EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Superfat Sales Explode 442%
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Superfat Sales Explode 442% - Page 2

post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-EastCoaster View Post
What you don't seem to be getting is that the newer fatties open up both ends of the spectrum - making it easier to ski slow in deep snow and burly terrain while at the same time giving more control at high speeds in soft snow. So they open up "movie" quality terrain (with soft snow only) to skiers earlier in their development and enable them to push it a bit and have control at speed - effectively taking many more skiers to a very, high level....I don't see the harm?
Hey dude, don't aggravate the, "I used to walk ten miles uphill to school both ways in three feet of snow" crowd."

I respect Bob's opinion. He has forgotten more about skiing than I'll ever know, but if you try it and you like it, buy it. If you don't try it and you buy it then you are a fool. Demo, demo, demo is the credo of this site.
post #32 of 47
Nobody is denying that fat skis work great in deep snow, this issue as originally presented is the current run on super fatties of the 110-130 waist and beyond category. These skis have there place, but it is a fairly limited one as I see it. I find it humorous that the industry is pushing fatter and fatter skis as the new standard. They make skiing deep snow easier because they make it ski not so deep, which is counter productive for some of us.

I am a big guy that skis a lot of deep snow and crud and I perfer something around 100 waist because it keeps me in the snow more, which has several benefits for me. Pardon me if I laugh at the little guys on the huge waisted skis skittering around on top of the snow. Sure it's manuverable but they are tending to make the depth irrelevant, which they certainly have a right to do. It is not easy to ski knee deep snow, so now you can get super fatties and just ski the top foot, which makes it fun for more people, but don't come down on the "old school" bottom feeders. You may be skiing it faster but we've enjoying it in 3 dimensions a little more. To each his own.

The joke we started with is that now the super fatties are becoming the hip ski so schmitiots are buying them for everyday skiing. We can look forward to guys on 120 waisted "big mountain" boards ripping 4" of new on intermediate runs. I believe the relevant point is buy it if you want it and can actually ski it, but not just because the marketing currently says that fat is where it's at.
post #33 of 47
My main gripe about fatties is that now everyone & his dog are tracking out the goods whereas those areas used left to the more advanced skiers in the past. Call me elitist or greedy because I want it all to myself
post #34 of 47

Skiing is just getting too damn easy!

I with you Wizard. Powder skiing used to be something special for those who put in the time and effort to learn it. Now every "advanced intermediate" with fatties is tracking up the goods. Damn those fat skis!
post #35 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post
I with you Wizard. Powder skiing used to be something special for those who put in the time and effort to learn it. Now every "advanced intermediate" with fatties is tracking up the goods. Damn those fat skis!
Let's not forget those damn snowboarders!

Never mind "advanced intermediate". A snowboarder on his/her first day can trounce the goods. The wide platform renders depth a non-issue, so kids on boards immediately motor for the fresh.

Unless you frequent places like Solitude or Powder Mountain, fresh is virtually a thing of the past. Even in Mecca's like JH and Snowbird, it's gone in a heartbeat. Crud is what we mostly ski on a "blower" days.
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post
Go back ten years and watch footage of Schmidt and Coombs and Nobis skiing exactly that same kind of terrain and conditions on skis that y'all would laugh at today. Go back even further than that and watch Phil Mahre or Pepi Stiegler rip gigantic and fast backcountry lines on skis with a 60mm waist.
True but in flicks they always have perfect snow conditions. Read the other thread about "new age powder skis" where "Tyrone Shoelaces" describes the versatility of his DP Lotus 138 on variable snow (especially on what some people would call "crappy snow")...the new skis are making that term (finally) truly irrelevant. I guess that's the biggest point for us "normal" skiers to have "superfat" skis, it just makes skiing much more fun on those REALISTIC conditions, which tend to be slush, sun cups, crud, mashed up snow etc more often than pure pow.

(Ok, my point of view is also that if there's some off piste to ski, then groomers are purely for traversing form spot to spot and so on...if I have more fun off piste, I'm not missing much the lost performance on the groomer sections)

Besides, today it's not that much about what you can do but how you do it. I think powder skiing is getting closer to the surfing stylewise...with new desings you can play much more with the terrain features and be creative (and this is not just backwards landings as many people tend to believe). Sure Nobis went straight (amazing feat as itself), but the likes of McConkey, Pollard, Harrison etc. are all adding a little spice to the mix, whether it is stomping big drops cleaner and faster than ever before, mixing "slide" moves to the steep spines or hitting zero spins off cliffs.

Watch e.g. Pollard ski, and it is pretty hard to state that his style isn't quite unique and totally different from the guys you mentioned. And the guy actually uses very wide 110-150(!)mm middle skis with reasonable sidecut in pow and carves his turns, very low & wide position...I'd even say that his turns must be much more appealing to the "Epic crowd" than Nobis' straightlining / SG style...and the guy is an icon to the new school crowd (which stereotypically is the exact opposite to the people posting here!)
post #37 of 47
You both have valid points...but you're not arguing the same thing. Bob is saying that the terrain was skiable before fatties. X-EC, you're saying that it is more accessible to a broader range of skiers.

You are both correct! Personally, I think fat skis are great if they allow those slightly less skilled to perform on that type of snow.
post #38 of 47
Pollard is one of the technicaly better skier out there for sure...he did use to race.
post #39 of 47
wow, found this while googling the increase in ski sales figures...

News-flash: SUPERFAT SKIS EXPLODE!

[SKI MAGAZINE]: “Shocking results from a recent study at ten major ski resorts in North America reveal a disproportionate amount of skiers using superfat skis last season experienced what only can be best described as explosive equipment failure. Resort ski patrol professionals have actually had to add specialized snow rakes to their cache of equipment to deal with the growing amount of hazardous debris from the many explosions which are beginning to litter the mountainsides throughout Colorado, Utah and British Columbia.
‘Superfat’ skis are a relatively new industry design, capitalizing on an increased ability to float on the surface of snow to make the relatively small niche of powder skiing much more accessible to the masses. “But as the niche has grown, there has been a noticeable increase in catastrophic failures”, says Ralph Onmee, president of the Ski Resort Management Association. In an emergency meeting this past June between SRMA and the ski industry’s liability insurance regulating committee, a decision was made to put a width limit of 115mm (approximately 4.5”) on all skis used at ski resorts throughout the US. “There’s really no other legitimate way for us to deal with this growing problem” says Mr Onmee, “We can only try to stem the tide by protecting the many innocent skiers who have been seduced by a few irresponsible manufacturers just out to make a quick buck.”
“I was out for my first run of the day and hadn’t even gotten up to speed yet when suddenly out of nowhere my right ski made a loud sound and virtually disintegrated.” Says Joe Rippah, a victim of an especially unusual malfunction who had to be rescued from almost thirty feet high in the branches of a tree at Telluride ski resort. “I saw my binding toepiece shoot straight up past my shoulder and then the lights went out. It’s very disturbing that a dangerous product like this can be sold to the public without any warnings or disclaimers being required from the manufacturer.”
However, on July 16th a report containing detailed analysis of a number of pieces of failed equipment by both the Colorado department of Health & Consumer Affairs and a privately funded laboratory concurred that the explosions didn’t seem to originate in the skis, which has left the SRMA scratching their heads.
“If these explosions aren’t coming from the equipment”, says Onmee, “we’re at a complete loss to explain it”.
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-EastCoaster View Post
So they open up "movie" quality terrain (with soft snow only) to skiers earlier in their development and enable them to push it a bit and have control at speed - effectively taking many more skiers to a very, high level....I don't see the harm?

Okay,

So 5 years ago when fat was 80mm and you and a few of your stud powder hound buddies were masters of your back country powder domain, you had the whole place to yourself. Now lets speed forward to 2006/2007 and you hike 30 minutes to your fav powder stash, and WTF! Hey where did all our virgin powder go? And who the hell are those young JONG's on 100mm skis trashing our powder stash? Oh, I guess anyone with fat skis can now ski our once revered and sacred powder.

Anyway, one only has to go to any ski area on a powder day to see the masses skiing up a powder line in about 1 run. If you're lucky you hit it on a mid-week day and you get 2 runs with fresh lines. But fat skis are great in cut up pow too. So, at least you've got that going for you.
post #41 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheapseats View Post
wow, found this while googling the increase in ski sales figures...

News-flash: SUPERFAT SKIS EXPLODE!

[SKI MAGAZINE]: “Shocking results from a recent study at ten major ski resorts in North America reveal a disproportionate amount of skiers using superfat skis last season experienced what only can be best described as explosive equipment failure. Resort ski patrol professionals have actually had to add specialized snow rakes to their cache of equipment to deal with the growing amount of hazardous debris from the many explosions which are beginning to litter the mountainsides throughout Colorado, Utah and British Columbia.
‘Superfat’ skis are a relatively new industry design, capitalizing on an increased ability to float on the surface of snow to make the relatively small niche of powder skiing much more accessible to the masses. “But as the niche has grown, there has been a noticeable increase in catastrophic failures”, says Ralph Onmee, president of the Ski Resort Management Association. In an emergency meeting this past June between SRMA and the ski industry’s liability insurance regulating committee, a decision was made to put a width limit of 115mm (approximately 4.5”) on all skis used at ski resorts throughout the US. “There’s really no other legitimate way for us to deal with this growing problem” says Mr Onmee, “We can only try to stem the tide by protecting the many innocent skiers who have been seduced by a few irresponsible manufacturers just out to make a quick buck.”
“I was out for my first run of the day and hadn’t even gotten up to speed yet when suddenly out of nowhere my right ski made a loud sound and virtually disintegrated.” Says Joe Rippah, a victim of an especially unusual malfunction who had to be rescued from almost thirty feet high in the branches of a tree at Telluride ski resort. “I saw my binding toepiece shoot straight up past my shoulder and then the lights went out. It’s very disturbing that a dangerous product like this can be sold to the public without any warnings or disclaimers being required from the manufacturer.”
However, on July 16th a report containing detailed analysis of a number of pieces of failed equipment by both the Colorado department of Health & Consumer Affairs and a privately funded laboratory concurred that the explosions didn’t seem to originate in the skis, which has left the SRMA scratching their heads.
“If these explosions aren’t coming from the equipment”, says Onmee, “we’re at a complete loss to explain it”.
I must have my calendar wrong. Is today April 1st?

Funny

Wait a minute.... I figured out what happened to the guy at T-ride. He ducked the ropes and was poaching a stash, when an avi control morter landed on his skis.
post #42 of 47

Obese skis

Well if people are getting fatter why can't the skis?

http://www.healthierus.gov/exercise.html

So if the new super fatties are letting you ride atop deep powder - where's the fun? Isn't it the point of getting into the snow on those rare (for most of us) days you get to ski a fresh deep dump of 5% pow?

Reminds me of the time a friend of mine and I skied BC in Utah with guides - he had old skinny non-shaped Head skis. One of the guides said "ya might as well just throw that guy in a snowbank" ... but he skied it I gotta give him credit.
post #43 of 47
I got two pair of Pocket Rockets, one with Naxo AT bindings, along with some old rock skis. I feel pretty set for my capabilities.

Funny, you don't see fat skis on sale much, just the skinny skis at the Sniagrabs. You would think folks who accidently bought fat skis would want to dump them at bargain prices... not! So, get a clue.

Hey! I just bought a new red coat... mayby I can become the old gaper, ha ha.... The reason we gapers wear red is so you kamakazi skiers can see us.
post #44 of 47
Thread Starter 
If the skis are only exploding 442%, that means the blast radius is barely beyond your boots.

This shouldn't be a major safety concern, unless you're in a chute or catching air when it happens.
post #45 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnH View Post

Here's a quick quote from the article: "....six manufacturers offer skis with waist between 100 and 130 mm (unheard of two seasons ago)...." (bolding is mine). Don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that if they weren't offered two seasons ago, that to have a sales increase of 400+% is pretty easy.
Hmmmm.......well I think hyperbole somewhat describes this statement, and from Ski Press World too, silly. Atomic has been making 100+ waisted skis since at least the Powder Plus, and of the same vintage was the Rossi Axiom. Was the Big Daddy really unheard of two years ago? The Volant Spatula?

Yes, certainly, the marketing of fat skis is coming to fruition, but part of the reason is that they are well made and effective instruments for offpiste skiing, and floating on virgin snow is, at least in the opinion of many, the epitome of the alpine skiing experience. Also crushing crud on fat boards is quite satisfying.

Now that the tools are available, if we could get the ski areas to quit grooming so much acreage*, they could charge less, and there'd be more freshies to use the fats on.


*Obviously not intended to refer to Ice coast areas.
post #46 of 47
Good point - a more natural mountaineering experience let's say is a reward in and of itself. "Passive recreation" meaning less developed trails etc is a good thing for the mountains too I think. One reason I like the old places back east vs the Mt Snow-style wide groomed trails. Less trees == more wind as well.
post #47 of 47
Last season I was into my second season of demoing and looking for new gear as in 2003/2004 my ancient San Marco boots broke and nobody would rent me boots with the 198 Rossi 7s' and Salomon 747 bindings I was skiing on. During the 2003/2004 season, which was my inaugural experience with "shaped" skis, they were a little wider on the whole from my pinner 7S, but nodody was touting wider is better. Flash forward to the 05/06 season and when I began demoing this time everybody was trying to get me on wider skis. I'm not talking in the 80s range, most of the shops were touting 87-99 as the underfoot width I needed for an everyday ski. Most of the techs and salesmen I encountered at all of the Tahoe area shops were pushing fatter skis as everyday, 1-quiver options. As can be expected, for a person coming off of slalom skis, the concept of taking out a shorter (I dropped from 198 in length to 177) and fatter ski took a bit getting used to. Granted my style of skiiing has changed (I am spending much more time off-piste and turning far less than I used to), but I think the trend toward fatter skis might be in part due to the industry trying to capitalize on the hipness factor of snowboarding.

My take on the whole thing is that roughly 5 years ago it seemed like anyone under 30 was snowboarding and that skiiing had become the realm of the rich, silverhaired septagenarians. With the advent of the twin-tip and the whole freeriding movement coming into the mainstream, there seems to be a new hipness factor tacked on to skiing. The wider is better mantra has long been held by those "in the know" and now the ski companies are trying to capitalize on that. Hell, just look at how many "fat" skis the big companies are offering these days as compared to just 3 or 5 years ago.

In regards to the Spatula reference above, that was more or less a fringe/specialized ski...they only made a finite amount and only the hardcore "bros" really bought into the whole reverse camber thing...the average, everyday, groomer was not the intended target of a ski like that, nor do I think that 5 years ago the everday skier was the intended audience for fat skis. That's all changed, not only due to the popularity of snowboarding, but also the rise of the X-Games and as mentioned, the whole twin tip explosion (if you dig around the Net you can read about why and how Line skis began, which will shed some light on this very subject). Think about how long it took twin tips to become the industry standard. The fat ski boom will likely follow the same trend lines.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. As I stated above, it was a trip how the selling line went from narrow waisted to fat in the span of 1 season. I imagine that if I were to demo this season the shop techs would urge me to go longer (ironically when I started demoing in 2003/2004 I was told to ski short, like in the 168 and 170 range).

Only time will tell.
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 › Superfat Sales Explode 442%