New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fat Ski Dilemma

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
I am currently planning a trip out west with my father and a few of his friends. My dad really wants a pair of fat skis for the trip. The problem is, the fat skis he wants are the ones that are currently sitting in my room - K2 AK Launchers that I purchased last season when I went to Colorado.

I have been looking around on ebay to see if there is anything remotely stiff on there in a fat ski (or at least more ski than the K2 Launchers). I found some Volants from a few years back for pretty cheap. I am looking at the Machete Sin and the FB. The Sin has an 81mm waist and the FB has a 94mm waist (new Chubb?). Both skis are a 175 (which considering my height of 5'7" 160lbs is about right). I really like the idea of a 94mm waist, but I think the Sin might be more ski (not too soft). In the perfect world I would order some Stockli SS Pro's, but the cost would be rediculous. So considering both the Sin and the FB - which one is stiffer. Will the 81mm waist still keep me on top of most powder like my 90mm Launchers (175cm versus 167cm - went short for trees)... or should I go with the 94mm waist - it seems that at my size anything over 90mm is really overkill since I can float just fine on 90mm. I still want to be able to ski on top of powder (carves) if i get a fresh day.

Later

GREG
post #2 of 19
greg, you want beefy fat ski. look at the older version of the Sugar Daddy a 163 or 173cm. 99mm waist.
post #3 of 19
Greg,

Sports Authority has some Sins and FB's for 199/pr. Local to me has some 175's
post #4 of 19
I have the FB in 175 and I think the combination of the wood core and the metal makes them fairly stiff. They have a fair amount of side cut for a fat ski which is a plus and a minus depending on what you are looking for. Overall I think of it as a plus because these carve really nice. I am the same weight as you and a few inches taller.
post #5 of 19
Greg - call Skiershop. They have a few used SS Pros kicking around. I'll bet you can get a deal.


www.skiershop.com

Ask for Mike aka "Whiteroom"
post #6 of 19
I own both Machetes you're considering and some Stocklis. The Sin really shouldn't even be considered a fat ski these days.

The FBs are plenty stiff (and heavy - about 18 lbs. for the pair of 175s with Look bindings). They are stiffer than the Sin BTW. I also recommend seriously considering mounting the bindings rearward of the factory mark. I normally forward mount everything, but for the FBs even the factory mark looked ridiculously far forward compared to all of my skis. I rode them at the factory mark and hated how much tip dive they had - remounted them 20mm back and now they're great for me.

Personally I prefer a softer ski for deep snow. I rode the FBs in about 9-12" last week and wished they were a bit softer. I'm considering picking up some Elan M999s for deep snow duties only.
post #7 of 19
Thread Starter 
Noodler - which of the powder skis that you own is your favorite for skiing everywhere? DP, 777, or FB? I think that for the price, the FB might be my ticket, but I will be checking out the posibility of the SS Pro's. I suspect that both skis will be pretty heavy and stiff.
Later
GREG
post #8 of 19
I've skied the 777, I haven't skied the FB's, but I know people that do. They have some serious edgehold for a ski that fat and they will destroy crud, but with them being so heavy, I doubt they'll float any better than the 777 and they'll be slower edge to edge.

I'd go for some Kneissel Tankers if you can find a pair, they should be as stiff as the SS Pro's. Explosives would be a good choice if you can find a deal (although are you anti-volkl?). 4frnt MSP is supposedly nice, last year's Head Mojo, and Dynastar inspired would be on the softer end but a lot of people like them as a one ski quiver for the west and northern vermont.
post #9 of 19
Thread Starter 
Not "anti" Volkl... I'd love a Mantra, but I'm not willing to pay the rediculous price.

It was posted above that they are really heavy - 18lbs. I weighed my 155cm slalom skis (my light pair) and they are 18lbs. I suspect my old fats are around 15 or 16lbs. Will 2 lbs make that much difference? I know the stiffness will effect float, but will weight? It seems unlikely that 2lbs will make a huge difference. The more I hear about the edgehold, the more I am sold on them...

Later

GREG
post #10 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
Not "anti" Volkl... I'd love a Mantra, but I'm not willing to pay the rediculous price.

It was posted above that they are really heavy - 18lbs. I weighed my 155cm slalom skis (my light pair) and they are 18lbs. I suspect my old fats are around 15 or 16lbs. Will 2 lbs make that much difference? I know the stiffness will effect float, but will weight? It seems unlikely that 2lbs will make a huge difference. The more I hear about the edgehold, the more I am sold on them...

Later

GREG
Given that you are an athletic twenty-something racer, I can't imagine that the little extra weight would be a detriment to you. I'm an out of shape never-racer 40 year old, skinny as a rail plus beer fat, and I am constantly scratching my head at why people make such a deal about weight in skis. My best early season skiing has been on 188 Chubbs with the full steel cap, and I'd wager that they are heavier than the V2 construction of the FBs.

The FBs topsheet is not as heavy as the steel caps of yesterday, but being significantly wider, it is very resistant to torsional twist. I also think the steel topsheet is a higher hardness value than the US made Chubbs used.
post #11 of 19
A heavy ski is heavy in the tips, which will make it more likely to dive, and harder to recover from that.

Also, if you're hiking for some bonus turns, that extra weight might be unwelcome.
post #12 of 19
Hey Greg, did you find this review yet? http://forums.epicski.com/printthread.php?t=21103&pp=40
post #13 of 19
My hunch is that the guys on these boards who bring along one ski, 94 and up, tend to live near the resorts, bless 'em, and hit the slopes soon after each storm. The rest of us who have to deal with plane tickets, condos and such may happen on a monumental week, but statistically, it'll more likely be a mix of 3-5" some overnights and otherwise old chop, hardpack nicely groomed, choppy moguls below choppy bowls. 5 days past the last dump and 75,000 skiers later, the back of Vail doesn't exactly resemble Alaska. So be realistic and either bring one high 80's ski that'll like groomed and frosty freeze as well as fresh pow, or bring a serious fatty for that One Amazing Day and a 70's something carver for the other 6 reality checks. Volants are good, I'm told, but you might think about Legend 8800's, Volkl AC4's, Elan M777's. All beefy skis that can handle a variety of conditions, the Elans and Dynastars in last year's graphics can be found cheap on the web.
post #14 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by shmerham
A heavy ski is heavy in the tips, which will make it more likely to dive, and harder to recover from that.

Also, if you're hiking for some bonus turns, that extra weight might be unwelcome.
While hiking for turns with heavy skis can be somewhat of an issue I suppose, tip dive is more of an issue of mounting position and how it distributes the skier's weight. If the FB mounted (in Noodler's example) weighs 9 lbs (18 for the pair) and the bindings conservatively weigh 2 lbs, that leaves the skis at 7lbs max, where at most half of that is infront of the bindings, and again maybe half of that in the tips. The position of the 160lbs of Heluvaskier is a vastly greater influence on whether the tips dive than the actual ski weight. This is evidenced in Noodler's comments about mounting position and how by mounting them back a bit, the float he was looking for was found.
post #15 of 19
Interesting comments as I have been thinking about moving my bindings back on the FB's to avoid the tip dive. I suspect they might not seem quite as quick-these skis surprised me with their quickness at 94 underfoot.
post #16 of 19
So I haven't ridden the M777 for more than 3 runs, BUT those runs were in phenomenal conditions with a good amount of fresh snow (6-12"). I think I would take the M777 over the FB just for the sheer versatility you'd get. I absolutely love my Sins, but the FBs take some of the characteristics of the Sins to the extreme. I'm personally trying to figure out when I would take out the FBs when I look at my quiver. I got such a great deal on them at the end of last season that the purchase was a no-brainer, but I may end up dumping them on eBay anyhow.

I'm about to have quite a few days on snow (with no family around - they're all going to Florida for 3 weeks over the holiday. What about me you might ask? I'm just bolting in to do the present thing and getting back here to do some skiing). I should get a chance to do quite a bit of "testing" of my own quiver and come up with some conclusions that work for me.

Greg - If you're looking for a more versatile fat ski (and I know you like skis with a race construction heritage) then my recommendation is the Elan M777. I really liked that ski and my order is going in with Dawg practically as we speak.
post #17 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maineac
Interesting comments as I have been thinking about moving my bindings back on the FB's to avoid the tip dive. I suspect they might not seem quite as quick-these skis surprised me with their quickness at 94 underfoot.
Yeah, I imagine there is a bit of a trade off float for quickness, but I'd prefer float for powder skis. I ski my Chubbs at -1 from the factory mark. I have Look TX11 quickset bindings on them which has made experimenting with what works best easy. Of course, mine are a whole different shape and construction.
post #18 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maineac
Interesting comments as I have been thinking about moving my bindings back on the FB's to avoid the tip dive. I suspect they might not seem quite as quick-these skis surprised me with their quickness at 94 underfoot.
You will most definitely lose some of that "quickness" in the turn initiation with the more rearward mounting position, but you will also lose a huge amount of the FB's tendency to tip dive. I compared the toe position on my FBs to all of my other skis and the midsole mark on those skis was clearly "out of whack". I really like my position on my Sins and it turned out that that position was almost dead-on exact to where the Ball of Foot method would have placed me on those skis. That was a real revelation for me and I've since been re-adjusting the fore/aft binding position on all of my skis. When I applied the BoF method to the FBs I found that they were about 15mm too far forward. Unfortunately I had to go 20mm back when I remounted in order to clear some screws that were already present on the Machete mounting plates. I was concerned, but then I had them out in about 12" of fresh and loved them (even though they were a bit heavy for my taste).
post #19 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict
Yeah, I imagine there is a bit of a trade off float for quickness, but I'd prefer float for powder skis. I ski my Chubbs at -1 from the factory mark. I have Look TX11 quickset bindings on them which has made experimenting with what works best easy. Of course, mine are a whole different shape and construction.
Chubbs are "noodles" compared to the FBs. I myself have been on the hunt for a mint pair of Chubbs - hopefully some day.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion