or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Skis over 75mm underfoot in the East,...Why?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skis over 75mm underfoot in the East,...Why?

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 

We just don't get the snow that is soft enough to use them

 

I've got the full quiver, from the Explosiv on down  but run the skinny skis most. (Fischer RC4's are nice)  I like the leverage ;-

 

why go fat?  I just don't see it.

 

Comments?

post #2 of 41

Thanks for posting this. The previous couple hundred threads on the same topic just kept beating the dead horse, but I'm sure this one will settle things once and for all.

post #3 of 41

I'm from the east also and was on the "who needs fatter skis?" bandwagon for a long time.  That said, I am now considering giving up my 72mm carvers.  The fatter skis I have tried recently (Kendo, Bones, Experience 88, and my own Scotts) don't really give up that much in the end regarding quickness and grip, at least for me.  I'm sure if you're carving NASTAR or World Cup turns they do -- but for me.... eh...

 

The wider skis are more amenable in crud, chopped, and mixed conditions (I'm always looking for some fresh or ungroomed), and they are a more stable platform -- something I never even thought about before.  I guess if you are ONLY mach schnell through immaculate groomers, there's no reason to go wide.  But that's not my ski experience, even here in the east.

post #4 of 41

I'm not really sure about this, but I was wondering skiers need to wear helmets? Anyone?

post #5 of 41

SHOULD I WEAR A BEACON FOR RESORT POW? thx
 

post #6 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusBrody View Post

I'm not really sure about this, but I was wondering skiers need to wear helmets? Anyone?

 

Can we talk about Knee Bindings? 

post #7 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusBrody View Post

I'm not really sure about this, but I was wondering skiers need to wear helmets? Anyone?

I've been thinking a lot about this lately.

What's the general opinion on helmets? And what's this I hear about heated vests???
post #8 of 41

Fat twin-tips are the new snowboards.

Fat skis are in. Skinny skis are what you grandpa skied on in his one-piece ski suit.

post #9 of 41

I primarily ski 67mm underfoot in the East, and love carving the hardpack/ice.  I also have a set of 75mm underfoot for speed, and have generally asked the same question, "Why fat?" in the East.

 

Recently I got the chance to demo a couple sets of 98mm skis, and WOW did I eat my words.  Did they carve as well as my 67mm or 75mm?  No.  Could they do things my skinnies couldn't?  Absolutely.

 

The wider skis are far more stable on pretty much anything other than hardpack groomers (and icy bumps).  They eat up mixed conditions that my skinnies could only dream of.  Plus, the wider ones are good for the deeper days as Josh shows.

 

If all I did was groomers in the East, I'd only use my slalom skis.  But for the rest of the mountain experience, wider skis are the way to go.  I was a naysayer too, but kept an open mind, and now I'm a convert.  I will NOT be getting rid of my skinny carvers, but I WILL be buying a new set of 98mm to round out and expand my experiences and skill set.

 

Wider skis are a tool, not an end-all and be-all for anyone and anything in the East.  If you approach it with that perspective, then wider skis have a very strong purpose and use.

post #10 of 41

Rode the lift with a guy on 1980s mogul slicers a few days ago.  My K2s are 80mm and you could put both of his skis together and they would've about equaled one of mine as far as width.  We were both killing it and having fun.  That's what matters. 

post #11 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Fat twin-tips are the new snowboards.

Fat skis are in. Skinny skis are what you grandpa skied on in his one-piece ski suit.

Ohhh the one pieces!  Definitely far from a grandpa, but I remember rocking some epic neon one pieces in the 90s.  Come to think of it, neon is back....

post #12 of 41

WELL BECAUSE MODERN SKIS THAT ARE 100 UINDERFOOT ARE PERFECT FOR SKIING IN ALL CONDITIONS

 

who would have thought, ski technology has IMPROVED since the 80s ;)

post #13 of 41

I have been on record stating that for "most" eastern skiing, a ski in the 80-90 MM width underfoot is all you need.  When I say "most" I mean the type of skiing that the vast majority of skiers do which is 90% on trail.  Of course there are exeptions to every rule, and if you ski exclusively at Jay Peak or Mad River a slightly wider ski might be an asset, but really, a 90mm ski should suffice there as well.

 

Now if you ski exclusively at the smaller areas in the east or mid atlantic like I do, something in the 80-85 mm range should be all you need.  I have never felt the need for a wider ski when skiing my regular hills in Western NY or Western PA.  When skiing the bumps around me here in OH, I have never felt the need for anything wider than my race skis.

 

My own personal quiver consists of 2 pairs of 68 mm race skis for my race league.  A pair of 80mm all mountains for my east coast free skiing and a pair of 98mm all mountains for my trips out west.

 

Of course, YMMV....

 

Rick G


Edited by rickg - 3/19/13 at 3:41pm
post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAHRASTAFARI View Post

WELL BECAUSE MODERN SKIS THAT ARE 100 UINDERFOOT ARE PERFECT FOR SKIING IN ALL CONDITIONS

 

who would have thought, ski technology has IMPROVED since the 80s ;)

 

 

Annoying troller is trolling a troll. 

post #15 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickg View Post

I have been on record stating that for "most" eastern skiing, a ski in the 80-90 MM width underfoot is all you need.  When I say "most" I mean the type of skiing that the vast majority of skiers do which is 90% on trail.  Of course there are exeptions to every rule, and if you ski exclusively at Jay Peak or Mad River a slightly wider ski might be an asset, but really, a 90mm ski should suffice there as well.

 

Now if you ski exclusively at the smaller areas in the east or mid atlantic like I do, something in the 80-85 mm range should be all you need.  I have ever felt the need for a wider ski when skiing my regular hills in Western NY or Western PA.  When skiing the bumps around me here in OH, I have never felt the need for anything wider than my race skis.

 

My own personal quiver consists of 2 pairs of 68 mm race skis for my race league.  A pair of 80mm all mountains for my east coast free skiing and a pair of 98mm all mountains for my trips out west.

 

Of course, YMMV....

 

Rick G

 

Now if you ski exclusively at the smaller areas in the east or mid atlantic like I do, something in the 80-85 mm range should be all you need. I have ever felt the need for a wider ski when skiing my regular hills in Western NY or Western PA. When skiing the bumps around me here in OH, I have never felt the need for anything wider than my race skis.

 

Agreed with this.  Absolutely agreed.  Tough year to travel outside of the NE and this year have skied Camelback to Sugarloaf on a 66mm slalom ski or on a 82mm waist when skiing with my 5 year old daughter and have had a great season.  80-85mm is enough for a majority of recreational skiers out there who want to enjoy the day.  A majority of the consumers, non-technical and non super aggressive, who ski maybe 8-14 days will enjoy the benefits of a properly selected ski that is not greater than 85mm. But at 80mm most consumers will be able to go out, ski the hard pack with confidence and be able to motor through the crud when necessary.  Isn't that the goal of skiing?  To simply enjoy the day without over thinking the equipment aspect?      

post #16 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallyk View Post

  Isn't that the goal of skiing?  To simply enjoy the day without over thinking the equipment aspect?      

You sir are making crazy talk here. rolleyes.gif

post #17 of 41

 

 

Why do people wear pants that hang half or all the way off their asses?  It's as much about the steeze as it is about actual performance.  I can't ski a NASTAR course faster on skis over 90mm than I can on 60s-70s but I can certainly survive everything else the in bounds groomed trails have to offer and look super cool doing it...or at least think I do.  Honestly, it's not really any of my concern what other people choose to ski on or ski in so long as it isn't presenting a danger to others on the mountain. 

post #18 of 41

It seems like this fad is starting up in the east this season. I see all these fat skis, and I also wonder what is the point?

post #19 of 41

Depends on the location and conditions, I suppose.  I normally sport 67mm carvers for all local hills, and even large hills (Vermont) for the hardpack.  My fat ski is 98mm and it comes out for fresh snow, off piste, and trips out West.  HOWEVER, I do find the 98mm is certainly capable on the groomers for large hills, though definitely not as powerful or quick as my 67mm skis.  But that doesn't concern me, because if I break out the 98mm set then I'm looking for all around terrain, not groomer lapping on a 13m radius snow knife.  As a result, my approach is different, so my ski choice is different, and I take the fatty out.

 

I am only very recently a fatty convert, to a degree.  I still see the value in a skinny carver, but I do love the stability of the fatty, even though it has limitations on the hardpack/ice compared to the skinny.

 

It's kind of like an SUV vs a Sports car.  Both can be awesome, but for different uses, in different weather, on different roads.  Same deal with my skis, even in the East, so I have the skinny and fatty as my disposal for whatever condition and location requires the appropriate tool for the day.  

post #20 of 41

I bought a pair of Fischer Progressor 9+ (70mm) after demo'g them on groomers and hard pack.  Had a great time on them until I went to Smugglers Notch and skied in ungroomed powder and mixed snow conditions.  They were a LOT of work to keep under control and my legs were wiped out by noon.

 

I noticed that a lot of people were skiing wider skis that day so a few weeks later I demo'd Kastle MX88's and bought a pair.  The 88mm underfoot is FAR better in the conditions like I experienced at Smuggs and 90% of what I got from the P9's on hard pack.

 

I've been skiing the Kastle's all season in all conditions and love the 88mm width.  I only ski the P9's if I know it's going to be hard pack and ice all over the mountain.  

post #21 of 41

Good points.  I think there's a misconception that "fat" (what exactly is the threshold, BTW???) suck on the hardpack.  Simply not true.  May not be as good as an SL or GS ski, but still extremely capable.  That's like saying a Boxster sucks on the street because it's not a Bugatti.  It's simply a question of degree.

post #22 of 41

Now that comment is right on! Why would anyone here over analyze what type of ski to bring?  smile.gif

post #23 of 41

Further agreement;  the term "fat" seems no longer relevant as a generic category. I would argue that the terms front-side carver, all mountain, powder, etc. do a better job, and that within each of those categories you can start to introduce secondary, qualifying terms like stiff, damp, relatively narrow/wide.  This would allow a powder ski to be relatively narrow but soft and lively for those that like to porpoise deep into and out of the snow, or a front-side carver to be wider for those that want a little more stability and functionality in that slight mid-day softening of hard snow/ice. Big and all mountain gets a little more fuzzy, but the approach still works. 

 

Geezer nostalgia/mumbling:  I do have to smile about "fat" skis, as I seem to recall that initially they were considered to be cheater skis for old farts, looked upon with sneering disdain by both traditionalists and youth alike.

post #24 of 41

I have two pairs of skis that I ski regularly. A 99mm underfoot twin tip, and a 72mm underfoot carver. The 99mm can do about 90% of what the carver can do, but the carver can only do about 50% of what the fatty can. The carver only beats the fatty for straight arc-to-arc carving on hardpack or ice. Everything else, the fatty wins hands down. And since I only spend about 10% of my midseason time on groomers, the fatty is a much better option for me. And late season corn and mashed potatoes, the fatty is much better as well.

post #25 of 41

For your consideration- a review of a 159-139-154 ski, presented as an everyday ski. At Killington.

 

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/138848-Bluehouse-Maven-Review

 

Not my review, and I have a really difficult time buying into it, but I think it shows that people buy skis for what they want to do. Not everybody terribly cares about digging carve trenches on every turn, and are willing to sacrifice a lot of performance there for other factors. Pretty much anything will feel just fine down a groomed slope, and most stuff with a capable skier can be brought down bulletproof ice.  Obviously there are better tools, but the same can be said for a 68mm waist ski on a cut up heavy crud day.

post #26 of 41

Okay, I haven't read enough of these millions of threads, so a quick question:

what's "wide enough" to start enjoying the powder?

 

(Yes, I come from the 80s running on slalom skis for moguls wearing my 1-piece suit.)

post #27 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by rx2ski View Post

....., so a quick question:

what's "wide enough" to start enjoying the powder?

 

 

That's entirely up to you. 

post #28 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

For your consideration- a review of a 159-139-154 ski, presented as an everyday ski. At Killington.

 

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/138848-Bluehouse-Maven-Review

 

Not my review, and I have a really difficult time buying into it, but I think it shows that people buy skis for what they want to do. Not everybody terribly cares about digging carve trenches on every turn, and are willing to sacrifice a lot of performance there for other factors. Pretty much anything will feel just fine down a groomed slope, and most stuff with a capable skier can be brought down bulletproof ice.  Obviously there are better tools, but the same can be said for a 68mm waist ski on a cut up heavy crud day.

This sums up my "all-mountain" ski argument.  I bought P01 Palmers last year that are 89mm underfoot, and I love them.  A dream in the crud, above average in bumps, powder and soft groomers, and ok on icy groomers.  I'm fine with that, who likes skiing ice?  My only regret is maybe not going a little wider.  My brother just demo'd a few skis in the mid-90s, and he raved in particular about the Sentinel, which is 94.

post #29 of 41

You know, it's highly situational. Back east in Ontario where off-piste doesn't exist and where there are practically no new snow days (I experienced 3 new snow days in my 80+ ski days in Ontario), I can't understand why anyone would hamper themselves with a ski wider than 75mm. There's just nothing to "do better" on a wider ski, and groomer performance just can't compete. And for skiing the two bump runs at mount st. louis, I'd suggest a softer ski, not a wider ski. This doesn't really apply to park skiers.

 

I recognize there are many places other than Ontario in the East. However, many eastern provinces and states have similar terrain and conditions. 

post #30 of 41

because we have 249 inch of stowe.

 

 

and Copper has 134 inches....

 

 

why would anyone use fat skis in colorado?

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 › Skis over 75mm underfoot in the East,...Why?