Fat Skis as Daily Driver for East Coast?

I was reading this thread on TGR, and I was a little shocked.

The general consensus is that if you just owned one pair of skis in the east, it should be between 100mm and 105mm at the waist.  Does this seem a little excessive to anyone else?  My Powder skis are 105 (Volkl Gotamas).  This year, I'm going to be cruising on a pair of 94mm waisted skis, and I thought that was going to be a little bit of overkill (but acceptable because I generally don't ski groomers).  

If you only owned one pair of skis, what width would you have?  Would you have some early rise/rocker?

One pair? 90mm, no rocker. May not sound like fun, but it's SoAdk reality.

Second pair 100-105mm, with some early rise. (In my dreams I'm in the market).

What is the first baby step with rocker, slight tip rise?

I don't get the fat ski as a quiver of one. Tech is getting better but specialized tools for each snow condition is significantly better. Too many days on the east coast are hard pack or scraped natural snow. I have a really good powder ratio between 1/3 - 1/2 on any given season, much better than most. That still means at least 1/3 of my days are on hard pack after accounting for spring corn.

My everyday ski still remains 79mm underfoot. If the natural snow is hard packed or moguls, I'm pulling out the skinny skis that are quicker and better edge to edge. For serious hardpack and ice, go for the 69mm cheater go fast skis to rip the groomed. I love fat for soft natural snow but there are definite performances draw backs.

If I had to do it all with just one ski? Ick, what a terrible proposition to consider. Definitely no rocker. 90ish underfoot with a 130+ shovel and sub-20 radius. Wood core, no metal. Far from ideal in any one situation... can't even imagine going back to that type of all in one decision.

IMO......I love the Atomic Savage with 93 underfoot and slight
tip rise. Being an Atomic, of course they grip on hardpack, but the tip rise is a game changer as they are able to handle all conditions, I am able to ski a longer ski but still have the advantage of a quick turning ski, and the rocker allows an effortless touring stride.

Don't be a Fool, Rocker is the Rule!   No matter where you are....

Riv is spot on..

Darkside Shaman wrote

Don't be a Fool, Rocker is the Rule!   No matter where you are....

Which is why you see so much rocker and early tip rise on the World Cup circuit...

riverc0il wrote

Which is why you see so much rocker and early tip rise on the World Cup circuit...

That's a silly example. Last time I checked, World Cup ski shapes were dictated by the rules of the FIS, which effectively restrict any modern thinking. For more on this, see Ted Ligety's blog post from 11/20 on the "Tyranny of FIS" (you have to scroll down from the top). If you watch the amusing video posted on 11/24, you'll note that top World Cup racers are skiing on twin-tips, because that's the ski that makes sense for what they are doing.

A person's choice of skis (or bikes or golf clubs or computer) is a sum of the compromises they make. My own skis have gone from 75 to 94 to 100 to 108 mm waists in the last six years. For me, it's less about the width than how easy the ski is to turn (sidecut and rocker factor heavily here) and how it performs in a wide range of conditions. I know the SF Bacons will not slay ice like a GS ski but I'm sure I will make it down the hill. When the snow gets soft, I will be on the right ski.


Julia Mancuso freeskiing in Chile in latest WME movie.
Not on race skis.

I love fat skis. Last year my daily driver was 100 underfoot ( line blend) with a rocketed tip and tail as well as some camber underfoot. Absolutely loved it. Maybe a touch soft for ripping groomers at speed but other than that they were great. This year my daily driver will be 98 underfoot with a small amount of rocker in the tip and camber underfoot as well as a flat tall (nordica enforcer). I love rocker, makes the ski so much more fun and playful in every condition. As far as turning quickly and all that nonsense, just get a wider binding. The reason you can
Get on edge so quickly with smaller skis is all due to leverage. Marker jester and sth 16 are perfect examples. Go to a shop and look at the size of their afd's to other bindings. I think anything over 110 is overkill for an everyday ski on the eastcoast, but doesn't stop people from getting a pair of bigger skis to have for the right occasion. I'll have nordica patrons this year which at 113 underfoot with oodles of rocker, but still a generous amount of camber. That will be the pow boards. But come spring time Ill probably use those more than the enforcer and that's just because
It easier. It's all preference. I'll still breakout the racestocks to just rail groomers, but other than that I don't think I'll ever get a ski under 95mm again. As far as rocker is concerned, you are right, you will never see rocker in racing and for good reason. Rocker makes skiing easier because the contact point is set back causing a very smooth transition into a turn, the exact opposite of what you want in racing. It does all comes down to preference but don't bash it when you haven't skied it. The average waist on the east is now in the low 80's and every company has rocketed all mountain skis. It's here to stay which is the exact opposite I would have said a couple years ago. So get out and try it. There are many different types of rocket out there (early rise full rocker tip rocker ect. No matter what they cal it it's still rocker) so one may not suite you but another could. Unless of course all you want is a high performance carving ski in which case don't get a rocketed ski

Thanks for the breakdown Condor, and I just thought Rocker was all about fun

having fun while skiing is  good fun

My Daily driver is 106 undefoot, no rocker. (although, I wish it had a bit of early rise)

Why?
I have no problem skiing them
I only have one pair of skis (Except some beat Slalom skis which maybe come out once a year and some even more beat park skis)
Fat enough for when we get significant snow.

If I had the choice, I'd have a 3-4 ski quiver.

110ish underfoot, nimbly-bimbly, some early rise, mounted with some form of AT bindings. For the deep days .
85ish underfoot, pretty soft, impartial to earlyrise. Bump/tree skis.
70ish underfoot, stiff, <15m turn radius carvers.

Possible 4th - Stiff, fatter skis. (Mantras, AC40s, New Rossi experience 98) OR some teles to play around on.

I guess I better chime in here....

Although for the past few years, my "daily drivers" for lift served skiing are 96mm underfoot (1st edition Sick birds)
and prolly will remain my go-to ski for now....

I have drank the kool-aid. Elan Boomerangs, 140-120-130, tip and tail rocker with a touch of camber underfoot.

They're intended for all sorts of backcountry.....even around here in our limited vert hinterlands...

By all accounts, rockered skis tour better too.  Easier skin track setting.
But what I'm really anticipating is how they will be "game changers" as far as making way more
terrain skiable in deeper snow.
Last year there were a number of occasions where my regular b.c. ski - Rossi T-4s which are 122-94-112, 185cm, were maxed.  Quite simply, the snow too deep and the pitch not steep enough.
Here's a pic from last season.

Betcha the Elans will be rockin in those conditions....

T.D.

I should emphasize that I really don't think the Boomerangs will take over as an everyday ski for any lift served skiing that I do...(I tend to do waaay more "earn your turns" skiing these days, only 5 days lift served last season ) but I will certainly give them a chance - I think they will be great crud conditions skis as well....

If I hadn't scored the Boomerangs this year, I was contemplating a new daily driver to take over from my Sickies....something rockered with around 100-105 underfoot. Something like the K2 Coombacks.  

My 2 cents.

T.D.

Sick Bird Rider wrote

riverc0il wrote

Which is why you see so much rocker and early tip rise on the World Cup circuit...

That's a silly example.

Julia Mancuso freeskiing in Chile in latest WME movie.
Not on race skis.

My example might have been silly but your counter example of Mancuso skiing what looks like an off piste line is equally silly in the opposite direction. Substitute local race league (where there are no rules, hence "cheater skis") in place of World Cup. The point was, and both of our silly examples prove it, that when possible it is best to pick the best ski for each condition.

In a continuum, it seems better to go fat than not. Fatter skis can hack the hard pack better than race skis can hack the pow. My main assertion here is that folks that think their 105-115 fat ski can rip hard pack just as good as race oriented skis are kidding themselves OR can't tell the difference in performance for whatever reason.

Sick Bird Rider wrote

For me, it's less about the width than how easy the ski is to turn (sidecut and rocker factor heavily here) and how it performs in a wide range of conditions. I know the SF Bacons will not slay ice like a GS ski but I'm sure I will make it down the hill. When the snow gets soft, I will be on the right ski.

Yeah, but I guess the question is, do you want to just "make it down the hill"? Or do you want to rip the $hit out of everything you come across?  I'm glad I have more than one pair of skis, but If I could only have one, I think I'd try to have a pair that allowed for me to do better than "make it down".  Would I be giving up a little playfulness in powder conditions? I guess, but people used to have fun skiing pow on 68mm wide skis.  IMO, the thing that makes pow fun isn't the skis on your feet, it's the snow on the ground.  

I guess it's a personal preference thing.  I was just curious what everyone else would do.

riverc0il wrote

My example might have been silly but your counter example of Mancuso skiing what looks like an off piste line is equally silly in the opposite direction...

In a continuum, it seems better to go fat than not. Fatter skis can hack the hard pack better than race skis can hack the pow. My main assertion here is that folks that think their 105-115 fat ski can rip hard pack just as good as race oriented skis are kidding themselves OR can't tell the difference in performance for whatever reason.

Point taken.

Fat is where its at and we all have our own definition of what "fat' is. All know is that my skiing enjoyment has improved with each successively fatter set skis I have used. I'm sure there is a limit for the EC, and I believe it is somewhere around 110 for smaller guys like me. I have to admit that getting the Bacons is a bit of an experiment, since rocker is getting added to the mix. Oh well, if it doesn't work, I'll sell them and move on.

mattchuck2 wrote

Yeah, but I guess the question is, do you want to just "make it down the hill"? Or do you want to rip the $hit out of everything you come across?

OK, "make it down the hill" was a bad choice of words. Though you've seen me ski and I don't think I qualify as a $hit-ripper on any skis. My goal when skiing is to ski as fast as possible, as smoothly as I can, without hurting myself or anybody else. If the skis or style I choose (and I do have a bit of quiver, FWIW) put a limit on any of those objectives, I will happily adjust. Today I got two consecutive turns on a hilly section of trail, skiing on waxless, 60 mm touring skis with lace-up 3-pin boots. Stoked beyond words.

I've been sliding on the same pair of Atomic RT 86 with rotti cobras for several years now. I've been thinking i should get on something new, just not sure why. i ski everywhere and it makes any turn i ask for, even the occasional tele turn. besides i dont have to worry about dinging up a new pair of skis in the woods!

I currently have 4 different width of skis in my quiver plus a rock ski

a 66mm waist SL race ski
74mm waist ski for groomed and firm conditions
82mm waist all MT ski that is my main ski - these are new this year but the same measurements and design as my rock ski
and a 88mm ski that is my powder, crud and spring snow ski

I honestly have no idea why anyone would need anything wider than 90mm underfoot living in the east.  If you get wider than 90mm you have to dramatically change how you ski to be able to tip the ski on edge because the ski would be wider than your boot.  You lose all leverage and ability to control your edging via normal movement patterns - you simply cannot have a high edge because your body is not capable of angulating that much with this wide of a ski

I took the 88mm skis out west last year and had an awesome time on them in multiple foot dumps.  Compared to some of the locals on crazy wide skis I actually was skiing in the snow while they were surfing on top of it.  What is the fun of skiing powder on top of it? You might as well be on a groomer.

I really care how I and my skis perform and can't not see how I could settle for less than optimal ski performance on non power days by skiing such a boat under foot.  If you really don't care how you ski go over 100mm but then you'll ski like a tourist.  Unless you are skiing in powder - to crave is to rip and ripping is what its all about.  Skidding sucks and is lame.

Interesting what people are skiing in the east is all over the place.  My narrowest skis are now 88 under foot and my pow boards are 110.  I did get a pair of K2 hardsides this year, 98 under foot with an early rise tip, but haven't skied them yet.  Who knows, the Hardsides may end up as the daily driver.  

I am very happy with my orange Black Diamond Verdicts - 170 length 132 - 102- 118 width. They are stiff enough to rail on the hard pack, float in the powder and turn very well in the trees. You have to ski them pretty aggressively to make them perform but they perform well.

My only disappointment with them is that they are way heavy for backcountry. For lift serve though, they fit my bill.

So now I am looking for a lighter, softer ski of the same dimentions for skinning.

FYI, I'm 6" 155# and tele with 7tm power tour bindings

Backcountry.com has them on sale for $300 right now.