or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How "fat" is fat? - Page 5

post #121 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
Actually, if you play with the numbers a tiny bit - you'll find that this is not the case. Not arguing whether or not someone is undergunned on that specific ski for a particular use - but pointing out that relatively tiny changes in width have big impact on surface area. Like by 15 times or so to guess at a "typical" number. Artificially, for the moment, just focusing on surface area - going from a typical 180 midfat to a 170cm 99 waisted ski would add surface area that would be borderline impossible to get via length. For example, those 161cm Shamans I was playing with have more surface area than a 184cm Mantra... Just think about it.

And no, surface area is not everything - but don't fully discount it either...
Damn, we agree on something!
post #122 of 225
Float may very well be the most important factor when choosing a pure powder ski, it seem these skis tend to be shorter that their "big mountain" cousins.
post #123 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post
I think what JER is trying to say with the "undergunned" comment is that some one weighing 190lbs on a pair of 173cm 99mm waisted skis might as well be on carving skis for all the float he is getting out of his "fat" skis
That is absolutly ridiculous. Do you even ski???? You agree with your comment?

have you skied on a 99mm ski ever? what the hell:
post #124 of 225
Forgive me if I'm lost. Was the point of this thread that fatter skis do better in powder but many can still work well on groomed?

Kind of a no-brainer. I don't understand the opposition. It's pretty clear from the responses who has skied on fat(ter) skis and who hasn't, or at least seen people who have.

Yes, a lot of mid-fats and fat boards do very well on groomed, if you are a good enough skier to drive 'em. And, no, I wouldn't use 'em to run gates on a real course, but it wouldn't be too hard to kill a NASTAR course on Gotamas either--if you know how to do it in the first place. And, yes, it is possible to ski off-piste untracked with race stock GS boards, but it's so much better with the right equipment.

What's wrong with that?

And if you are a good enough skier to recognize how better/more appropriate equipment can help you get where you want to be on/off piste, as Spindrift said, then what's so wrong with that?

I guess we all need more snow.
post #125 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
That is absolutly ridiculous. Do you even ski???? You agree with your comment?

have you skied on a 99mm ski ever? what the hell:
I have. I belive they were called sugar daddys.

edit: actually I was just clarifying what I though JER was trying to say. for all I know you can float fine on them, I just think that someone at your size should be skiing the 193 or atleast the 183
post #126 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Those huge boards are a crutch! Can I ski them, absolutely! Might i buy a pair of even wider longer boards some day, maybe.
Why do people around here insist that having the right equipment properly set-up is a crutch?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman
all I was saying is don't tell me I woudl be surprised how they carve on groomed. I won't be surprised. Not what they were built for!

Straight runnig takes no skill just balls. it is all about turning!
once again, wrong thread...
post #127 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post
Undergunned? For what? To keep up with less skilled skiers who can track out the powder faster and all day? "Look at me, I'm tracking out more powder than you!" Big deal. Fat skis trash powder faster than snowboards. "Oh, but look how fast I can go and how little effort or skill it takes." Yeah, good for you.
right on!


I am still not convinced I can't keep on my 173's. they don't ski short!
post #128 of 225
Phil and Atomicman arent you guys close enough that you could actually settle this on the hill.

B-squads vs 173 Sugar Daddies...one things for sure you guys wont like each others skis, but I would bet you become friends in person.
post #129 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post
I think what JER is trying to say with the "undergunned" comment is that some one weighing 190lbs on a pair of 173cm 99mm waisted skis might as well be on carving skis for all the float he is getting out of his "fat" skis

Maybe I should clarify what I said a bit.

I originally decided to take part in this discussion because I've skied on Spatulas, I own a pair of Sanouks and I've done some pretty heavy research on skis like the Thrasher and the Lotus 120. I've skied on/own/really studied up on skis with wierd features like super-wide waists, zero or reverse camber, heavy tail taper, really long shovels, reverse sidecut, swallow tails, etc. (in other words - skis that are being discussed here).

Somebody who skis a 173cm ski with a 99mm waist and thinks it in any way represents the new breed of super-wide fat skis is (IMHO) confused. First off - a traditionally shaped 173cm x 99mm ski is completely different than a 190cm x 120mm ski with a turning radius of half a mile.Talk about apples to oranges. Second - a 190 lb. guy on 173 Sugar Daddies is overpowering those poor skis just skiing off the lift. It's a miss-match plain and simple. Third - when the same guy keeps repeatedly comming back talking about groomers it really makes me question his motives. Is he posting to contribute to the discussion or is he vainly trying to stroke his ego?
post #130 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Maybe I should clarify what I said a bit.

I originally decided to take part in this discussion because I've skied on Spatulas, I own a pair of Sanouks and I've done some pretty heavy research on skis like the Thrasher and the Lotus 120. I've skied on/own/really studied up on skis with wierd features like super-wide waists, zero or reverse camber, heavy tail taper, really long shovels, reverse sidecut, swallow tails, etc. (in other words - skis that are being discussed here).

Somebody who skis a 173cm ski with a 99mm waist and thinks it in any way represents the new breed of super-wide fat skis is (IMHO) confused. First off - a traditionally shaped 173cm x 99mm ski is completely different than a 190cm x 120mm ski with a turning radius of half a mile.Talk about apples to oranges. Second - a 190 lb. guy on 173 Sugar Daddies is overpowering those poor skis just skiing off the lift. It's a miss-match plain and simple. Third - when the same guy keeps repeatedly comming back talking about groomers it really makes me question his motives. Is he posting to contribute to the discussion or is he vainly trying to stroke his ego?
I never said my old sugar daddy's represented anything thing, least of all new new breed of fat skis! I never said that nor eluded to that.

Maybe you have not skied on the older Sugar Daddy???? Apaparantly it is not weird enough for your taste. Just skiing off the lift, overpowering the ski, or anywhere on the hill, what are you smokin'. Absurd!
post #131 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Second - a 190 lb. guy on 173 Sugar Daddies is overpowering those poor skis just skiing off the lift. It's a miss-match plain and simple.
I agree, I'm 15 pounds lighter, and would not have (did not) even considered sugar daddies that short. I have a bunch of friends who bought skis in this class in the 180cm range, and most wish they had gone longer. I bought a M999 for resort crud and trees this year and was pissed when they showed up and I realized that they are NOT 181cm. In general, it seems many people are sizing skis in this class too short.
post #132 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post
I have. I belive they were called sugar daddys.

edit: actually I was just clarifying what I though JER was trying to say. for all I know you can float fine on them, I just think that someone at your size should be skiing the 193 or atleast the 183
that is neat you think so, the 193 would be absolutly ludicrous. I would probably enjoy trying a 183.

keep in uind the older version of thesugar is very, very stout. Nothing in flex like the newer versions!
post #133 of 225

So back to the question

How fat is fat. For a traditional ski (Waist narrower than tip) and positive camber it appears that this year a 110to 120 waist is becoming common place. Look up the dimensions for the Dynastar LP XXL and Big daddy. also the Rossi Squad (and others) note that some of these only come in 1 190+ length.

I run on just under 100mm skis 99 and 97. In a 188 and 194.

This is no longer considered FAT? but all mountain?

I think we are reaching the main stream upper limit, but I could be wrong (Again):
post #134 of 225
Nope - never skied on the old Sugar Daddy. And I live like a freaking monk - I don't smoke or drink anything.

Now that I've answered some of your questions, maybe you can respond to one of mine:

What have you contributed to this thread?

All I've heard from you so far is how fat skis are inferior to carvers on groomed runs ( not even close to the subject matter of this thread ) and a bunch of back-handed insults.
post #135 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
Phil and Atomicman arent you guys close enough that you could actually settle this on the hill.

B-squads vs 173 Sugar Daddies...one things for sure you guys wont like each others skis, but I would bet you become friends in person.
I guess we could, maybe we should meet up and ski and who knows maybe we even have the same size foot. If we did you would probably be right, chaos would ensue
post #136 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Nope - never skied on the old Sugar Daddy. And I live like a freaking monk - I don't smoke or drink anything.

Now that I've answered some of your questions, maybe you can respond to one of mine:

What have you contributed to this thread?

All I've heard from you so far is how fat skis are inferior to carvers on groomed runs ( not even close to the subject matter of this thread ) and a bunch of back-handed insults.
I didn't not bring the subject of fat skis on groomed runs up!

Nor, have i tried to insult you!

Let me ask you a question. what advantage is thier to skiing a 130mm waisted ski over say a 88-100mm ski? And since you are so hung up on it anywhere on the mountain, on or off piste?
post #137 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyboy View Post
I agree, I'm 15 pounds lighter, and would not have (did not) even considered sugar daddies that short. I have a bunch of friends who bought skis in this class in the 180cm range, and most wish they had gone longer. I bought a M999 for resort crud and trees this year and was pissed when they showed up and I realized that they are NOT 181cm. In general, it seems many people are sizing skis in this class too short.
Good for you! : IYHO of course!
post #138 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Good for you! : IYHO of course!
If it was anything other than my opinion I would have posted data to back my conclusions, and I wouldn't use qualifiers such as "seems"
post #139 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
I didn't not bring the subject of fat skis on groomed runs up!
No,you didn't. But you sure as hell have run it into the ground over and over and over...

Quote:
Nor, have i tried to insult you!
So these are not your words?:

"What are you smokin'"
"Do you even ski?"
"Those huge boards are a crutch"
"Straight runnig (sic) takes no skill just balls"

Quote:
Let me ask you a question. what advantage is thier to skiing a 130mm waisted ski over say a 88-100mm ski? And since you are so hung up on it anywhere on the mountain, on or off piste?
I'll answer you as soon as you answer my original question: What have you contributed to this thread?
post #140 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Let me ask you a question. what advantage is thier to skiing a 130mm waisted ski over say a 88-100mm ski? And since you are so hung up on it anywhere on the mountain, on or off piste?
I think this was the whole point of this thread; nice to see we are all back on topic.
post #141 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT View Post

...
I run on just under 100mm skis 99 and 97. In a 188 and 194.

This is no longer considered FAT? but all mountain?

I think we are reaching the main stream upper limit, but I could be wrong (Again):
Based on all the Mantra, Gotama and Seth Pistol I saw at Alpine last year, and fewer mid-70's skis, I think so. At least in Tahoe, 94-105 seems main stream for all-mtn skiing.

It will be interesting to see how many people are on the Rossi Squads this year.
post #142 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormDay View Post
Based on all the Mantra, Gotama and Seth Pistol I saw at Alpine last year, and fewer mid-70's skis, I think so. At least in Tahoe, 94-105 seems main stream for all-mtn skiing.

It will be interesting to see how many people are on the Rossi Squads this year.

Agreed, even though I bought my m999 mostly for trees, I had intended to ski them as my all mountain stick. Since Elan specifies material length on these, i ended up buying them too short for that... oh well, an excellent excuse to get some new DP's.
post #143 of 225
What DP's are you looking at?
post #144 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormDay View Post
Based on all the Mantra, Gotama and Seth Pistol I saw at Alpine last year, and fewer mid-70's skis, I think so. At least in Tahoe, 94-105 seems main stream for all-mtn skiing.

It will be interesting to see how many people are on the Rossi Squads this year.
I <3 mine. My everyday ski, cause (not to add fire to the flame but) they absolutly rip up groomers, as well as pow, crud, ice,soft moguls, hard moguls, crust, trees, racing gates, little kids, big kids, etc. Not quite taking down lift towers but a little more metal in the construction and you never know
post #145 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
What DP's are you looking at?
I have been literally dreaming of the 193 Stormriders
post #146 of 225
were you thinking Drake Powder Tools?
post #147 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyboy View Post
were you thinking Drake Powder Tools?
That's what I thought you were talking about.
post #148 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormDay View Post
That's what I thought you were talking about.
yeah, I forget about them sometimes... Anyone skied these?
post #149 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyboy View Post
were you thinking Drake Powder Tools?
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. DP Lotus 120 - me like.
post #150 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. DP Lotus 120 - me like.
That would be sweet, but first I need to fill the role that the m999's were supposed to fill.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion