or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mid fat defined

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
What is the true definition of a mid fat? Is it a minimum number of millimeters for the shovel, waist, tail?

I'm aware that a fatter ski will be better for powder, but will be sacrificed (performance wise) using a wider ski? :
post #2 of 11
Good question! I think, but I'm not sure, that mid-fat starts at 68 mm of waist. If you ski the Rossignol Bandit XX with a 74 mm waist, you won't really sacrifice much of anything. I've enjoyed it on piste and off piste, and in skiing it I never have felt piste off.

[ November 05, 2002, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: oboe ]
post #3 of 11
The real answer is that there is no "true", government approved, official definition.

For example, this year, I think that one of the ski mags (Powder?) classified the 10ex and g4 as mid-fats, even though they have tips around 116 mm and waists around 83 mm.

From the way these skis handle, I kinda agree with that classification, however, most other people probably still feel that the upper limit to mid-fats is around 75-78 mm (waist), and hence skis like the 10ex and g4 should be called lite-fats (or something similar).

The lower boundary to real "fats" is generally considered to be around 90 mm (waist), and some people have informally termed skis over 100 mm (waist) as "super-fats".

As Oboe pointed out earlier, the lower boundary to the mid-fat range is pretty well agreed upon to be in the 68-70 mm (waist) range.


Tom / PM
post #4 of 11
Originally posted by PhysicsMan:
... should be called lite-fats (or something similar).
Call them bush-wackers. The etymology derives from the term "bush-wa-gras," an Anglicization of the French bourgeoisie grasse, or upper-middle fats.
post #5 of 11
'Mid Fat' along with every other category, is defined by the way marketing personnel from ski companies choose to. Case in point, the rise of the 'Skiercross' category. These are really just detuned GS skis are they not?
post #6 of 11
I don't know. I thought "Cross" skis evolved from the "Extreme" era, in which hot skis had an "X" in their name (Salomon X-Scream, K2 X-15, followed by Mod-X and finally Axis-X, and of course Rossi Bandits, with which you can have as many X's as you want), because a cross is kind of the same as an X, if you think about it. Now "Crossmax" gets you the best of both worlds, because it's modern (i.e., "cross") AND it has an X. It also subtly reminds people of "MadMax," the early Mel Gibson Action-Adventure vehicle that launched his career, back before he found out he was an American.
post #7 of 11
Daevious, that is very impressive, but you have inadvertently exposed yourself to be a ski marketing guru.

post #8 of 11
Mel Gibson is American?
I thought he was Scottish, I mean, remember Braveheart?
"Streuth mate, you can take away our lives, but provided you throw another shrimp on the barby, you'll never take our freedom"

post #9 of 11
I thought it was that spare tire we get around our waist when we don't get to ski enough.
post #10 of 11
Thread Starter 
So a midfat is a ski that peaks out around 78mm at the waist and is considered a versatile, "cross" ski?
post #11 of 11
Originally posted by ski_steep:
So a midfat is a ski that peaks out around 78mm at the waist and is considered a versatile, "cross" ski?
I think that's as good a definition as any--although the "cross" in a lot of cases is probably meant more to be a tie-in to the demolition-derby style pseudo-sport you might see on MTV than to imply versatility, so you might consider leaving it out.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion