or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Is everyone going just too fat?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is everyone going just too fat? - Page 5

post #121 of 317

Just wait a few more months and the mountains will be full of the sounds of people scraping their brand new powder skis on the early season ice and rocks.

post #122 of 317

It all boils down to what I have eventually said in all these threads where the same shit gets argued to death.

 

I don't give a shit what you ski on, why do you care what I do?

 

The guy on the fat ski doesn't sit there on the lift commenting on your skinny ski. He's probably just sitting there enjoying the day while you try an come up with some witty comment to refer to his ski of choice.

post #123 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal View Post

The guy on the fat ski doesn't sit there on the lift commenting on your skinny ski. He's probably just sitting there enjoying the day while you try an come up with some witty comment to refer to his ski of choice.

 

LOL!  

post #124 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toecutter View Post

LOL!  
[/quote) like
post #125 of 317

i skied 25 or 30 days in ca,or and wa and 90% of those days were powder and even if they were leftovers days the 100 width still works great on the soft snow so it really depends if your focus is storm cycles or if you are there because it's the weekend or you have vacation that was planned months ago. I kind of regret dropping the cash on some line 115s just because the 100s w/ rocker are way more agile, even in deep snow. I am a victim of marketing or impulsive consumer behavior or something

post #126 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by core2 View Post

Just wait a few more months and the mountains will be full of the sounds of people scraping their brand new powder skis on the early season ice and rocks.


I take my old Volkl Mantra's for that , not my powder skis. Early forecasts are for plentiful early snow In the Western states
so I'll kept my hopes up for that .
post #127 of 317

Somebody on here last year told a story about riding up a lift at Solitude or Alta or something with somebody on 130 somethings.  They were talking about skiing some steep deep chute over yonder, and the guy with 130 somethings said to the guy on (probably) 90 somethings..."you're going to need something a lot fatter than that to go over there", to which the logical response was, "right, because nobody ever skied over there before fat skis came along". 

 

So yeah, guys on fat skis never remark about skinny skis sucking.

post #128 of 317

I reckon as been kind of said here before, fatter skis make less advanced skiers feel like they are in more control in most conditions. Unless they actually want to curve hard fast lines on hard snow they are never going to know the differences anyway. Apart from racers, hard core park guys and the odd person who is into perfecting technique do you think many young people starting out these days really care about that right or wrong way technique wise? It's almost cool not to be proper now. They just want to get down without falling and show off to their friends they did it better than them or bombed a harder slope etc. Width makes that easier and feels more stable in probably the high % of conditions. Plus if you aren't crazy passionate about skiing which clearly everyone here is, you will take the least path of resistance to achieve your goal i.e. fun, survival and bragging rights.

Skiing well takes hard work i.e. effort!, and wider skis need less of that to perceptionally achieve stuff, the mainstream are always going to go for that. You guys here are perfectionists and want the best out of any day, conditions and gear, hence the arguments about width which relate to location which really relates to snow conditions. Personally I’d love to have the conditions to ski 98's and use them all the time but we don't get that here so my 79's are as 'all conditions' as I need.

Good luck on a better season this year than last you guys.

post #129 of 317

I am getting too fat, just not in the ski department.... biggrin.gif....

post #130 of 317
Thread Starter 

I've resisted the temptation to get drawn into the 'I don't care about anyone but myself so why do you care about me' argument. There seems to be a fundamental flaw in this argument when posting. If you don't care then why are you posting about it unless you consider yourselves the judges of other people's right to think differently? Surely you must be able to appreciate that some people have an interest in more than themselves. It doesn't mean you have to but you should accept it in the same way I'm happy for you to carry on with your own thing.

 

The premise of this thread was never to attack the committed off piste skier or question the legitimacy of fat skis as I tried very hard to convey. It was to address the broader issue of whether the average recreational skier struggling around on predominantly groomed terrain was being best served by fat skis. It's not difficult but many on here have turned it into a rant about preserving their rights to ski fat. Look beyond yourselves when you think!

 

As for expert advice in ski shops. It would be grat to believe it happens all the time. It just doesn't. I know a number of the employees at one of my local shops who know their stuff but are just so tired of customers who come in already armed with the latest advertising propoganda that they just go along with it and sell them what they want, not what will serve them best.

post #131 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

 

I have worked in ski shops, and beleive me, most people dont have a clue.  They buy what they are told to buy.  At the moment that message is fat is the way to go. 

 

this is a great comment however I have to ask:

 

STATEMENT:

the average skier is on the slopes less than 10 days and I am almost 100% certain they aren't nearly as obsessed about this topic as we are, given that, they arent exposed to the information we are and are almost certanily not nearly as concerned with technique, rather staying warm, looking fashionable and having fun. To the vast majority of these folks, its about a socializing with family and friends not what most of us (you know who you are) are into. 

 

People buy what they feel most comfortable with. It's a safe decision to buy what the mass's buy as it provides confirmation in their buying decision. They will value what they can understand most; this doesn't mean it's accurate or factual. for example:  buy a fat ski, its wider and more stable like an SUV; you will have more fun as you won't have to work as hard and it's easier on your legs.  OR Buy a skinny ski, they are more like a sports car that hugs the road and will grip the ice better. A skinny ski is easier to turn on because of how thin it is. Fat ski's take a long time to turn, its like a tractor trailer on the highway, it takes a lot of effort. 

 

 

Questions:

If they are going to buy a new pair of ski's how are they to make a decision?   If the mags are purportedly pumping fatties as are the shops, who's to blame (if anyone is).

 

What is fat and what is mid and what is thin now?

 

If a 90mm ski has a TR of 16, then is it too fat? In other words, is this an argument based soley on width and not ski characteristics such as TR, Sidecut and flex. etc.?

 

Is it more important for casual skiers to ski with more technique or to enjoy the few days they are out there?


Edited by Finndog - 9/18/12 at 7:15am
post #132 of 317

Good comments Finndog.  I suspect most casual skiers buy their skis based not on any numbers but on which one has the coolest looking topsheet and the presence of whatever marketing term is in vogue at the moment (e.g., "rocker").

 

 

And whatever's on sale.

post #133 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adie View Post

I've resisted the temptation to get drawn into the 'I don't care about anyone but myself so why do you care about me' argument. There seems to be a fundamental flaw in this argument when posting. If you don't care then why are you posting about it unless you consider yourselves the judges of other people's right to think differently? Surely you must be able to appreciate that some people have an interest in more than themselves. It doesn't mean you have to but you should accept it in the same way I'm happy for you to carry on with your own thing.

 

The premise of this thread was never to attack the committed off piste skier or question the legitimacy of fat skis as I tried very hard to convey. It was to address the broader issue of whether the average recreational skier struggling around on predominantly groomed terrain was being best served by fat skis. It's not difficult but many on here have turned it into a rant about preserving their rights to ski fat. Look beyond yourselves when you think!

 

As for expert advice in ski shops. It would be grat to believe it happens all the time. It just doesn't. I know a number of the employees at one of my local shops who know their stuff but are just so tired of customers who come in already armed with the latest advertising propoganda that they just go along with it and sell them what they want, not what will serve them best.

 

Ok, to get back onto the original topic, I just don't see the same trend that you are seeing. I don't spend a huge amount of time in the local fridges, but I do ski indoors about once a month and most of my ski trips are to the Alps.

 

A vast majority (and I mean a really vast majority) of the skiers that I see are still on short, narrow carvers with short turn radii, a good portion of which are rentals. Only a very small number of skiers that I see in the Alps are on wide(ish) or fat skis, and they're all people who quite obviously know what they're doing. I only recall one time that I saw a mediocre skier on something too fat for his own good, and that was a guy trying to keep up with his buddies (who were pretty decent skiers) in St. Anton. So at the moment, I would not say that people are going too fat.

 

If anything, I'd say they're still too narrow. About half of the days I've spent in the Alps the last 5 years have been whiteout days or very low visibility. Even when it's not dumping down, there are plenty of days when the few cm's of fresh snow are piling up into small, soft bumps and catching out loads of people on short, skinny skis. They can't see the bumps because of the bad visibility, and they don't have the balance and skills to ride through these unexpected patches of snow on such small skis. So, they all topple over. I find it funny, but it's quite obviously frustrating for them.

 

Honestly, as I said before, I think the majority would be better off on something 85-95 mm with a length up to about eye level but preferably with a short(ish) turn radius. I don't think they have the skills to fully utilize a 65-70-mm ski or to drive such a short ski through mixed conditions/whiteout days. At the same time, they're not hunting the powder and getting into stuff where they'd need something over 100 mm. There are those who can fully utilize skinnier or fatter skis, but they know who they are and they buy what they need to do what they want.

post #134 of 317

I'm on the East Coast and have a three ski quiver.  A 70mm hard snow ski, a 90mm daily driver and a 116mm powder ski.  I like all three skis (though I barely skiied the latter last year), but if I were going to go for a one ski quiver, it would likely be in the 85-98mm range, most likely on the top half of that for where I ski.  I agree that going much bigger than 100 or 105 for a one ski quiver in the East might be a bit too optimistic, but I really haven't seen that many people doing so.

post #135 of 317

To each his own.

 

With super fat skis it doesn't matter if there is 6" of fresh snow, or 6 feet. It skis the same. What a shame. To me, riding on top is not as much fun as skiing IN the deep stuff with an 80-something mm ski. Plenty of float but still much quicker edge-to-edge and more fun to rip arcs with for someone who has spent lots of time on race skis and enjoys that feeling. Edge hold is one thing, and the quickness of a narrow waist is yet another.

 

Now when it comes to crud - yes, on top is the place to be and a wider ski certainly helps.

 

All trends seem to go to excess, then come back to a more optimum point. The skinny skis at 205cm+, shaped skis then got shorter & shorter until they were too short, now fat skis keep getting wider & wider and...

 

Someone made a good point about the rocker skis reducing the need for width to achieve float, the result being a more versatile ski. Maybe super fats are already a dinosaur. The evolution continues...

post #136 of 317

seriously guys?  5 pages??

post #137 of 317

we're hoping it morphs into something useful... 

post #138 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basement Ski Tech View Post

To each his own.

 

With super fat skis it doesn't matter if there is 6" of fresh snow, or 6 feet. It skis the same. What a shame. To me, riding on top is not as much fun as skiing IN the deep stuff with an 80-something mm ski. Plenty of float but still much quicker edge-to-edge and more fun to rip arcs with for someone who has spent lots of time on race skis and enjoys that feeling. Edge hold is one thing, and the quickness of a narrow waist is yet another.

 

Now when it comes to crud - yes, on top is the place to be and a wider ski certainly helps.

 

All trends seem to go to excess, then come back to a more optimum point. The skinny skis at 205cm+, shaped skis then got shorter & shorter until they were too short, now fat skis keep getting wider & wider and...

 

Someone made a good point about the rocker skis reducing the need for width to achieve float, the result being a more versatile ski. Maybe super fats are already a dinosaur. The evolution continues...


Exactly, ski what you like. I prefer skiing on top of powder and through crud. That does require 2 different skis though, although nothing is as good as a narrow waisted ski on hard pack...just magical.
post #139 of 317

Those little water bugs that use the surface tension to glide around on top of the water have incredible maneuverability, but they have no idea how deep the water is. Some people would rather be a porpoise than a bug, but they are all enjoying the environment they choose to use, whether it be two dimensional or three.

post #140 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by HippieFlippinNM View Post

seriously guys?  5 pages??

 

So?

 

That's my contribution toward getting to 6 pages....

post #141 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

What is fat and what is mid and what is thin now?

 

If a 90mm ski has a TR of 16, then is it too fat? In other words, is this an argument based soley on width and not ski characteristics such as TR, Sidecut and flex. etc.?

 

This ^^^^. I'm seeing a trend toward "fat" skis with low front rocker/early rise, traditional middle and mild to traditional tail, deepish sidecut, plenty of lateral stiffness but softer longitudinal. Head REV105, Armada TST, ON3P Vicik, Fischer Big Stix 110, Prior Husume, Dynastar Cham 107, Elan 1010 come to mind, seem aimed at a skier who uses them as all-mountain. Are they the same "fat" skis as those with less sidecut and a design that likes higher speeds on soft snow, like the Kastle BMX108, PMGear 183 Fat, Gotama, Moment Belafonte, or Cochise? What about skis like the Kastle FX104, or the Wailer 105? Is a fat ski without rocker still a fat ski? Or is a narrower ski with rocker that handles soft snow well (think W99, Outland 87, Bushwacker) not a fat ski?

post #142 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basement Ski Tech View Post

 What a shame. To me, riding on top is not as much fun as skiing IN the deep stuff with an 80-something mm ski. Plenty of float but still much quicker edge-to-edge and more fun to rip arcs with for someone who has spent lots of time on race skis and enjoys that feeling. Edge hold is one thing, and the quickness of a narrow waist is yet another.

 

 

Of course the assumption you're making is that folks on fat skis in powder don't know what it's like to ski it in an 80'something ski, or 68 for that matter. I'm guessing several of us are old enough to have been there, done that, and seen the whole progression. The revelation for me back at the beginning of the whole 'phat' thing was the Rossi Bandit XXX ver 1.0. What was it? 86 underfoot? And maybe 110 or something in the shovel? And certainly NOT a quick ski in 193 with two sheets of metal, but could be skied fast and fearlessly enough to get up and surf on pretty much anything. IMHO the old gen 1.0 XXX is not nearly as versatile as the Rossi E98, but it's still a better pure powder ski. So much for waist size, eh? smile.gif

post #143 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

This ^^^^. I'm seeing a trend toward "fat" skis with low front rocker/early rise, traditional middle and mild to traditional tail, deepish sidecut, plenty of lateral stiffness but softer longitudinal. Head REV105, Armada TST, ON3P Vicik, Fischer Big Stix 110, Prior Husume, Dynastar Cham 107, Elan 1010 come to mind, seem aimed at a skier who uses them as all-mountain. Are they the same "fat" skis as those with less sidecut and a design that likes higher speeds on soft snow, like the Kastle BMX108, PMGear 183 Fat, Gotama, Moment Belafonte, or Cochise? What about skis like the Kastle FX104, or the Wailer 105? Is a fat ski without rocker still a fat ski? Or is a narrower ski with rocker that handles soft snow well (think W99, Outland 87, Bushwacker) not a fat ski?

 

thanks, yes and you got my point. Its pretty simple, we need to dump the terms as they aren't really helpful beyond a general tendency and certainly don't tell the story.  Talk about confusion to the consumer

 

Shop-rat to Joe-weekend skier:

Hey this ski can really carve but is fairly fat; its really sweet on the groomers, its 87 underfoot, not really fat, its kinda like a mid that ski's like a skinny ski.....

post #144 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

I am getting too fat, just not in the ski department.... biggrin.gif....

You're getting to FAST  not too FAT....... biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

 

 

post #145 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by huhh View Post


Exactly, ski what you like. I prefer skiing on top of powder and through crud. That does require 2 different skis though, although nothing is as good as a narrow waisted ski on hard pack...just magical.

 

although nothing is as good as a narrow waisted ski on hard pack...just magical.

 

HERE HERE! HARUMMPH!

post #146 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basement Ski Tech View Post

although nothing is as good on hard pack as a narrow waisted ski...just magical.

 

Fixed it. Because there are things better than hardpack.  


I've mentioned before that carving is the most overrated skill.  

post #147 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

 

Of course the assumption you're making is that folks on fat skis in powder don't know what it's like to ski it in an 80'something ski, or 68 for that matter. I'm guessing several of us are old enough to have been there, done that, and seen the whole progression. The revelation for me back at the beginning of the whole 'phat' thing was the Rossi Bandit XXX ver 1.0. What was it? 86 underfoot? And maybe 110 or something in the shovel? And certainly NOT a quick ski in 193 with two sheets of metal, but could be skied fast and fearlessly enough to get up and surf on pretty much anything. IMHO the old gen 1.0 XXX is not nearly as versatile as the Rossi E98, but it's still a better pure powder ski. So much for waist size, eh? smile.gif

 

So much for waist size, eh? smile.gif

 

If your intent is to say that waist size doesn't really matter, I will respectfully disagree (politely so, because you have "skied the whole progression" not just the latest fad, and have a large base of experience from which to formulate an opinion). I know wide-ish skis have great edge hold these days. However, anyone who clicks into a pair of Atomic D2 GS with a 67.5 waist, starts throwing them side to side in deep carves with quick transitions, or better yet, the D2 SL with a 65 waist, will say "Wow, there is a big difference between that and an 80-90-100+ waisted ski."

 

Whether you are on "ice skates" or "fatties" doesn't matter as long as you are having fun.

post #148 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee View Post

 

Fixed it. Because there are things better than hardpack.  


I've mentioned before that carving is the most overrated skill.  

 

Experience tells me that carving skills come in handy when being towed behind a boat on a glassy lake, during a crappy winter like last year when there is no good snow, and at Thanksgiving.

 

Oh, and some people make some neat signs to hang up at their cabin.

post #149 of 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basement Ski Tech View Post

 

So much for waist size, eh? smile.gif

 

If your intent is to say that waist size doesn't really matter, I will respectfully disagree (politely so, because you have "skied the whole progression" not just the latest fad, and have a large base of experience from which to formulate an opinion). I know wide-ish skis have great edge hold these days. However, anyone who clicks into a pair of Atomic D2 GS with a 67.5 waist, starts throwing them side to side in deep carves with quick transitions, or better yet, the D2 SL with a 65 waist, will say "Wow, there is a big difference between that and an 80-90-100+ waisted ski."

 

Whether you are on "ice skates" or "fatties" doesn't matter as long as you are having fun.

 

Absolutely no doubt about the bolded at all! smile.gif  My point was that aside from waist measurements, there's been some very drastic changes in torsional stability. One of the reasons I think the gen 1 XXX skied over everything so well was that the front 12-15" of the ski was quite soft and acted like a defacto 'rocker' riding up and over everything. Conversly, the E-98 is much more of a piste oriented ski with a much stiffer tip that isn't quite as nice in powder even though wider overall, but we're comparing skis that are now more than a decade apart in the progression, so the only conclusion to make is that I'm just rattling on about stuff that really doesn't matter much. smile.gif  The red bit... now that's the whole deal!

post #150 of 317

If someone needs to ski a fattie in less than a 15" dump they need to take a lesson.

 

This is a descent powder ski for most resorts (excluding Utah, Tahoe, Cascades)

 

http://www.race-werks.com/head-world-cup-i-sl-race-skis-2012-system/

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Is everyone going just too fat?