EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Why so many Fat Ski Reviews?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why so many Fat Ski Reviews? - Page 3

post #61 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post
I seldom pull out the 80+ skis unless the new snow is deeper than my knees. I've never yet found a day when I needed more than 88mm to have a great time in the new snow or crud.
Damn! Thats the same way I feel about those stink’n training-wheel hyper-carvers. I’ve never yet found a day when I needed any more than my old straight skis to have a great time carving hardpack. Finally someone else understands!

Hey, we always had a great time in new snow or crud on our old straight skinny skis too, right? So what the heck’s even the point of going any wider than 65mm? I gotta tell ya, it’s nice ta hear someone else that doesn’t think much of this short-cutt’n, instant gratifcation technology that’s infiltraytin our sacred sport. Dere otta beya lawh!

You know, I really hate the way those fattys make even 3” of new snow feel so deep and the bottom so soft. And it sucks how they require so little energy to rebound out of turns and make it so darn easy to ski all day without getting tired. That quick planing characteristic bugs me too cuz I like to wallow. When they take the ‘edge’ off in corn, it just makes me miserable cuz I hate that soft buttery feel of letting my skis wash out in the middle of the turn…… sigh! And that smooth entry into a slide? What a low-down sneaky tool for checking speed or turn tempo in restricted areas – cheat, cheat, never beat! Even worse, who the heck needs a more tangible interface with powder where you can actually feel the snow rather than just wash through it? B’Jeeziz, I JUST PLAIN CAN’T STAND ALL THAT STABILTY AT SPEED! WHO NEEDS ALL THAT FUN?? I-T-S R-U-I-N’N M-Y L-I-F-E!!!!



[fun is overrated]



….…I think i’ve run outta prosac again….
post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxjl View Post
Take any skier you find on a fat ski ripping down a face at mach schnell, stick them on a skinny ski, and they will still be able to ski the crud, powder, and chop (though not as well). Take a skier you see Z turning thier way down a blue cruiser in the back seat, stick them on a pair of powder boards, and they are still going to spend a lot of time falling down. At least that has been my experience observing my peers. It's the reason I advocate people spending money on lessons and not gear until they have good foundational skiing skills.

Fat skis provide a performance advantage over skinny skis for certain kinds of skiing and conditions. However, you still have to have enough skill to make that advantage relevant. Being able to use your feet and stay in balance is far more important than the skis you are on and I think those skills are easier to learn on a narrower ski.
Ok. I'll buy that.

Is it snowing, yet? I have to go try this...
post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh View Post
Is it snowing, yet? I have to go try this...
You know, I'd actually love to see the results of that. I could be dead wrong and a super fat ski makes the off-piste so easy I've gone totally off my rocker. I've never been on a pair of 100mm+ skis before so I really don't know. If thats the case I'll be on the phone with dp in a heartbeat for some of those Lotus 130s.

Might be an interesting thing to try with some of your guests.
post #64 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
: I ski my 188s with a 26m radius in trees. I think in powder, straighter skis are much easier to pivot and smear turns with. Oh well, whatever floats your boots.
Of course, if you are going to pivot, smear, and skid your turns than the turning radius doesn't matter much. I just don't like to ski that way. To me it just doesn't feel right.
post #65 of 85
I had never before skied in the quantity of fresh snow that I encountered at ESA Snowbird. I'm not a little guy. My 79mm boards were ok but they were at the skinny end of the useful spectrum for me in those conditions. I feel like I took a significant step towards demystifying powder that week. I didn't get good at it but still...My desire for wider skis has to do with my physiology, my new interest in deeper snow and wanting equipment that's conducive to improvement there. Think of it this way, if you weigh 40 pounds less than me and use the same 79mm skis, what do I need to enjoy the same float you're getting? I think Physicsman has addressed this in detail. My next skis will be a pair in the 88-96mm range.
post #66 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheapseats View Post
….…I think i’ve run outta prosac again….
And I hope you didn't swallow your tongue, what with it planted so firmly in your cheek.

post #67 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
Of course, if you are going to pivot, smear, and skid your turns than the turning radius doesn't matter much. I just don't like to ski that way. To me it just doesn't feel right.
It sure feels better than running into trees. Seriously though, I don't find sidecut to be an advantage snow over a few inches deep. On hard snow it makes skis easier to turn, but when people talk about carving in powder, I have to roll my eyes, because in snow more than a few inches deep (depending on its water content) one will be skiing on their bases rather than their edges, and bases don't carve.
post #68 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
I had never before skied in the quantity of fresh snow that I encountered at ESA Snowbird. I'm not a little guy. My 79mm boards were ok but they were at the skinny end of the useful spectrum for me in those conditions. I feel like I took a significant step towards demystifying powder that week. I didn't get good at it but still...My desire for wider skis has to do with my physiology, my new interest in deeper snow and wanting equipment that's conducive to improvement there. Think of it this way, if you weigh 40 pounds less than me and use the same 79mm skis, what do I need to enjoy the same float you're getting? I think Physicsman has addressed this in detail. My next skis will be a pair in the 88-96mm range.
That's it, build that quiver!
post #69 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
It sure feels better than running into trees. Seriously though, I don't find sidecut to be an advantage snow over a few inches deep. On hard snow it makes skis easier to turn, but when people talk about carving in powder, I have to roll my eyes, because in snow more than a few inches deep (depending on its water content) one will be skiing on their bases rather than their edges, and bases don't carve.
As the ski sinks into the snow it packs the snow below it. If the tips and tails are wider then the waist will sink farther into the snow. This creates a nice bend in the ski. The greater the difference between the tip/tail and waist the greater the arc. There is no pivoting/smearing/skidding if you take advantage of the sidecut and carve in powder. The problem I have with the typical fat boards is that they want to carve GS+ sized turns. Great for open bowls but not possible to carve in tighter spots.
post #70 of 85

Truly and honestly I can say that my self-respect and self-appreciation fiercly rose since I switched to using fat skis solely.
post #71 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
As the ski sinks into the snow it packs the snow below it. If the tips and tails are wider then the waist will sink farther into the snow. This creates a nice bend in the ski. The greater the difference between the tip/tail and waist the greater the arc. There is no pivoting/smearing/skidding if you take advantage of the sidecut and carve in powder. The problem I have with the typical fat boards is that they want to carve GS+ sized turns. Great for open bowls but not possible to carve in tighter spots.
When has powder skiing ever been about carving turns? Skinny ski are harder to ski on in tight crud powdery spots. You simply cant get them to turn in that stuff unless you an awesome skier. The average person is not an "expert" skier the average person wants to have fun thats all. With that said a powder ski's(in powder) turn radius is more determined by flex and not sidecut.
post #72 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
...in snow more than a few inches deep (depending on its water content) one will be skiing on their bases rather than their edges, and bases don't carve.
Oh contraire, my bearded friend (I probably didn't spell that right because I don't know nada about French )

When you are skiing IN the snow rather than On the snow, you are almost always carving. It's very hard to skid in deep snow unless you are on very steep terrain. The difference is that the arc of the turn is not based on the sidecut of the ski as much as the flex (decamber) of the ski. When the ski flexes, and is on it's side a bit, that decambered shape of the base becomes the arc of the turn. A powder ski that has some sidecut up front, will allow the middle of the ski to sink a bit more than the tip, increasing the decambering effect and decreasing the radius of the arc. Skis like the Pontoons, which have a tail that narrower than the waist, will make the tail sink more, allowing it to wash out a bit, rather than hanging onto the turn really hard because it tries to float the tail and bend the ski even more. The narrow tail makes it easier to smear the tails of the skis and skid in powder. Skis like the old Dynastar Bigs, which had a split tail were, in my opinion, a better solution to that problem, because they allowed the tails to sink and smear in powder, while retaining the sidecut, which allows the skis to be skied more easily on firmer conditions.
post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
When has powder skiing ever been about carving turns? Skinny ski are harder to ski on in tight crud powdery spots. You simply cant get them to turn in that stuff unless you an awesome skier. The average person is not an "expert" skier the average person wants to have fun thats all. With that said a powder ski's(in powder) turn radius is more determined by flex and not sidecut.
Amen.

In terrain terms, consider Blue Sky Basin, Vail as an example. Anecdotally, the amount of fun versus un-fun that many middle-aged, "ok" skiers have poking around in the not-steep, lightly-to-densely treed spaces there directly correlates to whether they're on mid-fats, or, as frequently seems to be the case for the 45-55-ish, professionally successful man in particular, is on rec GS skis that may be too long for him. Lots of places in the NE likewise fit that bill on good days, which, even last year, there were a number of early and late.
post #74 of 85
I look forward to trying some soft fat skis some day.

My old stiff skinny skis tended to pack the snow under them so that you are skiing in snow with soft snow above the skis (boot-top to knee high), and on a ready-made copressed mound of snow under the skis. Dial up too much lean angle and the skis can slide off this mound, making it kind of hard to balance. Long stiff skis won't bend into a small arc in the soft snow either. It seems though that the faster you go, the tighter arc you can make, making it that much harder.
post #75 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
When has powder skiing ever been about carving turns?.
Well, I guess since modern equipment has made it possible to carve great turns in powder. If you aren't skiing like that in powder you might want to give it a try. Its an amazing feeling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
Skinny ski are harder to ski on in tight crud powdery spots. You simply cant get them to turn in that stuff unless you an awesome skier. ...With that said a powder ski's(in powder) turn radius is more determined by flex and not sidecut.
I guess it depends on what you mean by a skinny ski. I like my Metron B5s for skiing powdery crud in the trees. They are easy to turn and blast right through the cruddy stuff.

I agree with you that flex is an important element of powder skis. However, when you throw in a wide tip and tail (like the Metron) you can stiffen up the ski and still get plenty of flex out of a pretty stiff ski. This is great because you end up with a ski that does well in powder and still blasts through crud (not always the case with softer dedicated powder boards).
post #76 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
Well, I guess since modern equipment has made it possible to carve great turns in powder. If you aren't skiing like that in powder you might want to give it a try. Its an amazing feeling.



I guess it depends on what you mean by a skinny ski. I like my Metron B5s for skiing powdery crud in the trees. They are easy to turn and blast right through the cruddy stuff.

I agree with you that flex is an important element of powder skis. However, when you throw in a wide tip and tail (like the Metron) you can stiffen up the ski and still get plenty of flex out of a pretty stiff ski. This is great because you end up with a ski that does well in powder and still blasts through crud (not always the case with softer dedicated powder boards).

AGREE ON ALL POINTS- last paragraph is exactly why I love my SuperShapes.
post #77 of 85
Metrons and Supershape are awesome skis but they cant do everything as well as people think. I have skied many different Metrons(own a 162cm B5) and a 170cm (?) Supershape. Yes you are hearing from a metron owner that yeah they are nice but man they can a do stink at some things.

So here is my therotical fun experiment

If I was on my Metrons(skier A instructer epic Josh) , and clone(skier B TGR Josh) was on my Gotamas. I am going to bet at the end of the day skiing snowbird, skier B wasnt getting caught in tight deep spots, skier B is able to go much much fast through Crud, or powder, skier B will have landed more drops and have gotten more air(sidecut/short lenght and drops dont mix), skier B would have worked less, went faster, got more air and above all have had more fun.

Also yes Fat skis can carve anyone who has seen my snowbird Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30720511620869 in powder guess what they will "carve" even better than on that corn and slush in the video. I am "carving" my turns in powder, but do I ever go out and think "Hey I got to carve every turn or the ski police are going to come get me" Hell no.

So back to the orignial question on the ski mag review. Fatter skis offer a bigger performance envelope than a skinnier ski. Its easier to ski a fat ski on hard pack for me than it is for me to ski a skinny ski fast though varied terrain and snow.

to each his own I guess but that there is my opinion
post #78 of 85
Au contraire (I'm pretty sure it's spelled like that) John. It seems that in the same way some folks apply the term powder to any new snow, some apply the term carving to any turns made on skis utilizing side cut. Perhaps my definition of carving is too limited, I consider it to be sking on edge with little to no base contact until the turn is complete and it's time to change EDGES. The continuous riding of the edges cut the snow like a knife and is called carving because of this similitude.

As for skiing in the snow instead of on it, that what you do on those skinny skis which sink to unneccessary depths. The whole point of wide powder skis is that they float, and this float comes from wide bases holding them up on top the snow, hence one is riding the bases rather than merely on edges. This is not carving. It is however very fun.

I won't write another work on the subject, it's just too silly, and I'm having a hard time controlling my sarcasm. Good day sir!

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH View Post
Oh contraire, my bearded friend (I probably didn't spell that right because I don't know nada about French )

When you are skiing IN the snow rather than On the snow, you are almost always carving. It's very hard to skid in deep snow unless you are on very steep terrain. The difference is that the arc of the turn is not based on the sidecut of the ski as much as the flex (decamber) of the ski. When the ski flexes, and is on it's side a bit, that decambered shape of the base becomes the arc of the turn. A powder ski that has some sidecut up front, will allow the middle of the ski to sink a bit more than the tip, increasing the decambering effect and decreasing the radius of the arc. Skis like the Pontoons, which have a tail that narrower than the waist, will make the tail sink more, allowing it to wash out a bit, rather than hanging onto the turn really hard because it tries to float the tail and bend the ski even more. The narrow tail makes it easier to smear the tails of the skis and skid in powder. Skis like the old Dynastar Bigs, which had a split tail were, in my opinion, a better solution to that problem, because they allowed the tails to sink and smear in powder, while retaining the sidecut, which allows the skis to be skied more easily on firmer conditions.
post #79 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post
Au contraire (I'm pretty sure it's spelled like that) John. It seems that in the same way some folks apply the term powder to any new snow, some apply the term carving to any turns made on skis utilizing side cut. Perhaps my definition of carving is too limited, I consider it to be sking on edge with little to no base contact until the turn is complete and it's time to change EDGES. The continuous riding of the edges cut the snow like a knife and is called carving because of this similitude.

As for skiing in the snow instead of on it, that what you do on those skinny skis which sink to unneccessary depths. The whole point of wide powder skis is that they float, and this float comes from wide bases holding them up on top the snow, hence one is riding the bases rather than merely on edges. This is not carving. It is however very fun.

I won't write another work on the subject, it's just too silly, and I'm having a hard time controlling my sarcasm. Good day sir!
Mon frere. When I ski powder I find two styles work for me. The first you stay directly in the fall line and use timing and gravity to make your turns. It involves almost no edges . It is all down with bases nearly flat except when bringing your skiis back around to fall line position. when there is no pressure on them and they float around.
The second involves mach speed and making gs turns . You stay on top of the snow and make gentle turns and do your best to keep a consistant arc and reverse when the time is right.
Neither involves much of anything resembling carving. Is is all 90% base skiing.


Back to complaining about gapers on fatties.
post #80 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarryZ View Post
Mon frere. When I ski powder I find two styles work for me. The first you stay directly in the fall line and use timing and gravity to make your turns. It involves almost no edges . It is all down with bases nearly flat except when bringing your skiis back around to fall line position. when there is no pressure on them and they float around.
The second involves mach speed and making gs turns . You stay on top of the snow and make gentle turns and do your best to keep a consistant arc and reverse when the time is right.
Neither involves much of anything resembling carving. Is is all 90% base skiing.


Back to complaining about gapers on fatties.
Mon frere? Good God are we all turning French? Next thing you know we'll all start eating soup for breakfast and have big noses like Charles DeGaul..........oh damn I ALREADY have a big nose.
post #81 of 85
According to the experts, Eric and Rob DesLauriers, authors of "Ski the Whole Mountain" you do carve the powder if you are using the same two footed techique you use on the groomed trails.

See Page 46 for a great shot of carving knee deep powder.
post #82 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
According to the experts, Eric and Rob DesLauriers, authors of "Ski the Whole Mountain" you do carve the powder if you are using the same two footed techique you use on the groomed trails.

See Page 46 for a great shot of carving knee deep powder.
Whatever......:
post #83 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_501 View Post
According to the experts, Eric and Rob DesLauriers, authors of "Ski the Whole Mountain" you do carve the powder if you are using the same two footed techique you use on the groomed trails.

See Page 46 for a great shot of carving knee deep powder.
Exactly.

To visualize "carving" in soft snow, imagine you had transparent skis, and cameras mounted on your knees looking directly down through the skis so that you could see the direction the snow is moving relative to your skis.

If you did this while carving RR tracks on hardpack, you would see the snow passing by underfoot, headed directly towards the tails of your skis. If you see the snow passing by your skis at some angle to the long axis of the ski, then you know you have a bit of skid in your turn.

Now, imagine looking again through these imaginary transparent skis, except that they are now in soft snow. The first difference you would notice is that there appears to be snow coming upwards, directly towards the camera, and not just passing by on it's way to the rear of the ski. This is a major difference with hardpack, and is due to the compaction of soft snow under the skis.

However, exactly as when skiing on hardpack, if you see the snow passing by your skis at some L-R angle to their long axis, you know you have a bit of sideways skid/drift to your pow turn. If the snow is always headed directly towards the rear of the ski, even in powder, you have a carved turn, albeit undoubtedly with some compaction going on simultaneously (in powder).

Another way to think of this is that carved turns in powder produce minimum width tracks. Viewed from above, even when carving, the width might be substantial (due to snow compaction), but it will be as narrow as possible given the snow conditions, speed, turn radius, etc. Porpoised, pivoted turns (ie, each time you come up to the surface) will leave wider tracks.

For an old discussion of this, see, "You can carve a turkey, but can you carve whipped cream?" ( http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=8529 ).

Tom / PM
post #84 of 85
It doesn't take very much of a turn before you exceed the limits of the snow's strength to carve a turn in soft snow. As you are making a tighter turn than that, there will be a component sideways. I think this is the crux of the argument; people who claim it is not possible to carve a turn in powder are not satisfied with the low-g very long radius turn the snow will give them. I may be biased by my limited experience; I've only been on stiff skis and run of the mill skinny rentals in deep powder.
post #85 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
It doesn't take very much of a turn before you exceed the limits of the snow's strength to carve a turn in soft snow. As you are making a tighter turn than that, there will be a component sideways. I think this is the crux of the argument; people who claim it is not possible to carve a turn in powder are not satisfied with the low-g very long radius turn the snow will give them. I may be biased by my limited experience; I've only been on stiff skis and run of the mill skinny rentals in deep powder.
I think this is part of the issue...

Even on groomed terrain here in Colorado, the snow compresses during the higher-G parts of a turn. You get that sideways motion, then, and while sometimes unnerving (especially for racers used to the assurance of bulletproof ice), it's fun. When you increase the snow's depth and decrease its pre-compacted state (i.e., groomed deeper snowfall through fresh powder), the amount of compaction possible increases.

However, the technique used (and I think this is the key) is effectively the same. You can use the edge angle and fore/aft pressure to allow the skis to arc in the snow instead of using any intentional pivot of the skis and/or intentional sliding of them. I believe that this is the real point of missed communication in this thread: the technique used versus the thinking about what the ski is doing.

...but, I could be wrong...
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 › Why so many Fat Ski Reviews?