or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Are skis getting too fat?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are skis getting too fat?

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
I thought they were, but now even fat skis are becoming very versatile. I
remember when my 1080s (80 under foot) were considered "fat", especially in the east. I must admit, however, that I have personally gotten caught up in using fat skis for all-around applications and find them wonderfully adaptable. My "thinnest" pair for resort/most New England BC are Black Diamond Crossbows at 83 mm under foot (I guess that is called mid-fat now...weird how definitions change!). They are stiff, can rail groomers, hold an edge on ice, kill crud, and handle powder..just not the best tree ski (likes large turns at high speeds in open spaces), but I don't really hit the trees unless there's fresh snow. When there are freshies (4"+) to be had, I pull out the 90 under foot Jak BCs, and use them on longer tours in variable snow. But I've found the 83 under foot to be my most versatile ski in the east.

To be honest, I don't miss my older under 80 mm skis at all - even for a quiver of one, I'd recommend 80 mm or over under foot nowadays. Or am I just caught up in the craze? Other thoughts?
post #2 of 26
No, but I am.
post #3 of 26
Thread Starter 
that's the reason our skis are getting larger under the waist as well, eh?
post #4 of 26
I think it's more hype than progress. Tele is a little different thou b/c the boot sole itself is much wider (at least in the toe). I recently posted some thing similar about the fattening up of next season's K2s. I think most folks are being had by the ski co. hype & marketing
post #5 of 26
I ski my 87mmm waisted CV-Karmas almost all the time. I really don't think they give up much to my Superspeeds or P-60s. The Gotamas are a different story though.
post #6 of 26
I think snow plays a huge role: you can get away w/ a fatty in slush, soft, corn, or pow-pow....but watch a average joe on "man-made-packed-powder" on a pair of pistols & you'll get a show for sure!!!!

Out here in the east there is just no need, unless you're talking quiver
post #7 of 26
Fat Skis make it easier to plow through crud, slop and slush while maintaining speed. In shorter lengths they are still very light and quick for short radius turns. They are fun. For me, I chose the Dynastar Legend 4800 (newer version of the popular Infinitiv 74), an excellent ski.

I am in New England; At least a two quiver ski solution is best here. 1 super carver, [for early morning piste cordoroy and ice/hard pack through out the day] and 1 mid fat ski, [to easily handle end of day slop and junk piled up, also for when you are more tired and lazy from skiing all-day]
The 2 ski combination allows 8 hours of maximum ski fun, speed and play.

The carvers I'm looking at are, Volkl P60, Rossignol 9S Oversized, Fisher Rx8, Dynastar Omnicarve. Any super carver suggestions? Thanks all.

Bill
post #8 of 26
I have 2 skis (the Elan M662 and the Elan HCX Hyper), but I never switch them mid-day, regardless of conditions.

The longer, wider 662 is easier to ski, especially in rough snow or at high speed. It definitely has a GS feel to it so it performs superbly on groomed too. The short HCX (with only 63mm waist) can be challenging in rough snow, but it builds solid skills. Frankly I would hate to be on the same ski all the time. Switching skis is fun, so I do it all the time.

But I can see the attraction to wider skis. They eliminates the need for finesse and precision and they are jack of all trades (and masters of none ).
post #9 of 26
Froto-Without knowing more about you, I'd still add in a Fischer World Cup SC to that list. in my Sunapee Demo Day Round 2 thread I reviewed the skis you mentioned and more, The Fischer was my favorite of the day.
post #10 of 26
I generally ski on Legend 8000's in the east. I think that 80 is the largest waist I'd want to go. It's been able to handly all conditions well, but of course prefers softer snow. It's actually a great carver on the groomed and mildy hardpack (but comon, they aren't gonna handle ICE very well). I'm looking into a SL ski along the lines of Froto for that.

If i were to be out west, I think that the 8000's would serve as a good all purpose ski, but I'd probably expand my quiver a lil wider (B3's, Scratch BC's, Karmas)

With technology and materials, wider skis are better then they've ever been. They're now about to ski the whole mountain without giving too much up.
post #11 of 26
I bought Pocket Rockets midseason this year and have not looked back. I would not mind a slalom race cut type carver for really HARD snowmaking groomer type days but other than that screw it. I have skied better on these boards than anything else I have skied for the past 25 years. Frankly I do not see the real downside to Fat skis I think people are slow to react to things and in the east people are missing out, go phat and never go back.

BTW they did a study and found obesity is beginning to shorten the lifespan, which has gained ground for the past hundred years or so. I would like to see a side study on fat skis and their positive effects on lifespan and their effects on obesity, and even obesities effects on fat skis.

Alfonse
post #12 of 26
I've never skied the east (in 35 years of skiing). But, for the west, fat is better. This year I dropped my 70 mm Atomic R:11's and moved to the Metron M:EX's (84 mm) and the Metron B:5's (78 mm).

Both are amazingly versatile, and negate the need for anything thinner. Even the B:5's, with 78 mm waist, have a huge shovel and tail. The bottom line: lots of ski on the snow.

This means better stability and control in a wide variety of conditions. Out here, a 70 mm waisted ski is just too limiting.
post #13 of 26
Ok one of the percieved negatives of fat skis is they do not handle ice well. Here is my take on that, I agree that certain ski makers(volkl, Atomic) Make hard charging carvers that will carve ice like butter. For me most of the terrain I ski is very steep and technical. Ice is very unpredictable, I would rather not carve it, even if I was wearing skates. Sure I encounter it all the time, Paradise at MRG is basically one giant Ice waterfall. However when I am on ice I point my skis downhill, I will carve when I am back on the snow again. I am more likely to carve a rock or log than ice......

Other than ice what are the percieved negatives of fat skis? People say I would rather not go over so and so a width, why not? I bought my PR's and figured I would not need any fatter skis. Then I skied 30 inches at mrg a month or so ago. First run I realized that I indeed wanted a fatter ski than what I was on.

Alfonse
post #14 of 26
My Legend 8000s (79mm waist) are now my skinny skis, and I am in the market for a 90-100mm set of fatties this year which I will expect to use about half the time. Bear in mind that the conditions in NZ can be much icier than east coast US. Sure skinny (<80mm) skis grip better on ice, but they don't make it fun enough that you go looking for it. When going from 65mm to 80mm what you lose in ice performance and quickness you more than make up for in off-piste performance. With a 1 ski quiver if you spend any time off the groomed trails you should be on at least 80mm regardless of where you ski.

People quickly jumped on the carving ski bandwagon but have been slower to go for fatter skis. I think the misconception that fat skis are only good for powder will take time to die, but when it does people will discover how easy and satisfying it is to cruise off piste with fat skis, even when the conditions are not waist deep. And 90mm skis can even be fun on groomers!!!!
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
Even the B:5's, with 78 mm waist, have a huge shovel and tail.
They have a 76mm waist.
post #16 of 26
I like my Elan Stealths...87/45/87.
post #17 of 26
Sure, where can I get a pair?

don't buy the hype!!!
post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow
Sure, where can I get a pair?

don't buy the hype!!!

I'll sell you mine.
post #19 of 26
Today I demo'd the K2 Axis 115/78/105
and the K2 Hell Cat 110/64/97
Both at 167cm. Both were good in the bumps, both held well on the hard pack, both did not get nervous at very high speeds, but I must say I had a lot more fun making short turns and railroad tracks on the Hell Cats. I guess this is one fat boy who likes skinny under the foot.
post #20 of 26

Too fat for what?

Did you ever notice that people tend to think anyone with skis wider (or shorter) than them obviously needs them as a crutch because they can’t be that good of a skier. And, anyone on skis narrower (or longer) than them is just working too hard.

The fattest ski I’d ever been on before this year was a Volkl G3 (low 70’s under foot?). Before that the widest was always whatever GS race skis I owned (60’s underfoot).

At the beginning of the year I replaced my bent G3’s with a 724 Pro (77mm under foot), and thought that was the widest I’d ever need …

By mid February I was on my now most favorite ski ever Volkl Explosivs at 95mm under foot. Awesome. I’m just pi$$ed I waited this long to ski a 95 mm under foot.

Now I see they’re making skis with waists in the 120’s under foot. I can’t say whether they are going to be better, worse, or the same as what I’m on (doubtful, but I was every other time too), but all of the other categories will still be there. I don’t think we’re going to lose any category from the low 60’s all the way up through, mid-fat, fat, super fat, & BF fat.

So, NO. Skis are not getting too fat. The width of skis we’re willing to ski is going up though.
post #21 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodee
Now I see they’re making skis with waists in the 120’s under foot.
I have a pair of O'Briens in the barn that measure about 8 inches wide under foot but the snow has to be a LOT warmer and float the boat before I use them.
post #22 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalce
They have a 76mm waist.
I stand corrected. There's not much margin for spiff-ballers on this forum. Too many watchful eyes.
post #23 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stache
I guess this is one fat boy who likes skinny under the foot.
Make that two. I can feel the lack of leverage on the edge just skating to the lift. I would only go over 80 at the waist for really bad wet crusted powder. On anything groomed I prefer 65-72.
post #24 of 26
80+ is where it is at. Come on people get off the damb groomers. Groomers should only be used as a transport to someplace better. There is so much more to life than endlessly lapping man combed snow, good grooming and skinny skis are to regimented. Get some fatties, mess up your hair, throw out your one piece, and let those skis set you free.......

james
post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlong1974
80+ is where it is at. Come on people get off the damb groomers. Groomers should only be used as a transport to someplace better. There is so much more to life

james
While you're telling us how to live our lives you should get off those fat pigs and get out on the spring crust on a pair of 900 gram 44 mm skating skis There IS more to life than most of us ever get to do.
post #26 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlong1974

80+ is where it is at. Come on people get off the damb groomers. Groomers should only be used as a transport to someplace better. There is so much more to life than endlessly lapping man combed snow, good grooming and skinny skis are to regimented.

james
I don't know.

I've spent an awful lot of time this winter skiing my Dynastar Omeglass Speed 63's off-piste here at Jackson Hole. Those babies weigh in at a very slim 63mm underfoot (116 and 103 are the rest of the specs).

They seem to work reewee, reewee, well offpiste as long as there's a base of some sort less than boottop height.

And then when I *do* happen to end up on a damb groomer, no wide-bellied ski can touch these things.

YMMV

Bob
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 › Are skis getting too fat?