EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › anyone ski real fatties back east?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

anyone ski real fatties back east?

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
I'm looking for some fatties, like 90 or bigger under foot, and am torn between a couple models for AT use. I'm looking hard at the Karhu Jak (this years), Voile Mtn Surf (last years), and some Rossi Mega Bangs (last years), Sugar Daddies. Twin tips are nice. Any other suggestions I should look for?

THis would be an all-around ski, not just pow specific. I'm currently on 1080s (80 under foot) which are nice, but I want FATTER.

What are folks riding in the northeast for all conditions????
post #2 of 29
Certainly nothing over 90mm.

All purpose in the east? 68-76 mm under foot.
post #3 of 29
Thread Starter 
Is that for resort, or BC?

I ski about 75% BC and 25% resort, so as long as it plows through the crud, frozen crust, corn, potatoes, and can handle hard pack occasionally, I'm in.
post #4 of 29
Ya oughta tell us how big you are, but if you are an average to heavier guy, short (165) and long (190) Explosivs both work great for me (I'm 215 lbs), and I know a couple of guys in northern VT that love them as well. These days I've been leaning towards short lengths because of their increased maneuverability, but obviously YMMV.

There has been a lot of discussion on Epic about fatties in general (do a search), but when I tried to see who on Epic also uses them in non-powder conditions (eg, slush, like you migh encounter in the east), I didn't get many responses:

http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000699;p=1#0000 22

For the record, while they handle "ok" in harder snow, narrower skis are a lot more fun when you know that ice or PP on groomers is all you will encounter.

If I had absolutely no idea what sort of snow I might run into (ie, maybe a 2 foot dump, maybe corn, maybe slush, maybe ice), because of their versatility, I would probably take out my Explosivs or 10ex's in preference to narrower skis, but fats certainly wouldn't be my only skis in the east.

Tom / PM
post #5 of 29
I`ve been skiing 6-7 times a year -Volkl "snorangers" from 6-7 years ago...180 cm... they are great for unpredictable condition---warm ,cruddy etc, and on piste/ice. I`m sure not going in to change skis...adapt and overcome----
post #6 of 29
Thread Starter 
I'm 5'8, 165s. Kinda looking at the Jaks and some Fischer Big Stix 84s right now...
But, they would be used mostly for BC skiing (AT).

Very different skis I know...
post #7 of 29
I use a pair of 188cm Nordica Beast, which work great in powder, and are still fairly good on groomed conditions. The 177's have a turn radius of 24m, however I'm not sure what the radius is on the 188's as the designation plate is printed wrong (my 188's have the 177 label). They are 92mm under foot. One of the things that makes them turn easy for a fat ski is that the center of the sidecut is more towards the center of the ski - there is almost as much ski behind your boot as there is in front.

One of the downfalls of that setup, and I have heard a few complaints from people about this, is that they do not float as much as skis with similar waist sizes.
post #8 of 29
I ski fatties in the East.

My everyday ski is the Vokl V-Pro which is 83mm underfoot. I have them in 180 and 190.
I'm picking up some V-Karmas tonight. I think they are 87mm under foot.
I love the Pocket Rockets as an all-conditions ski, and they are 90mm. My Gotamas at 105mm are a little much for everyday use and are reserved for pow.
A few weeks ago, I had my V-Pros on the injured reserve and broke out my old "powder" skis, my Bandit XXX and rediscovered how great they are with thier 85mm waist which does not feel fat at all to me anymore.
post #9 of 29
hi, for what its worth, I run an older '03 pair of Rosi XXX in a 185cm when I'm back home on the east coast, they are my Rock Skis. Ya, they stink on ICE, but are great everywhere else. I like to RAIL & if its powder...well they still rock & they prob got close to 225 days on em & got just enough, but not too much snap left for the big E.

If i were to pick a new fat for any/coast for BC I would set up a pair of Black Diamond Crossbows with Fritschi FRs but thats just me.

My thoughts: Find a pair of older (new) Fats & buy em, your going to tear em up on the east coast so don't spend too much money, ya its nice to have nice Fats, but in the NE (which I love) if you really ski them you will tear em to peter.

If $ no worrys, buy a pair of DPs.
post #10 of 29
Thread Starter 
Well now I've got it down to 2 different skis:

180 cm '04 Karhu Jaks or 163 cm '04 BD Havocs.

Jack specs: 127-97-117
BD Havocs: 120-88-113

I'm torn...is the Jak too flexy?
Is the Havoc too short?
Is the Jak too long?
DECISIONS...AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
post #11 of 29
I use my R:EXs (184cm) pretty much anytime I am not racing, unless the conditions are ice/boilerplate/hard frozen granular. They smooth out any kind of soft snow you can think of, and perform remarkably well on the groomers - 95% of the carving capability of either my GS or slaloms. They are just not quite as quick, but much more fun as an all-around ski.
post #12 of 29
Go for the jaks! I love that ski for everyday use here in MICHIGAN! I have them mounted up A.T. and it's perfect. No they're not too "flexy" for A.T....just right.

Someone has a pair on powmag for pretty cheap....
post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by NE1:
I use my R:EXs (184cm) pretty much anytime I am not racing, unless the conditions are ice/boilerplate/hard frozen granular.
The 1080 and R:EX are vastly similar in sidecut and float area, though not in flex.

peter15, the Havoc in that size is roughly equivalent to a 171cm Salomon 1080; the Jak in that size is roughly equivalent in area to the 184cm R:EX discussed above. For your stated goal of "FATTER!" the Jak wins by about 200cm2. Of course, that is just chicken feed compared to a Phantom Ski (160cm- 180/100/165) which beats the Havoc by 800cm2.

I am using the triangular approximations method as outlined in the thread Disadvantages of longer skis in powder
post #14 of 29
I ski 192 Motherships almost any time theres anything over 6 inches. And yes, with 97 underfoot, they still rail groomers.
All purpose are 188 Intuitiv Bigs.
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by rightcoast:
I ski 192 Motherships almost any time theres anything over 6 inches. And yes, with 97 underfoot, they still rail groomers.
All purpose are 188 Intuitiv Bigs.
RC, how much do you weigh?
post #16 of 29
Thread Starter 
OK all...leaning towards the 173 BD Havocs, but am also considering 173 Explosives. However, I want the Explosive in a twinnie, though so gotta work on finding the V-Explosive from last year, used or a leftover (good luck!). Anyone ride that ski for AT?

Thanks for ALL the input...I'm really thinking about this now instead of doing my usual thing of buying first and asking later!
post #17 of 29
Peter15, I bought AK enemy's the year before last cause I figured I'd like to have twin tips on a fatty...don't bother man, they're going to be too big to jib on or really throw around, I would just buy a fattie and not worry about the twin tips, then buy a 2nd hand pair of 1080's or something...actually I found the AK's were too centre mounted for freeriding though as they were trying to keep the weight centred for spinning or something...
post #18 of 29
Thread Starter 
Yah, I've already decided that I'm going to keep my 1080s and throw alpine bindings on them, and move my Freerides onto the new ski, whatever that turns out to be!
post #19 of 29
You're looking to buy something with a 90mm+ waist for all-around use in the east coast?

Are you buying skis for the conditions you actually ski in, or the conditions you wish you were skiing?

Mount your Freerides on the 1080s 2cm back of the center line and use them for the pow, 80mm is plenty fat if you know how to use them. For all around hardpack, get something in the mid to low 70s and learn how to use your edges.
post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by comprex:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rightcoast:
I ski 192 Motherships almost any time theres anything over 6 inches. And yes, with 97 underfoot, they still rail groomers.
All purpose are 188 Intuitiv Bigs.
RC, how much do you weigh? </font>[/quote]Im about 5'10", 175 lbs.
post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally posted by Ugli Pupferknick:
Mount your Freerides on the 1080s 2cm back of the center line and use them for the pow, 80mm is plenty fat if you know how to use them. For all around hardpack, get something in the mid to low 70s and learn how to use your edges.
I did exactly that on my 1080s, works great in all conditions.

Rightcoast, I would go with Ugli's advice, but if you really want a fatter board working well on groomers too look into a Rossi B3 or Stoeckli DP.
post #22 of 29
One thing about twin tip fat skis in the east. I like the ability to back up on them when I'm in the trees and get into some place that I want to back out of. The tip on the tail can come in handy. For those of you have wide open trees you may not know what I'm talking about.
post #23 of 29
Thread Starter 
I currently do have my 1080s mounted with my freerides - they are pretty good. Just looking to try something a bit stiffer and fatter that still rails on the groomers, if I want to use them there. I'm going to keep my 1080s and mount regular alpine binders on them for regular on-piste work.
post #24 of 29
I have to wonder if everyone's definition of "rail the groomers" is the same as mine. Compared with SL skis, fat skis are little more than 2x4s when it comes to carving on the groomers.

Even my Elan Mantis 662 (116-76-102) with their vertical sidewalls and pseudo-race construction cannot measure up to the Elan HCX Hyper when it comes to railing the groomers. I think it is hard to justify the need for 90mm underfoot in the East, but thatis just my opinion.
post #25 of 29
no, my intuitiv bigs rail. as in laying over big ass GS turns, leaving trenches.
definately not 2x4esque.
motherships, not so much, but beter than i ever thought for a 97mm waist.
post #26 of 29
Thread Starter 
After MUCH decision, I've gone with a pair of 173 04 Explosives...stiff and fat...
They'll be mounted up with my Freerides with fat brakes. I'll let you all know how they handle the groomers and the BC stuff.
post #27 of 29
IMO thats a great east coast BC set up. Youll love them in fresh snow, and also slush inbounds!
post #28 of 29
Thread Starter 
So, the logical next question: where to mount the Freerides on the Explosives? Anyone have this setup, or where did you mount your bindings on the skis?
post #29 of 29
188 Dynastar BIGS w/freerides

Freerides are terrible on ice, but that does not matter w/fatties RIGHT.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › anyone ski real fatties back east?