Used fat skis for first time....I'm a convert...but not in the east....

[abc]

up

Would you agree that there is no way you're going to carve a turn if you don't flex the ski into an arc?

Pull a ski from the quiver and flex it using a hand to support the tip and the floor to support the tail. Remember you have to flex the ski beyond the center line to where the binding is now on the opposite side of the natural arc. Take notice of how much force is on the hand (tip) and the floor (tail) to make this happen. It should be quite obvious that in fluffy powder you are not going to get the kind of back pressure needed to flex the ski. If not, the next test will prove it but likely make one hell of a mess. Take the ski to a full bathtub. Using all your weight at the binding, push the ski horizontally from floating on top of the tub to striking the bottom of the tub. The tip and tail of the ski will always hit the bottom of the tub first (no flex). Water actually offers more resistance than snow so this proves that there is no way you can flex a traditional ski enough to carve on or in powder. You don't have to do this test with a tip and tail rocker ski because it is already flexed into the proper (turning) arc by design.

So the only way you're carving turns with traditional 68mm skis is that you are in contact with the groomed base underneath and flexing the ski on that groomed base layer. Basically skiing like it's a groomed trail with the nuisance of ungroomed snow in your way. This may be fine for you but there is no float or feeling of weightlessness which many feel to be the biggest draw to powder skiing in the first place.

Fat rocker skis allow me to float in the middle of the powder while carving and skidding. Methods of leaning back and wagging the tips or bouncing to initiate turns are tossed in the trash and are replaced with the shape ski technique of railroading. Railroading only works with a flexed ski.

Note: I believe there's a new term for skidding in this months issue of Ski Magazine. I wish I could remember it as it's a good example of something that wasn't possible before the new technology in skis today.

You're mixing rocker with width.

Everything you say about narrow waist skis still applies to fat skis. But rocker does change how a ski behave IN powder.

You can also put rocker on narrow skis too. But the market doesn't support it because everyone THINK fat is what's needed in powder. On the other hand, rockers ARE being added to some midfat "all mountain" skis, and work just as well.

A lot of people likes fat skis is because it can offer the same surface area in shorter length, making it easier to turn.

 

[Cheese]

You're mixing rocker with width.

That wasn't my intention. Length, width, stiffness and camber all fall into the equation of what makes the OPs Super 7 perform in powder. Perhaps I should have better separated the functions of each.

 

[mister moose]

Would you agree that there is no way you're going to carve a turn if you don't flex the ski into an arc?

Yes. Well, in powder. You can turn a shaped ski just by laying it on it's edge on a packed surface, no additional reverse camber required.

Pull a ski from the quiver and flex it using a hand to support the tip and the floor to support the tail. Remember you have to flex the ski beyond the center line to where the binding is now on the opposite side of the natural arc. Take notice of how much force is on the hand (tip) and the floor (tail) to make this happen. (These two are equal and not additive) It should be quite obvious that in fluffy powder you are not going to get the kind of back pressure needed to flex the ski. This is just wrong., see below. If not, the next test will prove it but likely make one hell of a mess. Take the ski to a full bathtub. Using all your weight at the binding, push the ski horizontally from floating on top of the tub to striking the bottom of the tub. The tip and tail of the ski will always hit the bottom of the tub first (no flex). Water actually offers more resistance than snow so this proves that there is no way you can flex a traditional ski enough to carve on or in powder. What proves? Your thought experiment that has no basis in fact. First, a bathtub is only 152cm long, and my skis are longer than that. You aren't thinking this through. Second, with sufficient dowward thrust, the ski would absolutely go into reverse camber in water. Don't believe me? Put your ski on a foam cushion sofa lengthwise and stand on it, and get back to me. Pressure is pressure, foam, water, or powder. The ski is in reverse camber already just by standing on it when fullly supported by a fluid medium. Let me say that again.... The ski is already in reverse camber just by standing on it when fullly supported by a fluid medium. The compression in a well executed turn will drive it deeper into reverse camber. You don't have to do this test with a tip and tail rocker ski because it is already flexed into the proper (turning) arc by design.

So the only way you're carving turns with traditional 68mm skis is that you are in contact with the groomed base underneath and flexing the ski on that groomed base layer. No. Full flotation. "Bottomless" type feel. Basically skiing like it's a groomed trail with the nuisance of ungroomed snow in your way. This may be fine for you but there is no float or feeling of weightlessness which many feel to be the biggest draw to powder skiing in the first place.

I'm not sure where you get your information from. I lived in Colorado, and skied 120 days a year. I skied a lot of powder. I just put an old pair of 187 Xscreams on my sofa, and they go into significant reverse camber when my weight is applied. When more weight is applied due to the loading in a turn the amount of reverse camber increases, and you'd better believe the ski arcs a turn quite nicely. I have skied many bowls never seeing my tips as they were 1-2 feet under minimum at all times. There was no packed surface on which I was skiing.

Fat rocker skis allow me to float in the middle of the powder while carving and skidding. Methods of leaning back and wagging the tips (poor technique) or bouncing to initiate turns are tossed in the trash and are replaced with the shape ski technique of railroading. Railroading only works with a flexed ski. "Railroading" should only be one of many tools in your toolbox.

Note: I believe there's a new term for skidding in this months issue of Ski Magazine. I wish I could remember it as it's a good example of something that wasn't possible before the new technology in skis today.

As to your 'back pressure' theory: 30 lbs is sufficient to flex many skis. 30 lbs on my old Xscreams (106-68-96) works out to 0.12 psi of pressure. Doesn't sound like much, does it? You don't think you can develop 0.12 psi in powder at say 20mph?

Your problem with disputing what I have to say is that I have done it. My friends did it. Their friends did it. Many times.

 

[Cheese]

As to your 'back pressure' theory: 30 lbs is sufficient to flex many skis. 30 lbs on my old Xscreams (106-68-96) works out to 0.12 psi of pressure. Doesn't sound like much, does it? You don't think you can develop 0.12 psi in powder at say 20mph?

Your problem with disputing what I have to say is that I have done it. My friends did it. Their friends did it. Many times.

I stand corrected. I will enjoy my fat rockers in powder and you will enjoy your choice. Let it snow!

 

[mister moose]

Your photo does not appear to support your position.



You can see from the flexed knee where your foot is. And that dark spot out in front of you looks like your left ski tip. Based on your foot position, I cannot see how your tips are buried if your feet are essentially at the surface.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see from the second photo, as the ridge blocks a view of the snow surrounding your feet.

 

[mister moose]

I will enjoy my fat rockers in powder and you will enjoy your choice. Let it snow!

Of course, that's what it is all about. What I am trying to get across to you, and other readers that haven't experienced it, is the shear giggling fun of learning to ski in a more neutral buoyancy mode, and fat skis keep you on the surface. Positive buoyancy, fat skis = surfing. Neutral bouyancy, narrower skis = flying. 2D vs 3D.

 

[skiersleft]

Yeah, cuz 5-6 inches is deep.

Not picking on you SL, because I get the elation of fat skis for someone experiencing what they have to offer for the first time. BUT.....


Tell me, how many of the folks that proclaim how wide boards are so good in powder can also ski over a foot of powder on narrow boards well? So aren't you saying wider boards are easier, not better?

For what it's worth, I did feel that you were picking on me. I start a thread all excited about how my new skis feel great and how I'm looking at powder in a new way and in you come bursting my bubble. Whenever someone prefaces a statement by saying that they're not picking on you what usually follows is them picking on you.

Regarding the substance of what you said, I don't know, but I defer to your skill and experience. I've seen you ski and you obviously ski better than me. You also have more knowledge about skiing than me. So, I have no reason to doubt what you're saying.

But the point of my post was not to make a technical statement about powder skiing and fat skis. It was to share with the community how much more enjoyable I found powder skiing after I tried super fat skis. And I for one will continue to ski powder with fat skis even if there is some enjoyment that I'm missing by not learning to ski it properly with narrow carvers. The floating sensation is out of this world. And I want to keep feeling it. So Super 7's it is. Kudos to you if in the world of fat powder skis you still find enjoyment in skiing in the powder with narrow skis.

 

[mister moose]

For what it's worth, I did feel that you were picking on me. I start a thread all excited about how my new skis feel great and how I'm looking at powder in a new way and in you come bursting my bubble. Whenever someone prefaces a statement by saying that they're not picking on you what usually follows is them picking on you.

Regarding the substance of what you said, I don't know, but I defer to your skill and experience. I've seen you ski and you obviously ski better than me. You also have more knowledge about skiing than me. So, I have no reason to doubt what you're saying.

But the point of my post was not to make a technical statement about powder skiing and fat skis. It was to share with the community how much more enjoyable I found powder skiing after I tried super fat skis. And I for one will continue to ski powder with fat skis even if there is some enjoyment that I'm missing by not learning to ski it properly with narrow carvers. The floating sensation is out of this world. And I want to keep feeling it. So Super 7's it is. Kudos to you if in the world of fat powder skis you still find enjoyment in skiing in the powder with narrow skis.

I appologize for bubble bursting. You were absolutely correct in stating how big a difference a wider ski made in your enjoyment of skiing powder. I didn't want to stomp on that joy. Welcome to the world of deep snow.

What I wanted to do was draw a distinction on the often expressed opinion that fat skis are best for powder, when in fact they are just one way to ski powder. The conversation had evolved by the time I answered it. If I was picking on anyone, it was Cheese, as I wanted to express where I differ with him on both theory and practice.

 

[tt431]

For what it's worth, I did feel that you were picking on me. I start a thread all excited about how my new skis feel great and how I'm looking at powder in a new way and in you come bursting my bubble. Whenever someone prefaces a statement by saying that they're not picking on you what usually follows is them picking on you.

Regarding the substance of what you said, I don't know, but I defer to your skill and experience. I've seen you ski and you obviously ski better than me. You also have more knowledge about skiing than me. So, I have no reason to doubt what you're saying.

But the point of my post was not to make a technical statement about powder skiing and fat skis. It was to share with the community how much more enjoyable I found powder skiing after I tried super fat skis. And I for one will continue to ski powder with fat skis even if there is some enjoyment that I'm missing by not learning to ski it properly with narrow carvers. The floating sensation is out of this world. And I want to keep feeling it. So Super 7's it is. Kudos to you if in the world of fat powder skis you still find enjoyment in skiing in the powder with narrow skis.

:beer:

 

[Cheese]

What I am trying to get across to you, and other readers that haven't experienced it, is the shear giggling fun of learning to ski in a more neutral buoyancy mode, and fat skis keep you on the surface. Positive buoyancy, fat skis = surfing. Neutral bouyancy, narrower skis = flying. 2D vs 3D.

Ugh .. just when I thought I'd walk away.

Your positive/neutral buoyancy theory is flawed. If you return to the roots of the rocker and jump in the lake with your Xcreams to achieve neutral buoyancy, the skis will remain in their original camber. It isn't until you grab hold of the rope and begin moving through the water that there's any chance your skis will reverse camber (required to turn). Along with reverse camber will come float. The amount of float you receive would be governed by a combination of the length and width of the ski and the speed at which you are moving through the water. Changing any of these variables will increase or decrease float but regardless you're not neutrally buoyant as you suggest. Weightlessness only occurs should you leave the water or stop in the water. In either condition, the ski returns to the original camber (difficult to turn) and the length and width likely don't matter.

So given your theory and the choice of a fat ski, a narrow ski and a snow blade, the snow blade offers the least float or the closest to neutral buoyancy while skiing, right? I wonder why snow blades haven't taken off as powder skis?

Instead I would suggest that speed is a bigger factor when it comes to float and therefore can be used to adjust the amount of float you want. In the first picture where I'm traversing slowly across the slope I'm sinking deeper into the powder where as after the second picture when I actually landed that huck (only inspecting the landing zone in the photo) I was heading straight down the fall line at a good clip and planing across the top of the powder.

In other words, I would have to ski slower than you on your Xscreams to achieve equal buoyancy and you would have to ski slower than the person on the snow blades to achieve equal buoyancy.

 

[snoseek]

I also find that I hit way less rocks and stumps on a thin snowpack with fatter skis.

I lived right in little cottonwood for a few winters in the 90's and I skied everyday mostly on some 2s Salomon force 9's. Was it fun? Hell yeah it was. Do I have a desire to rip pow on those old force 9's? not even a little.

 

[skiersleft]

:beer:

Those look like my Super 7's....

 

[abc]

That wasn't my intention. Length, width, stiffness and camber all fall into the equation of what makes the OPs Super 7 perform in powder. Perhaps I should have better separated the functions of each.

Well, you've made a lot of long winded argument about the advantage of fat skis. But you were not making sense when you can't even separate the difference between rocker and ski width.

It's ok to just say you enjoy a particular ski and say it's all of the characters combined. But if you're going to argue about the physics of WHY it is so, you'd better KNOW the physics! For a start, the difference between the function of rocker and the function of extra width.

 

[Cheese]

I skied everyday mostly on some 2s Salomon force 9's.

I loved that ski back in the day.

 

[mister moose]

Ugh .. just when I thought I'd walk away.

Your positive/neutral buoyancy theory is flawed. If you return to the roots of the rocker and jump in the lake with your Xcreams to achieve neutral buoyancy, the skis will remain in their original camber. It isn't until you grab hold of the rope and begin moving through the water that there's any chance your skis will reverse camber (required to turn). Along with reverse camber will come float. The amount of float you receive would be governed by a combination of the length and width of the ski and the speed at which you are moving through the water. Changing any of these variables will increase or decrease float but regardless you're surfing rather than being neutrally buoyant as you suggest. Weightlessness only occurs should you leave the water or stop in the water. In either condition, the ski returns to the original camber (difficult to turn) and the length and width likely don't matter.

So given your theory and the choice of a fat ski, a narrow ski and a snow blade, the snow blade offers the least float or the closest to neutral buoyancy while skiing, right? I wonder why snow blades haven't taken off as powder skis?

Instead I would suggest that speed is a bigger factor when it comes to float and therefore can be used to adjust the amount of float you want. In the first picture where I'm traversing slowly across the slope I'm sinking deeper into the powder where as after the second picture when I actually landed that huck (only inspecting the landing zone in the photo) I was heading straight down the fall line at a good clip and planing across the top of the powder.

In other words, I would have to ski slower than you on your Xscreams to achieve the same buoyancy and you would have to ski slower than the person on the snow blades to achieve equal buoyancy.

You missed entirely what I meant by bouyancy. I meant in snow, while in motion, not in water with no motion. Of course if you jump in the lake not moving the skis will still have camber. There will be no pressure on the skis in that situation. (And I'm not entirely sure reverse camber is required to turn in powder, are you saying you can't skid at all in powder?) Neutral bouyancy in snow is achieved anytime the total pressure on the ski(force) equals your weight(force).

What I meant by neutral buoyancy (in snow) is as I said, skiing in the snow, not on it. As the ski gets progressively fatter, it becomes more like a snowshoe. You are on the surface, or nearly so, just standing there. Adding speed just makes you surf even more.

Your last 2 paragraphs are almost on the money. Yes, speed = more pressure, more float (if the angle of attack is correct) Blades would have the least float and the least buoyancy at a given speed. Buoyancy is a function of speed and surface area. I don't think you could ever ski fast enough on a blade to have enough flotation to be buoyant. (We're talking again, dry deep powder. In heavy cream cheese, give it a try, it might work) On your fat skis even at rest, your fat skis have more float than my narrower skis. You cannot ski slow enough on a fat ski to ever go deeper than what you have standing at rest, and therein lies the difference. Your last sentence is correct! ...
But at even moderate speeds the fat ski surfs.

 

[skiersleft]

I appologize for bubble bursting. You were absolutely correct in stating how big a difference a wider ski made in your enjoyment of skiing powder. I didn't want to stomp on that joy. Welcome to the world of deep snow.

What I wanted to do was draw a distinction on the often expressed opinion that fat skis are best for powder, when in fact they are just one way to ski powder. The conversation had evolved by the time I answered it. If I was picking on anyone, it was Cheese, as I wanted to express where I differ with him on both theory and practice.

Thanks for clarifying. No harm done. And after all of these posts it's obvious that the main event here is cheese vs moose. A very informative debate, I might add. In the meantime, I'll take my Super 7's to a different Colorado hill tomorrow.

 

[mister moose]

Thanks for clarifying. No harm done. And after all of these posts it's obvious that the main event here is cheese vs moose. A very informative debate, I might add. In the meantime, I'll take my Super 7's to a different Colorado hill tomorrow.

Oh, so you're out there now. If there's still some unpacked areas where you are, try this:

On a gentle grade, or on a steeper grade but on a traverse, go straight in the unpacked snow, letting the skis run. A gentle grade is better where you can just ski the fall line, but a traverse can work, although not as well, as you have to add the worry of turning into the fall line. The idea is to choose a gentle enough grade or traverse so that building too much speed is of no concern. A constant grade where you reach a comfortable,moderate, constant speed for a long period of time is best. Most beginners in powder start way back to float the tips. What I want you to try as you are just motoring along at a moderate comfortable speed going straight, is to slowly, slowly, bring your weight forward. You will reach a point where the tips start to drop into the snow. Feel the pressure on your foot as this happens move forward as well, from the heel towards the arch. As you move forward from here, you can control the angle of attack of the ski with very slight motions forward and aft. Find the position with your weight where the ski tip is immersed, but not diving. If it dives, move aft slightly until it stops diving. You are now "on the bubble", and it is here that you learn to ski powder. Play with it. Don't even try to turn yet. Go faster, slower. Bounce a little. Shift weight slightly from foot to foot. Get used to managing that feeling underfoot, and adapting to changes in speed or snow density so you stay "on the bubble" at all times. Go in and out of packed to unpacked, or cross tracks. As you go in and out of unpacked, watch the subtle changes as you go from a surface ski mode to "on the bubble". Your legs need to learn this transition until it is second nature.

This is why Eastern skiers have so much trouble learning. There is never enough time before the snow gets tracked out to learn. If you are out there now with untracked to play on, make the most of it. Find the bubble.

 

[Cheese]

You missed entirely what I meant by bouyancy. I meant in snow, while in motion, not in water with no motion. Of course if you jump in the lake not moving the skis will still have camber. There will be no pressure on the skis in that situation. (And I'm not entirely sure reverse camber is required to turn in powder, are you saying you can't skid at all in powder?)

No, I totally accept that one could skid a ski in the powder and turn it but I tossed that into bad technique or at least not skiing the ski as it was designed to be used. I view camber as a spring which is designed into the ski to help keep the edge in contact with the snow on a variable surface (much like a shock absorber and spring keep a tire on the road). I (and likely McConkey as well) don't understand the need for edge pressure in powder so traditional ski camber was replaced with water ski rocker in current powder ski design.

Neutral bouyancy in snow is achieved anytime the total pressure on the ski(force) equals your weight(force).

What I meant by neutral buoyancy (in snow) is as I said, skiing in the snow, not on it. As the ski gets progressively fatter, it becomes more like a snowshoe. You are on the surface, or nearly so, just standing there. Adding speed just makes you surf even more.

Your last 2 paragraphs are almost on the money. Yes, speed = more pressure, more float (if the angle of attack is correct) Blades would have the least float and the least buoyancy at a given speed. Buoyancy is a function of speed and surface area. I don't think you could ever ski fast enough on a blade to have enough flotation to be buoyant. (We're talking again, dry deep powder. In heavy cream cheese, give it a try, it might work) On your fat skis even at rest, your fat skis have more float than my narrower skis. You cannot ski slow enough on a fat ski to ever go deeper than what you have standing at rest, and therein lies the difference. Your last sentence is correct! ...
But at even moderate speeds the fat ski surfs.

I agree with all of this but we didn't address ski length. Since the surface area is the same whether we increase width or length, it could easily be that you're opting for a longer thinner ski and I'm opting for a shorter fatter ski yet our surface areas are nearly identical and therefore we both achieve the same float. That will work for the general public but for me the numbers will not work. In my case since I'm often landing in powder and would like a little extra float. Yes, I understand that this will indeed degrade the speed at which I can ski at neutral buoyancy, but that's the sacrifice I'll make to avoid a bomb drop or tomahawk after impact.

So we're not that far apart in what we prefer for powder other than you like camber and I prefer reverse camber. Plus neither of us want to achieve the speed required to keep our heads above the snow on blades.