or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How "fat" is fat? - Page 2

post #31 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowTron View Post
wow, who struck a nerve?

once again, you continue to tell me that my old skis must carve better than my new ones, even though that is MY opinion...how can someone's "opinion" be right or wrong...?

stop touting your "vertical endowment" around like I am supposed to be impressed...I have skied straight skis in pow, spent 10 years doing that, and have worked my way up through skis with 60mm, 70mm, 80mm, 90mm, 100mm, and 130mm....they all ski diffrently, but I changed how I ski, which I have stated numerous times before.....

do you just come up with your retorts without READING??? jesus, man....what a cranky old bastard...I am not newschool, oldschool, or any school for that matter....

I am a SKIER....someone who enjoys every PART of skiing, not just the one sacred thing you think you know about, the art of tearing up those green circles and blue square groomers you so LOVE...:

man, just get with the fact that you are hating on equipment you have honestly never tried (your sugar daddys are not fat)... and why do you insist on being such a cranky person over this?

I am not sensitive at all about my "carving" skill.....I was pretty much jumped on for being a powder skier, or liking fat boards, by you....I am defending the product, not my abilities....

I guess Shane Mckonkey is a terrible new school skier too, as we all made fun of him years ago for trying "powder" skis.....

stick to your purist attitude I guess....fine by me....you just reinforce my statements before, and you are too blind to see the error in your close-minded ways....

WATCH OUT, you are going to hit someone....oh wait, those are just the blinders you wear every day on the hill

good day to you sir.....


p.s.) and for the record, 20 years old or 70 years old, I have no problem with age at all....hell, my 52 year old dad tears me a new one half the day! (by the way, he too enjoys to "carve" his Volkl Gotamas, with a 105 mm waist and all) I call you a cranky old bastard because you are ACTING like one....

And, Spindrift knows exactly what I am talking about...because he has TRIED Them.....Fat 4 Life! lol....

The 9.18's suck by today's standards. A newer fat ski will be much easier to ski in any conditions. But compared to a new race stock slalom or GS ski, a fatty will not be as able on goomed. This is a fact, or you would see WC racers on Sumos. Nobody says a Sumo can't do groomed, but that is not their intended purpose. There's just no advantage.

Go try a race ski for a couple of runs and tell us what you think.

You're taking all this very personally.

P.S. I'm younger than you.
post #32 of 225
thank you DC. the voice of reason!
post #33 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
Go try a race ski for a couple of runs and tell us what you think.
Exactly. I work at Alta, arguably one of the softest places on the planet. Fat ski heaven. However, I can't tell you the fun I've had in the last high pressure blasting around the groomers on my 63 mm waist 11m turn radius Sl skis. I invite you to come by and take a run on them at any time. You'll change your mind. I guarantee it.
post #34 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by D(C) View Post
The 9.18's suck by today's standards. A newer fat ski will be much easier to ski in any conditions. But compared to a new race stock slalom or GS ski, a fatty will not be as able on goomed. This is a fact, or you would see WC racers on Sumos. Nobody says a Sumo can't do groomed, but that is not their intended purpose. There's just no advantage.

Go try a race ski for a couple of runs and tell us what you think.

You're taking all this very personally.

P.S. I'm younger than you.
Well put D(C)...nice way to settle things down on page 2!!

Really it all comes down to what and how you like to ski...

If you ski pretty much only off-piste just straightlining groomers or maybe just arcing huge high speed turns on groomers then fatter, longer skis are the way to go. If you like snapping off shorter radius turns on groomed trails or skiing frozen moguls then a narrower, stiffer ski is the way.

On the groomed Oscar Off-Piste will never look as "refined" or controlled as Peter PSIA with his perfect arcing turns....and conversely Peter PSIA will go much slower and have much less control off the groomed and in deeper snow...uhh so what....who has more fun...to me Oscar Off-Piste, to others Peter PSIA does...again, who cares???
post #35 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-EastCoaster View Post
Well put D(C)...nice way to settle things down on page 2!!

Really it all comes down to what and how you like to ski...

If you ski pretty much only off-piste just straightlining groomers or maybe just arcing huge high speed turns on groomers then fatter, longer skis are the way to go. If you like snapping off shorter radius turns on groomed trails or skiing frozen moguls then a narrower, stiffer ski is the way.

On the groomed Oscar Off-Piste will never look as "refined" or controlled as Peter PSIA with his perfect arcing turns....and conversely Peter PSIA will go much slower and have much less control off the groomed and in deeper snow...uhh so what....who has more fun...to me Oscar Off-Piste, to others Peter PSIA does...again, who cares???
elieve it or not, some of us can ski on and off-piste, it ain't neccesarily one or the other
post #36 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Again they are for an intended purpose. but to refer to these skis as "All Mountain skis " is a mistatemnt of fact. They are powder boards, and excel and were intended for off-piste use. Yes, senor?...

Come on let's not try to turn a sows ear into a silk purse.

It is what it is!
No. You are wrong. Period. Many of the skis you consider fatties are excellent all-around skis. My kids both asked me to unload their 666s this year since they figured there would never be a day they'd prefer to ski them instead of their Mantras. While not racers, they are unusually strong & fast recreational skiers. Let's hypothetically say they could cover the distance, under control and scrubbing speed before breaks, from Skyline lift top to lift base in 90 seconds. Clocked. On solid groomers. On Mantras... hypothetically...

You are letting your personal preferences and old habits get in the way of reality. I try to pay attention to what is going on before me. And I keep seeing lots of skiers on 95+ skis ripping rails on groomers. Under a broad range of conditions. I'm not saying that no one should ski skinnier skis. Or that there are not specific conditions where the skinnier skis might hold better. But to deny the all-around utility of many "fat" ski designs is to admit being stuck in the past and wearing blinders to what is happening today and is possible tomorrow. Pure and simple.
post #37 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
No. You are wrong. Period. Many of the skis you consider fatties are excellent all-around skis. My kids both asked me to unload their 666s this year since they figured there would never be a day they'd prefer to ski them instead of their Mantras. While not racers, they are unusually strong & fast recreational skiers. Let's hypothetically say they could cover the distance, under control and scrubbing speed before breaks, from Skyline lift top to lift base in 90 seconds. Clocked. On solid groomers. On Mantras... hypothetically...

You are letting your personal preferences and old habits get in the way of reality. I try to pay attention to what is going on before me. And I keep seeing lots of skiers on 95+ skis ripping rails on groomers. Under a broad range of conditions. I'm not saying that no one should ski skinnier skis. Or that there are not specific conditions where the skinnier skis might hold better. But to deny the all-around utility of many "fat" ski designs is to admit being stuck in the past and wearing blinders to what is happening today and is possible tomorrow. Pure and simple.
RIDICULOUS! How old are these kids? Waht your kids like is of no interest to me.

Where is Skyline? Stevens?

How fast they can get from the top to bottom of a lift is absolutly no indication of the quality or personality of the ride on the way down.

I guarantee you my kids will absolutly kick their ass on a pair of 212 Atomic DH's or Sg's or for that matter on a pair skinny ass Race Stock 64mm GS11 on that hill.

So what did this pissing match prove?

I would venture to say (although I don't know your quiver), that i have more and more current pairs of skis that i regularly ski on then you do!

so much for I am living in the past BS.

But no, i am not skiing rails and stairs , sliding around a half pipe or skiing backwards most of the time, so I guess that makes me passe' :
post #38 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
elieve it or not, some of us can ski on and off-piste, it ain't neccesarily one or the other
I wrote something to that effect but the post got too long so I edited it out :

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
No. You are wrong. Period. Many of the skis you consider fatties are excellent all-around skis. My kids both asked me to unload their 666s this year since they figured there would never be a day they'd prefer to ski them instead of their Mantras. While not racers, they are unusually strong & fast recreational skiers. Let's hypothetically say they could cover the distance, under control and scrubbing speed before breaks, from Skyline lift top to lift base in 90 seconds. Clocked. On solid groomers. On Mantras... hypothetically...
Peter PSIA (or the instructor on 5*s in the funitel yesterday talking to me) says "but you're not really "skiing", you're just straightlining and smearing...anybody can do that" .
post #39 of 225
ok Atomicman settle down...jeez :
post #40 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by X-EastCoaster View Post
ok Atomicman settle down...jeez :
OK:
post #41 of 225
I can carve hardpack really well on my squads but I guess at 104 they are kind of like an anorexic fat ski. But just last week I finally figured out what everyone was talking about with fat skis, they had just opened some terrain on the backside of my local mountain. I dropped into this steep wide open run covered in untracked pow. And for the first noticible time I had my skis floating on top of snow, I had skied fat skis through snow before but never had I felt anything like this. I skied down while carving turns on top of 1.5ft+ of fresh pow. I was actually giggling during the first run and I was thinking, "so this is what everyone has been talking about". My next skis will be even fatter.

edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
from Skyline lift top to lift base in 90 seconds.
dont want to join this fight but I have done that on 100mm+ waisted skis. It was night skiing last thursday even with slowing down for a couple trail merges I made it down in just over 1 min.
post #42 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post
And for the first noticible time I had my skis floating on top of snow, I had skied fat skis through snow before but never had I felt anything like this. I skied down while carving turns on top of 1.5ft+ of fresh pow. I was actually giggling during the first run and I was thinking, "so this is what everyone has been talking about". My next skis will be even fatter.
Nice.

It definitely makes heavier/wetter snow more fun.
post #43 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilT View Post
.. I skied down while carving turns on top of 1.5ft+ of fresh pow. I was actually giggling during the first run and I was thinking, "so this is what everyone has been talking about"....
Check out race skis on groomers if carving on the surface makes you giggle.
post #44 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post
Check out race skis on groomers if carving on the surface makes you giggle.
"carving" powder and carving groomers are nothing a like. when you are riding on the top of the snow you feel almost weightless
post #45 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
I guarantee you my kids will absolutly kick their ass on a pair of 212 Atomic DH's or Sg's or for that matter on a pair skinny ass Race Stock 64mm GS11 on that hill.
Quite likely. I'm not interested in a "my kid can outski your kid discussion". That was not my point. I gave a specific run (that I apparently wrongly supposed you might know) and a specific time to document with data the kind of pace that can be set be good recreational skiers on skis you claim are not suitable in any way shape or form for skiing groomers. Make what you will of it. Believe me or not that they are quite capable of railing rather than skidding the skis on groomers.

Quote:
I would venture to say (although I don't know your quiver), that i have more and more current pairs of skis that i regularly ski on then you do!
Maybe. Maybe not. I do not see what that has to do with anything...

I just do not understand why you would put blinders on - on purpose
post #46 of 225
Typical.

Yet another thread about fat skiis degenerates into a whine-in about how fatties don't do well on groomers. Who cares?? You know what groomers are good for? - straightlining back to the lift. That's it.

How many threads about hard snow carving skiis are invaded by a bunch of guys whining that they don't do well in two feet of powder? Do you people really have nothing better to do?

Lonnie - you must have been hatin' it today!
post #47 of 225
One word

QUIVER

There's a reason so many people here have one...
post #48 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Typical.

Yet another thread about fat skiis degenerates into a whine-in about how fatties don't do well on groomers. Who cares?? You know what groomers are good for? - straightlining back to the lift. That's it.

How many threads about hard snow carving skiis are invaded by a bunch of guys whining that they don't do well in two feet of powder? Do you people really have nothing better to do?

Lonnie - you must have been hatin' it today!
You completly missed the point.

One of the disciples of fatties was singing the praises of fatties on hardpack & their great carving ability on such.

well of course you don't get the opposite comments. When talking about skinnier carving skis, no one trys to convince everyone they are great powder skis!

now get it? just responding to that
post #49 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Lonnie - you must have been hatin' it today!
Yeah, I was stuck at my DESK!!!
post #50 of 225
I usually only read, but I feel there is a lot of misundestanding about fat skis...

If you can get the angle, fat skis (especially the new torsionaly stiff ones) will rail as well as any carving skis, unless maybe on blue ice. That being said, there are huge drawbacks to fat skis, the first one being the edge to edge quickness. The tansition from one edge to the other is painfully longer than for a race ski and that is one of the reason why racers don't even consider them... they're looking for quickness and agility not pure carving capacity!

In terms of stability at speed, width helps, but I feel that legth and rigidity (torsional and flex) are more important.

Beside the width, the main difference between fat and carving skis is the turning radius... And that explains the conception that people on fat skis can only straightline groomers... I ski on Dynastar Pro XXL as my everyday ski... they are 194 cm with a 41 m radius... Therefore a perfectly carved turn on those big boys looks like straightlining for people on carving skis (question of perspective)... Add to that the speed I have to go to actually flex them... However, I am not smearing, I'm railing... Of course, i can't do carved short turns... but who wants to do that anyway!

The only moment I feel like my fat skis are really slowing me down is in the bumbs(the length might also have something to do with it), but again, a slalom or GS ski would not do much better.

Fat skis are also usually more physical than carving skis... just get in shape and the problem becomes a bonus.

If you ski exclusively blue ice on the east coast, there is no point getting fat skis, but if you get more than 6 in of snow in a month or ski glades, get mid fats, anyone out west should consider < 95mm at least for those big days we're all here for!
post #51 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
You completly missed the point.

One of the disciples of fatties was singing the praises of fatties on hardpack & their great carving ability on such.

well of course you don't get the opposite comments. When talking about skinnier carving skis, no one trys to convince everyone they are great powder skis!

now get it? just responding to that
He said that fatties are better at carving groomers than some might think - how is that "singing the praises"? Truth is, you can carve groomers on a traditionally shaped fatty (if you know how to carve, that is). But like I said, why bother?

Nobody here tries to convince anyone that skinny carving skis are great powder skis? Go back and look at some of the posts about powder/fat skis.

While I certainly wouldn't want to offend anyone by calling them a whiner or a gaper I will say that the idea that someone has to teach these snot-nosed fat ski kids a lesson every time they want to discuss powder skis is pretty, well, infantile. Of course, I'm not talking about you personally, I'm talking about a general idea that a certain segment of posters has. I sincerely hope you get that and don't think I'm trying to slam you personally.

Have a pleasant evening everyone!


Oh, Lonnie - that's brutal! I feel for ya.
post #52 of 225
I just wanted to drop in and say I love my old gotamas... on soft snow. they arc groomers, sort of. But fat skis are designed to stay on top of the snow, which is why I don't like them away from their element or even on resort crud fields. They dance all over the place in crud, trying to stay on top. So I bought some Jet Fuels to make the not-so-deep days more fun. They love crud. I'm old school, I like crud-bashing, not crud-surfing/bouncing.
Fat skis can lay trenches, they just suck in comparison to skis that were designed to lay trenches.
But this year is birthing the race-stock fat ski. IE; squad, blower. They're not just clown shoes anymore. Many ski companies will start producing race-stock fatties for us to rail the groomers on while we work our way back to the lift. I'm very certain of that... I'm also aware that my Jet Fuel with an 84 waist is now my HARD snow ski.
And for you young pups who don't ski hard snow because it's gay or whatever... what's wrong with you??? going eighty on race skis is a part of skiing that will never die!!! Get with it...
post #53 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
You completly missed the point.

One of the disciples of fatties was singing the praises of fatties on hardpack & their great carving ability on such.

well of course you don't get the opposite comments. When talking about skinnier carving skis, no one trys to convince everyone they are great powder skis!

now get it? just responding to that
Just to fuel the flames...
I didn't read that. I read convincing opinions that, as a all mountain ski, a modern stiff fat was a better option than a skinny ski, on anything but boiler plate.
In other words, that (some) off-piste skis were "better" on piste than on-piste skis off piste. That it was more rewarding, fun, whatever, to cope with a fattie on hard snow than with a skinny ski on deep snow.
post #54 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Oh, Lonnie - that's brutal! I feel for ya.
Ehhh, no worries. Until Alta's base gets to 80", I'm not to stressed out about it. Last year, we wouldn't have gotten that excited over at 10" storm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by philippeR View Post
I didn't read that. I read convincing opinions that, as a all mountain ski, a modern stiff fat was a better option than a skinny ski, on anything but boiler plate.
I would add, FOR THE AVERAGE SKIER. There are plenty of us that have skied deep snow and a variety of other conditions for a long time on 63-65 mm waisted skis, with NO problems. I own 3 set of skis. One with 63 mm waist and 11M turn radius, one with 79mm underfoot and 18M turn radius, and finally 88mm underfoot and about 23 m radius. The only way any of these skis will truly "carve" is at their natural turn radii or larger. Anything smaller than that and there will have to be some steering imputs from the driver, which is difficult to argue that is a pure "carve", or the driver has to decamber the ski which can decrease the turn radius as well. We have had this debate many times and I think there is a loose consensis to call the former move a "skarve". It has all the feeling of a carve, but it's not a true carve. The down side about decambeing the ski is the force need to decamber the ski to the point where the turn radius start to decrease significantly is pretty high, an many "average" skiers or lighter skiers might have difficulty doing that. So this is the point where I'm going to disagree with the "stiff" part of the above comment. I might be more inclined to agree with the above statement if it had been written as a progressively flexing mid-fat to fat ski, simply because, for most skiers, the stiffness works against us when the natural turn radii of the ski starts to increase. You can't have it both ways, unless, as Atomicman has been pointing out, you just want to make high speed arcs...

I guess that what I was getting at with my earlier comment about my 11m skis. When I'm on my wider waisted skis, I get the sensation of both skis holding and arcing me through turns, but compared to my SL skis, it's the difference between my subaru outback and a corvette. Now for the record, I don't ski my SL skis off trail very much, simply due to the fact that they have a lot of metal in them, and I don't want to risk bending them on bumps or other terrain features. But I have taken them off trail and so long as it's not too rough, they do just fine.

But I'll also add in here that why does carving matter? So what if the average skier has a bit of skid in their turns? There is no holy grail aspect to carving. Yeah, it's fun, but it's only one tool of many than gets us down the hill.
post #55 of 225
I meant torsionaly stiff.
Agreed on the 'what's wrong with skarving' part

Anyway the skis I use the most are 69mm under foot, so I'm not personaly sold on the virtues of fatties all over the mountain.
But the arguments in favor of fat skis on the groomers were well grounded and much more reasonable than Atomicman had made them look. That's all I'm sayin'
post #56 of 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithras View Post
One word

QUIVER

There's a reason so many people here have one...
Yup!
post #57 of 225
I just happened to notice that most of the folks in the camp that think wide skis can carve are from the west coast. Its true you are seeing more mid fat skis on the east coast (up to 82mm). But most east coast days are hard pack days with extremely tight hard pack moguls and blue ice mixed in. A 95mm+ wide ski is not going to be much fun on most east coast days. Hence you see damn few 95mm+ waist skis on the east coast except in the morning on those very rare east coast over the knee powder days.

That said I think my 95mm wide Rossi B3s carve pretty damn good out west on groomers. I also don't have any problem on the B3s out west in the ice chunked wind blown moguls when there has been no snow for weeks. Skiing east coast hard pack groomers or hard pack tight bumps with a 95mm wide ski?. Personally that would be my last choice. Hey if that is what you like, knock yourself out.
post #58 of 225
I'd say some of the posters are deluding themselves if they think fat skis work better in all conditions. Carving on hardpack? That's just clearly not what they're designed for. Look no further than the World Cup to see what works best on hardpack. But in the absence of a quiver, I too would err on the side of "too" fat, and sacrifice a bit of performance on firm snow rather than in powder.

Quick story: a couple of seasons ago I went through three pairs of skis due to rock damage. It was April, there was no base, and I wasn't about to buy anything new. I found a pair of 155 slalom racing skis for EUR100 and skied them for the rest of the season, even in powder. And they were fun. The message is, you can have fun in any conditions with any ski... though that doesn't mean there isn't a "best" ski for every type of day.
post #59 of 225
The last thing I am going to say is that I began my whole argument in a very well-mannered, "try to see my point of view" kind of way. Somehow I had someone threaten to ban me from this forum for some reason, and I am not sure why. Atomicman was much more rude, unable to see the other side of the picture, and began insulting me over and over (or more over, insulting my point of view). The fact is I never said they carve "better than race skis" or that "going fast on groomers is not fun"...

I grew up in NH, on boiler plate ice. I grew up ski racing until my high school years, and I am a SUPER G AND DOWNHILL racer by trade. The reason I can have fun on groomers with FAT skis is because I do not do any turns shorter than a GS turn unless I have to (hence me saying I don't go in bumps, etc)....I am not a "snot-nosed" punk as one of you inparticular is assuming. I can not see how any reasonable person can think I was saying these skis are BETTER than race skis....

anyway, I guess I am done posting in this forum, and I guess my pre-conceived notions about certain individuals in this area of skiing, the "I am a level 3.875 skier and I have a super power-dedoder ring" have become try...

I meant no disrespect to anyone, until they completely disrespected my OPINION, and that is human nature...

Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with my opinion is fine, but to BLINDLY continue to tell everyone that fatter skis are terrbile all mountain skis is entitiled to THEIR opinion, just as I am.

post #60 of 225
Who is 'someone' ? I've read anything that deserve banning and I agree your points were reasonable, if debatable (to each his own opinion) and expresed in a civil manner.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion