Fallacy #2
Previously in this thread, the discussion centered around the observation that for a skier to rise upwards in a layer of deep soft snow, the skis must produce an upward force (i.e., “lift”) greater than the skier’s weight. Thus, to realize the full benefits of purchasing fatter skis, heavier skiers (say, heavier than 180 lbs) shouldn’t stop in the traditional mid-fat range (mid 70’s – low 80’s), but go all the way to 90+ mm skis.
It recently occurred to me that there is yet another fallacy embodied in the oft-heard statements about not considering any ski wider than a mid-fat, e.g.,
“82 mm should be good enough for an east coast skier”.
Skiers thinking about buying a pair of fatter skis will often say that since they only see a couple of deep snow days per season, there is no reason for them to go beyond mid-fats. The real problem is that most of these folks make this statement even though they already own a quiver of groomer skis that are perfectly adequate for several inches of new snow, i.e., the usual snowy day in the east. Thus, they really only need a new pair for those rare days when it dumps a foot or more, or for soft, deep spring slop. It almost like these folks think that there is some sort of algorithm that says that for every soft 12” snow day per season you encounter, you are allowed to add a mm to the width of your new skis, but you shouldn’t go beyond this width on penalty of death.
It just doesn’t work like this. If you are in deep soft snow, it doesn’t matter whether this is the only time you will see such conditions this season, or it’s the 40th time. It’s still deep soft snow. Thus, skiers who follow such reasoning and who don’t even bother looking above mid-fat widths when thinking about purchasing a new pair of skis will likely see limited benefits from their new skis in exactly the conditions they bought them for, particularly if the skier is of above average weight. Yes, an 82 mm pair will be somewhat better in soft snow than the 68 mm pair they already own, but the overlap in performance envelopes is greater than it needs to be. In other words, they could do MUCH better than this.
In defense of those skiers who don’t consider skis wider than mid-fats, I do see one valid reason that a 180+ lb guy might use a mid-80’s ski: Namely, that they just never intend to use more than that one pair of skis, at least on any one day.
I would argue is that if a skier can bring two or more pairs of skis to the mountain, and has the possibility of selecting the appropriate pair in the morning, or switching skis during the day, their second pair should be 90+ mm skis (at least for skiers > 180 lbs) and forget about the mid-fats. This way, they will get the benefit of fat skis when they need them instead of skiing on a pair of mid-fats that are not particularly good either on the groomers or in the deep.
Just my $0.02,
Tom / PM
PS – When I refer to a fat ski, I don’t mean a specific number of mm. Rather, I mean a width that allows the skier to float given their weight and typical skiing speed. This might be an 75 mm ski for a 120 lb average speed skier or a 150 lb hot-shot, or a 95+ mm ski for a big guy that likes to ski at moderate speeds. This is why I always paired mm with weight in the above post.
