New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How Wide?

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Everyone knows that length doesn't matter, but width does.

So on that tangent how wide would you go if you were 6 foot, 170 pounds looking for a soft snow only ski?
post #2 of 24
156mm

SJ
post #3 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

156mm

SJ
 

Really???  That wide for Tahoe?
post #4 of 24
 lenght does matter.
post #5 of 24
Length is a forgotten component in "float". It is just as important width
post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesoggycow View Post

Everyone knows that length doesn't matter, but width does.
 

Sorry soggy...not in skiing.

“Ride smooth go long, ride fat lay back”.  You can take a ski with an 80mm center standing at top of forehead anywhere steep and deep whereas 100 plus centers approaching your nose are nothing but clown shoes

post #7 of 24
^^^^^^that works if you're skiing alone or with a posse of mid-fats. otherwise, wave bye bye.

curious about the quote
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

...wave bye bye.

 

huh? 

Whatever fatty; happy to ski with you to figure out this wave thing  

post #9 of 24
Thanks for the smile. no offense intended.

It simply isn't possible to ski as relaxed, carefree, and funky wild with a mid-fat.

You are either left (waved at) on the first run, or if you are very skilled, you are left on the fourth run, in total exhaustion from keeping up.
 
Having just had my first deep powder day on 115's, I have the zeal of the newly converted. bear, with me.

And, damn, I hope when you bears come out to Squaw, you'll check in wth me for a run or two, and not to compete or prove anything of course.
post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesoggycow View Post

Everyone knows that length doesn't matter, but width does.

So on that tangent how wide would you go if you were 6 foot, 170 pounds looking for a soft snow only ski?
 

The reason old skinny skis worked as well as the did in powder was their length.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DonDenver View Post



Sorry soggy...not in skiing.

“Ride smooth go long, ride fat lay back”.  You can take a ski with an 80mm center standing at top of forehead anywhere steep and deep whereas 100 plus centers approaching your nose are nothing but clown shoes


You can call me Bozo. Uber-fat has its place. Lots of them actually.  My go to ski for anything soft and under 12" is a 130/110/120 165cm Atomic Powder Plus and none of my ski buddies complain that I hold them back. As a matter of fact I'm going out on them momentarily.

BTW, I'm 5' 11", 200 lbs.
post #11 of 24
The nice thing about a fat ski is that they can make a few inches feel much deeper than it actually is. And when it gets deeper...look out. Fun times. If you're so reluctant to a little change then you're only denying yourself joy.
post #12 of 24
ecimmortal: The nice thing about a fat ski is that they can make a few inches feel much deeper than it actually is.

Fat skis make deep snow feel LESS deep BECAUSE THEY FLOAT.
post #13 of 24
Fat or skinny if there's a base I'll find it.
post #14 of 24
Don, now I get the quote, about skiing on the tails of shorter fatter skis. yeah, people do that as a crutch, but if you are centered in the sweet spot, wow, what a ride. you can feel the snow better, and ski through all levels of it on a 115+ski. oh, yeah!

but there is no way we're really debating this, is there? is there a new angle on this discussion that would be of interest?

and soggy, to the original question, IMO, around 115mm to 125mm works in dense (26+ degree) powder and cut powder. for blower (10 degree)  powder, which we rarely have, the widest skis made (130 -140mm waist) would be fun.
post #15 of 24
Only thing I'll add to this conversation is not to forget the tips. I have a pair of 175 Shaman with the big ol' shovel tips. They're 160 up there but only 110 underfoot. As long as I have decent speed I can go superman forward on my balance and still float my 200 pounds of dude.
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by slider View Post
Fat or skinny if there's a base I'll find it.

^^ Best of breed epic signature line  



Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri View Post

but there is no way we're really debating this, is there? is there a new angle on this discussion that would be of interest?

 

Oh god no….but what a fun cartoon this forum, huh.  I suppose I should have attached the little sarcasm face as I was having some fun with the internet skiers who think it’s about the ski not knowing a damn thing about the skier.  Oh shit, sorry, did it again

…wait for it






 with a  and a  finished off with

post #17 of 24
Where is this thread going?
post #18 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by nfp158 View Post

Where is this thread going?
 

 

Flat lined…see DNR orders.

OP first sentence sets off troll alarm invoking full   privilege with requisite confusion by post number 6. 

See  section 17 comments 5 & 6 drawn out from the epic thread/troll disaster of 2007.

post #19 of 24
I just got a smile from SJ's first post: 156mm: if width is what counts, in the deep and soft, Jim's gonna' make sure he's got the goods, not to be judged lacking in some important area.  double entendre courtesy the OP.
post #20 of 24
Thread Starter 
Jim, Holy F**K what's that huge? Whatever it is, you are THE MAN. Maybe you should share your secrets?

And davluri, thanks for the advice.
I'm usually at squaw-li-ville on Thursdays and Mondays, homework permitting. If you see me in my pink helmet tumbling down something stupid, make sure you make a point to come over and at least laugh.
post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesoggycow View Post

Jim, Holy F**K what's that huge? Whatever it is, you are THE MAN. Maybe you should share your secrets?
 

Welllll................I could tell ya, but then I'd hafta............well..........you know.

SJ
post #22 of 24
So what's the practical upper limit on width anyway? Are we gonna see someone mount ski bindings on a pair of snowboards and make the ultimate fattie ski?
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesoggycow View Post

Jim, Holy F**K what's that huge? Whatever it is, you are THE MAN. Maybe you should share your secrets?

And davluri, thanks for the advice.
I'm usually at squaw-li-ville on Thursdays and Mondays, homework permitting. If you see me in my pink helmet tumbling down something stupid, make sure you make a point to come over and at least laugh.
 

   since I'm there every day, I'm always there on Thursdays and Mondays. be checkin' ya', .

tomorrow the comps should be a great party either down in Silverado or from Bar One Patio area.
Edited by davluri - 2/27/10 at 7:22pm
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrison Claystone View Post

So what's the practical upper limit on width anyway? Are we gonna see someone mount ski bindings on a pair of snowboards and make the ultimate fattie ski?
 


this has been gone into with scientific scrutiny not long ago, but simply the Kuro, Fatypus, and others around 140 waist seem to have found the optimal functional limit for light, deep snow. beyond that may be just silly.  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion