Why so many Fat Ski Reviews?

fat skis are marketable.

You'll notice that the reviews don't include beginner or low intermediate skis. Almost every ski that would fall under this classification is in the 65-70mm range.

Plus, fat skis are new and still evolving at a rate much different from carving skis- you'll see lots of different ideas from lots of different companies, and its a lot easier to talk about those than it is to talk about the two year old (or even older in some cases- see Salomon's Pilot until this year) tech on a lot of carving skis.

This is the truth.

There are a lot of people who are buying fat skis, who have no business being on fats all the time, simply because it's the fashion these days. It's something relatively new and different, and cool. The ski companies are in the business of making money, skis are just a means to make money. So they have to sell stuff to stay in business, and they can sell more fats, so that's what they send to the mags to review.

Why do people commute in SUVs ?

JohnH hit the nail on the head. Most of the population who is skiing or or trying to ski on fat skis has no business being on them. In fact, as noted above, a narrower ski would actually suit them much better if their intent is the learn. Many will claim that wide skis make skiing easier. I only submit to that theory if you are talking about skiing deep powder and crud most of the time. When conditions get tough, icy, frozen, and packed - fat skis, and the skiers on them usually fall to pieces ebcause they do not have the skills to actually use (get up on and carve) the edges of the ski. The trend is making ski companies a lot of money - especially in North America.

What this has offered to the rest of the skiing world who can handle fat skis - is a crop of fat skis from nearly every company that get better and better every year. Not only that, but what once were boutique skis or made by small manufacturers are now very mainstream and highly developed. After spending some time out west over the past few winters I have grown to really love the stability tat a big fat ski can offer in crud and the fun they offer in powder. My current fats have a 94mm waist (which these days is small... but I suspect that my next pair will be in the 105 to 110mm range. If you are skilled enough to handle a ski that wide on groomers regardless of the conditions (excluding boilerplate), then they are possibly the best tool that you can have to tackle the entire mountain.

Later

GREG

the avergae skier is happy to ski 7.5 days a season and wants to cruise down the hill with as little effort as possible, carving skis (like my SS's) are way too advanced for them, A nice 72-78 mm ski is an easy ski that in most cases will allow the skier to get down the hill requiring minimal skills to make big fat happy turns and will respond to skidding. Narrow carving skis will beat the crap out of anyone who doesn't have modern carving skills. They are easier to learn on only because they are more responsive to edging. 80 mm wide vs. 66, its just less leverage required to get the ski up.

Maybe it's fat ski envy. Maybe because ski manufacturers are trying to attract the younger generation from going the snowboard route. Maybe they are selling to the 40 and 50 somethings that had dreams of skiing powder but couldn't do it on the skinny boards of yester year. Maybe because they sell a lot of them.

fad and fashion

This I agree with

But I definitely do not agree with this. A few-day-a-year skier should be on something even narrower than that. Maybe 67-70mm, or even less if they live in the east.

Huh? what makes you think that? Not true at all. Let's not forget that when skis like the Elan SCX first came out, they had 62-63mm waists, and could easily be skied the same way old shapeless sticks could. People who would ski those skis without taking a carving lesson or already knowing how to carve, could barely tell the difference from their old boards.

No matter how much skill you have, a 100+mm waist powder ski is useless on packed terrain. I skied a 104mm ski at Silverton last year (one of their rentals), and they were fantastic in the powder, but as soon as you got them on the packed and somewhat bumped runout gullies, they were impossible to control because they could not be held up on edge and hold the edge in the snow. It's like trying to race the Indy 500 in a Baha 1000 race car. And before you ask if I'm a decent hardpack skier, check my profile in the instruction forum.

During the straight ski days typical waist lengths averaged about 62-64mm, sometimes 65mm. I don't think it was the waist width per se that held beginners back. If anything, following the ice skate analogy, the closer the edge is to the foot the better control and response a person should have.

Since even some of super narrow 60mm waisted skis of the past still offer a platform much wider than an ice skate blade, I don't think balance was ever that much of an issue. Other than that observation, I agree with everything else that has been said on the subject, so far. I do find it amusing that the 60mm "waip waisted" ski of not long ago is now being called "wasp waisted" at 68-70mm. Everything is relative, I guess.:

I would add one other possible factor into the mix: carvers tend to evolve as detuned, race skis. FIS standards for length and radius (though scheduled to change in the 2008 season) have remained unchanged for several seasons now. That has somewhat limited what the manufacturers can do other than just tweaking their race models and the "skier-cross" and "carving" ski development has also perhaps been somewhat stifled, as a result. Even the "short slaloms" that were the "do it all" skis of the west of just a few seasons ago owed a lot to race SL race skis in terms of both length and torsional stiffness.

I have visions of all these folks skiing the green and blue groomers with their new 85-100+mm waisted skis this upcoming season. However, if it puts more people on skis so much the better, I guess. If it encourages more people to venture off the groomed so much the better, as well. what does concern me is you may see more unqualified skiers venturing out of bounds or into the back country who aren't qualified to do so.. That seems to be a growing problem even now with some very tragic outcomes.

At the end of the day though, if most skiers still demand groomed runs than I suspect that we will see an evolution back toward narrower waisted carving type skis as the tool of choice. With the scheduled FIS changes in 2008, I suspect we will also see a trend back to somewhat longer GS type recreational skis, as well.

But remember, a perfectly groomed slope at 8:00 AM can already have mini-bumps forming on it by noon-time, especially if there's been a little fresh snow groomed in overnight. My point is that even groomed out slopes have far more terrain variation in them that any ice-skating rink will ever see.

I usually agree with JohnH, but I think the couple-times a year skier would benefit from something in the low-70mm range. Groomed slopes, especially in the East, rarely stay that way for long with the high skier traffic that we see. The occassional skier's technique for the most part doesn't allow them to benefit from the superior edge grip / quickness / easy carving abilities of a narrow ski. What they can benefit from is a 75mm or so waist that'll smooth out the terrain variations for them. If they're hell-bent on getting good then yeah, some serious time spent on "narrow" waists will do them a world of good, but most people are apparently content with their ability. Might as well give them some help smoothing out the irregularities of the trails.

I fully agree that once you cross into the 85mm+ waist range you need some pretty good technique to make it do anything usefull. I usually ski at Cannon, NH which has a well deserved reputation for being a hockey rink. I've seen some locals skiing on some pretty fat boards leaving railroad tracks on stuff I thought was bulletproof. If you have the skill, then by all means, use whatever you want. But I think putting recreational skiers on fat boards is -- at least here in New England -- pretty crazy.

Really? You can ski hardpack?

That sure resonates.

Yipper, they most certainly are, and why?

True, true.

Sometimes I feel the envy of the truly fat skis during the wait for the lifts to open on a powder day, or riding the lift with someone whose skis are fatter than mine, but that passes once I'm skiing.

In addition to the fad and fashion aspect, the proliferation of ski movies available have lead many more skiers off of the pistes in search of flotation, and fats float. Are a lot of people using them on piste where they are of mediocre utility, of course, they look really cool. :

Personally I ski where very little grooming is done and generally seek unpacked snow as long as it is available. Wider skis are much more stable off piste. Of course what I ski aren't even considered "fat" anymore, I typically ski an 87mm waisted ski with a 26M radius. However, if it all becomes frozen and hard, I go to a 73mm waist. I have a great pair of skis with a 65mm waist, but have not found much need for them, as the 73s perform exceptionally well in the worst conditions. Of course if, for some unforeseen reason, I ended up skiing on ice coast boilerplate pistes, I'd be skiing the 65s, but why would I be back east during ski season?:

Actually it's the packed terrain that is useless

For west coast skiing, fatter skis are easier, especially now that I'm fatter.

Yes, skinny skis carve like a scalpel. But how often do you ride on smooth, baby-butt hardpack?

Where I ski (PNW), the terrain usually consists of chopped-up crud and wind-blown, days-old snow.

I find it takes less effort to cruise on my 84 mm waist Atomic M:EX's than on skis with a waist of 70 or 72 mm. Skinny skis get knocked around on choppy snow, and aren't stable at speed. 80 mm to 85 mm is a good all-round size for a western cruising ski.

Some people ride permanently on fatter skis, like Volkl Mantra's, with a 94 mm waist, lots of sidecut, and good edge-hold.

As skis have gotten better, wider widths can be achieved with less sacrifice in hard-snow performance. This year's titanium Volkl AC4 (82 mm) is a good example.

Here on the East Coast, we encounter "hardpack" pretty often, at least if you're on anything close to the beaten path. And I doubt most recreational skiers have much interest in sampling the goods off in the trees.

In six or seven years of skiing here, there's only been a handful of days where my skis weren't riding on something pretty solid.

Kevin: In your neck of the woods, a slicer-dicer is the perfect ski (like your Volkl 5*'s). Agreed.

With the initial phrase: "For West Coast Skiing", I intended to refer only to terrain west of, and including, the Rockies.

All last season everyone kept telling me to get my fat skis out..

My response was "I'm on my fat skis!" :

I was skiing my CrossMax 10's at the time 68MM under foot.

I have finally broken down and got a pair of Scrambler's HOT so now I'm skiing 76 under foot in crud and powder.

Put me on hard pack or mixed and I'll probably still be skiing my SL's or Crossmax's

DC

I'd like to substitute a different F-word for the 'fad' half of your above statement....and that's FUN.

Fun and fashion.

The fashion part of your statement I can agree with.....but not the fad. I think they're here to stay.



(then again, I also have fun on my old-school 215 Blizzard Thermo DH boards)

I agree fat skis are here to stay, the "fat skis only" reviews are the fad portion.

X is right on here. We buy fats to ski the deep , heavy and as untracked snow we can find. We like to ski where people stay out of because many people can't handle anything but groomers and easy terrain.and that leaves us a lot of terrain to ski without any thought of crowds . I bought B-squads to handle broken ,heavy snow ,untracked and frozen and also for skiing in fresh , deep snow. These are tools and to ski some of this stuff the way it is meant to you need proper skis.
For hard surfaces and more tracked snow i use Allstars . They carve it up nicely.
Fad for some but tools for others.

Ooh, B-Squads. What length?

I completely agree with you I mostly ski in the south east,NC,Va and WVA. The conditions at most resorts in the morning or afternoon right after the slopes are groomed are nice for a 65-70mm ski but after a couple of hours of use you have alot of areas where you can go from 6" of blown snow to boiler plate and this can happen 6 or 8 times in a run.I use to use a narrow ski but now have a set of scrambler 8's with a 75mm waist and they're really nice. I'm 43 and when I'm out having fun they just work better for me. If I want to go to the park or get in the bumps I get out my trouble makers and go for it. Either way I like a wider ski.

184's I wanted something I can still pop a turn with when I have to.The longer turn radius of the longer ones, 189's, seems too restrictive for skiing at Schweitzer and the 184's will still handle the great resorts south of me, Kirkwood and such.

Fat skis give everyone an excuse to keep buying new stuff. For most people it really doesn't matter anyway.

Fat skis don't make you a better skier and I don't really think they let you ski terrain you couldn't before. Technique flaws that put you head over heels at 65mm do it at 100mm too. Fat skis allow skiers who can already ski off-piste more float and stability, which is a great thing for those skiers and irrelevant for everyone else.

At least, that has been my experience with moving between carving and fat skis while taking ski instruction the last few years. If I couldn't ski it before with the carving skis, I couldn't ski it very well on the fat skis either. When I find I can now ski something on the fat skis, it turns out I can also ski it on the skinny ones.

This surprises me, but may have something to do with your typical terrain and conditions. Fat skis certainly make opening up the throttle off-piste easier for a broader range of skiers. Trying super-G style turns in cut-up crud on a narrow ski isn't for the faint of heart--but is fun and pretty darn stable on a nice fatty.

So, I would argue that, as with skis made specifically for other conditions, fats have their place. They have also improved for terrain and conditions different than their original target (like groomed, especially in the west), so you get skis like the Mantra and Snoop Daddy that ski a pretty broad range of conditions pretty well, but are still reasonably chubby.

Sir Mix Alot

Once you go fat, you never go back...!

I suppose it depends on what you mean. I still like the true SLs for hard snow, the course, and fun like that. But, my all-around skis are mid-fats. I don't know that I'd stick on a fat for all-around skiing in Colorado...