A Practical Discussion of "Fat" Skis

I assume you Tele and my un expert opinion is Tele skiing is a bit more skidded so it suits itself to a wider ski

For me that line for alpine is in the high 80's to 90mm is the limit where the width starts to impact your knees.

For me "fat" is when skiing in powder feels not too different from skiing on groomers.  Two years ago (in Utah) I rented some 95mm skis and had a blast in all kinds of snow including some fairly deep (18") powder.  One day that week we went on a powder cat excursion and they recommended getting fatter skis so we rented some 105-110mm skis.  Had a great time in the back country but (maybe b/c I'm only 160lb) it felt like I never skied in the powder but rather on top of it.

IMHO, "fat" > 100mm.  Of course, "fat" to one person is "full figured" to another.

I have found the realskiers to be biased about wide skis. They sound like grumpy old men who don't really like skis wider than 80. They are perfect for the Epic ski site where guys brag about slaying powder on 62 mm width skis and attribute everything from knee pain to obamacare to fat skis and would probably like to deport skiers who can't carver all the time in all conditions. I bought a pair of blizzard 8.7 several years ago after another hard snow year, and find them great for this year's conditions. Otherwise, I'm a 100 to 105 width guy for all other conditions. Fat skis are just more fun in more conditions. Also, anecdotally, I don't see beginners or intermediates on outrageous fat skis. I think that it is a mountain myth that there these skiers are sliding around the mountain on terribly inappropriate skis shapes. I don't see skis holding skiers back. Instead, I think the high cost of skiing and weather are behind the decline in visit frequency. Ski width is a non issue that some people would like us to believe is a sport threatening crisis.

frk wrote

 Ski width is a non issue that some people would like us to believe is a sport threatening crisis.

I agree. It's whatever type of ski you have the most fun on. Metal v. carbon fiber, camber v. rocker, longer v. shorter, wider v. narrower

There are terrain snobs, snow condition snobs, vert snobs, speed snobs, grooming snobs, earn your turn snobs...on and on.

Its about individual preference. Don't give in to ski snobbery just please yourself. Width seems to be the latest emerging snobbery.

I'm an old fella so I remember when if you skied anything under a 205 length you were a poser. It didn't matter how much you weighed or how tall you were.

Remember when "shaped" skis were first introduced? You were a total pussy if you had them.

That crap is all peer pressure.  Ski what you like. I like a variety, but I'll always have a wider pair of skis in my quiver.

Oh yeah...there are quiver snobs too  

frk wrote

Also, anecdotally, I don't see beginners or intermediates on outrageous fat skis.

This is a good observation.  As I've gone wider I've paid more attention to wider skis on the hill and in the lift lines.  When I do see people with fatter skis they definitely seem like the type of skiers who have been to a few rodeos and know how to handle themselves.  Sure, you never know....but you can get a sense.  

That fits with what HPD said, if someone knows what they want and what they are comfortable on, that's what they should be skiing on.  That type of skier isn't going to lose technique because of an extra 15mm or so.  As I've said before, on a 78mm ski underfoot I feel like I've got twigs on my feet, as I prefer the stability and ability to power through that a wider ski provides, as opposed to the nimble carving precision of a narrower ski.  Neither is wrong........as long as you look goo.....er, I mean are technically proficient with your turns.

Highpeaksdrifter wrote

Remember when "shaped" skis were first introduced? You were a total pussy if you had them.

Funny stuff - I remember these times, this made me laugh

As someone that just moved back from Colorado...all I have is a few pairs of skis in the 100-110 range. They in the metal-laminate, cambered category, so I've been enjoying skiing them out east this season, though, they are a bit boring out here.

So...I decided to take out my Dad's old Salomon Prolinks from 1995 last weekend at Gore.  They were awesome.  I've always liked skis with a longer turn radius, and these were no exception. Was fun to mix it up.

Had to do a goofy pose for the camera

Just to chime back.

I put my money where my thoughts were and purchased some new skis this week. Blizzard Latigos, 78mm underfoot.

This is the skinniest ski I have ever owned and the first non twin tip, but man does it rip.
I purchased them from Keith at The Pro Ski and Ride in Hunter. A week before I had gone in hoping to demo the Blizzard Brahma which is virtually identical just 88mm underfoot. Being late in the season he has sold most of his Brahma's (but still had the size I wanted) along with the demo for it but offered to mount up a Latigo. I was sure glad he did.

I had a really nice day to demo at Belleayre. It had rained two days straight before but on the tail end of those storms it laid out a nice 2-3in coating of snow on top of some true boilerplate.

It handled it all with ease. I was really surprised how light footed and surfy it felt in the fresh stuff. On the hard stuff it just locked in and ripped.

This will definitely be my 70% ski.

I have a pair of short radius 78 underfoot skis, they are very nice on conditions we have had this year.
I have a pair of 85 underfoot short to medium radius skis, they are nice in softer conditions and light western powder. I would go up to 100 in denser snow, like I saw in Tahoe last week. I am not sure I could handle much wider. The issue with wider skis - at least of me is to get them to carve you need to really widen your stance, more so that I do naturally - I have to really work at it. However when you are floating your stance just needs to be wide enough to keep the skis from overlapping.

They are some good looking skis. The wood grain looks real cool. Hopefully they ski as nice as they look; based on your homework, if sounds like they do

Hey Evantful
How are the Latigos working out?