or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Tried Phat skis on a groomer this weekend and it was a shocking experiance
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tried Phat skis on a groomer this weekend and it was a shocking experiance - Page 3

post #61 of 88
 There you go TDK6!  like it!  
post #62 of 88
Thread Starter 

Nice words Bud and Ghost, thanks. Its not easy to be able to ski in all kind of conditions and terrain. Carving is basicly the skis turning you while steering (using this term here for non carved turns, passive or active) is all about you turning the skis. If you cannot differ between these two then its going to be difficult to do eather one well and correctly. IMO the reason for people me included bashing phat skis is not really about the skis, its about the skiers. Many phat or park skiers cannot ski properly and due to many reasons. For instance they started with snow board and then moved on to twin tip or phat skis offpits because it was hip. Or there was not any suitable lessons available. Or the ski school was not attractive enough to them (ski schools fault). Or they didnt have the money to pay for lessons because skiing is their thing and their parrents are not involved and sponsoring. Or they rather buy cigaretts and booz. Or they thaught that learning was unnesessary because the new phat skis float in powder and makes everything easier. And many more reasons. So phat skis does not automatically make you a bad skier. They just makes stuff impossible to skiers that lack proper skills. Still with proper skills like posessed by Ted or Bode that both like skiing for fun in off pist with wider skis the less skilled skiers would get much more out of their skiing.

 

post #63 of 88
I've been reading through this thread and find myself thoroughly confused.  Now, although I have been skiing for nearly 40 years, I continue to learn new things about skiing technique, and for the first time (this year) actually own a quiver of skis.  So, can someone explain to me:  what is the difference between "phat" and "fat" skis?
post #64 of 88
Thread Starter 
No difference bbinder. Same thing. Just some sort of youthful rap talk. So do you have a pair of phat skis in your quiver?
post #65 of 88
 Could also be spellled ghat skis (gh as in "tough")
post #66 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbinder View Post

I've been reading through this thread and find myself thoroughly confused.  Now, although I have been skiing for nearly 40 years, I continue to learn new things about skiing technique, and for the first time (this year) actually own a quiver of skis.  So, can someone explain to me:  what is the difference between "phat" and "fat" skis?
It's a little word play meaning fat skis, as in wide at the waist, but using the slang term phat

 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=phat
post #67 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post

Nice words Bud and Ghost, thanks. Its not easy to be able to ski in all kind of conditions and terrain. Carving is basicly the skis turning you while steering (using this term here for non carved turns, passive or active) is all about you turning the skis. If you cannot differ between these two then its going to be difficult to do eather one well and correctly. IMO the reason for people me included bashing phat skis is not really about the skis, its about the skiers. Many phat or park skiers cannot ski properly and due to many reasons. For instance they started with snow board and then moved on to twin tip or phat skis offpits because it was hip. Or there was not any suitable lessons available. Or the ski school was not attractive enough to them (ski schools fault). Or they didnt have the money to pay for lessons because skiing is their thing and their parrents are not involved and sponsoring. Or they rather buy cigaretts and booz. Or they thaught that learning was unnesessary because the new phat skis float in powder and makes everything easier. And many more reasons. So phat skis does not automatically make you a bad skier. They just makes stuff impossible to skiers that lack proper skills. Still with proper skills like posessed by Ted or Bode that both like skiing for fun in off pist with wider skis the less skilled skiers would get much more out of their skiing.

 


umm who really cares that you dont like the way people ski on fat skis? So is that the whole point of this thread?
post #68 of 88
Skiing is an art.  An artist cares about art. 
post #69 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post

Nice words Bud and Ghost, thanks. Its not easy to be able to ski in all kind of conditions and terrain. Carving is basicly the skis turning you while steering (using this term here for non carved turns, passive or active) is all about you turning the skis. If you cannot differ between these two then its going to be difficult to do eather one well and correctly. IMO the reason for people me included bashing phat skis is not really about the skis, its about the skiers. Many phat or park skiers cannot ski properly and due to many reasons. For instance they started with snow board and then moved on to twin tip or phat skis offpits because it was hip. Or there was not any suitable lessons available. Or the ski school was not attractive enough to them (ski schools fault). Or they didnt have the money to pay for lessons because skiing is their thing and their parrents are not involved and sponsoring. Or they rather buy cigaretts and booz. Or they thaught that learning was unnesessary because the new phat skis float in powder and makes everything easier. And many more reasons. So phat skis does not automatically make you a bad skier. They just makes stuff impossible to skiers that lack proper skills. Still with proper skills like posessed by Ted or Bode that both like skiing for fun in off pist with wider skis the less skilled skiers would get much more out of their skiing.

 


Wow. If I did not know better, I'd say this was trolling. It is sad. And in a literal and non-judgemental sense, ignorant.  Both with respect to equipment and technique.

You guys can pick on BWPA all you want. He may not win the Henry Kissinger diplomacy award. And he will clearly never be the king of grammar (I seem to recall a cheap Elements of Style shot somewhere...), but the bottom line is that he is right. The whole skinny ski fan club thing is no well past nonsensical... The sooner both the retail and instructional channels get a clue, the better they will serve their customers. 
post #70 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
You guys can pick on BWPA all you want. He may not win the Henry Kissinger diplomacy award. And he will clearly never be the king of grammar (I seem to recall a cheap Elements of Style shot somewhere...), but the bottom line is that he is right. The whole skinny ski fan club thing is no well past nonsensical... The sooner both the retail and instructional channels get a clue, the better they will serve their customers. 
It's not the skinny ski fan club, its the truth-in-skiing fan club.  Fat skis do not work as well as race skis for arcing turns on hard snow.  Having fat skis does not prevent one from carving or getting down a run in half decent time.  Having skinny skis will not prevent one from getting down any slope except a nearly horizontal slope, no matter how gnarly, in half decent time.  Not having skills is what will prevent one from getting down either hard, or soft and deep slopes in decent time.

It would appear that not having skills presents less of a problem for people skiing fat skis than for people skiing skinny skis.  If that is indeed the case, then TDK6 is correct, and skill development will be delayed, perhaps indefinitely by skiers choosing fat skis.
post #71 of 88
 My 88mm waist skis...carve wonderfully, even with no race plates...BushwackerinPA tried them, I had tuned them the night before and he was equally impressed on Hunter Mountain's "powder".   I have never tried running the gates with them, but for GS turns, they seriously rip....they do require some commitment ..those extra mm mean you have to get way over to engage those edges fully...makes it all the more fun.
post #72 of 88
Sorry Jamt but you are simply wrong. Slalom skis are used in slalom races because they work best for slalom turns.

Booting out is more a myth than a reality. Take a look at this:

bode-miller-slalom-super-combined-022110jpg-b30279763ecde895_large.jpg

That is a gold medal winning slalom run. Note the edge angles. Note that he is not booting out. Note that you cannot replicate that level of skiing on 95mm skis.


Look at it in contrast to  your photo, where the skier is way off balance to the inside, has his weight too far back and is going to have to do a major up-and-over maneuver to get to the next turn. Very inefficient skiing. I would suggest drills to learn to keep his shoulders matched to the slope, and not let the hips drop so far behind the skis.
post #73 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post



It's not the skinny ski fan club, its the truth-in-skiing fan club.  Fat skis do not work as well as race skis for arcing turns on hard snow.  Having fat skis does not prevent one from carving or getting down a run in half decent time.  Having skinny skis will not prevent one from getting down any slope except a nearly horizontal slope, no matter how gnarly, in half decent time.  Not having skills is what will prevent one from getting down either hard, or soft and deep slopes in decent time.

It would appear that not having skills presents less of a problem for people skiing fat skis than for people skiing skinny skis.  If that is indeed the case, then TDK6 is correct, and skill development will be delayed, perhaps indefinitely by skiers choosing fat skis.

I have never said fat and/or rockered skis can carve as well as race skis. Every time I get on my WC(as in have actually been used on the WC) GS skis I am amazed by how good they are on hard groomers.

The thing is if groomers are your thing and you want uncompromising performance sweet ski on race skis. If groomers arent your thing then there are alot of other better option.  

My only point is alot of what people ski is a catch 33.

They dont like skiing off trail because.....

they dont have the skills
The skis they are using doesnt help them develop those skills
They are afraid to try 'new" skis because other people(Significant Other, friends, instructors, coaches) are still skeptical. 

you have to break down all three at once for a student to truly enjoy skiing off piste bashed slopes.

the skeptics are quite often people who hasnt tried the new stuff or has tried the new stuff is a very poor situation. IE hey I tried untuned, fat center mount twins on a ICEY groomer and they sucked......

ORLYowl.jpg

Its like say I broke my leg skiing 3 feet of 20 percent water content snow on SL sticks. 

Most of the skeptics here dont ski hills with 3D terrain and snow. Some of the ones that do ski hills that have 3D terrain and snow and are still skeptical have sayings like "I like to ski anything but bumps" or are admitted gate chasers.  Basically if you dont have at your local hill or know what I speak of when I say 3D terrain and snow then my advice isnt for you.
post #74 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
The whole skinny ski fan club thing is no well past nonsensical... The sooner both the retail and instructional channels get a clue, the better they will serve their customers. 

In a non-judgemental sense, your post is in a word - ignorant. My fattest skis are S7s. My skinniest skis are Fischer World Cup slalom. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum because they each do what they do in the best manner. Move away from either end, and you get reduced performance for what they are designed for.
post #75 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by iWill View Post

Sorry Jamt but you are simply wrong. Slalom skis are used in slalom races because they work best for slalom turns.

Booting out is more a myth than a reality. Take a look at this:

bode-miller-slalom-super-combined-022110jpg-b30279763ecde895_large.jpg

That is a gold medal winning slalom run. Note the edge angles. Note that he is not booting out. Note that you cannot replicate that level of skiing on 95mm skis.


Look at it in contrast to  your photo, where the skier is way off balance to the inside, has his weight too far back and is going to have to do a major up-and-over maneuver to get to the next turn. Very inefficient skiing. I would suggest drills to learn to keep his shoulders matched to the slope, and not let the hips drop so far behind the skis.

you couldnt shot a bullet though that snow in your pic iWill. In cruddy and or slushly snow booting out is pretty common for good skiers.
post #76 of 88
Again.

Reality.

Modern skinny skis evolved in the context of hard/firm snow & "ice". That is their design center. The softer and deeper the snow gets, the worse they perform and the more you need to display technique that defeats the very design of the ski. 

Modern reverse/reverse skis were designed to ski powder. And as things got harder, their performance dropped off.

But the Spatula kicked off an evolutionary explosion of experiments that are demonstrating that skis derived from those "bones",  are able to ski anything but true ice quite well. And they are beyond superior in soft snow and slush. There is just no contest.

In that middle ground of average snow, you now give up virtually nothing with fatter and rockered skis. Hence the reason most of the best skiers in the world are using them on a regular basis for freeskiing. Andy why you see more and more of them on the feet of average skiers. And please do not even bring up ice & race & race course nonsense - how many recreational skiers will ever ski a salted/injected run? How many "aspire" to ski ice vs powder? 

You guys can live in fantasy land all you want. But for my .02, consumers should be wary of retailers unfamiliar, or uncomfortable, with fatter and rockered skis. And should flat out avoid instructors who are uncomfortable, or unfamiliar, with fatter and rockered skis. It is kind of a shame too, because lots of basically good people in the channel(s) are about to be left behind - just because they are digging in their heels and refuse to adapt in the small ways needed to thrive in a world of improved ski technology and commensurate modifications of technique.

I'm not saying there is no place in the world for narrower conventional skis. But there is no place in my world for them. And most "average" skiers would be well served to look beyond the "conventional wisdom" of yesteryear...
Edited by spindrift - 4/10/10 at 1:26pm
post #77 of 88
No, that's not true. That run was not water injected, it was slushed and rutted badly that day. As WC level courses go, it was way softer than it should have been. As far as "good" skiers booting out - if they were "good" skiers, they be adjusting their edging and pressure according to the snow conditions.
post #78 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by iWill View Post

No, that's not true. That run was not water injected, it was slushed and rutted badly that day. As WC level courses go, it was way softer than it should have been. As far as "good" skiers booting out - if they were "good" skiers, they be adjusting their edging and pressure according to the snow conditions.


sure I could adjust, or I could just use wider skis and not worry about booting out in weird conditions. and FYI if you want talk about 'racing" since apparently that all that matters on this site to all of ya. If we set up gates on run with 3D snow took to of the same skier and handed one narrower carvers and one fatter skis, with the same sidecut. The person on the fatter skis would win, the clone of that person on the narrow skis can 'adjust" and go slower.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

Again.

Reality.

Modern skinny skis evolved in the context of hard/firm snow & "ice". That is their design center. The softer and deeper the snow gets, the worse they perform and the more you need to display technique that defeats the very design of the ski. 

Modern reverse/reverse skis were designed to ski powder. And as things got harder, their performance dropped off.

But the Spatula kicked off an evolutionary explosion of experiments that are demonstrating that skis derived from those "bones",  are able to ski anything but true ice quite well. And they are beyond superior in soft snow and slush. There is just no contest.

In that middle ground of average snow, you now give up virtually nothing with fatter and rockered skis. Hence the reason most of the best skiers in the world are using them on a regular basis for freeskiing. Andy why you see more and more of them on the feet of average skiers. And please do not even bring up ice & race & race course nonsense - how many recreational skiers will ever ski a salted/injected run? How many "aspire" to ski ice vs powder? 

You guys can live in fantasy land all you want. But for my .02, consumers should be wary of retailers unfamiliar, or uncomfortable, with fatter and rockered skis. And should flat out avoid instructors who are uncomfortable, or unfamiliar, with fatter and rockered skis. It is kind of a shame too, because lots of basically good people in the channel(s) are about to be left behind - just because they are digging in their heels and refuse to adapt in the small ways needed to thrive in a world of improved ski technology and commensurate modifications of technique.

I'm not saying there is no place in the world for narrower conventional skis. But there is no place in my world for them. And most "average" skiers would be well served to look beyond the "conventional wisdom" of yesteryear...



 

FYI I think things are on the winds of change at least here on the EC in the PSIA. Terry Barbour has an entire quiver of rossi Reverse camber skis for him and his family. Dave Merriam here at stowe will have some rockered skis next year.
post #79 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post

No difference bbinder. Same thing. Just some sort of youthful rap talk. So do you have a pair of phat skis in your quiver?

Ya -- I got a pair of 2010 Gotamas and they are phat -- although slower from edge to edge than my other skis, they perform remarkably well on groomed and even hardpack.  While I think that they would be a chore to ski all day on groomed terrain compared to my new/used Nordica Mach 3s (Thanks to The Squeaky Wheel!), I have been pleasantly surprised at their versatility -- the picture in my avatar me skiing the Gots on groomed terrain at Big Sky.
post #80 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post
Wow. If I did not know better, I'd say this was trolling. It is sad. And in a literal and non-judgemental sense, ignorant.  Both with respect to equipment and technique.

You guys can pick on BWPA all you want. He may not win the Henry Kissinger diplomacy award. And he will clearly never be the king of grammar (I seem to recall a cheap Elements of Style shot somewhere...), but the bottom line is that he is right. The whole skinny ski fan club thing is no well past nonsensical... The sooner both the retail and instructional channels get a clue, the better they will serve their customers. 
This thread is an excellent example of Henry Kissinger diplomacy, except that nobody seems to have been killed yet.
post #81 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by iWill View Post

No, that's not true. That run was not water injected, it was slushed and rutted badly that day. As WC level courses go, it was way softer than it should have been. As far as "good" skiers booting out - if they were "good" skiers, they be adjusting their edging and pressure according to the snow conditions.
Off course it was injected. Courses for the big competitions are prepared months in advance. The warm weather made it too soft on that particular day, but it was still WAY harder than the normal pistes.
I´m all with BWPA on this one.
Base width has gone up since the platform requirements, why do you think that is?

You are talking against yourself here saying that good skiers adjust edging and pressure according to the snow conditions.First you say that you don´t boot out on skinny skis and then you say that you have to adjust in order not to boot out?? If you have wider skis you don´t need to do adjust. That was the whole point.

Also keeping shoulders matched to the slope is not a part of modern race-technique anymore, and what should be difficult about that anyway?
post #82 of 88
Gee BW...you got me there. All I care about is racing. You should feel sorry for me, I had to lower my standards and ski my S7's in deep powder 3 times this week. I think that puts my well over 50 powder days this season. Of course, all that snow at Mt. Baker is always 2D and everything is always groomed.

Truth is, I get my groomer skis out about 10 times in an average year. But I love them for what they do, which is to ski groomed snow better than any of my other skis. Just like I love my Mustagh Atas, because they rock at climbing and skiing galciers. And I love my park skis....even though I suck in the park.

Fat skis rock. But that doesn't mean they rock at everything. Trying to come up with stupid scenarios to make a point is frankly,stupid.

As far as the comments about instructors - damn near every instructor I know has fat skis in their quiver. Maybe it's a different mindset here, but people are smart enough to use the best tool for the conditions.

Nor have I run into a bunch of retailers who are pushing people away from fat skis. If anything, the use of fat skis has simply exploded, and the shops are selling what the customers want.

Arguing that fat skis are always better is just as dumb as arguing that fat skis are always worse.
post #83 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamt View Post



Off course it was injected. Courses for the big competitions are prepared months in advance. The warm weather made it too soft on that particular day, but it was still WAY harder than the normal pistes.
I´m all with BWPA on this one.
Base width has gone up since the platform requirements, why do you think that is?

You are talking against yourself here saying that good skiers adjust edging and pressure according to the snow conditions.First you say that you don´t boot out on skinny skis and then you say that you have to adjust in order not to boot out?? If you have wider skis you don´t need to do adjust. That was the whole point.

Also keeping shoulders matched to the slope is not a part of modern race-technique anymore, and what should be difficult about that anyway?
 

No it wasn't injected. Nor was it salted.

Your picture does not show modern racing technique, nor does it show good technique.
post #84 of 88
Thread Starter 

Nice discussion going. Here some fragmented thaughts of mine after reading your posts phat an skinny folks.

A WC race course is always water injected.

Booting out is a problem. Soft snow, skinny skis, wide boots and no plates will increase the risk for boot out. If you are not carving there is little risk for booting out. You need to tip your skis over quite a bit to get into the risk zone.

Jamts skiing in the photo was not aimed to be highly efficient. It was for fun. In Europe funcarving is a big thing. The skis BTW are very narrow, short and with a tight turn radius.

There is no argument that a SL or GS ski is better on the pist and a phat ski is better in powder.

3D snow, isnt that what we are skiing in when we are skiing powder with our skinny skis?

What would be a good Head ski for powder that could be skied and carved on a gromer as well when snow is softish, no ice or race course?

post #85 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post

Nice discussion going. Here some fragmented thaughts of mine after reading your posts phat an skinny folks.

A WC race course is always water injected.

Booting out is a problem. Soft snow, skinny skis, wide boots and no plates will increase the risk for boot out. If you are not carving there is little risk for booting out. You need to tip your skis over quite a bit to get into the risk zone.

Jamts skiing in the photo was not aimed to be highly efficient. It was for fun. In Europe funcarving is a big thing. The skis BTW are very narrow, short and with a tight turn radius.

There is no argument that a SL or GS ski is better on the pist and a phat ski is better in powder.

3D snow, isnt that what we are skiing in when we are skiing powder with our skinny skis?

What would be a good Head ski for powder that could be skied and carved on a gromer as well when snow is softish, no ice or race course?

Last year: iM88
Currently: check Bob's reviews of the new Head line-up seems that the Richie is a very promising as a good replacement.
post #86 of 88
I think its worth noting that race skis are not optimised for "groomed runs". They are optimised for prepared courses. Those are not the same thing. Groomers can be hard pack, they can be soft. Sometimes I think a full on race ski is not the best option when the groomers are soft since its more difficult to get the ski to bend much if the snow isn't hard enough.

Sometimes carving the groome run like a race ski really means not very well at all. Sometimes a midfat all around ski or a cheater carver will work better on groomers than race ski does. It really just depends.
post #87 of 88
Thread Starter 
tromano - well spoken. I agree with you totally. Racing skis are designed for specially prepared racing tracks. Typically water injected and salted. Icy and hard. Impossible to ski without extremly well tuned racing skis. However, they work very well on hard flat surfaced groomers like in the mornings after a very cold night. Or in the afternoon after the pist has been scraped to ice by normal skiers and snowboarders skidding sideways. But in softer conditions they are offcourse not the best option. On a soft pist I think that a very good allround ski would be an oversize softer SL ski because if you want to carve on a groomer with traffic and space limitations you cannot go much bigger than a turn radius of 11-12m. If you also like to ski in offpist conditions you need longer skis and with longer skis comes bigger turn radius. A 175 long ski with the turn radius of 17-18 and a 80 waist would be a good option but the more you spend offpist or the more you "value" offpist skiing the longer, wider and straighter you can go.

We now stumble onto the word "value". What kind of skiing do you value the highest? If you value offpist conditions very high then its only natural to ski on phat skis if that is what you think work the best for you. Remember, its a personal preference. If you value racing and/or carving on flat gromers then go with skinny skis. I reccomend that whatever conditions you value the highest use such gear whenever you ski so that you get used to that pc of equipment. The more time racers spend on their racing skis the more comfortable they feel on them and knowing your gear and experiance is invaluable in racing. As it is in offpist conditions. But there is annother approach as well. If you like to ski offpist but out of the 25 days of skiing you do each year maybe only 5 days every other year provides you with good such conditions then potentially 45 days of 50 you are on wrong gear. Also, maybe if you skied more on groomers then you could boost your skiing days. And enjoy skiing more.

Then we have the safety aspect. I personally think I have been foolish in my life and Im lucky to be alive. Skiing offpist has its hazzards. Thinking of all the fun I had in my life since I was in my early 20s it kind of feels like a big waste if I had gotten killed in a avalanche in 82. For instance I would never have had the chanse of trying phat skis . The typical avalanche accident in the Alps at the moment involves a skilled male on snowboard or skis skiing in conditions with high avalanche danger. Hiking, virgin snow, 20ft drops, helmet cameras, survival gear backpacks and all the professional extreem videos are kind of sending the wrong signals about skiing.

Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with phat skis. Its an attitude thing. Thats what this thread is all about.
post #88 of 88
Thread Starter 
tromano - well spoken. I agree with you totally. Racing skis are designed for specially prepared racing tracks. Typically water injected and salted. Icy and hard. Impossible to ski without extremly well tuned racing skis. However, they work very well on hard flat surfaced groomers like in the mornings after a very cold night. Or in the afternoon after the pist has been scraped to ice by normal skiers and snowboarders skidding sideways. But in softer conditions they are offcourse not the best option. On a soft pist I think that a very good allround ski would be an oversize softer SL ski because if you want to carve on a groomer with traffic and space limitations you cannot go much bigger than a turn radius of 11-12m. If you also like to ski in offpist conditions you need longer skis and with longer skis comes bigger turn radius. A 175 long ski with the turn radius of 17-18 and a 80 waist would be a good option but the more you spend offpist or the more you "value" offpist skiing the longer, wider and straighter you can go.

We now stumble onto the word "value". What kind of skiing do you value the highest? If you value offpist conditions very high then its only natural to ski on phat skis if that is what you think work the best for you. Remember, its a personal preference. If you value racing and/or carving on flat gromers then go with skinny skis. I reccomend that whatever conditions you value the highest use such gear whenever you ski so that you get used to that pc of equipment. The more time racers spend on their racing skis the more comfortable they feel on them and knowing your gear and experiance is invaluable in racing. As it is in offpist conditions. But there is annother approach as well. If you like to ski offpist but out of the 25 days of skiing you do each year maybe only 5 days every other year provides you with good such conditions then potentially 45 days of 50 you are on wrong gear. Also, maybe if you skied more on groomers then you could boost your skiing days. And enjoy skiing more.

Then we have the safety aspect. I personally think I have been foolish in my life and Im lucky to be alive. Skiing offpist has its hazzards. Thinking of all the fun I had in my life since I was in my early 20s it kind of feels like a big waste if I had gotten killed in a avalanche in 82. For instance I would never have had the chanse of trying phat skis . The typical avalanche accident in the Alps at the moment involves a skilled male on snowboard or skis skiing in conditions with high avalanche danger. Hiking, virgin snow, 20ft drops, helmet cameras, survival gear backpacks and all the professional extreem videos are kind of sending the wrong signals about skiing.

Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with phat skis. Its an attitude thing. Thats what this thread is all about.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Tried Phat skis on a groomer this weekend and it was a shocking experiance