or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How fat is too fat?

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
I'm looking for a new pair of all mountain/powder/crud/do anything skis.
I'm a 6'-190 pounder who loves to do terrain my skills aren't quite up to.
I live in the MW but do most of my skiing in Utah and Tahoe.
Live for powder and feel grooming machines are evil incarnate.
I like to ski somewhat fast but it's not a priority.
I've been skiing a pair of Powercarves since the days when they were the bomb.
Last spring at Squaw (14" night before April1) convinced me it's time to move up.
I was origionally going to stick with the crop of 88mm skis (Outlaw, Monster, 8800, etc). Then, a cheap pair of Beasts, at 92mm, got my attention. Then I thought about a couple others like the Line Mothership or Mantra, all in the mid 90s.
That made me consider the Seth at just under 100mm.
Too damn much thinking.

For the type of skiing I love, what parameters should I be looking at?
post #2 of 33
I have the Seth as my everyday ski. It rips! I don't think it is too fat. It doesn't turn as short radius as my other under 85mm waist skis but that is not a problem for me. I think the seth would be a great option.
post #3 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kid4lyf View Post
I'm looking for a new pair of all mountain/powder/crud/do anything skis.
I'm a 6'-190 pounder who loves to do terrain my skills aren't quite up to.
I live in the MW but do most of my skiing in Utah and Tahoe.
Live for powder and feel grooming machines are evil incarnate.
I like to ski somewhat fast but it's not a priority.
I've been skiing a pair of Powercarves since the days when they were the bomb.
Last spring at Squaw (14" night before April1) convinced me it's time to move up.
I was origionally going to stick with the crop of 88mm skis (Outlaw, Monster, 8800, etc). Then, a cheap pair of Beasts, at 92mm, got my attention. Then I thought about a couple others like the Line Mothership or Mantra, all in the mid 90s.
That made me consider the Seth at just under 100mm.
Too damn much thinking.

For the type of skiing I love, what parameters should I be looking at?
If you are looking for maximum float, you will need a very wide ski of 96mm of more. The problem is that these models are marginal for groomed snow conditions.

I would stay with the better 82mm wide skis including the AC4 or Monster i.M 82. Great hard snow carving ski that also does well in crud.

Cheers,

Michael
post #4 of 33
The Mantra is a very popular everyday ski in Tahoe.
post #5 of 33
Do you have "skinny" skis already?
post #6 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
If you are looking for maximum float, you will need a very wide ski of 96mm of more. The problem is that these models are marginal for groomed snow conditions.
96mm is "very wide"?

Actually if you read his post it doesn't sound like he's looking for a ski for hard snow carving.

kid - for what you're describing I'd get something with at least a 95mm waist - probably more like 100+, around 183-190 in length (depending on how stiif they are).
post #7 of 33
The 8800 would be a good ski for you as would a pair of 183 Gotamas.

They are two totally different skis, but both great skis.
post #8 of 33
How fat is too fat? If her thighs are bigger than yours you might want to reconsider.

Seriously, if you have not demoed something you like, going beyond an 88mm waist for an "all-mountain ... do anything ski" is probably not a good idea.
post #9 of 33

Tahoe 2cents

I've skied Tahoe for 20 years now.

FYI,

I have:

1. Volant Machette Sin 116/80/104 @ 175cm
2. Volant Machette FB 128/94/116 @ 175cm
3. Volkl G4 118/83/106 @ 178cm
4. Nordica Beast 92 124/92/116 (I think) @ 177cm
5. Dynastar 8800 117/89/110 @ 178cm
6. Atomic Deep Powder 134/114/124 @ 170cm.
7. (Many sub 80mm. boards for ice.)
8. Just bought for this year Elan 777, 117/85/107 @ 184cm.

My power board is the Atomic.

By far my favorite everyday ski is the 8800.
It's good at everythink (inc. soft bumps) except hardpack.

The G4 is a backup.

Take a look at the Atomic Snoop Daddy, Head IM88, Dynastar 8800,
Blizzard Titan Nine and Elan 777 in a 180cm+ length. 84mm to 88mm
under foot is perfect.

Tom
post #10 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
96mm is "very wide"?

Actually if you read his post it doesn't sound like he's looking for a ski for hard snow carving.

kid - for what you're describing I'd get something with at least a 95mm waist - probably more like 100+, around 183-190 in length (depending on how stiif they are).
Thanks Jer for the instructions : , The poster stated "all mountain/powder/crud/do anything skis"

Yeah, by any measure, 96mm and wider is very wide.

You failed to recommend anything specific, BTW.

Michael
post #11 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by t1henderson View Post

Take a look at the Atomic Snoop Daddy, Head IM88, Dynastar 8800,
Blizzard Titan Nine and Elan 777 in a 180cm+ length. 84mm to 88mm
under foot is perfect.

Tom
That is a good list.

Add the Nordica Afterburner.

SJ
post #12 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by t1henderson View Post
By far my favorite everyday ski is the 8800.
It's good at everythink (inc. soft bumps) except hardpack.
Where did you mount your 8800s?
post #13 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
Thanks Jer for the instructions : , The poster stated "all mountain/powder/crud/do anything skis"

Yeah, by any measure, 96mm and wider is very wide.

You failed to recommend anything specific, BTW.

Michael
I think it might have been this statement that he was thinking of:

Quote:
Live for powder and feel grooming machines are evil incarnate.
Sounds like groomers are just an inconvenience for him, in which case I'd think ~100 in the waist would be perfect.
post #14 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Singel View Post
Sounds like groomers are just an inconvenience for him, in which case I'd think ~100 in the waist would be perfect.

Completly agree. There are plenty of fatter skies that, while they may not be snappy edge to edge, can hold an edge fine on hardpack, and still float great, whereas narrower skis are great on hardpack, and worthless in terms of float.

I love the way my ak rockets carve, I really do. Also look into Nordica Blowers, Gotamas, and PM Gear Bros. Those are all fairly different skis, but a lot of people rock them as everyday skis.

Oh, and I got another pair of last years AK Rockets for sale. Skied less than 20 days, the current bindings on em (tyrolia mojo 15s) have only been skied 4 days, they are mounted for a 295mm bootsole, and mounted once before for solly bindings. One small shallow scratch on the base, but other than that, they are mint. $300 w/bindings + shipping.
post #15 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kid4lyf View Post
Live for powder and feel grooming machines are evil incarnate.
Again I will state that actually reading the guy's post can be very helpful. I guess everyone's got thier own opinions about skis (and this board in general certainly seems to cling to skinny skis). I have one pair of skis with a waist under 95mm - a 10+ year old pair of K2 GS Race 208s (64mm waist!). I'll ski these for a few runs every season just to remind myself how unbeliveably better all my other much fatter skis are in nearly every kind of snow. If you want to fire off ten thousand short radius turns on hard snow then yeah, skinny skis are superior. That's not my idea of skiing and it doesn't sound like that's kid4lyf's idea either.

As far as recommending specific skis, try a 190 Gotama - nice every-day ski as long as you're not slalom racing or zipper-lining ice bumps.: 190 may seem long, but they ski short. I've heard the Seth you're considering is a very versatile ski, but that's just what I've heard.
post #16 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Again I will state that actually reading the guy's post can be very helpful.
Did you read that the skier lives in Indiana?

Traveling out west to ski (as I do) means that any conditions are possible and deep powder days are rare.

Do you really think that a 10+ year old pair of K2 GS Race 208s represent all skis under 100mm?

Have you demoed the Volkl AC4? I'd be interested to know of a 100mm wide ski that is a versatile as this model.

Michael
post #17 of 33
[quote=Jer;598582]Again I will state that actually reading the guy's post can be very helpful. I guess everyone's got thier own opinions about skis (and this board in general certainly seems to cling to skinny skis). I have one pair of skis with a waist under 95mm - a 10+ year old pair of K2 GS Race 208s (64mm waist!). I'll ski these for a few runs every season just to remind myself how unbeliveably better all my other much fatter skis are in nearly every kind of snow. If you want to fire off ten thousand short radius turns on hard snow then yeah, skinny skis are superior. That's not my idea of skiing and it doesn't sound like that's kid4lyf's idea either. [quote]

If you are skiing 208cm GS's, they probably aren't a good representation of a "modern" ski. A bit like comparing a Volkl Snow Ranger to a modern deep-snow board. I have personally found that I can do everything on a 68mm all-mountain carver that I can do on a 88mm big-mountain ski: anything from icy hardpack to 2 feet of fresh. Of course, one ski would be optimized for one condition, the other ski another condition, but they both work, at least adequately, in either situation. And yes, a modern carving or race board is a whole lot of fun in the right conditions-just as thrilling as 2 feet of untracked white smoke.
post #18 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kid4lyf View Post
For the type of skiing I love, what parameters should I be looking at?
I highlighted a few words for you so you wouldn't selectively read over them. Doesn't sound like he loves skiing Indiana. Doesn't sound like he loves skiing groomers. Sounds like he loves powder, will settle for crud and hates groomers. Deep powder days my be rare if your only flying in for a week, but they are possible and plain old powder and decent crud days are pretty likely.

Never skied an AC4. Unless I'm mistaken, that ski comes with an integrated Marker binding. I'm not even gonna get into the whole Marker thing. Again, it doesn't sound like he's looking for a ski that would be just as good scralping the hardpack in Indiana as it is skiing powder. Have you ever skied a 100+mm ski in the conditions he's describing and come away wishing you had a skinny ski instead? And I'm not talking about Spatulas - great powder ski, but those are pretty much useless in other conditions.
post #19 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post
Of course, one ski would be optimized for one condition, the other ski another condition, but they both work, at least adequately, in either situation.
Yet again, it sounds as if he's looking for a powder/crud/off trail ski rather than something that works adequately in all conditions.

I totally agree that old GS skis aren't a good representation of a modern ski. The reason I brought up my old GS skis was to prove exactly the same point you're trying to make. Twelve years ago those were my "all mountain" skis - deep powder, crud, bumps, ice, you name it. They still work in powder and crud (at least adequately) today. But my fatter skis work a whole lot better.

As far as carving being as much fun as two feet of powder - you're way off base there.
post #20 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kid4lyf View Post
I.
Too damn much thinking.

For the type of skiing I love, what parameters should I be looking at?

Don't forget to factor in length. At 190lbs, you can be looking at ~185cm or ~190cm. It depends how much you go into the bumps or ski the trees. Grooming machines are evil. What about bumps? (IMO, bumps are pretty evil, not totally evil but close).

Just staying with two skis you may be looking at Mantra (94mm) and Gotama (105mm).
Occasional bump runs: 184 Mantra.
Trees or tight chutes crud/powder: 183 Gotama (184 mantra is a good choice too particularly for firmer snow)
Powder/crud in open terrain: Either 191 Mantra or 190 Gotama. Just depends on how quick edge to edge you want to be.


I would not to go short with a ski for powder and crud. Having skis to short will result in getting thrown over the handle bars in variable density snow or heavier cut up snow.
post #21 of 33
Thread Starter 
Barrettscv, I appreciate your input but Jer pretty much nailed what I was looking for.
I do very little skiing in the MW and when I do it's usually a little place in the Michigan UP that mirrors western backcountry.
Also, I've had four knee surgeries. Bumps ARE the devil.

StormDay, you bring up another point of contention.
Length.
The local shops here (Chicago) are all recommending I go short; mid 170s.
All my reading suggest the opposite.
As I said in my orig post, I have an intermediate ass and advance eyes.
IOW, I love laps in Granite Chief, however, it's not particularly pretty to watch. I tend to beat the piss out of the snow rather than flow with it.
I enjoy trees, but my abilities (lack thereof?) tend to make me wary of them.
I've always thought that shorter skis gave me more control.
That appears to be a flawed analysis.
Base on my size and ability, what lengths would you recommend?
post #22 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kid4lyf View Post
I do very little skiing in the MW and when I do it's usually a little place in the Michigan UP that mirrors western backcountry.
Hi K4L

I imagine your referring to Mt Bohemia in the UP. Like yourself, I almost never ski the Midwest. I'm looking forward to 10 days in December covering Snowbird, Steamboat & Beaver Creek.

I've had many wonderful deep snow days out west, but I'm always glad I travel with multiple skis. With the thousands of skiers who are also seeking out powder, I find that real time in deep snow is actually declining at all resorts. Spending more than 6 hours in deep (20" or more) snow during a 6 day trip out west is less possible now than 5 years ago.

A ski that's versatile is more important than ever. Most skis wider than 96mm are not versatile enough. I predict that you will want an additional ski for firm snow if you select a ski wider than 96mm.


Cheers,

Michael
post #23 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrettscv View Post
Hi K4L

I imagine your referring to Mt Bohemia in the UP. Like yourself, I almost never ski the Midwest. I'm looking forward to 10 days in December covering Snowbird, Steamboat & Beaver Creek.

I've had many wonderful deep snow days out west, but I'm always glad I travel with multiple skis. With the thousands of skiers who are also seeking out powder, I find that real time in deep snow is actually declining at all resorts. Spending more than 6 hours in deep (20" or more) snow during a 6 day trip out west is less possible now than 5 years ago.

A ski that's versatile is more important than ever. Most skis wider than 96mm are not versatile enough. I predict that you will want an additional ski for firm snow if you select a ski wider than 96mm.


Cheers,

Michael
You guessed it.
Actually pretty easy to guess. Not much in the MW would get that description.

I agree that powder is very hard to find and getting harder. That's why good crud performance is probably as, or even more, important than pure powder performance.
From what I've read so far, a good, somewhat on the stiffer side, powder ski should offer excellent crud performance as well.
I do still have my Volant PowerCarves if needed.
post #24 of 33
Quote:
Most skis wider than 96mm are not versatile enough.
They're plenty versatile for anyone not trying for the perfect carve on ice. The only advantage a skinnier ski has is pure hard snow performance, in this case more than offset by the fat skis improved crud performance. Since Kid has already expressed his disdain for groomers and bumps, what versatility are you looking at?
Edit: I meant to answer the length question - 180-185 should be long enough for your size and short enough to still muscle around.
post #25 of 33
Look into the Mantra.

I've found it to be pretty damn bueno in crud.

I currently ski the 177 (i'm 5'11"/185lbs). Wish I'd tried it in the 184, but i'm pretty happy with the 177. i also have the Karmas in a 177. pretty happy with those, too.

Another choice is the King Salmon from AK. It has a 94 waist and is supposed to be money (I ride the No Ka Oi, which is 78 waist).

http://www.akski-usa.com/products.html

And plenty of folks both here and on TGR are goofy giggles about the PM Gear Bro. Most folks who have purchased them end up riding them as their every day ski (and they're 99 at the waist).
post #26 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kid4lyf View Post
Barrettscv, I appreciate your input but Jer pretty much nailed what I was looking for.
I do very little skiing in the MW and when I do it's usually a little place in the Michigan UP that mirrors western backcountry.
Also, I've had four knee surgeries. Bumps ARE the devil.

StormDay, you bring up another point of contention.
Length.
The local shops here (Chicago) are all recommending I go short; mid 170s.
All my reading suggest the opposite.
As I said in my orig post, I have an intermediate ass and advance eyes.
IOW, I love laps in Granite Chief, however, it's not particularly pretty to watch. I tend to beat the piss out of the snow rather than flow with it.
I enjoy trees, but my abilities (lack thereof?) tend to make me wary of them.
I've always thought that shorter skis gave me more control.
That appears to be a flawed analysis.
Base on my size and ability, what lengths would you recommend?
184 Mantra. The 184 will be a little easier to "throw" or muscle around when you get into a little trouble or a tight spot in the trees.
post #27 of 33
Ah, Mt. Bohemia. I skied there the year they put in the lifts. They only had one lift running and you'd ski down to the road and they'd pick you up in the school bus. They had about 1 1/2 feet of new snow and I was on a pair of 190 Explosivs - kinda long for those tight trees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kid4lyf View Post
From what I've read so far, a good, somewhat on the stiffer side, powder ski should offer excellent crud performance as well.
I do still have my Volant PowerCarves if needed.
You pretty much nailed it - wide (100mm, +/- 5mm), but not with a floppy shovel. And in the off chance that the snow completely sucks, you always have your PowerCarves to rip groomers on.
post #28 of 33
Thread Starter 
Which brings us to...
Drumroll

What are some recommendations for 95-100mm powder/crud skis and lengths based on my size/ability?
post #29 of 33
a lotta heads like the Bro (99 waist)

and there's the B-Squad from Rossi at approx 105.

and the Rossi Sick Bird is a 98...

there's also the LIB Tech NAS at 99, which one shop owner here in the SF Bay loves.
post #30 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kid4lyf View Post
Which brings us to...
Drumroll

What are some recommendations for 95-100mm powder/crud skis and lengths based on my size/ability?
Buy my ak rockets. I'm super serial.

They are a great introduction to big long fat big mountain skis. They skis a bit shorter than 195, especially on the groomers, since the tip and tail have just a bit of gradual rocker to them, and the swallowtail makes em ski shorter too.

They are marketed as a super duper burly big mountain ski, but anyone whos actually skied em will tell you they are fairly easy to manage, but still float like boats, and are decently stable.

Someone recomened the B squads, don't get these, they will be entirely too much ski for you. They're entirely too much ski for most people who have grown up out west skiing steep terrain.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion