EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Do fat skis still suck?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do fat skis still suck? - Page 6

post #151 of 179
OK...but, if he ever calls me by your name in the heat of the moment, I'll dump him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post



Since he splits the season between West and North Central we can share him.

 
post #152 of 179
You must be a gaper not getting the goods if you believe "fat skis suck". I am buying the ON3P Great Scott after skiing a 3,000' 40+deg pow line with my bro who was on a rockered 5-dimentioned ski. The kid had no leg burn after cutting up the whole thing while I had to flop over. And that doesn't normally happen. It especially matters after skinning up 4k to get there. Every ski company who stands a chance is making this type of ski because they know how well it works. Skiing has finally been able to break away from basing every design off of race stock with subtle changes (a little fatter here, a little softer here). Wake up. Or don't, I don't really care. We are the ones who made skiing $ cool $ again.
post #153 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by snomaster View Post

You must be a gaper not getting the goods if you believe "fat skis suck". I am buying the ON3P Great Scott after skiing a 3,000' 40+deg pow line with my bro who was on a rockered 5-dimentioned ski. The kid had no leg burn after cutting up the whole thing while I had to flop over. And that doesn't normally happen. It especially matters after skinning up 4k to get there. Every ski company who stands a chance is making this type of ski because they know how well it works. Skiing has finally been able to break away from basing every design off of race stock with subtle changes (a little fatter here, a little softer here). Wake up. Or don't, I don't really care. We are the ones who made skiing $ cool $ again.
 
Hey, that's great. Thanks for coming out.
post #154 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Work View Post




You should check out Hendrix skis.  They are fat and have a ton of sidecut...  But to answer your question, I doubt PM will be straying from their light, nimble BC/pow/Big mtn philosophy anytime soon.  They are having so much success with the Lhasa- their biggest ski, I'd be hard pressed to believe they're headed the other direction.  That being said, if they came out with a super stiff 90 waister with some turny sidecut numbers, I'd have my Mojo 90s on gear swap THE NEXT DAY.  

Bumping this post because, as gripping as the man on man banter may be, the weather's getting colder and, for those not into staring into each other's eyes while discussing male hair/body wash alternatives, it's relevant to remember there is no monolithic "fat ski" thingie.

http://www.hendryxskis.se/ there are skis that are sort of very wide race skis, complete with layers of metal etc.  While I've not skied Hendryx skis nor even spoken with someone who has, I do think they're a great example of one type of niche, complete with their own views on duck stance mounting.  Cool stuff. 

There are "fun" wide skis that don't like high speeds, and can be scary on ice, but a good time for just about everything else.

There are full-on waterski-wannabe thingies. 

For the casual reader, one good thing to remember is you don't need one of each.  A quiver of two good pairs of skis (plus old beaters) can make sense.  Or, just one pair of skis that's mid 90-ish but deals with groomed snow pretty well can also make sense.  Just think about where you ski, and be realistic about your fitness level, speeds at which you ski, and how many days you ski.

For instance, while I may be slow, it takes me a while to adjust to about anything new gear-wise.  So if aspirationally I ski 40 days a year, but on average really only 14 plus some rest days and half-days, I probably don't want to set myself up to jump on trendy skis twice a year when  I think it's "deep" out.  I could have fun skiing those trendy skis all the time, though.  I probably also don't want a ski with a long sidecut and a really stiff flex, because I probably really can't have fun on a ski like that for long or in most of the places I ski. 

 

 

post #155 of 179
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snomaster View Post

You must be a gaper not getting the goods if you believe "fat skis suck". I am buying the ON3P Great Scott after skiing a 3,000' 40+deg pow line with my bro who was on a rockered 5-dimentioned ski. The kid had no leg burn after cutting up the whole thing while I had to flop over. And that doesn't normally happen. It especially matters after skinning up 4k to get there. Every ski company who stands a chance is making this type of ski because they know how well it works. Skiing has finally been able to break away from basing every design off of race stock with subtle changes (a little fatter here, a little softer here). Wake up. Or don't, I don't really care. We are the ones who made skiing $ cool $ again.
 


Crg and Virtus - you can fight over me all you want, but I'm dropping the Zeros and getting with the Hero here (^^^^^^^^^). This guy not only skis 3000' of 40+ pow (and skinned 4k to get there!), but has a really charming way of completely missing sarcasm.

Snomaster - PM me!
post #156 of 179
Ski what ya bring which might be 2-3 pairs. Those Rhinos sound scary.
post #157 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by snomaster View Post

You must be a gayper not getting the goods if you believe "fat skis suck".

Fixed it for you
post #158 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post





Crg and Virtus - you can fight over me all you want, but I'm dropping the Zeros and getting with the Hero here (^^^^^^^^^). This guy not only skis 3000' of 40+ pow (and skinned 4k to get there!), but has a really charming way of completely missing sarcasm.

Snomaster - PM me!

Once you go FAT you never go back.  Can we still be friends?
post #159 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
Crg and Virtus - you can fight over me all you want, but I'm dropping the Zeros and getting with the Hero here (^^^^^^^^^). This guy not only skis 3000' of 40+ pow (and skinned 4k to get there!), but has a really charming way of completely missing sarcasm.

Snomaster - PM me!
I'm just going to get a bottle of tequila, put on a Patsy Cline CD, and lay around feeling sorry for myself.
post #160 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by snomaster View Post

 The kid had no leg burn after cutting up the whole thing while I had to flop over. And that doesn't normally happen. . We are the ones who made skiing $ cool $ again.
 

First, you loser, get your flabby legs in shape.  Second, I really don't think you had anything to do with whether skiing was, is, or is once again, cool. 
post #161 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post




First, you loser, get your flabby legs in shape. 
Mine could use a bit of toning too.



post #162 of 179
Quote:
Mine could use a bit of toning too.

First, if those are custom footbeds you are standing on that will help.  Second, move away from the refrigerator!

Quote:
I really don't think you had anything to do with whether skiing was, is, or is once again, cool. 

I didn't know skiing was ever COOL !

JF
post #163 of 179
For those who think you can´t carve fat skis:



Or who think you don´t want fat skis if you have good technique:



Those are both pics of Aksel Lund Svindal. Who I believe knows how to ski better than most on here. In the first pic, he is forerunner in a GS race in revelstoke, setting the best time of all participants (don´t know if it´s junior racers or what, but still.) on a pair of 105 waisted atomic coax´s. In the second pic, he´s skiing on a pair of 125mm waisted atlas.

From this article: www.friflyt.no/index.php

You know, just sayin´
post #164 of 179
^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Proof that fat skis are for hacks only......
post #165 of 179
Hey, we don't need risers fto prevent bootin out with fat skis.  hummmmmm
post #166 of 179
"In the first pic, he is forerunner in a GS race in revelstoke, setting the best time of all participants (don´t know if it´s junior racers or what, but still.)"

Apparently, it was a K1/K2 race. To translate that into "US speak," that's J4/J3. I'm pretty sure Svindal could beat the participants on snowblades, if he were so inclined (and thank God he's apparently not).
post #167 of 179
Mr.Svindal has excellent technique on any kind of skis. It's the Indian not the Arrow.
post #168 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post

Mr.Svindal has excellent technique on any kind of skis. It's the Indian not the Arrow.


Good Indian!
post #169 of 179
Good thing he used his skinny skis for the forerun, I mean 105, come on, that's not fat...
post #170 of 179
Thread Starter 
Those Atlases have a really cool shape - I especially like the spear-shaped tips.Those aren't caps are they?

It's always been the Indian and not the arrow.
post #171 of 179
I don't know...tell me I'm crazy, but Svindal practically is SITTING on the tails of his skis.  Maybe he's just fooling around or trying to get a dramatic photo, but someone preparing for their level 3 cert exam could see those pictures and think that's good skiing.  What then, I ask, what then?  Plus, I hear he detunes a smidge...
post #172 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

I don't know...tell me I'm crazy, but Svindal practically is SITTING on the tails of his skis.  Maybe he's just fooling around or trying to get a dramatic photo, but someone preparing for their level 3 cert exam could see those pictures and think that's good skiing.  What then, I ask, what then?  Plus, I hear he detunes a smidge...

Well, in the powder pic, he's doing an extremely sharp turn that requires a deep knee bend on the uphill ski in order to keep enough pressure on the downhill ski (either that, or the knee bend is just for showing off).

Either way, when you bend your knee that deeply while wearing ski boots, it's pretty much impossible to keep your butt over the center of your ski, unless of course you're telemarking or your downhill boots aren't buckled.

If you follow his line and look at his turn angle, you can see his center of mass is pretty much in line with the line of force over his downhill boot.
post #173 of 179
Hey! who stole the irony meter from the smiley page?

 
post #174 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
...
It's always been the Indian and not the arrow.
True, but the Indians forgot about those arrows pretty fast when they saw what the firesticks could do.
post #175 of 179

Actually great bounds have now been made with fat and rockered skis.  I ski on skis that are 115 underfoot and they turn great on deep pow and hard pack bumps and groomers to.  Partially due to the traditional camber combined with the rocker.

post #176 of 179

Not to turn you away or be abrasive, but this thread is 3 years old. Or 3 years dead.

post #177 of 179

Close please mod?

post #178 of 179
My fat skis put a big fat grin on my face.

3 years, 3 days, what's the difference :P
post #179 of 179

Fat skis are good on groomers too!  Iclantic Shamans and Fatypus A Lottas are loads of fun on-piste

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 › Do fat skis still suck?