NYSkiBlog Forum Archive › Woodstove Archive

A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

Classic

List

Threaded

51 messages Options

123

HGTVfan

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

evantful wrote

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.

Now that's a well thought post.

I ski a Nordica Firearrow 84 EDT on firm snow days. They are 84 (obviously) under foot. I think it is the best ski Nordica has ever made. The FAs can rail. That said when the snow is softish or even a little new on top I find myself going fatter. For me that combination is more rewarding.

Benny Profane

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

It's not all about width underfoot. Today it's about shape and camber and rocker. I skied my wonderful PM Gear Llasa Pows at Copper yesterday on rock hard (for Colorado) conditions, and hated them. Should have had my GS skis, but, forecast was for snow, and I was lazy getting on the bus. Just one ski. Right. Today, three inches at ABasin on yesterday's hard surface, and, wonderful with the same ski. Different world.

If I was back east, I'd be rocking race slalom skis. Have you had enough snow for width?

funny like a clown

JTG4eva!

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

Benny Profane wrote

Have you had enough snow for width?

Not so much, but there was upwards of 7 inches new on MLK Day.

My primary Whiteface/Gore resort day ski will continue to be my Helldivers. Wide at 90mm underfoot, but not fat. Stable, quick, and smooth through the transition from one set of edges to the other. Very comfortable at speed and able to power through anything. Great ski.

I took the El Capos (107mm) out just to see how they felt on the groomers. I was surprised at how comfortable I was on them on the groomers. If I needed to, I could see making it an every day eastern ski, even though a narrower ski is a little more appropriate. I'll use the El Capos on softer days, and obviously powder days, and I'm excited to know now that on Slide days I'll be able to have fun on them before 10 and after 2.

I always enjoy getting other people's thoughts and opinions, even on nonsensical questions. In my defense on that one, you do see that I put Fat in quotes? Yes, I realize it is somewhat irrelevant/unnecessary/difficult to define skis today as this or that, but it was a good topic to get an equipment and related technique discussion going on whatever skis everyone is using.

We REALLY need a proper roll eyes emoji!!

Benny Profane

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

I don't know. I think something like the latest Mantra is about as "fat" as you want to get in most eastern conditions. Pick your length according to how fast you want to turn. Double rocker fatties at a place like Gore are just silly. And, I've seen it there on rock hard days. Slaves to fashion.

funny like a clown

Telemark Dave

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

90% skier, 10% skis. Segue from a 65mm waist GS ski to a 100mm waist "all mountain" and of course your skiing mechanics have to adapt. Each ski has its place and purpose, so don't expect it to be a magic bullet in contrary conditions. Just like you can ski a race ski in unmanaged, off piste conditions, you can take your fatty rockered minimally cambered bc ski onto boilerplate groomers.. Just don't expect an easy ride for nothing. It's going to be a game-on, keep you eye on the ball challenge,and, most likely not much fun.

That being said, I vote for easy peasy fun. I ski a 113 mm waisted, rockered ski in unmanaged, non lift served terrain. If I ride lifts (eg. East coast N. A.), I choose a 94mm waisted, G.S side cut, all mountain ski. If I feel the need, I can revert to a 65mm G.S race ski...(but I haven't in years... Read what you want out of that).

"there is great chaos under heaven, and the situation is excellent" Disclaimer: Telemark Dave is a Hinterlandian. He is not from New York State, and in fact, doesn't even ski there very often. He is also obsessive-compulsive about Voile Charger BC's.

YUKON CORNELIUS

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

In reply to this post by JTG4eva!

My skis aren't fat, they're just big boned.

"This is pure snow! Do you have any idea what the street value of this mountain is?"

YUKON CORNELIUS

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

In reply to this post by riverc0il

riverc0il wrote

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".

Just curious if you're talking the newest Mantras or the older, stiffer version? I really like the new ones in pretty much any conditions except ice, including natural snow.

"This is pure snow! Do you have any idea what the street value of this mountain is?"

gorgonzola

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

i'm on the skinnier side of fat at 90 underfoot, i deliberated long and hard between 90 v 98 when i bought the prophets and believe i made the right choice. I would have liked a bit more float in saturdays foot+ snow but pow days like that are the exception not the rule for most of my skiing days.

the "new" tele setup is 80 underfoot and the twin tips are soft and poppy, so much fun playing in sunday's soft bumps.
I really liked working on the quick feet with them and had a few sets of turns here and there where i really felt like i "got it".
i feel like skiing bumps tele is better for the new hip as it slows everything down a bit and is less impact

louie.mirags

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

I recently demoed the Rossi Soul 7's and the Sin 7's at belle last week and boy was it icy! The Soul 7's are 104 underfoot and the Sin 7's are 98. I felt so much more stable on the Soul 7's than the Sins. Even making turns! However my brother disagreed. This doesn't really add much to the debate I know but a lot depends on the skier! I did not think I was going to like the "fat" skis for turns but they handled it well. As much as I want to get them, I may get the Sin 7's or something similar with AT bindings for a more all around solid ski (also will be my first AT setup).

Coming from a ski-life of center mounted k2 twin tips, the new Rossis were leaps and bounds smoother all around. A lot has to do with how far ski technology has come in the last 5 years.

jcamotts

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

In reply to this post by JTG4eva!

I am currently on a pair of Armada Tantrums. Even though their 99mm on the waist I can put them on edge with ease on the groomers.
I think anything from 90 to 105mm would be considered an "All Mountain" ski, anything more then that would be a "fat" ski and would perform better off piste. 100+ in bounds is perfectly fine, and most skis in the 100-110 range would do fine on most anything.

Just watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWaxjMAcG8Y

riverc0il

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

In reply to this post by evantful

evantful wrote

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

Nonsense. Bode and Vonn are gapers by this definition. Rippers ski on skinny sticks and there are a lot of intermediate level skiers on super fats. Ability and technique have absolutely nothing to do with the width of your skis. Though wider skis certainly do make skiing certain types of snow easier and are more forgiving of poor technique.

-Steve www.thesnowway.com

riverc0il

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

In reply to this post by YUKON CORNELIUS

YUKON CORNELIUS wrote

Just curious if you're talking the newest Mantras or the older, stiffer version? I really like the new ones in pretty much any conditions except ice, including natural snow.

If Volkl changed them then they made a really good decision. I skied on the 2007 or 2008 vintage, I think. But the point still stands that really wide skis can still be better on firm snow than soft snow.

-Steve www.thesnowway.com

evantful

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

This post was updated on .

In reply to this post by riverc0il

riverc0il wrote

evantful wrote

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

Nonsense. Bode and Vonn are gapers by this definition. Rippers ski on skinny sticks and there are a lot of intermediate level skiers on super fats. Ability and technique have absolutely nothing to do with the width of your skis. Though wider skis certainly do make skiing certain types of snow easier and are more forgiving of poor technique.

I think you missed the point of the rest of my post and what I meant.

I never said that skiing wider or skinner made you better or worse. I said that it simply is an evolution of your ability going from one to another in the sense that there is in fact a difference between widths, not that one width type is better. To say I would use the same technique to ski a 85mm as that of a 100mm in the same conditions is not correct, I would have to adapt it to hope to achieve similar results.

I ended my post by saying I prefer, on a typical East Coast day, to ski something narrower at 85mm underfoot because I enjoy the faster transitions and I can lay it into it more. If I was implying narrow skis are for Gapers then I called myself one.

YUKON CORNELIUS

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

In reply to this post by riverc0il

riverc0il wrote

YUKON CORNELIUS wrote

Just curious if you're talking the newest Mantras or the older, stiffer version? I really like the new ones in pretty much any conditions except ice, including natural snow.

If Volkl changed them then they made a really good decision. I skied on the 2007 or 2008 vintage, I think. But the point still stands that really wide skis can still be better on firm snow than soft snow.

Much softer now and rockered. The old Mantras were much closer to my Line Prophet 100s, stiff and not so hot in the (deeper) fresh, I think.

"This is pure snow! Do you have any idea what the street value of this mountain is?"

Benny Profane

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

A good skier I shared a few runs with at Taos a few weeks ago called them less "snappy" than his previous pairs.

funny like a clown

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

interesting article on skis getting decidedly less fat for next season based on what was shown at SIA trade show

His comment about skiers not learning to properly tip a ski and implications for knee issues on fatter skis are very interesting to me.

http://www.realskiers.com/NEWSLETTERS/sanity.html

if You French Fry when you should Pizza you are going to have a bad time

Brownski

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

Thanks for the article coach. Does this mean I can feel good about sticking with my old x screams all these years? I always thought they were the perfect eastern ski but lately everybody going with the wider boards has made me question myself.

"You want your skis? Go get 'em!" -W. Miller

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

Brownski wrote

Thanks for the article coach. Does this mean I can feel good about sticking with my old x screams all these years? I always thought they were the perfect eastern ski but lately everybody going with the wider boards has made me question myself.

Definately time to upgrade from those old sticks. Pretty much anything new would be 1000 % better but I'm very partial to Volkl RTM 84. I really like that width under foot as my everyday WF ski.

Widest ski I own is 95 under foot and I see no reason to go wider for Eastern skiing. I find anything over about 85 or so mm width really makes me change how I ski which meshes with the real skiers post. The guys on here posting that they are not changing his they ski on a 100mm + ski I really question. Those that are Tele skiers I'd exempt from that statement becuase that really changes the equation.

if You French Fry when you should Pizza you are going to have a bad time

evantful

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

Good to see. In fact I just checked Line's 2016/17 line up and sure enough a 86mm SuperNatural has appeared in the line this year.

telerider

Re: A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

when I skied my Salomon Pocket Rockets in 2001, they were considered a fat powder ski. That ski is basically an 88mm, same as Rossi Experience 88 and Blizzard Brahma, both considered all mountain ski. When I ski it now, it feels narrow. Just picked up a pair of leftover Atomic Theories (95mm waist) and that ski is my new normal. I think it has a 19M radius, very quick for it's width. I have a 108MM K2 Annex and that ski takes work to ski in firm terrain, so much so it stains my knee. So, for me 100mm is the theoretical line of demarcation to "fat".

123