Originally Posted by dookey67
I think you may have misconstrued my previous post.
My Mantras are jittery on ICE.
I've never skied Squads, either, but I do have to wonder how they handle ICE and incredibly firm boilerplate.
While I am anything but an expert, it has always seemed that wider skis are more generally intended for soft, deep snow and in their longer lengths, hard charging and straight lining.
Then again that might be my misconception.
Anyway, we should probably get back to the topic at hand: Short Fat Skis.
I again give my vote for trying the Icelantics or digging up some old Dynamics Powders.
Of course one could always buy the longer, fatter planks and then chop off the tails (I saw a thread about this over on TGR).
I think a better question is what are these super fats going to be used for.
I recently bought some Spatulas (125 underfoot) and really don't expect them to see more than maybe 2-5 days during a regular Tahoe season (given that I live in San Francisco, the chances of me being able to get up to Tahoe during a dump is rare, though I have been up there when dumps have swung in).
Ok, jittery on ice is a function of tortional stiffness. True, fat skis are meant to be used in deeper snow, but many will hold an edge fine, they will just take a long time to get around. I am starting to hear the phrase "fat race skis" referring to squads, and other stiff, burly fat skis. These will hold an edge fine, and will not be jittery on anyting, but all have a long turning radius.
Skinny skis are not more stable, on any snow condition. They will be more manuverable, as in quicker edge to edge, and shorter turning radia (is that a word?) but will not be more stable just because they are skinny. If a ski is torsionally stiff, it can be really wide, as long as it is traditional shape, and will hold an edge fine, on whatever.
Spats will probably not hold an edge on anything, hence the clarification of "traditional shape" which I guess one could construe to mean skinny, but I just mean no reverse camber/sidecut. The original poster wanted short fat skis, but I thought maybe something like spats would better suit the niche they said needed filling in the quiver.
EDIT: I'm not trying to lecture. I come from a racing background, and got really burnt out with that around my sophmore year of high school. I started just freesking, loving the big mountain stuff. I was using my 160 rossi sl skis as all mountain skis, cus I thought, well the tips and tails are fat right? I just thought that skis were unstable at speed in powder and variable snow, I just thought having your skis bounce all around was just something you had to deal with. Then I tried 179 screams, 185 xscreams, 180something gotamas, and 195 Ak rockets, which collectively changed my perceptions completly. I realize you can be a good skier, and not realize how a certain category of skis will handle. A lot of people think skis over 90mm underfoot are useless on non super deep days. I used to use 160 70something mm underfoot skis for everything, now I use 195cm 95mm skis as my everyday skis. I love the way they hold an edge, snap turns, and how stable they are. I still really enjoy high speed groomer runs. Ruthie's on Aspen Mt is one of my favorite runs of all time. I will never go back to skinny skis unless I start doing town races or something.