Fat Skis as Daily Driver for East Coast?

now that i look thru this thread again i see that many of the people selecting wider skis are teleskiers.  Tele technique is different from Alpine and it has more of a rotary skid move in it that make the addition of tip rocker and wider widths work.  I think that tele skiers will be well served by the wider skis with rocker but I still maintain that in the east an alpine skier with a ski much wider than 90mm is giving up tons of performance unless they ski exclusively off trail.

Agree - choice at Gore is 81 underfoot.  Great for both hardpack, the trees, and the bumps.  Will move to 90 when very soft and/or a powder day.  

Next on the wish list may move up to 87s, such as the Blizzard 8.7, but only as able to use a full GS ski on the very hardpack/ice days.

ausable skier wrote

now that i look thru this thread again i see that many of the people selecting wider skis are teleskiers.  Tele technique is different from Alpine and it has more of a rotary skid move in it that make the addition of tip rocker and wider widths work.  I think that tele skiers will be well served by the wider skis with rocker but I still maintain that in the east an alpine skier with a ski much wider than 90mm is giving up tons of performance unless they ski exclusively off trail.

Thanks....I kinda thought your previous post was a bit "narrow" minded, (<90mm lol) but your above point is right on the mark.  In all honesty, the best ski for icy groomers in my (tele) quiver is a race stock Volkl P60...65mm underfoot I think...with 40mm of riser under the binding....it is a very demanding ski that has to be driven, not ridden, and the reward is leaving ice skate like carving marks on the hill.  (even tele-ing on these skis requires more angulation/rotation than you would need using an alpine setup)

However...to go from that to my 96mm SickBirds IS a substantial adjustment in technique and mindset. Waaay more relaxed, and less aggressive...not passive by anymeans...but I can see how someone might observe the change in style as going from precision skiing to  more of a "lah-de-dah"  gaper/punter skid-your-turns look. At least on the groomers.

Despite all my above babbling, I am still heading down the path to fatness and early rise. If it makes my skiing easier in the type of snow and areas that I ski now days, well then, I will be happy....'cause skiing is fun. Not work.

Anyone interested in a pair of Volkl P60 G.S skis, 185cm (old F.I.S. 21m prescribed radius)?

a few years ago i switched from saloman x-tra hot 80 mm waist to volkl bridges at 92mm. i'll never go narrow again. the volkls rail on hardpack, smash thru spring slop, and float on the real stuff. there is no downside. i suspect that the 100mm waist is near the point of diminishing returns for a daily driver on the east coast, but i'm willing to experiment with a fatter pure powder ski for northern vt.

turning radius is what really matters to me ,i want to be able to carve small to large radius turns .piloting an ocean freighter and skidding turns is not as enjoyable as riding an edge.

ausable skier wrote

I still maintain that in the east an alpine skier with a ski much wider than 90mm is giving up tons of performance unless they ski exclusively off trail.

i strongly disagree with the that statement and it leads me to believe you have never tried a ski over 90mm, and if you did you were doing it wrong. i can hold as good of an egde on my skis that 98 underfoot as i could with my race skis. could they turn as quickly? no, but thats not the point of this arguement, of course a narrow ski will turn quicker in most cases. ill have way more fun on a fatter ski...unless of course i want short turns but thats maybe a couple days a year, but in every other aspect the fatter skis are better. and even still i can get 15m turn radius with little work. now i agree there is a limit to ski size, but i think overall contruction has a lot more to do with it than the width of a ski.

I've gone from 60mm to 70mm to 80mm to 90mm over the course of the last six seasons, jumping up in size each two years. (Always just a little behind what was considered fat at that time.)

Of those four pairs the skis that really railed on groomers were the 70s (Atomics) and the 90s (Icelantics). The other skis were not torsionally rigid. I do think construction is key.

Each time I was sure that the extra 10mm was going to be a tipping point - widen enough to require a new level in confidence and aggression. But somehow each step up felt pretty natural.

At some point (width) I'd think you have to be really good to put them on edge and crank. My next step is definitely 100mm either this year or next. Be interesting to see if I can ski something like that on hardpack.

I guess for me the everyday driver would be the widest ski that I could ski on the trails and turn in the trees.

freeheeln wrote

turning radius is what really matters to me ,i want to be able to carve small to large radius turns .piloting an ocean freighter and skidding turns is not as enjoyable as riding an edge.

As absurd as they look, you should give them a try.


I was pretty impressed, as long as I didn't look down.

fujative wrote

As absurd as they look, you should give them a try.

I was pretty impressed, as long as I didn't look down.

The Salomon BBR must the most polarizing ski introduced in a long time. Many people have decided to hate it just because of the way it looks. Intuitively, it makes sense. Good for you, Fujative, for being open-minded and trying it out. I'm looking forward to demo-ing a pair this season.

There is a very in-depth review of the BBR on Blistergearreview, which if you haven't seen, is a great site to check out.

Sick Bird Rider wrote

fujative wrote

As absurd as they look, you should give them a try.

I was pretty impressed, as long as I didn't look down.

The Salomon BBR must the most polarizing ski introduced in a long time. Many people have decided to hate it just because of the way it looks. Intuitively, it makes sense. Good for you, Fujative, for being open-minded and trying it out. I'm looking forward to demo-ing a pair this season.

There is a very in-depth review of the BBR on Blistergearreview, which if you haven't seen, is a great site to check out.

Me too.....now if only our local favourite ski shop can be convinced to mount a pair with some tele bindings....

I'm thinking they would might just be a tele-quiver-of-one for our Hinterlandian (re: typical East Coast conditions) ski hills....mostly groomed ice ("packed powder" in ski hill jargon) and the very occaisonal powder day that doesn't get groomed by the powder haters that drive the groomers...

Betcha they'd rock in spring corn/slush/crud....

Don't think they would be really good in 3d conditions...not enough under the foot ...prolly would be like skiing on a dolphin......LOL

So S.B.R.  - can you put a bug in the ear of the powers that be....

Those sbr's are funky looking for sure.  What is the specs on the diamentions?

It is a simple matter of physics.  When your boot is narrower than the ski you can not get the same edge hold because it changes the vector in how the engery is transferred from the leg to the ski.  While this is true for the outside ski its even hards to get the inside little toe side to hook up with that width.  This is why i think its easier for tele to go wide - in a tele turn the inside edge is not on edge like a alpine turn.

A ski some where north of 90mm will not allow you to make effective short turns without a great deal of pivoting / skiding.  This is why they add rocker to these wide skis to make them easier to pivot.  If you ski at WF then you need to be a carve a short turn on firm snow a pretty large chunk of the season so that wide of a ski is giving up too much performance for my liking.  82mm is ideal in my opinion for the east as it gives you the most verstility in a one ski quiver.  Thankfully i have 4 ski widths in my quiver to chose from based on my mood and conditions.

ausable skier wrote

Those sbr's are funky looking for sure.  What is the specs on the diamentions?

The dimensions of the SBR pro-model ski are top secret, as the ski is still in development at the Remote Hinterlandian Test Facility (RHTF). Stay tuned, as Harvey Roaders will be the first to know.

If it is the BBR you are wondering about, then the dimensions can be found in the Blister review referenced in my previous post. Though if you do the reading, you'll see that's there is more to a ski than mere dimension. Here, I'll save you the click:

Ski dimensions (mm): 147-88-102 (176 cm)

Radius: 11.5(166cm)/12.5(176cm)/13.5(186cm)

Available length of skis: 166cm, 176cm, 186cm

ausable skier wrote

A ski some where north of 90mm will not allow you to make effective short turns without a great deal of pivoting / skiding.  This is why they add rocker to these wide skis to make them easier to pivot.  If you ski at WF then you need to be a carve a short turn on firm snow a pretty large chunk of the season so that wide of a ski is giving up too much performance for my liking.

How many people ski a pure carve in their short turns anyway?  Even most slalom skis have a turning radius of around 12 meters.  That's over 36 feet.  Anything under that requires some addition of a skid or pivot.  Sure, the smaller radii and smaller waists allow more of a carve in the skid/carve combo (skarve), but you have to ask yourself if the extra carve is worth the decrease in flotation.  If you're just ripping sl turns down Mountain Run all day, then it probably is.  But if you're in the trees, on the slides, or skiing in the spring, than you might be willing to sacrifice a little bit of precision for a little bit of "playfulness" as ski testers call it.    

mattchuck2 wrote

Even most slalom skis have a turning radius of around 12 meters.  That's over 36 feet.  Anything under that requires some addition of a skid or pivot.

My understanding is the radius is based on a full circle...

Right, poorly worded, but you get the gist. A pure carved turn, using only the radius of the ski would take up (in meters down the hill) double the radius from beginning of turn to end of turn. Obviously, there's some factors that tighten up the radius (edge angle, flex in the ski, etc.). Regardless, if you're just laying pure carves down (so that the tracks in the snow exhibit no sign of skid), you're going to be pretty surprised at the amount of space on the hill you need to make your turn. This video covers some stuff, but it's incredibly boring:



Edit: More Info Here: http://www.mechanicsofsport.com/skiing/equipment/skis.html

mattchuck2 wrote

Right, poorly worded, but you get the gist.  A pure carved turn, using only the radius of the ski would take up (in meters down the hill) double the radius from beginning of turn to end of turn.  Obviously, there's some factors that tighten up the radius (edge angle, flex in the ski, etc.). Regardless, if you're just laying pure carves down (so that the tracks in the snow exhibit no sign of skid), you're going to be pretty surprised at the amount of space on the hill you need to make your turn. This video covers some stuff, but it's incredibly boring:

That, and you'll be going extremely fast. Especially at a place like Whiteface.

mattchuck2 wrote

How many people ski a pure carve in their short turns anyway?  Even most slalom skis have a turning radius of around 12 meters.  That's over 36 feet.  Anything under that requires some addition of a skid or pivot.  Sure, the smaller radii and smaller waists allow more of a carve in the skid/carve combo (skarve), but you have to ask yourself if the extra carve is worth the decrease in flotation.  If you're just ripping sl turns down Mountain Run all day, then it probably is.  But if you're in the trees, on the slides, or skiing in the spring, than you might be willing to sacrifice a little bit of precision for a little bit of "playfulness" as ski testers call it.

when its firm say in January and the slides or trees are not in play I'm going to ripping around on a 74mm waisted ski

powder or spring snow 88mm

if its in between then 82mm

90mm + as a one ski quiver is great if you live in Colorado but its sub optimal for WF

I'm currently skiing Volkl AC 30's and I would like to get a wider ski for fresh snow days at Gore and for skiing the glades. I'd also like to have the ski run well in crud and the after 1PM messy snow on warmer days.  

With regard to ski suggestions, most online sources seem to be geared toward the Western skier when discussing fatter, rockered skis.  Full rocker, tip rocker, flip core.  The jargon's a bit much and I'm a somewhat confused when it comes to choosing a ski for the above conditions at Gore/Whiteface.  

Any suggestions regarding the following skis (or any others that would fit the bill) would be appreciated:

Blizzard Bushwhacker
Volkl Kendo or Bridge (RTM 84 seems to be too like my AC30's)

Also wondering what binding you would pair with the ski.

Thanks for the advise.

Of the 3, I'd go with the bridge. Although, blasting through crud and skiing trees seems to ask for different characteristics. I would want something a bit stiffer (Mantra) for crud, and a bit easier to smear (Bridge) for trees and softer snow.

Try to get to a demo day. Ride a whole bunch of stuff, see what you like.

Thanks fujative,

I'll check out when there will be a demo day at Gore.  Frankly, the AC30's are pretty good for the crud.  I mostly need a ski to give me some advantages in the trees.  Can't keep up with the kids anymore.