Fatties....worth it????

[JD]

First I would like participants to give a brief backround of time spent on fatties, and then their opinions on them.
Me. Skiing for 8 years now. Started on a 78mm waist, knew I wanted to be in the woods skiing pow from the beginning, and immediately felt that mid fats sucked for that. Tip dive, skiing from the back seat ect. within a few years I was on Cold smokes (110mm) then Axiomes (110), then Stormriders(91). Then I stopped buying passes and went back to 100mm and 110mm waisted skis. I also run a pair of 68 mm light tele skis.
My opinion. Fat skis make powder skiing more pleaseant and fun. And it makes a foot of snow bottomless if you ski the right pitch. I understand that for most people who ride the lifts,and folks in southern NE it's unreasonable to run a ski that fat as your main boardz because at the area your almost always skiing on hardpack, but in the back country of NVT, the only place I have any ski experience, fatties make the snowpack, ussually 24" plus, bottomless. If the snow pack is less then a foot of good snow, I xc on my alpoina cross terrain on low angle stuff that still feels nice, but when I die, i wanna be buried with my fatties because FAT is where it's AT.

[SKIQUATTRO]

Can you ever have enough skis??? I'm on Atomic (74 underfoot) for my main ski and just picked up Atomic Sugar Daddies (99 underfoot) for the pow days....so yes, they are worth it...

[riverc0il]

My background with fatties includes having an Intuitiv Big (89) for the past three years (that I hardly ever use because it doesn't do short quick turns essential in the woods though it is a sensational ski on Mount Washington), demoed a pair of Mantras (93 or 94 I think?), and currently own a pair of Atua's 96. The Atua's I just recently got and really enjoy the surfy float and ability to stay on top of a foot of fresh when the base still has some scrape (such as today at MRG). However, it may just be the junk demo bindings and the forward mounting point, but the ski doesn't quite come around just the way I want it to (could also be weight).

Fat skis all tend to go one way or the other and I have had a hard time finding a good fat 90+ board that also meets my needs in turns of tip/tail, flex, weight, tight turns, etc. After four runs today, I went back to my 8000 because of numerous factors, but most specifically control in tight trees was better even though flat suffered and I bottomed out a bit. This was my fourth try on the Atua's, it may just be the mounting point and the bindings, hard to say and I may have to swap a pair of bindings out to know for sure because it feels like a good ski. My 8000s perform at a high enough performance in up to a foot of fresh that the bar is set extremely high for a fat ski, especially considering untracked top to bottom for a majority of the day is pretty damn rare even in NoVT so a fat ski still needs to perform when you come across something that has been tracked out or your running out on a packed down natural snow trail.

My opinion? I think they have their place but the "bigger is better" mantra is way off. Most people don't need anything outside the 80-90 range. Even myself as a dedicated pow hound that gets at least 1 in 3 pow days and often more... I have had a hard time finding the right pair of sticks to even out the 1+ foot plus powder board.

[snoseek]

I will probably never ski less than 90 mm again, they carve hardpack just fine. I love skiing 6 or so inches on a 100+ ski, really float and smooth everthing out. I suppose a g.s. would be nice to have resort skiing back east but I would only use after a freeze thaw cycle.

Edit-length is just as important for me as width in deep snow.

[Beetlenut]

This year I switched to an Atomic Snoop Daddy 88mm. This is now my everyday ski. It's a nice compromise between a big fatty and a quick turning ski. I'm skiing Moguls ok, now that I've adjusted, and the broken crud on the sides of the trail is as fun as powder. I moved the center of my boot just forward of the center of the ski, and short turns in the woods are no problem!

[Robert Goulet]

I've been skiing fat skis pretty much exclusively (except for occasionally getting back on race skis for groomer days) for the last 4 years. During my last year in college (2004-05), I did a bunch of backcountry on Dynastar Nobis Inspireds, which were light but too soft (they were also 3 years old). I then got a pair of Head Mojo 90's 2 years ago and head mojo 105's a year later. Once I got the 105's I sold the 90's because the only time they were better was on a groomer. The 90's were a 186 and the 105's were 181 lengths. The 105, despite it's shorter length, were more stable on just about everything due to thier ability to stay on top of crud. This year, I'm skiing on Nordica Enforcers (98mm underfoot) and Nordica Blowers (110) underfoot. both skis are stable and stiff everywhere except for the tip, which is a little softer for about 6 cm for easy turn initiation. I probably ski the Blowers 3/4 of the time and the enforcers 1/4 of the time. The increased area underfoot on the blowers make them much easier to turn in crud (even with less sidecut) because you don't sink into the snow as far. When I move back east next year, I'll probably still ski on blowers or enforcers. the enforcers have enough sidecut to be really fun on the groomers and versitility to get OB. Although I can't say that bigger is better in all conditions, I have found that on just about everything except for skiing moguls in tight trees without new snow, It has been my experience that fat skis perform better. Of course, given their increased girth, they tend to be a little heavier. In my opinion, just about anyone can get a fat ski that they like. If you like softer easy to turn skis, Salomon makes some good ones (like the gun - even though I don't really like them). If you like stiffer damper skis, Nordica, Dynastar, and Black Diamond are making good stiff fat skis. Maybe fat skis aren't for everyone (there are some really good skiers out here in alta that still use a ski that is roughly 89mm underfoot) but for me, I like them fatter. In terms of my size, weight, etc I'm 5'6, 130 pounds (yup, pretty small) but I did ski race for 9 years in NH. I now live in Alta Utah so I ski a lot of pow and soft crud and bumps. But unlike most eastern skiers, I don't ski as much tight hardwoods forests anymore, although I would like to.

Anyways, that's my opinion.

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Originally Posted by JD

First I would like participants to give a brief backround of time spent on fatties, and then their opinions on them.
Me. Skiing for 8 years now. Started on a 78mm waist, knew I wanted to be in the woods skiing pow from the beginning, and immediately felt that mid fats sucked for that. Tip dive, skiing from the back seat ect. within a few years I was on Cold smokes (110mm) then Axiomes (110), then Stormriders(91). Then I stopped buying passes and went back to 100mm and 110mm waisted skis. I also run a pair of 68 mm light tele skis.
My opinion. Fat skis make powder skiing more pleaseant and fun. And it makes a foot of snow bottomless if you ski the right pitch. I understand that for most people who ride the lifts,and folks in southern NE it's unreasonable to run a ski that fat as your main boardz because at the area your almost always skiing on hardpack, but in the back country of NVT, the only place I have any ski experience, fatties make the snowpack, ussually 24" plus, bottomless. If the snow pack is less then a foot of good snow, I xc on my alpoina cross terrain on low angle stuff that still feels nice, but when I die, i wanna be buried with my fatties because FAT is where it's AT.

Wow I didn't realize you've only skied for 8 years..I was thinking like 20-30 years. I think of my 88mm underfoot Scratch BCs as fat..I've yet to try anything 100+..Do you ever crave a high speed groomer or a bump run???

[deadheadskier]

I had an interesting introduction to Fat skis. My second winter as a full time ski bum in Stowe in 2000 following college, I started the season skiing my 1994 Dynamic VR27 200cm. At the start of the winter, I heard of a kid selling brand new Rossi Axioms for $100 a pair . These are the same 110mm that JD describes. I don't know how many pairs of skis this kid sold, but EVERYONE in town was either riding them or Dynastar 4x4's.

While I was a decent tree/pow skier before then, I still struggled on the old skinnys in deep snow and tight trees. The moment I got on them, I immediately could ski pretty much every line at Stowe with near ease. HELL YES fatties are worth it. I didn't ski anything but the Axiomes, no matter what I was skiing, groomers, bumps etc, for the rest of the season.

I find them amazingly nimble for a ski so heavy and wide. I still have them and if I ever find myself skiing with more than 10" of fresh, they are my ski of choice over my new B2's in a heartbeat. The Axiomes are tough as nails too. I most have close to 200 days on them and they still perform as well as the first day I got them.

[BeanoNYC]

I've been increasing my waist width with each purchase. I like the feeling of having something substantial underneath my feet.

I recently sold my AC3's (74mm) when I purchased Public Enemies. (85mm) The PE's are my everyday ski now. I just recently bought a pair of Mantras (96mm) simply because I loved them when I demoed and I found them for dirt cheap with a set of Market 12 freerides. I got a day out in variable conditions at Stowe on the Mantras this past Saturday and they rip.

[JD]

Originally Posted by GrilledSteezeSandwich

Wow I didn't realize you've only skied for 8 years..I was thinking like 20-30 years. I think of my 88mm underfoot Scratch BCs as fat..I've yet to try anything 100+..Do you ever crave a high speed groomer or a bump run???

I try not too. j/k. I had a pass at Stowe from 2000 until 2005 and got most of 100 days a year. I spent many days railing the cord at way-to-dangerous speed. It's fun and all, and taught me how to ride the edge, but on those days i was spending twice as long on the lift as i was on my skis. That being said, a ski with a 90mm waist can hook up just fine, and if it's too hard for that, I'll not gonna be on the hill. Then, on groomer days, once I had my AT setup, I would just put the skins on and head out into the notch, get at the soft wood line and traverse. Pretty much found all the cut lines in my set list that way. Bushwacking thru rediculously tight spruce, getting cliffed out...downclimbing ice flows. It was way more fun the going 80 down lift line, plus I figured out where everything good is so now I can just go git it when the gittin's good. From the beginning for me skis were about getting out into the Back Country, like my MTBing, just the winter version. Same with WWKayaking. A certain number of days spent the area are required to get where you need to be, but once I could kind of ski, was out. At that point I realized I needed fatter skis. Ever try breaking trail for an hour and a half thru 36 inches of snow on skinny boards? Sucky. Fatties float.