EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Is width the new length?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is width the new length? - Page 2

post #31 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato
...

At some point, you've gotta ask; "what's the point?".

...
To sink in further and get more face shots?

(Just thinking out loud, here.)
post #32 of 59
I can buy that, to some extent. It is fun being in the snow rather than totally on top. BUT, if the skis are too skinny, there's greater exposure to risk.

I've been caught at a cliff-edge on Mt. Baker in 2 feet or more of fresh cement on 70 mm skis. Every time I tried to move on them, they sank.

Extracting oneself from such a situation, in heavy slop, on "skinny" skis, is both exhausting and unwise.

Perhaps it builds "character" to ski BC on skinny skis. I'll forgo the enhancement, and take the fat boys.
post #33 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
Cough Cough Line Profits.
Holy crap. 155/130/148

I stand corrected. I obviously haven't been paying attention to Line for a few years.
post #34 of 59
Holy Sh*t... look at these curves; 172-140-158!

http://www.fat-ypus.com

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot
So has width now become the measure of your unit, er... I mean the unit of measurement by which "hardcore" is determined?
If this quote is now true, this is the p*rn star. :

Tim
post #35 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
Holy Sh*t... look at these curves; 172-140-158!

http://www.fat-ypus.com



If this quote is now true, this is the p*rn star. :

Tim
They need to name that the John Holmes Model. Maybe even the Diggler.
post #36 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
I got a C note that says you cant keep up on a Powder day while skiing on skiiny skis. Especially if it involves high speed pow lines, or putting in a fresh travese.
This surely is the point of fat skis - you can make nice big super G turns across a powder bowl at high speed. The fatness allows you to be a bit more one-footed.But, once you get into the deep stuff, why would anyone consciously choose a skinny ski over a wide one? Some folks view skinny skis as a badge of honor or symbol of defiance. Sure, you can ski on 'em, even in deep snow. At some point, you've gotta ask; "what's the point?".Don't you think its sometimes more fun to ski IN the snow rather than ON it? I'm not saying fat skis/ big turns are bad, I'm just saying there is another way of enjoying the powder.I'll be testing some really fat skis this season but the last ones I tried 3 or 4 years ago (Bandit XXX in boot depth powder) left me a bit flat. Sure they were easy but they felt crude, lifeless and a bit boring. No doubt newer models are much better but I wonder if I'll find them more fun than my Stormrider XLs - 75mm underfoot and designed by Stockli for skiing fast in the powder (see their web site). I skied a few runs with a guy on Line Motherships (?) last year in 18" of fresh and didn't have many problems - he wasn't (choosing) to ski that fast though.Anyway I'll have fun on 75mm and fun on 90mm+ this year, just think its dumb to say either are pointless.
post #37 of 59
I bought a set of Volkl Gotama's for this season. 105mm under foot. While girth is important I still am firm believer in length as well. I bought these in 183cm. Over the years with new skis getting wider everyone figures they gotta go shorter.
I made the mistake of going too short last time with my REX's I bought them in a 177cm. Most times they were ok, but when you got into deeper pow on a moderate slope all you could do was go straight, it was hard to get enough momentum to make turns.
Some ppl I ski with have gone way short figuring the width will compensate, and same thing deeper pow and their fighting.
If I had to make a choice between a skinnier long ski and a short fat one I would go for the length. But I don't have to choose so I took both long and fat.
Just MHO.
post #38 of 59
Thread Starter 

Fat skis are easier to ski in powder.

I feel that the fat ski trend has gone too far, which is one of the reasons for starting this thread. My experience has been that after about 100 mm the powder skiing experience changes because I have to go shorter to keep from getting too much float. Short skis force a technique change in deep snow that I personally do not like, but that’s another issue. If you have to fight to stay down in the snow something is wrong, namely you have too much surface area on the snow. Extremely fat skis may be very maneuverable but that is because you are staying up in the snow as opposed to using its full depth, which is a personal choice.

That being said, I have had some experience testing fat and really fat skis in very deep snow and I can say from repeated personal experience that without a doubt the fatter the ski the more forgiving they are and less effort it takes to use them in deep snow. Length being about equal, over a day of skiing the deep a person on skinnier skis will be working harder and wear out faster. I have experienced it myself and seen it with my friends. That does not mean that the people on the skinnier skis are not having as much or more fun, just using more effort. Fat skis were a boon for the heli-skiing industry because most of their clients have more money than legs and the fatties allowed them to ski more vertical in a week, thereby making the heli-ski companies more money.

As for speed in powder, my fastest days were on a pair of 198 cm Atomic 10EXs (84 mm waist). My friends on their fatter shorter skis (who I usually struggle to keep up with) could not match the smooth cruising ability of the longer mid-fats at high speeds.

There is no “right” width powder ski, just what works for you. My only hope is that people do not go wider for the wrong reasons and possibly end up changing their deep snow ski experience for the worse. Ease and quality are not necessarily the same thing. As for me, I’ll be going a little longer and slightly narower than most people and mining the bottom of the next big dump.
post #39 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtbakerskier
Editing non expicit posts = LAME

Life inst ment to be moderated.
Shit, Tell that to the united States Government, Why can't NY be like CO
post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublediamond223
Wide waists are pointless in the east, unless you frequent jay or mrg, imo.
Or if you learn how to get off a groomed trail once in a while. :
post #41 of 59
[quote=Ferniefreeheels] While girth is important I still am firm believer in length as well.
If I had to make a choice between a skinnier long and a short fat one I would go for the length. But I don't have to choose so I took both long and fat.
[quote]

What do the ladies think about the girth verse long issue HAHAHAHA
post #42 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot
So has width now become the measure of your unit, er... I mean the unit of measurement by which "hardcore" is determined? Is the biggest ski stud now the guy ripping it up with the widest waisted skis (instead of the longest) on a hardpack day?
Agreed.

(And I'm NOT debating the genuine merits of fat skis in deep snow ! But the fact that it's also the 'poseur' ski to be seen with)
post #43 of 59
It's not the size that matters it's how you use it, or so I've heard. It's definitely less effort and you can definitely ski much faster with the wide skis but it makes you wonder how folks like Schmidt, Plake and Stump used to ski those big mountains on their 200 Cm + skis that probably had a 66 mm waist and 68 mm tip. In my book the best skiers are the ones that can ski a mountain with the narrowest waisted skis and make the newbie posers on the wide planks look like intermmediates.
post #44 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublediamond223
I sure as hell hope not. My widest ski has a 64 waist. I have ~6 pairs. most all are race.

Wide waists are pointless in the east, unless you frequent jay or mrg, imo.
...or Smuggs
...or Sugarbush
...or Sugarloaf
...or Stowe
...or Magic
...or or Saddleback
...or bc lines in the Whites
so yeah, you're right; pointless.


Here's the way I see it: Who do you aspire to ski like?
Bode Miller, Jeremy Nobis, or Tanner Hall?
If it's Bode, you best be skiing on something with a waist less than 80 mm for your variable conditions ski, because you'll be pretty upset when you're on the groomers and you can't make lightning quick, hips-practically-touching-the-snow-turns.
If it's Jeremy, better get something wide, because you'll be pissed when you find that stash of powdery goodness and you're on a ski that you picked because of its carving ability.
If it's Tanner, a pair of Explosives probably won't be on your short list since the weight would be a hindrance when you're trying to get flippy, spinny.

...me, I like powder the most. I live on the east coast and used an 80 mm ski as my everyday ski. They're not as fun to carve on as something skinnier, but they make the pinnacle of the day, finding that nice stash somewhere, all that much better.
post #45 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadman
It's not the size that matters it's how you use it, or so I've heard. It's definitely less effort and you can definitely ski much faster with the wide skis but it makes you wonder how folks like Schmidt, Plake and Stump used to ski those big mountains on their 200 Cm + skis that probably had a 66 mm waist and 68 mm tip. In my book the best skiers are the ones that can ski a mountain with the narrowest waisted skis and make the newbie posers on the wide planks look like intermmediates.
This old VS. New Generation bullshit is getting out of hand. Everyone one of those skeirs that you have mentioned, with the exception of Plake is now skiing on fat skis.
post #46 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadman
It's not the size that matters it's how you use it, or so I've heard. It's definitely less effort and you can definitely ski much faster with the wide skis but it makes you wonder how folks like Schmidt, Plake and Stump used to ski those big mountains on their 200 Cm + skis that probably had a 66 mm waist and 68 mm tip. In my book the best skiers are the ones that can ski a mountain with the narrowest waisted skis and make the newbie posers on the wide planks look like intermmediates.
I think it would be cool to see someone rip the hell out of a big, deep line on skinny skis; it would be like seeing someone drive a golf ball 300 yards with an old school driver. I just don't think of it as something that separates the men from the boys. Good skiers are good skiers, regardless of what they're on.
post #47 of 59
Well I personally like to jump out of helis onto huge 60 degree Alaskan faces in cross country boots and skiis. wO0OFF, what a rush , like duuDes: Did I mention I like the avvy danger to be high as well
post #48 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by shmerham
I think it would be cool to see someone rip the hell out of a big, deep line on skinny skis; it would be like seeing someone drive a golf ball 300 yards with an old school driver. I just don't think of it as something that separates the men from the boys. Good skiers are good skiers, regardless of what they're on.

I couldn't agree more. It ain't the gun it's the gunner.
post #49 of 59
Sure, it would be cool to see, but realistically, it ain't gonna happen. Go watch Harvest, an old flick by TGR. The old school guys are still doing 200 hop turns down the same face that Jeremy Nobis rips with 4 or 5 turns on the original Dynastar Big's. Not only have the skis changed, but the techniques as well. You simply can't make the same huge arcing turns with skinny skis as you can with fat skis. However, you can still ski fat skis slowly, not bog down, and still get face shots. So in that way, fat skis are far more versatile, and anybody who continues using the "why would you want to be ON the snow instead of IN it" rhetoric simply doesn't know how to properly utilize fat skis.



Last winter in Alta on 101mm waist Fischer Watea's



Last winter at Mt. Baker on 106 mm waist Fischer BigStix 10.6's.
post #50 of 59
Those aren't face shots - they're body shots!

Awesome pics! Technique's not too shabby either.
post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by shmerham
...or Smuggs
...or Sugarbush
...or Sugarloaf
...or Stowe
...or Magic
...or or Saddleback
...or bc lines in the Whites
so yeah, you're right; pointless.


Here's the way I see it: Who do you aspire to ski like?
Bode Miller, Jeremy Nobis, or Tanner Hall?
If it's Bode, you best be skiing on something with a waist less than 80 mm for your variable conditions ski, because you'll be pretty upset when you're on the groomers and you can't make lightning quick, hips-practically-touching-the-snow-turns.
If it's Jeremy, better get something wide, because you'll be pissed when you find that stash of powdery goodness and you're on a ski that you picked because of its carving ability.
If it's Tanner, a pair of Explosives probably won't be on your short list since the weight would be a hindrance when you're trying to get flippy, spinny.

...me, I like powder the most. I live on the east coast and used an 80 mm ski as my everyday ski. They're not as fun to carve on as something skinnier, but they make the pinnacle of the day, finding that nice stash somewhere, all that much better.
That's an excellent way of looking at it. For me, it is without a doubt Bode. I would much rather give up float than responsiveness/carving ability on ice.

Highway Star, I honestly don't go off-trail much, you're right. I did have IMO prominently displayed in that first post. It does not have to do with not knowing how, trust me, I just enjoy doing ~30-40 on groomers more than 10 in trees. I occasionally venture into the trees after a recent storm, and the peace and pow that it offers is great. When it has not snowed recently, I see little reason to destroy my knees on ice bumps in the woods. I like ice, and although it is not a popular point of view, I don't apologize for it. I have no doubt that you would kick my ass off-piste, I just choose to focus on race/groomer technique. To each their own.
post #52 of 59
Sweet pics Bakerboy! Sweet helmet to, I like that ! Very good technique by the looks of it to me.
post #53 of 59
Thread Starter 
Go watch Harvest, an old flick by TGR. The old school guys are still doing 200 hop turns down the same face that Jeremy Nobis rips with 4 or 5 turns on the original Dynastar Big's. Not only have the skis changed, but the techniques as well. You simply can't make the same huge arcing turns with skinny skis as you can with fat skis. [Quote from BakerBoy]

Yeah, but wasn't Nobis on 198 cm skis with a 85 mm waist when he did that, which would be long mid-fats by today's standards? He apparently didn't need fat skis. That's a little different than 180s with a 115 mm waist like people are going to now. Of course they aren't doing 60 mph on a 60 degree slope either.

I have watched that scene in Harvest countless times and it never ceases to blow me away. Nobis took it to a new level and straight-lined it just for kicks.
post #54 of 59
I just don't see the fun in straight-lining something. I'd rather have the snow billowing over my head (like the pics earlier show), and turn a lot to enjoy it longer... But, I know that not everyone agrees.
post #55 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by huckingfellers

What do the ladies think about the girth verse long issue HAHAHAHA
I've had 106mm underfoot skis for... 4 seasons now. I'm not sure what that says about me...

But I love them on powder days. My "skinny" skis were 90mm underfoot until this winter when I picked up some cheap SX:9's for the handful of days we have icy conditions.

Anyway - I've found I can get face shots on 106mm waisted skis with no problem if I turn the right way - or I can go straight and fast easier when I need or want to. Personally I always choose the skis in my quiver that are the widest appropriate for the conditions I might ski that day (though some days I bring more than one ski up to the mountain). Fatter skis are easier on the groomed than skinny skis are in crud or deep powder. And I don't feel like I need to prove anything by skiing skinny skis on a pow day. I'd rather have fun with what I'm doing than prove I can ski any ski in any conditions.
post #56 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by altagirl
I've had 106mm underfoot skis for... 4 seasons now. I'm not sure what that says about me...
I'm more concerned about what is says about most of us : (eek, the new gaping icon).
post #57 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuck34

Wider may be better, but most reviewers act as though a skinny skis wouldn't even be able to make it through the back country...which is a load of crap.

No kidding! Back in the skinny-ski days, I used to ski fresh tracks all day long, and it would be unusual to see more than 1 other person each run out in the untracked stuff. Now, on the same terrain, it is tracked out in an hour! Damn cheater skis! But, the reviews are quite funny. Kind of like mountain bikes: back when I started, we all rode rigid bikes with fairly narrow tires, and rode the same trails we do now. These days, if you don't ride a 6-inch travel bike front and rear that weighs at least 32lbs, you are a weenie racer-boy (according to the mags) and that 4"-travel bike that the "weenie racer-boys" are riding just can't make it through a technical trail, and you will pinch flat every five minutes if you don't have a big ol' heavy 2.3 tire on there. Again, I have to laugh and ask "where were you 12 years ago?"

Most of it is just marketing. If the mags all said "nice bike, but we all know that it is the rider, not the bike, that makes up 95% of the equation" then how much advertising $ would that mag recieve. Instead, they say things like "revolutionary", "will change your riding forever" ect. Yet, the good riders will always drop those guys on their wonderbikes-$5000 rig, $.10 legs. Gee, sounds like ski marketing too!
post #58 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by altagirl
I've had 106mm underfoot skis for... 4 seasons now. I'm not sure what that says about me...

But I love them on powder days. My "skinny" skis were 90mm underfoot until this winter when I picked up some cheap SX:9's for the handful of days we have icy conditions.

Anyway - I've found I can get face shots on 106mm waisted skis with no problem if I turn the right way - or I can go straight and fast easier when I need or want to. Personally I always choose the skis in my quiver that are the widest appropriate for the conditions I might ski that day (though some days I bring more than one ski up to the mountain). Fatter skis are easier on the groomed than skinny skis are in crud or deep powder. And I don't feel like I need to prove anything by skiing skinny skis on a pow day. I'd rather have fun with what I'm doing than prove I can ski any ski in any conditions.
My Dynastar Legend 8000's sleep with me. Hell they even have their own pillow. But my scratches and pocket rockets have to sleep in the breezeway. Pocket rockets are useless unless it is soft and deep,( then they get to sleep with me). But the legends eat everything and anything. Best ski I ever rode ; truely am in love with them
post #59 of 59
Length and width are still the best combination.

Big Daddy Skis - 193 in length - 107mm underfoot.

Any strong skier can carve a fat ski on hard-pack as well. The fat waist allows some pretty awesome edge angels without booting out. I've chased a few racer's down the groomers and was able to lay down smooth rail-road tracks inside a "racer" on GS skis. It takes some work to drive them like that, but it can be done.

Skis have gotten quite specialized. The right tool for the job. For me, anything under 190 in length is too short...period. If you spend most of your time hunting fresh tracks - fatter and longer. If you like bashing slalom gates - shorter and narrower. Easy groomers? shape and a modest length.

It's just like the freeway. SUVs, Trucks, hot-rods, classics, clunkers, MB, BMW.... You drive what you drive for your own reason. Judging others based on this, isn't really neccessary.

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 › Is width the new length?