or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Fat ski craze going to die off?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fat ski craze going to die off? - Page 4

post #91 of 130
I'm not convinced everyone skiing powder is at the same pleasure level. Just making turns and going down is not the goal.

I've been making short bouncing S turns in powder since the 80s. (see current "powder signature's" thread) For more than a decade I've had season passes at a resort frequently at the top of season snow totals so I've skied a lot of fresh. And I often storm ski and love dense trees. I can ski a long ways in most drier powder conditions without expending much energy or breathing hard. Even decades ago I chose one of the wider good floatation skis of those days versus traditional width skis. Currently I tend to ski powder with my 1968 PowderKarves (midfat waste 74cm) when sinking depths are less than mid thigh and Chubbs (fat 89cm waste) when deeper. Personally I most enjoy bouncing turns in powder and am clueless as to why some others seem to prefer big fast sweeping turns or straightlining powder. Can understand why it makes for a more interesting extreme skiing video but such just looks like show to me. Can make some big sweeping turns on my Chubbs but fail to experience whatever others make a big deal of. To me big sweeping turns on steeps are not much different than say cranking big turns on windblown powder on a steep face like Dave's at Mammoth. Yeah its a thrill but to me different than powder bouncing. Maybe I ought to demo some of the new age fat skis?
post #92 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utah49
Give it a year or two you will see lots of people dumping those skis. I already have seen that here in Utah sure fats will still be around but they won't be as popular as they are now. you wont see people attempting to turn a 100mm ski in 4 inches of fluff. But to each his own.
I will bring out my chiefs anytime it snows more than about two inches, and they don't go away until the entire hill is devoid of soft stuff. They do almost as well on the groomed as skinnier skis, so why not? I can throw them around in tight spots and I can ski moguls on them, whats the problem.

You asked if Nobis skis on his fat skis a week after a storm. Yes. I've skied with him and also Gordy Piefer and Brant Moles, they were all on thier fat skis. Nobis on legend pros, Moles on scratch BC, Piefer on 195 B3's. If you are skiing off piste they are just better 90% of the time.

Marmot, you keep asking why people want to ski on top of the snow rather than in it? First off, you still get face shots on fat skis. But what is the best powder day? BOTTOMLESS! With fat skis you get the bottomless snow feeling alot sooner than you do with skinny skis. Isn't that fun? Also, I think you over estimate what fat skis do for peoples abilities. Yes, it makes it easier for intermediates to ski 25 degree pow fields but I don't think you will see many of them billy-goating down a steep, cliff-strewn face or in a tight, 45 degree chute. You can still challenge yourself on fat skis. I'm sorry you feel threatened by technology, I felt the same way about the internet.
post #93 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
I will bring out my chiefs anytime it snows more than about two inches, and they don't go away until the entire hill is devoid of soft stuff. They do almost as well on the groomed as skinnier skis, so why not? I can throw them around in tight spots and I can ski moguls on them, whats the problem.

You asked if Nobis skis on his fat skis a week after a storm. Yes. I've skied with him and also Gordy Piefer and Brant Moles, they were all on thier fat skis. Nobis on legend pros, Moles on scratch BC, Piefer on 195 B3's. If you are skiing off piste they are just better 90% of the time.

Marmot, you keep asking why people want to ski on top of the snow rather than in it? First off, you still get face shots on fat skis. But what is the best powder day? BOTTOMLESS! With fat skis you get the bottomless snow feeling alot sooner than you do with skinny skis. Isn't that fun? Also, I think you over estimate what fat skis do for peoples abilities. Yes, it makes it easier for intermediates to ski 25 degree pow fields but I don't think you will see many of them billy-goating down a steep, cliff-strewn face or in a tight, 45 degree chute. You can still challenge yourself on fat skis. I'm sorry you feel threatened by technology, I felt the same way about the internet.

I agree with zion zig zag. I rarely ski skis under 85 at the waist regardless of the weather. I feel they provide me with better stabilty and they give me more confidence.
My question to you would be if skiing fat skis on hard snow is more difficult than skiing on skinny boards, does that make me a better skier? nop. not really. Whatever ski you have the most fun on is what you should be on. There seems to be too much emphasis on the tool and not the craftsmen in this thread. Im glad that a skinnier ski works for you, But dont call me a "cheater" or a poor skier because of my choice of ski.
post #94 of 130
heh. this thread is amazing.

i ski 97mm waisted skis every day.

if there is any new snow, i don't hit the bottom (death cookies, groomer, whatever it is). those of you on 68mm pansy skis do. You are skiing on the groomer underneath, I am skiing on the powder. Yes, the powder is breaking around your ankles and its only hitting my toes. But its what the bottom of your ski is touching that matters.

This goes down as one of the most retarded threads in the history of forums. Nice trolling.
post #95 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
I will bring out my chiefs anytime it snows more than about two inches, and they don't go away until the entire hill is devoid of soft stuff. They do almost as well on the groomed as skinnier skis, so why not? I can throw them around in tight spots and I can ski moguls on them, whats the problem.

You asked if Nobis skis on his fat skis a week after a storm. Yes. I've skied with him and also Gordy Piefer and Brant Moles, they were all on thier fat skis. Nobis on legend pros, Moles on scratch BC, Piefer on 195 B3's. If you are skiing off piste they are just better 90% of the time.

Marmot, you keep asking why people want to ski on top of the snow rather than in it? First off, you still get face shots on fat skis. But what is the best powder day? BOTTOMLESS! With fat skis you get the bottomless snow feeling alot sooner than you do with skinny skis. Isn't that fun? Also, I think you over estimate what fat skis do for peoples abilities. Yes, it makes it easier for intermediates to ski 25 degree pow fields but I don't think you will see many of them billy-goating down a steep, cliff-strewn face or in a tight, 45 degree chute. You can still challenge yourself on fat skis. I'm sorry you feel threatened by technology, I felt the same way about the internet.
Amen Brother! CAN I GET A WITNESS?!?
post #96 of 130
Guys, it's progression in the sport. So to solve this whole debate, go buy a variety of ski movies from various producers starting in the mid 60's to today. Be sure that it's a wide variety of producers (Greg Stump, Warren Miller, TGR, Matchstick, etc.) Watch them all in chronological order. Decide for yourself when the sport has progressed enough for you to maximize your enjoyment, and get off the bus. Go buy whatever equipment makes you happy and be happy.

Personally, skiing big steep powder lines fast and hucking myself off of rocks and cornices gives me the most enjoyment, so I'll get the gear best suited to that activity (fat skis). If moguls and gates are your bag, stick with your race carvers. If 80 mph on hardpack floats your boat, stick with the 215's. To borrow an earlier analogy, would you take a racing bike on a mountain bike trail? No, you might kill yourself. Not for lack of skill, it's just that 3/4" tires in mud on a steep switchback don't really work. And what about taking a mountain bike racing? Sure it might work, it's just not the best suited tool for that.

Different tools for different activities, yet it's all skiing.
post #97 of 130
It's like a small and big screen TV's. You can watch the same movie on 10-inch or on 62-inch tv, but the bigger screen gives you more effects and picture clarity (specially if it's hidef). My point is that narrow and wide skis have different purposes that they were designed for and every skier wants to have equipment that gives him a best skiing performance.
post #98 of 130
sappyboy makes sense. guess that's why I have 5 mountain bikes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJSapp
Guys, it's progression in the sport. So to solve this whole debate, go buy a variety of ski movies from various producers starting in the mid 60's to today. Be sure that it's a wide variety of producers (Greg Stump, Warren Miller, TGR, Matchstick, etc.) Watch them all in chronological order. Decide for yourself when the sport has progressed enough for you to maximize your enjoyment, and get off the bus. Go buy whatever equipment makes you happy and be happy.

Personally, skiing big steep powder lines fast and hucking myself off of rocks and cornices gives me the most enjoyment, so I'll get the gear best suited to that activity (fat skis). If moguls and gates are your bag, stick with your race carvers. If 80 mph on hardpack floats your boat, stick with the 215's. To borrow an earlier analogy, would you take a racing bike on a mountain bike trail? No, you might kill yourself. Not for lack of skill, it's just that 3/4" tires in mud on a steep switchback don't really work. And what about taking a mountain bike racing? Sure it might work, it's just not the best suited tool for that.

Different tools for different activities, yet it's all skiing.
post #99 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
sappyboy makes sense. guess that's why I have 5 mountain bikes.

Yep. I remember when Atomic was first promoting Metrons as eliminating the need for a quiver of skis, a friend of mine said "ooo- we need those---in our quiver along with all our other super fats, slalom skis, speed skis etc."
post #100 of 130
Nothing like a penis-measuring contest to get a thread all hot and heavy. Oops did I say that out loud?
post #101 of 130
So, 3 years later, it seems that fat skis have pretty much died off....right?
post #102 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
So, 3 years later, it seems that fat skis have pretty much died off....right?
post #103 of 130
Genius bump, HS!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marmot mb View Post
Agreed Fat skis have their place. Ie back country, Heli, in bounds extreme off piste, nutball crazy stupid fast off piste jaunts etc...
What a toolbox...

post #104 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star View Post
So, 3 years later, it seems that fat skis have pretty much died off....right?
Just couldn't leave it alone could you...LOL

Man talk about back from the dead.

Is the OP still around ? Or is he hiding ?
post #105 of 130

Sorry, but I'm Feeling Philosophical

The Amish took a point in technological development and said it was as far as they ever wanted to go, and they seem to get along just fine. If there is a point in ski equipment evolution that you want to stop, go right ahead. Just like with the Amish, the rest of us won't pay much attention.

Skis are a personal a choice, and fortunately, we have more options than ever before. Yeah, fatties are a trend, but they have their advantages for both experts and beginners. Fat skis will not "die off" they will continue to evolve as part of the spectrum of choices. Maybe the super fatties will disappear for awhile, and then get rediscovered.

Once I quit worrying about what everybody else was skiing on I started enjoying skiing a lot more. I'm not really worried about the trends, I've got enough trouble just worrying about my skis.
post #106 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
The Amish took a point in technological development and said it was as far as they ever wanted to go, and they seem to get along just fine. If there is a point in ski equipment evolution that you want to stop, go right ahead. Just like with the Amish, the rest of us won't pay much attention.
Yeah, but there are also Mennonites and Hutterites who dress all Amish-esque but then drive F150s and have combines parked in the field.

My point: yes, it is about technology, but more importantly, it's about the *attitude* towards technology and the appearances of our use of it back to those with the same attitudes.

You're right: we can now choose from more types of skis than ever before. There is something for everyone.
post #107 of 130
The Amish don't ski inbounds extreme off-piste.
post #108 of 130
I believe it's a personal preference. Can you tell which picture the skier is on 91mm waist skis and which one he's on 65 mm waist skis?

post #109 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marmot mb View Post
to me snowboarding on powder is brain dead any knuckle dragger can do it.

This is why I wonder about fat skis.

Mark
I live in Aspen we get lots of fast dry snow. 98% of the people that come ski here with the fat boards struggle all day long. The equipment doesn't make it easier, most skiers on the hill still suck. It will always be that way.

I ski a 95mm waisted ski for everyday, but I do have a stiff pair of 88mm skis for hard days. I also have a pair of 98mm, 105mm, and 108mm skis.

In my opinion all the bigger skis do is make the mountain smaller!
post #110 of 130
Skiing is about having fun, not trying to see who's the best skier on crappy skis. IMHO, fat skis are the way to get the most enjoyment in Utah powder. Yes fat skis are here to stay.
post #111 of 130
Skiing on a ski with a wider waist makes it easier to turn in deep snow when going slower. I'd rather just ski faster on a conventional ski.
post #112 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
Skiing on a ski with a wider waist makes it easier to turn in deep snow when going slower. I'd rather just ski faster on a conventional ski.
That statement could not be more untrue, unless you said you could beat me down the hill on your skinnys.
post #113 of 130
Skiing heavier eastern snow is just much more work, and you can ski more runs on fatter skis when it's the heavy stuff. Lighter snow it doesn't matter so much. If you live in the Rockies it's hard to appreciate what us east and west coasters put up with. I like wide in spring mush too.

Skiing in deep, light western powder is a joy to behold. If you have felt it, you know what I'm talking about. I lived in Colorado for 5 years before shaped skis, and got many powder days. So what if the other guy is on top on his 130mm skis.

I had a day last year that was illuminating. There was 8 inches of what passes for eastern powder on top of a firm but breakable crust, with more fresh under the crust. I was at a small VT hill on a weekday, and nearly had the place to myself. On 85mm waist skiis, I was sinking into the crust in the turn and tripping on it constantly. No fun. I switched up to 98mm waist, and it was a whole different day. The crust was no longer a problem, and it was a blast. This is the first time I felt a wider ski was really necessary.

There is such a thing as the right tool for the day.

I still like the quicker response of a narrow ski on packed snow.
post #114 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
Skiing on a ski with a wider waist makes it easier to turn in deep snow when going slower. I'd rather just ski faster on a conventional ski.
No, that is not what a wide ski does in deep snow.
post #115 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
I believe it's a personal preference. Can you tell which picture the skier is on 91mm waist skis and which one he's on 65 mm waist skis?(snip)
If these were videos I could. But in still pictures of course not, why would you expect somebody to be able to?
post #116 of 130
I am here to post in this important thread.
post #117 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
I am here to post in this important thread.





























for Completely Shameless Post Count Padding. Bravo!































post #118 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
I am here to post in this important thread.
I'm here to say that as the resident EpicSki hermit-in-favor-of-skinny-skis I can't believe that I haven't posted in this thread previously.
post #119 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
Skiing on a ski with a wider waist makes it easier to turn in deep snow when going slower. I'd rather just ski faster on a conventional ski.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lloyd braun View Post
That statement could not be more untrue, unless you said you could beat me down the hill on your skinnys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahPowderPig View Post
No, that is not what a wide ski does in deep snow.
So it isn't easier to turn when you have less snow on top of your skis? So it isn't easier to turn when you are running 6 inches deep instead of 24 inches deep? Every time (a about a dozen OK?) I've skied in Colorado or New Mexico snow over 18 inches deep what I recall is that the first few turns were fairly strenuous hoppy turns but once you got up to floating speed you can surf kind of like getting up on water skis and it requires less up and down motion at that point. My premise is that you reach that running speed/float speed at a lower velocity on a ski with more surface area. That said, you can turn easier at a slower speed on wide skis than you can on narrow skis. But I will agree that the first few hop turns on a wide ski may be harder than the first few hop turns on a narrower ski.
post #120 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
The Amish don't ski inbounds extreme off-piste.
You sir are correct, the furthest they will go is "extreme off piste", inbounds implies a lift (not Amish friendly). Where as "off piste" means not groomed (very Amish friendly). Extreme usually just means that the person speaking is a complete douche bag.

Now nutball crazy stupid, that's Mennonite territory...
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 › Fat ski craze going to die off?