or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Notes from the east

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Just wondering

why is it that foot deep (or more) snow falls are said to require fat skis?:
post #2 of 15
post #3 of 15
Require is such a strong word. People have been skiing deep powder for a long time. Fat skis haven't been around so long.

I like my fat skis because I can lean forward more without tripping on my tips. They're also seem to float enough that I don't get stuck as much as I might in heavier snow.
post #4 of 15
With folks skiing a shorter ski we no longer have the surface area that we used to have.

I had little problem on longer P-40's ... like 185 & 193's and those were my "every day" skis.

Getting bogged down on a pair of SL's or any short skis on some of the flatter areas comes to mind too.
post #5 of 15
Surface area is not that different from straight skis. That's why we can go shorter on shapes. You don't need fat skis. A lot of people use them because they are easier, but it is easily done on regular shaped skis.
post #6 of 15
Ah-lay off! Let people enjoy whatever dang skis they want!! I skied both saturday and sunday this weekend at my little hill where we picked up nearly 2 feet of dense snow--I ran my head 88's the whole time and loved them-some of my crew ran much thinner skis and a few ran much bigger skis--Nobody said (here, there or elsewhere) what size ski one HAS to use. I think you're setting up an argument that doesn't really exist.

That being said-I think the East Coast tree skier can certainly learn to appreciate a fatter ski on a lot of days--float over perrenial thin cover is a nice thing. And the bigger platform for landing the occasional rock drop, hhuuck doesn't hurt either! But, others want rapid fire carving in every situation and that's fine too. I have never heard anyone talk about what they "NEED" to skki a particular condition, I only here them express what they 'PREFER" to use.

Unless it's bulletproof, or a "groomer's only" day (due to poor tree/ piste conditions) I prefer to use the 88. Heck, I don't even really need a special ski for the groomers-'caused they're groomed and made to ski easily.
post #7 of 15
Thread Starter 
My poor choice of words in the original post. Liams post is what I was getting at. I skied SL ski's this weekend and mid 70's waisted ones too. Both were fun.
post #8 of 15
Sorry skier-J I didn't mean to fly off the handle.

Great two days of east coast bliss, huh?
post #9 of 15

Any excuse to pull something else out of the rack.

I must admit that two performance aspects of fat ski's pull me to them on any snow day (Well three if you count the gaper factor "boy those are some wide skis!"

First, even thin snow skis "bottom less", that is, when making my way through the trees with less than a foot of fresh, I don't need to be concerned (so much) about the rock or snag just a few inches below the surface. The fun factor goes WAY up if i need to be less concerned about the big hang up.

Second, Just "walking around" pulling ropes or moving across flat areas, the wide skis make a big difference. At the end of the day, the "spent factor" can be considerably less.

Oh oh, I've used up the two reasons, and there are still lots more. Did I mention the crud busting delight of the fatties?.... ... and the ... and the

You get it, It's all about having fun.

And then on the real snow day yesterday, I pulled the RC4's. What was I thinking??

'Sure had fun! And I hope you do too!.

Heck, I could have been snow boarding ;-(

post #10 of 15
Because a 165 cm racing ski with a 64mm waist between 250 lbs and 2 feet of untracked fresh really is more difficult to manage than a 178 with an 88 mm waist.

Did I get the right answer?
post #11 of 15
Depends on the slopes. The last hill were we had a big powder dump had some meadow areas that were relatively flat and easy greens. With a foot of powder they became (too tempting, the last of the untracked), doable if you went in at speed. On the long skis it was a minute of bliss and then lapsing in "avalement" to escape ... sitting back doing jet turns to try and make it back to a fall line.

Last hill I worked at had some long flats to get back to the lift and it would have been a slow slog on short SL's. Pure imagination cause they closed the hill during the pow dump of the year .. so that ain't factual but anytime the snow was soft you were pushing just to make the lift.
post #12 of 15
I started Sunday morning on my Elan Mag 12 mid-fats, and took the time to ski back to our condo to get my PEs once I discovered how much snow had fallen overnight (10-12" -- not a lot, but enough to make me want fatter skis). I figure I sacrificed 2 runs in the time it took me to get the PEs, but it was worth it. They were so much more fun than the Mags in the powder. And the PEs are not really fat at 85mm waist, but they were floating significantly better than the 76mm Mags and giving me a much more enjoyable ride.

So, required? No. Make for better skiing? Yes! I like knowing I am maximizing fun when I can; there will never be enough ski days in my life, and every little bit helps.
post #13 of 15
Originally Posted by skier_j View Post
I skied SL ski's this weekend and mid 70's waisted ones too. Both were fun.

No, you just thought you were having fun. It has been explained to me over and over, that fun is not possible, in any snow, without at least 110mm under the foot.

Those memories of great days on skinney 205's? Reprocessed memories; it was actually shear misery, a total waste of time.

Glad we got that cleared up!
post #14 of 15
Another way to consider fat skis

At any given level of "floatation", the fat ski will attain at a slower pace.

Thus prolonging, if not enhancing the experience.

There may be similar associations with other pleasurable human activities.

post #15 of 15
When I hear require I think of some TSA like guy measuring skis before you get on the lift. Nothing is required, if you like to rip it on Cross country skis with plastic edges be my guest. Skiing is about having fun and you decide that not someone else.

Personally, I like the bigger skis. I have used 79mm waisted skis in 2+ feet and you can still ski but it is alot of work and the fatter boards make this kind of skiing way more enjoyable not easier. They bust crud better, make hucks more stable and generally tend to have more punch. That said they have drawbacks. I have the 103mm waisted Jp vs Juliens which have next to no sidecut, great for pow but creates carving problems on hardpack. Second a 188 length 103 waisted no sidecut ski makes bumps painfull at best as they have a problem with very quick snapping turns. Then again this isn't what they are for. Until that time they create that perfect in all conditions ski that cooks, cleans and get you that supermodel gf I will just stick with whatever works for me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion