EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › longer and fatter is in?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

longer and fatter is in?

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 
Interested in your opinions about the news from SkiPressWorld's coverage of the Vegas show that several companies will be offering longer versions of mid-fats and fats - in the 180-190 cm range - targeting "locals" who have requested them. (Assume Highway Star will be psyched.) And of course, like us, everything's getting thicker at the waist.

So my hunch is that these target experts will than make longer fatter skis sexy for the general buyer. Looks as if companies are really giving up on hard snow quickness, pushing soft snow speeding.

Makes sense if you see snowboards as driving snowsport marketing, and a greyer demographic won't miss trading slalom turns or bumps for stability anyway.

But makes no sense if you also think about the amount of grooming (where are you gonna ski these behemoths?), the warming climate (who'll get enough consistent powder?), and the skill set (what percentage of average size skiers are good enough to handle 186 cm 88 mm skis, let alone a 190 something 110 mm Gotama?)

On the other hand, last year at Aspen I noticed that the locals mostly blasted everything on skis under 80 mm and 175 cm, even the back bowls, while the mink parkas puttered along the groomers on their Pocket Rockets and Apache Chiefs. Maybe I have it backwards...?
post #2 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond
Longer and fatter is in?
Aw crap, now I'm going to have to start skiing slalom carvers, just to be different.

In all seriousness, those super big skis are quiver sticks for experts and semi-pros skiing powder in the BC or on super deep days. There have always been skis like that on the market, but it's good to see more of them coming out, and more refined options. I couldn't justify owning any of those skis on the east coast, there's just nowhere to ski them. Long, yes; Fat, yes. Fat and Long, well, there's a pratical limit. I wouldn't want a 195cm 110mm waist ski, but I have a 180cm 115mm ski and a 201cm 91mm ski, both of which have their places.
post #3 of 23
Technology has made longer and wider skis easier to ski. I'm in the longer and wider camp, for me. Maybe not 195cm boards but longer and wider than I was used to seems to work better for me.
post #4 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond
... several companies will be offering longer versions of mid-fats and fats - in the 180-190 cm range - targeting "locals" who have requested them. ...
Perhaps they don't mean "offering" as much as they mean "selling more of". Most if not all of the mid fats and fats that I know of already come in those lengths.
post #5 of 23
MY ripsticks are long and thin.
post #6 of 23
Personally, I have spent the majority of the season (35 days so far) on skis over 185cm and over 87mm under foot. We have been getting enough snow to make them indespensible. My all-mountain skis have mostly sat idle.
post #7 of 23
IMO: The new big skis are much easier to ski in soft heavier snow than an all-mtn <90mm waisted skis. That is why we are seeing more and more of them. Those big skis are very handy in the Sierra.

Also as far being skiable, there is a big difference between a big really stiff ski and a big soft/medium flex ski.


Something else to note on the bigger skis, there are several custom ski companies that are offering skis that make a 190 Gotama look small & thin.
post #8 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highway Star
a 201cm 91mm ski
Mucho love for the 'roids.
post #9 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond
On the other hand, last year at Aspen I noticed that the locals mostly blasted everything on skis under 80 mm and 175 cm, even the back bowls, while the mink parkas puttered along the groomers on their Pocket Rockets and Apache Chiefs. Maybe I have it backwards...?
I think you have it backwards. I was on my Big Daddies, 193cm @ 108mm, the last four days on Aspen, but it was really soft and deep. But it is a quiver ski, I would normally be on something in the 80ish range. I think people just finally figured out that the big sticks are really fun and a little bit easier to ski on big days. You just have to ski them really fast.
post #10 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD
...I think people just finally figured out that the big sticks are really fun and a little bit easier to ski on big days. You just have to ski them really fast.
Is there any other way to ski ?
post #11 of 23
Everybody wants to be like their heros. They think if they get the same super fat mega long pro model skis that they will ski like them. Many people can't handle them and their skiing and fun suffers. I would rather rip like them on the slopes than look like them in the lift line.

I ski on 165s and I don't ski slow.
post #12 of 23
the majority of female respondents agreed that:

1) generally, it ain't the size of the boat, it's the motion in the ocean
2) however, given the general misanthropy afoot today, the respondents settle for longer and fatter, but quixotically prefer both in AND out, and with some cyclic frequency.
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattL
Everybody wants to be like their heros. They think if they get the same super fat mega long pro model skis that they will ski like them. Many people can't handle them and their skiing and fun suffers. I would rather rip like them on the slopes than look like them in the lift line.
Matt you make perfect sense, but we humans (generally, not all of us) seem destined to prefer to look like our heroes rather than in any way BE like them.
post #14 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiStarr90
MY ripsticks are long and thin.
My WIFE wishes MY ripstick was long and fat! :
post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattL
Everybody wants to be like their heros. They think if they get the same super fat mega long pro model skis that they will ski like them. Many people can't handle them and their skiing and fun suffers. I would rather rip like them on the slopes than look like them in the lift line.
Very true for the general population. Luckily some of those boards go back on the used ski market and are snapped up by their rightful, true owners ...

I agree with the original post that "locals" type of skiers have hit the other end of the short-ski pendulum swing and are going to slightly longer & beefier skis. The bigger the hill the bigger the ski.
post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodee
The bigger the hill the bigger the ski.

I tend to disagree with this statement. There are lots of people in my local crew that ski 180 to 190 big skis when we get snow (which isn't this year.....period). We by no means have a big hill.

I, for example, ski the 186 Stockli DP (91 underfoot, stiffer than most skis made) and absolutely love the power and mobility of that ski. If I ever sold them, I would go for something a bit shorter (like 182ish), but definately fatter and close to as stiff. Personal preference rather than hill size should dictate the decision IMO.
post #17 of 23
As always it wasn't meant to be an absolute ...

"The bigger the hill the bigger the ski" does not necessarily mean the smaller the hill the smaller the ski. Big skis' benefits can be used anywhere ... especially "when we get snow".

Bigger hills in general get bigger snow.
post #18 of 23
post #19 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodee
As always it wasn't meant to be an absolute ...


Bigger hills in general get bigger snow.

Ahh....I'll go with this logic. Seemingly the case this year (and many others) for sure.
post #20 of 23
nice find snowdan, I wonder how they actually ride?
post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond
Interested in your opinions about the news from SkiPressWorld's coverage of the Vegas show that several companies will be offering longer versions of mid-fats and fats - in the 180-190 cm range - targeting "locals" who have requested them. (Assume Highway Star will be psyched.) And of course, like us, everything's getting thicker at the waist.

So my hunch is that these target experts will than make longer fatter skis sexy for the general buyer. Looks as if companies are really giving up on hard snow quickness, pushing soft snow speeding.

Makes sense if you see snowboards as driving snowsport marketing, and a greyer demographic won't miss trading slalom turns or bumps for stability anyway.

But makes no sense if you also think about the amount of grooming (where are you gonna ski these behemoths?), the warming climate (who'll get enough consistent powder?), and the skill set (what percentage of average size skiers are good enough to handle 186 cm 88 mm skis, let alone a 190 something 110 mm Gotama?)

On the other hand, last year at Aspen I noticed that the locals mostly blasted everything on skis under 80 mm and 175 cm, even the back bowls, while the mink parkas puttered along the groomers on their Pocket Rockets and Apache Chiefs. Maybe I have it backwards...?

Beyond,

Sorry to hear your displeasure on "longer and fatter".

But around here, locals ski on 180-185 Volkls, Fischers, & Atomics, all with waists 95 mm and above.

Out of the 2500 acres at Grand Targhee, only 500 acres are groomed. FYI - my skinniest and shortest ski is a 184 Mantra.

As far as global warming goes, as anyone in the PNW if things are slowing down. To date this season, Targhee has received 350".

Lastly, the skinniest ski the Targhee Pro shop sells has a 77 mm waist.

HB
post #22 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattL
Everybody wants to be like their heros. They think if they get the same super fat mega long pro model skis that they will ski like them. Many people can't handle them and their skiing and fun suffers. I would rather rip like them on the slopes than look like them in the lift line.

I ski on 165s and I don't ski slow.
Heros? I'm not aware of having any. I bought skis according to my size and purpose. I use the skis I use because I like how they perform. My home mountain only grooms the green and blue runs, which I rarely ski.

While I think there are instances of what you describe above, it is a generalization which might be more apt if you were posting in a forum of teenagers, rather than one with a predominance of middle aged skiers.
post #23 of 23

Longer and fatter is in

Looks like I'm out!
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 › longer and fatter is in?