EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Is 91mm considered a "Fat Ski" ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is 91mm considered a "Fat Ski" ?

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 

Merry Xmas and Happy New year to all. I've finally feel like practically everyone else on the slopes when I brought out my AF91's for a run.  I'm afraid they may ban me for taking up too much space on the lift line! And then ban me for using the Tyrolia 390's

Cheers

 

photo 4.JPG4.JPGphoto 2.JPG

post #2 of 25

91 at the tips is pretty dang narrow, those are old skis, now 91 at the waist for a modern ski isn't really even fat.  

post #3 of 25

Red Sled's.  Might want to check your toe height adjustment of your 390's, they stripped out frequently.

post #4 of 25
My daily drivers are a 115mm rockered powder ski. Yes I ski groomers all the time. 91mm is still pretty beefy, it's how I felt with my first 88mm mythics. Now they're so narrow lol
post #5 of 25

little miscommunication here. the OP is using the tip dimension. Huh is referring to the waist dimension. for the OP's reference, when describing a ski, the waist measurement is generally used. The ARC AF would not ever be considered a "fat ski". It was made around 1990? not sure. I skied the 195 Arc RS and they are still a rockin' board for what they do. they come out from time to time for a speed run. local junior racers were training super G one day I had them out. rode the chair with a couple racers. they said: hey, I bet those are really fast. nice kids.

 

anyone know the meaning of the letters AF? Mine are RS and I know that means giant slalom. I thought the RS was the classic Red Sled, didn't know there were more models.

post #6 of 25

I think the OP is stuck in a time warp.

post #7 of 25

Nice nordic skis.

post #8 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

little miscommunication here. the OP is using the tip dimension. Huh is referring to the waist dimension. for the OP's reference, when describing a ski, the waist measurement is generally used. The ARC AF would not ever be considered a "fat ski". It was made around 1990? not sure. I skied the 195 Arc RS and they are still a rockin' board for what they do. they come out from time to time for a speed run. local junior racers were training super G one day I had them out. rode the chair with a couple racers. they said: hey, I bet those are really fast. nice kids.

anyone know the meaning of the letters AF? Mine are RS and I know that means giant slalom. I thought the RS was the classic Red Sled, didn't know there were more models.


Guess looking at the pictures would have helped.
post #9 of 25


That is my impression as well.

That ski, if put on snow, becomes a very dangerous weapon ... dangerous to the rider.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post

I think the OP is stuck in a time warp.



 


Except they probably weigh like 12 pounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toecutter View Post

Nice nordic skis.



 

post #10 of 25

Troll for Ludicrous Longboard Day?

 

skibus.png

post #11 of 25

Seriously. Wow, welcome to 1980...

post #12 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Seriously. Wow, welcome to 1980...


I think it was 1984-85....   always fun for a run or two where turning is optional...

 

post #13 of 25

I'm wondering if the turn radius of those things is best measured in "meters" or "miles".  smile.gif

post #14 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinF View Post

I'm wondering if the turn radius of those things is best measured in "meters" or "miles".  smile.gif



r=infinity

post #15 of 25

I ski the Red Sled about once every couple years and enjoy it. However, I have maintained some old school methods and can ski it pretty much how I used to (about 4 - 5 years worth). But that particular ski has to be ordered, not just told, what to do and if you don't it will mess you up.  I meant it as a heads up to nostalgia freaks with perfectly good knees at the moment. In the eighties ("welcome to the 1980's") people were used to long skis, unweighting, heel thrust, skating, stepping, airplane turns.....Nowdays, not so much and that's the danger.  The first day on my Arcs two things happened: I came to a long high speed terrain following turn, made a fairly weak move to turn, and the skis just kept tracking....straight ahead. whoa!! I laughed and said: I'm going to need a much stiffer boot.

 

epilogue: went out and got some Flexon Comps and secretly wished I had bought the Rossi SM's, the other popular ski of the day. We did reach an understanding eventually, the Red Sleds and I, and now the Atomic's probably have more classic value, like a muscle car.

post #16 of 25

Back in the olden times the local bump rental shop had a pair of hart honeycomb supercomp 215 cm.  One day for sh!ts and giggles we took turns (taking very long radius turns LOL) on them goofing around and throwing heli's off the cat track transition. 

post #17 of 25

I'm feeling the OP's time warp again. The Arc was popular in part because there was a movement against short skis and small turns taking place at the time. Steve McKinny and company were prime movers. Speed and big GS turns was the new frontier after decades of lowspeed mogul skiing.

post #18 of 25
Thread Starter 
The "AF's" were the DH race designation and were not readily available to the general public. I got them from a Atomic sponsored "B "team Olympic skier after the 84 games. They made the af91 and a slighted wider af94 made for glider courses. I recall that the Rossi 223 DH boards had better flex and the Head DH skis were even heavier than the atomics. The edges are much thinner on these compared with the RS giant slalom skis.
post #19 of 25

exactly, it's coming back now.  AF is an abbreviation for Abfahrt which is German for Downhill.  If my German sucks, I'm sorry to offend the members who are proficient in that language.

 

cool, thanks for that information.  I knew guys who would have killed for those.

 

so if they called the models AF91 and 94 they were taking the measurement at the shovel like you are. not how today's skis are labeled for retail. Is it that way for racing skis still?

post #20 of 25

dimensions of the 195 RS are:  84 - 67 - 78

what about the 225 AF?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinF View Post

I'm wondering if the turn radius of those things is best measured in "meters" or "miles".  smile.gif



 

post #21 of 25
Thread Starter 
91 up top - 70 at boot center and 81 at the widest part of the rear as it curves in at end.

I remember the rep said it cannot carve a clean turn under 40 mph. It's gliding capabilities are amazing; Its very thin edges, good for barely a season, and the metal sandwich construction was made to vibrate like a tuning fork to create some sort if water tension effect on the snow at speed. It was the fastest ski on the world cup at the time.
post #22 of 25


now that's wild. One of the racers training SG one day went by on a fast run and I swear I heard a buzzing-humming sound. Since there was no sound from sliding edges and hardly any from wind turbulence all you hear is the edge melting/cutting its groove into the ice. who knows what that was? talk about zooooom!

Quote:
Originally Posted by c20500 View Post

91 up top - 70 at boot center and 81 at the widest part of the rear as it curves in at end.
I remember the rep said it cannot carve a clean turn under 40 mph. It's gliding capabilities are amazing; Its very thin edges, good for barely a season, and the metal sandwich construction was made to vibrate like a tuning fork to create some sort if water tension effect on the snow at speed. It was the fastest ski on the world cup at the time.


 

 

post #23 of 25
Thread Starter 

Here's a look at the base, etc.photo 3.JPG3.JPG

post #24 of 25
Thread Starter 

view of base and side. btw the humming sound I experience also was caused by running over the groomed surface of the snow.

91 side.JPG91 base.JPG

post #25 of 25
Thread Starter 
These are the current specs on the Atomic FIS Downhills:

DIMENSIONS
LENGTH (CM) 215
TIP WIDTH (MM) 95.2
WAIST WIDTH (MM) 69.2
TAIL WIDTH (MM) 83.5
RADIUS (M) 49

So around a 150 feet turn radius.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Is 91mm considered a "Fat Ski" ?