EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fat skis suck because....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fat skis suck because.... - Page 5

post #121 of 156
8/22/08 at 3:45pm
If they suck then why are all the pros riding them
Reply
post #122 of 156
8/22/08 at 4:03pm
They get paid to ride them .They don't have a choice. It's a tough ,thankless job but somebody has to do it.
Reply
post #123 of 156
8/22/08 at 4:07pm
The Jamaica Bobsled Team were using fat skis as runners...

No wonder they didn't medal....

Skinny skis suck
Fat skis suck
Fattish skis RULE!!

Usain Bolt uses fattish shoes, and he's faster than Michael Phelps who has fat shoes.....so there!
Reply
post #124 of 156
8/22/08 at 4:25pm
I don't get it. I bought some fAt skis and skied them last year in deep conditions. Skied the same as skinny skis. Must be doing something wrong? The knee drop, way cool. Switch ride too cool.
Reply
post #125 of 156
8/22/08 at 7:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
Switch ride too cool.
Twins huh ? Next time try it with the toe pieces in front.
Reply
post #126 of 156
8/23/08 at 8:46pm
Fat skis may be necessary in the West, but IMO they are merely trendy in the East. Even during winter 07/08's biggest dumps (there were several), I did not encounter any conditions that required a ski with a waist in excess of 78 mm. The Apache Recon, '07 Trouble Maker, Volkl AC 30 (76 mm) or Nordica Nitrous could easily handle any/all of the conditions I encountered.

I'm not saying that having wider skis wouldn't be fun, or would be detrimental, I'm just saying wider skis weren't necessary to have a good time skiing the conditions I encountered.

Caveats: (1) I'm relatively light weight, and (2) I did not ski the entire Northeast last winter. I skied NY, MASS and many areas in VT (not Jay).

Bold prediction: the folks that market skis will wait one or two more seasons before they start to swing the pendulum back toward promoting narrower "more nimble" skis for use in Eastern US markets.
Reply
post #127 of 156
8/23/08 at 9:06pm
STE, Your points are noted.. Furthermore, fat skis have never been "necessary" anywhere to people that know how to ski really well. I think you're correct about narrower skis being hot again in a fe years (but with other modifications). Look at the evolution and de evolution of skatebaords.
Late 60s-early 70s = 6"-7" wide and about 26" long
--Riding street only-freestyle
Late 70s-thru the 80s = 10"-12" wide and about 30" long (Pigs)
--Riding pools, bowls, and pipes
Early 90s- present = 8" -9" wide and about 32" long (double kicks)
--Riding street needing narrower board for kickflip tricks
--Riding pipe going a bit wider board but still need to kick flip.
Recent longboards with medium width
--Not sure what these are good for except really nasty rocky pavement.
Pigs are making a comeback.

All fashions go in circles. Thinner skis will be back in in 10 years, then fatties may be back in 20.
Reply
post #128 of 156
8/23/08 at 9:51pm
crgildart, I disagree fat skis are going to fade in favor to narrower skis. There is nothing to suggest that. Not only are skis wider, but they are being made in many new alternative sidecut, camber and flex options. What we now call "narrow" shaped skis were new just 10 to 12 years ago. A few straighter, wider skis were around like the Volkl Explosiv, Dynastar Bigs and Atomic Powders that are narrow by today's standard, but revolutionalry. The Volant Spatula in 1996was something that pioneered so far ahead of its time, people couldn't comprehend it. It failed to sell when being manufactured, but came in to high demand later when its capabilities were better understood.

Since then, compound sidecuts and new understandings have evolved a whole new generation of fats that the average skier is simply unaware of. They will mainstream in time, and new ideas are evolved. I just don't see us going back to Knissel Blue Stars.
Reply
post #129 of 156
8/24/08 at 3:58am
What we do forget here from time to time is that we are the lunatic fringe. People on forums usually are the exception to rules not the rules. I would gather the mass majority either have more that one pair or are seriously considering another pair. Back on the olden golden days, most people had just their one pair. The lunatic fringe was still there, just not as vocal.

Ski construction has evolved to where skis can be shaped and constructed different. back them the only difference in a "powder ski" was that it was softer. Race skis were longer. Then for the most part, every ski looked the same, all were about 85/70/80 for dims, +/-5mm. Now we have tips ranging from 105-160, waists from 62-140 and tails from, well you get the idea. The only difference now is that we have options. But the majority of skiers out on the hill still just have the one pair and that isn't a fat ski.

Sorry for the incoherent ramble, I haven't had my coffee yet.
Start Haus Insider

Bringing World Cup caliber ski equipment and service to all skiers - from pro ski racers to everyday all mountain skiers and into the...

» Get the latest news and updates at the Start Haus sponsor page.
Reply
post #130 of 156
8/24/08 at 5:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
crgildart, I disagree fat skis are going to fade in favor to narrower skis. There is nothing to suggest that. Not only are skis wider, but they are being made in many new alternative sidecut, camber and flex options.

I just don't see us going back to Knissel Blue Stars.
Agreed, what I'm saying is the trend of skis getting fatter and fatter will ease up. I don't think that skis will continue to get fatter. I think that most skis will be waisted under 90 mm in 10 years. I'm not saying they will go all the way back to the 60mm waist as the norm, I'm thinking more around 85 on average. Sure there will still be some 100 mm POW skis, but that won't be "all the rage".
The skateboard example was that they took the old standard, made a huge improvement by making it fatter. Then they kept going past the "optimum" width and eventually went back a little thinne-a full 2" thinner. I see the same thing happening with skis in a few years. I think that folks will be rocking 120mm waist skis for retro day in 20 years. It will be widiculous wide board day instead of ludicrious longboard day.

Ski companies will probably be behind the move. When the market is saturated with really fat skis they'll need to make those look obsolete/unfashionable. Maybe the emphaisis will go back to racing instead of powder and park, maybe it will be something else. Whtever, it will be something diffferent than what everyone currently has. I'll probably be rocking the really fat skis at this point cause they'll be available cheap.
Reply
post #131 of 156
8/24/08 at 8:13am
That I can agree with.
Reply
post #132 of 156
8/24/08 at 8:18am
Fat skis don't suck.....mean people suck.
(At least I though that was the original tounge planted firmly in cheek point if this thread.)
Reply
post #133 of 156
8/24/08 at 9:46am
I agree 100% with crgildart's statement:

"Ski companies will probably be behind the move. When the market is saturated with really fat skis they'll need to make those look obsolete/unfashionable. Maybe the emphaisis will go back to racing instead of powder and park, maybe it will be something else. Whtever, it will be something different than what everyone currently has."

That's what I meant by my "bold prediction."

NYSkier55, I don't think anyone has been uncivil (and I don't think that's what you were suggesting either). I plead guilty to taking the topic too seriously.

Ski the East
Reply
post #134 of 156
8/24/08 at 11:01am
I mean no disrespect, but I am amused by the fact that many people who, just one or two seasons ago were vociferous in their promotion of the skinny-waisted, radical side cut Metrons are now extolling the virtues of wide waisted, longer-radius fatties. Even more interesting was that this switch took place, not in a slow and evolutionary way, but almost overnight.

I haven't decided just what this means, but I do find it interesting....
Reply
post #135 of 156
8/24/08 at 11:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiDeC58 View Post
I mean no disrespect, but I am amused by the fact that many people who, just one or two seasons ago were vociferous in their promotion of the skinny-waisted, radical side cut Metrons are now extolling the virtues of wide waisted, longer-radius fatties.
They were not skinny for their time, 75mm-82mm waist, going fatter seems a natural progression.

Don't forget that most 1990s cr@p boot wearers would have still worn them in 2002 but upgraded by 2005-2007, allowing them to edge fat skis.
Reply
post #136 of 156
8/24/08 at 12:11pm
Fat skis don't suck.........................


but they are like dating a fat girl............





fun but never let your friends see you on her/them
Reply
post #137 of 156
8/24/08 at 12:58pm
OMG LOL!!! You guys are actually taking this seriously. (I felt like using some of that new fangled text-speak...)

I feel the need to address this:

"Ski companies will probably be behind the move. When the market is saturated with really fat skis they'll need to make those look obsolete/unfashionable. Maybe the emphasis will go back to racing instead of powder and park, maybe it will be something else. Whatever, it will be something different than what everyone currently has."

Yes, the 'Ski Industry' will find something new to promote and find a reason to make people feel like they need new gear... but it isn't some evil conspiracy. It's like this:

Sell the image of carving to gapers---> Profit
Sell carving gaper image of 'All Mountain Skiing'---> Profit
Sell All Mountain gaper image of powder skiing---> Profit
Sell Powder Skiing gaper the image of AT---> Profit
Make AT Skiing gaper realize he's skiing bump lines with other gapers who bought same image---> Sell bump skis--->Profit.
Sell bumpskier gaper carving skis 'cause his knees hurt---> profit
Back to start---> Profit

Stop being a gaper and break the cycle... or don't and hopefully I Profit.

Actually, we're talking about the Ski Industry, so it's really develop new ski design---> hemorrhage cash---> sell company to bigger company---> ????
Reply
post #138 of 156
8/24/08 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
OMG LOL!!! You guys are actually taking this seriously.
This is the internet, therefore it is serious... let alone true and accurate.
Start Haus Insider

Bringing World Cup caliber ski equipment and service to all skiers - from pro ski racers to everyday all mountain skiers and into the...

» Get the latest news and updates at the Start Haus sponsor page.
Reply
post #139 of 156
8/24/08 at 1:21pm
I just wanted to write: OMG LOL!!

the rest of the crap I wrote was just to justify it... what did I say? Did it make ANY sense? Sorry.
Reply
post #140 of 156
8/24/08 at 1:28pm
Ski companies know we work hard and have monies. They want that money for themselves. Therefore they make shiny toys to catch our eyes and help us believe we need them .

Ski companies know us very well. We are them and they are us. Tied together in the struggle for joy on snow.
Reply
post #141 of 156
8/24/08 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
Sell the image of carving to gapers---> Profit
Sell carving gaper image of 'All Mountain Skiing'---> Profit
Sell All Mountain gaper image of powder skiing---> Profit
Sell Powder Skiing gaper the image of AT---> Profit
Make AT Skiing gaper realize he's skiing bump lines with other gapers who bought same image---> Sell bump skis--->Profit.
Sell bumpskier gaper carving skis 'cause his knees hurt---> profit
Back to start---> Profit
LOL
Gaper Product Lifecycke
GPLC
We're really saying the same thing, just using different terms.

Marketers in all industries do this. Develop new products folks don't already have and reate percieved needs for them.

btw, who said the ski industry was "evil"?

I don't think there is anythig wrong with new products, I just don't feel that they are "necessary" (except for folks in real competitions) and see some as a bit "silly". If I had more disposable cash I'd be buying them too.
Reply
post #142 of 156
8/24/08 at 2:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
. But the majority of skiers out on the hill still just have the one pair and that isn't a fat ski.
Hell, I've got six pairs of skiis and they're all fat.
Reply
post #143 of 156
8/25/08 at 7:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Hell, I've got six pairs of skiis and they're all fat.
So they don't suck any more, eh?
Reply
post #144 of 156
8/25/08 at 7:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Hell, I've got six pairs of skiis and they're all fat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker View Post
So they don't suck any more, eh?
So you're saying that skis don't suck only skiers?
Reply
post #145 of 156
8/25/08 at 3:41pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker View Post
So they don't suck any more, eh?
You mean they sucked once?

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
So you're saying that skis don't suck only skiers?
Yeah - what he said.
Reply
post #146 of 156
12/12/09 at 3:37pm
It just occurred to me that this ski equipment fad seems somewhat parallel to the fat ski mania (no pun intended LOL)..  Boots got higher and higher, then all of a sudden they went from cool to ridiculous.  They did end up a bit higher than they were before the trend started.  I see the fat ski trend ending up the same.  Folks won't be skiing anything over 100 underfoot in ten years except for a joke on retro day.

Reply
post #147 of 156
12/12/09 at 3:58pm
I'm sticking with the skinny girls,I mean skis.
Reply
post #148 of 156
12/12/09 at 4:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

It just occurred to me that this ski equipment fad seems somewhat parallel to the fat ski mania (no pun intended LOL)..  Boots got higher and higher, then all of a sudden they went from cool to ridiculous.  They did end up a bit higher than they were before the trend started.  I see the fat ski trend ending up the same.  Folks won't be skiing anything over 100 underfoot in ten years except for a joke on retro day.





But, those boots made skiing a lot easier! I don't understand what you are saying.
Reply
post #149 of 156
12/12/09 at 6:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by axebiker View Post
So they don't suck any more, eh?
You mean they sucked once?

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
So you're saying that skis don't suck only skiers?
Yeah - what he said.
Fat skis don't hide out on the edge of the trail waiting for some unfortunate skier to catch an edge and tip into a tree well and then leap onto him lunging for his neck, twisting to tear out ...... , skiers, I mean coyotes, do.
Reply
post #150 of 156
12/13/09 at 7:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post



But, those boots made skiing a lot easier! I don't understand what you are saying.
 
DING DING DING DING!

Those boots also started blowing out a lot of knees so they are similar to deep sidecuts in that regard.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fat skis suck because....