EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Does having one mid-fat you like obviate the need for getting another?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does having one mid-fat you like obviate the need for getting another?

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 

Title says it all.  I've found a mid-fat which I love everything about (it is pretty much PERFECT, less a couple things that aren't ideal for certain conditions).  So, does this mean the next time I buy skis (which won't be anytime soon), I should look to a different waist-width category?

 

The answer would be an obvious yes, but the mid-fats are so versatile and I'm hooked.  As far as I'm concerned, unless you are racing or spending the whole day railing rock-solid groomers, there is little need for a ski narrower than 85mm.  But then after a point the fats start putting pressure on knees.

 

88mm feels solid as can be under my feet, and there is no problem whatsoever getting from edge to edge.

post #2 of 8

Well, yes and no... it depends.

 

There are two distinctly different classes of "mid-fat", as has been widely talked about. There are 'Front Side Mids' and there 'All Mountain Mids;', it is conceivable to have one of each. It might be a bit silly, but plenty of people have a ski like the Bushwacker and a ski like a Nordica Firearrow 84 EDT. They serve very different purposes.

 

heck, I have 5 different 'Powder Skis'.

post #3 of 8

Depends a lot on the ski.. I've skiied 98mm skis (Nordica Hell & Back) that are quicker than 80mm. I'd say for those conditions, you'd be fine staying in that category for versatility. Consider Nordica Steadfast or Hell & Back, or Dynastar Cham 97.

post #4 of 8

I have to agree with Whiteroom, I still love my AC40's as well as my Volkl Kendos. I do tend to use the Kendos as my everyday ski, but have no hesitation going back to the AC40's when the snow get's thin.

 

This season my buddy's and I have shown up alot on our AC40's, we all have 88mm skis to.

 

I have Gotomas for the real snow day's.

 

post #5 of 8

Yes, it does.  You just have to keep in mind that 88mm will be in the hard snow category soon, and then because the categories have shifted you will need a new ski.  As you know, hard snow skis are not versatile, even if they were versatile before they got demoted from mid-fat to groomer zoomer. 

 

I am scared to buy in the 90's, because the 100's are The New Black (see: Head Rev 105), which has the happy effect of locking low 80's into a long term quiver spot biggrin.gif

post #6 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitamin Ski View Post
  So, does this mean the next time I buy skis (which won't be anytime soon), I should look to a different waist-width category?


You might find yourself living in a shotgun shack. You might find yourself in another part of the world. And you may ask yourself what kind of ski do I need to go with that large car, beautiful house, and beautiful wife. In the meantime, just ski.

post #7 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitamin Ski View Post

Title says it all.  I've found a mid-fat which I love everything about (it is pretty much PERFECT, less a couple things that aren't ideal for certain conditions).  So, does this mean the next time I buy skis (which won't be anytime soon), I should look to a different waist-width category?

 

The answer would be an obvious yes, but the mid-fats are so versatile and I'm hooked.  As far as I'm concerned, unless you are racing or spending the whole day railing rock-solid groomers, there is little need for a ski narrower than 85mm.  But then after a point the fats start putting pressure on knees.

 

88mm feels solid as can be under my feet, and there is no problem whatsoever getting from edge to edge.

Width is only one characteristic.  There is also flex, and turn radius to consider.

 

I might say, "As far as I'm concerned, unless you are skiing over 55 mph, skiing on ice, in a slalom race, or making tight turns in fresh powder amongst the tight trees, there is little need for any ski other than my 190 cm Volant Machetes (listed sidecut is 104-68-90)."  However, I won't, because a smaller turn radius is required for smaller turns, which are fun on smaller hills,  a softer flex would work better at slower speeds in softer snow, and a longer turn radius and more stability is required for serious speed.

 

 

post #8 of 8

Mid-fat is such an inclusive term, however, I consider an 88mm waist right at the bottom end of the scale. For me, mid-fat runs from 90mm-110mm. As for your question, I'd say: it depends. I don't know how you ski, where you ski, what skill level you are, etc. For me, I could have a ski like the Atomic Patent, which is a 95mm waist, as an everyday ski. However, they are park skis, and I wouldn't want to use them for charging some serious terrain. At that point, a ski like the Volkl Katana would be a hard-charging, stiff, stable ski, suitable in shallow powder. For deep powder, a softer ski would be nice. If it got deep, a mid-fat like the Line Blend at a 100mm waist would be a ski that would be perfect all day long. A skis characteristics aren't just determined by waist width. Construction, stiffness, dampness, torsional rigidity, flex pattern, and surface area all play a part, as well as how you ski. If you ski an 88mm that is built like a race carver, a ski like the Blend might be a good choice for bumps, powder, etc. It all depends on the type of skiing you do, and what you want to ski on.

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 › Does having one mid-fat you like obviate the need for getting another?