How Fat can an East Coast skier go?

[Vano]

Now that all the information is out on this year's ski models, it is evident that the fat ski craze continues. There are more and more all mountain skis in the 80mm+ under foot category.

So the question to the people that are getting new gear for this season. How fat are you willing to go with your every-day East Coast skis?

I ski on last year's K2 Public Enemy skis which are 80mm under foot. I love them and I think they do everything very well, even on the east coast, but wouldn't want to go much fatter for my primary EC ski. The new ones are 85mm under foot.

[riverc0il]

i think for the east coast, 80mm is ideal. if you just like to rip up groomers, race skis around 70mm are fine. 90mm+ for epic pow days, but 90+ is not ideal for an everyday east coast ski, imo. i don't even think stuff in the 80-90 range is ideal for everyday east coast unless you are skiing natural snow all day which is pretty rare for most EC skiers.

[Vano]

I agree - above 80mm is pushing it on the EC. I like my Public Enemy skis cause they are wide enough for soft snow in Jay Peak, for high speed cruising and yet are narrow enough for hardpack and icy conditions...more or less.

Everywhere i read, manufacturers are figuring out how to make wider skis that still remain solid on hard snow. So I was just wondering if anyone on the forum has the balls to start using 80mm+ wide skis as their every day EC ski.

[eatskisleep]

If you ski places like Jay Peak a lot 90mm wouldn't be a bad idea. But for a good all around ski I think 80 hits the spot.

[freeheelwilly]

PHAT! is where it's at!

I ski on 80 mm most days but am probably gonna get a pair of G3 Tickets which I think are 89. That's not too big. 70mm is so five minutes ago. On bigger days or in heavy corn gone bad (mash potatoes) I bring out the biggies: Dynastar Legend Pro Riders - 97mm. Yesterday at Whiteface I saw a guy RIPPING up the wind buff crud on a pair of Igneous - 120mm underfoot! Looked like a couple of ironing boards strapped to his feet! Fatter skis can be a handful until you adjust but anything less than 80 - no thanks. Go Phat!

[riverc0il]

Originally Posted by freeheelwilly

PHAT! is where it's at!

I ski on 80 mm most days but am probably gonna get a pair of G3 Tickets which I think are 89. That's not too big. 70mm is so five minutes ago. On bigger days or in heavy corn gone bad (mash potatoes) I bring out the biggies: Dynastar Legend Pro Riders - 97mm. Yesterday at Whiteface I saw a guy RIPPING up the wind buff crud on a pair of Igneous - 120mm underfoot! Looked like a couple of ironing boards strapped to his feet! Fatter skis can be a handful until you adjust but anything less than 80 - no thanks. Go Phat!

89 is definitely great for those big days! i have a dynastar intuitiv big that is 89 at the waist and it simply RIPS on natural snow. not so much on the groomers, but for pow and natural snow it's killer. took em' for a skin to the top of the cat yesterday and turns were incredible coming down the wildcat trail. those pro riders are pushing it for EC. i'd love to give them a rip though! don't think i would use them much at all though.

but as an everyday ski, the fatter stuff doesn't work for much other than natural snow. you get into 90+ and you can forget about the groomers. tips bang in the bumps gets to be annoying with the wider skis too.

[freeheelwilly]

The Pro Riders go West with me every year and get dusted off every now and again back here. It may be the EC but we still have our moments and when we do it's nice to have a pair of romper stompers.

[thetrailboss]

I first read this and was like, "is he making fun of my stomach or something?"

No, I ski on 74 mm waists and love them.

[loafnut]

I ski 82mm underfoot every day but then again i don't ski trails with snowmaking.

[Vano]

I agree - I am a big fan of fat skis. I have a pair of Seth Pistols (189cm long and 95mm under foot) and love them when I go out west or to South America. Big burly skis feel stable and controlable, constantly waiting for your input. Its a reassuring feeling compared to smaller skis, such as my Rossi 9S slalom skis. The Rossis are overly hooky, refuse to stay stable going fast and straight and just don't give that encouring feeling.

Most maganizes are saying that with recent advances in ski design and materials you can +5mm under foot and not feel like you are losing any edge control. In other words, the K2 Public Enemy skis of this year should has the same performance on the hard snow even though they are 5mm wider under foot than the ones that I have. A number of 90 to 95mm skis are marketed as all mountain now, while 2 years ago anything over 90mm was a 'powder' or 'big mountain' ski. I just wonder if anyone has that first hand experience of this.