve near the transition if I didn't stay on them, but I really had a lot of fun on them on typical resort groomers.

So, what do you consider "fat", what are you sliding on, and what are your thoughts on 100+mm skis on resort in-bounds?

My brother and I have the same size boots.  He's still rocking a 78mm Volkl GS ski. Swapped skis for a run.  I've been on 90mm plus skis for a couple years now.....and his 78mm racers felt like toothpicks on my feet.  They obviously hold a great edge on the hard stuff, but I missed the beefy feeling of stability I get under foot from a fatter ski that powers through anything.

For me if you are going to have only two categories (Fat, Not-Fat) I'd say the divider is somewhere in the 90-95 range.  For me once I get above 90 true carving is out, and I'm schmering.  I pretty much only ski my NYSBs anymore (98mm).  I find that if I go back to a true cambered narrower ski, I'm catching my tips constantly. I hardly ever crash on slightly rockered skis.

I'd put the breakpoint at 85 under foot. And you said it, it's the ease of carve and the quickness edge to edge. I can carve my 100s but it takes a wider stance and more strength.

JTG4eva! wrote

No, this won't be the first thread to talk about fat skis, nor shall it be the last!  And what the heck is a "fat" ski anyway.  Over 90mm under foot?  Over 100mm?  120mm+?  But I digress.  Putting aside studies about sore knees and such, let's have a practical discussion about the effectiveness of skiing them in all kinds of conditions.

I bring this up now because I got a new setup last spring.  Nordica El Capo skis (107mm under foot) with Marker Baron (AT) bindings.  While I put them to use in Tucks last May, over MLK at Whiteface I took them with me and put them to use on resort groomers (and a little bit of powder).  

Did they ski differently than my 90mm Nordica Helldivers?  Yes.  Were they ineffective or unwieldy on the groomers?  Absolutely not.  Yes, it seemed easier to lose a carve near the transition if I didn't stay on them, but I really had a lot of fun on them on typical resort groomers.

So, what do you consider "fat", what are you sliding on, and what are your thoughts on 100+mm skis on resort in-bounds?

My brother and I have the same size boots.  He's still rocking a 78mm Volkl GS ski. Swapped skis for a run.  I've been on 90mm plus skis for a couple years now.....and his 78mm racers felt like toothpicks on my feet.  They obviously hold a great edge on the hard stuff, but I missed the beefy feeling of stability I get under foot from a fatter ski that powers through anything.

I would say this year fat starts around 100, next year for sure. The industry is dropping back in width with a lot of emphasis on skis in the 90's.  not many new skis coming out next season over 120.

The skis I'm skiing the most this season are my Nordica Enforcers which are 100 underfoot. Next season Nordica will give the Enforcer a stalemate the Enforcer 93. The same exact profile and layup as the 100 just 7mm tip to tale narrower.

I know 2 guys at WF who ski there El Capos more then any other ski they own. As you probably know Nordica replaced the El Capos with the NRGy 107. Same profile less metal.

I've gone fat. Like way fat (115). Do they look a little out of place on the East Coast? Sure.

But I've grown accustomed to having a nice wide platform to bang around on. I'm a bigger guy and I've never been a GS turn type of person. Occasionally on a wide open trail I'll let 'em rip through the arcs a bit, but that's just until I can get to the treeline and accumulated loose snow again. I love having the board to pound right through and over anything. It's "Tools, not jewels" for me.

But I agree--they're probably not for everybody. No waist width is the right one, it's just a matter of what you're comfortable skiing.

I'd say somewhere around 90mm the physics of tipping a ski that large changes the way you have to ski.  You go from carving to smearing because when the edge is wider than the boot you have to be going mach schnell to be able to tip the ski as much as you can when you are going a moderate speed with a narrower ski.

Having a narrow foot would make the ski seem even wider than a person with a EE foot like I do.  its all physics.

The ski mfrs are definitely backing off the width and also keeping more skis with camber underfoot which to me is the most important thing to look for in an eastern ski regardless of the width.

You think height, and the angulation differences it provides, makes it a little easier for taller skiers to tip a wider ski on edge?

Coach Z wrote

You go from craving to smearing

Never stop craving.

Coach Z wrote

I'd say somewhere around 90mm the physics of tipping a ski that large changes the way you have to ski.  You go from craving to smearing because when the edge is wider than the boot you have to be going mach schnell to be able to tip the ski as much as you can when you are going a moderate speed with a narrower ski.

Having a narrow foot would make the ski seem even wider than a person with a EE foot like I do.  its all physics.

The ski mfrs are definitely backing off the width and also keeping more skis with camber underfoot which to me is the most important thing to look for in an eastern ski regardless of the width.

I can carve my Shiros on groomers but ya, you gotta be going pretty damn fast to make it really happen.

If you are skiing mainly icy groomers and hard pack snow I don't think a true fat ski is the best tool. I have downsized this season and I'm loving it. My current ski is a 185 Atomic Blog 110 under foot, they are so freaking sweet and easy to ski. I also have them mounted dead center and I love that too. It's like a whole new sport! I was on the Shiros and I might bust them out again on a really big day but after a few years on them I don't like them that much. They are one of those skis that could be really good at one thing but in an effort to make them just a little more versatile they kind of screwed that up imo. The sidecut is just too much for true big mountain skiing, they want to really dictate the turn for you and in big mountain type skiing and at high speeds it's a little sketchy.

If I lived out east I would have to have some carving skis, a fat like the ones I'm on now but maybe a little shorter, and some bump skis.

Harvey wrote

Coach Z wrote

You go from craving to smearing

Never stop craving.

A couple of weeks ago I thought I was totally satisfied, not so much. I'm really craving some deep and steep again!

Having a long femur would be a help

Binding stack height also helps but most fat skis are sold flat and usually that means a pretty low stack height.  It would be better if they had a race plate on them.  Intessting idea for a fat ski design now that I think about it.

I'm thinking about what hip width impact is as well - Matt what say you?

raisingarizona wrote

<
If I lived out east I would have to have some carving skis

Nah. You just say fuck it don't go. Skiing on loud snow blows

It's the skier not the skis. A skier should be able to adapt and make small changes to get properly balanced to make the ski perform in the conditions at hand. My buddy Tim was rocking some 160 SL race skis at Alta in a dump and looked and skied better than 95% of the people on the mountain.

I'm a one ski quiver man for the most part and am totally for my new tele life.  96 underfoot and I can still carve alpine turns on them if I want. These days with advancements in boots and how torsionally stiff they are, a fat ski is over 100 or perahaps even 110.

skimore wrote

raisingarizona wrote

<
If I lived out east I would have to have some carving skis

Nah. You just say fuck it don't go. Skiing on loud snow blows

 
HAHA! YA, you might be right and I might be kidding myself. We get some real hard snow here too and I have thought that I would go more if I had some race/carving skis but the reality is I would probably still choose the Sedona option over skiing the hard pack. Maybe not, I dunno.

Coach Z wrote

but most fat skis are sold flat

Most,  but not all? What fat ski comes with a system binding? I don't know of one.

Some feel 90mm+ underfoot constitutes "fat", although I always thought of that as mid-fat.  Anywho, the Nordica Helldiver Pros I have (90mm) came with Nordica's XBi, which is a system binding I believe.  

JTG4eva! wrote

Some feel 90mm+ underfoot constitutes "fat", although I always thought of that as mid-fat.  Anywho, the Nordica Helldiver Pros I have (90mm) came with Nordica's XBi, which is a system binding I believe.

 
They are system bindings for sure, but I don't consider 90 fat. I never had the Helldivers, but I did have the Hellcats. What I liked best about the XBI binding was the easy adjustment if you wanted to let someone try your skis. That was always a good selling point if you ever went that route.

Width of a ski has less and less to do with its performance every year. It is all about how the ski is constructed, how the materials are used, dimensions, etc. I am continually impressed that fatter skis can do a good job railing groomers and even have gotten acceptable in scraped conditions. Will they ever be race/cheater skis? No. Of course not. Is the sacrifice getting so small that former three ski quiver guys like me are down to a one ski quiver? Yes.

I've skied on a variety of skis of similar widths and they all perform differently. So you just can't say such and such a width is better for groom vs. pow vs. multi use hard snow or whatever. There are a lot of skinny park oriented skis that such on groomers. And there are a lot of burly fat Ti fat skis that are great on groomers and pretty piss poor in natural snow (couldn't pay me to ski on a Volkl Mantra unless I wanted to carve arcs all day).

What is fat? I think that is a non-sensical question. All skis have a width and they generally have a range between 50mm-150mm. What is the right ski for you based on what you want to do with the ski, what performance specifications you have, what is your weight and aggression level and turn preference? What sacrifices are you willing to and not willing to accept? What type of snow do you spend what percentage of time on?

MY personal preference is 100mm is about as large as I like to go underfoot based on my experience. Though I wouldn't mind trying a wider ski with a skinnier tail. But I find big tails really annoying for skiing bumps. I just don't need more foat. Is 100mm fat? It is "fat enough" for me... but everyone is different.

I just don't think trying to define "fat" is worthwhile. Just figure out the width the works best for you and consider that "fat enough".

Its definitely a evolution of your ability as you go wider.

Im 29 years old and grew up with a lot of the twin tip, ski width creep that was occurring at a younger age.

As time went on and being a on college ski budget at Whiteface I only had one set of skis at a time, so whereas before college I was riding on something in the upper 70's I then moved on to a 85mm K2 Public Enemy, after that I moved up to 95mm underfoot and have had skis roughly around 95mm for a long while now.

In the last few years I decided to have 3 sets of skis depending on what Im doing, and I went back to having a 85mm underfoot ski (2010 Line Chronic).

What I have found is that on a normal east coast day in New York, I prefer the 85mm underfoot over any of the other wider skis. Even for a park/all mountain oriented ski, I can lay into it much harder, with transitions from side to side feeling like lightning.

As time goes on and I have to replace the Chronics (which have since gone to an even wider 92mm) I will try to find something in the mid 80's and have something at 100mm for all other days.

riverc0il wrote

What is fat? I think that is a non-sensical question.

I don't think its non-sensical. With all the stupid shit that is discussed on this forum its nice to discuss something that has to do with ski equipment.