Fat Skis, Hard Snow

[JSHSKI]

I'm seeking input from the Fo and hope this gets some discussion going. I had a fun day at Cannon yesterday but I found the conditions to be pretty icy. I've skied a long time and I am on Volkl Tigershark 12 foot skis. (124/79/108 @ 175 cm) These fairly narrow waist skis should be able to carve and hold on hard snow. Others were struggling too so it was not just me. Then there were the folks on wide skis tearing it up like it was corduroy. Guys going down Cannonball at ~40 mph doing super G turns. Three guys in snowmaker-do-not-follow jackets on practically water skis. I did not get to see them skiing (I did not follow) but they seemed to be having a great day. The rack in front of the Peabody lodge looked like we were at Alta. I'm guessing the average waist was around 120mm. I have some Volkl Mantra's on the way to me. I bought them primarily for trips out west. (Alta for Feb vacation this year) They are 132/98/118 @ 184 cm. These are described as all mountain skis with powder capabilities. From what I saw yesterday, they will fit right in here in the east too. So obviously some folks have the skills to make yesterday's conditions look great, while others (me) only thought it was OK. I am a pretty strong skier who can carve turns well as long as the surface is carve-able. I would have said yesterdays snow was too hard to carve, if I didn't see so many others doing so. Will my new Mantra's help me on this kind of day? What have others experienced when going to fat skis? Anyone willing to share their tricks for this type of snow?

Thanks!

 

[Puck it]

A sharp edge on any width waist will hold. Mantras will be just fine. My everyday skis are Hell and Backs. They hold really well on any surface with an edge. There are a lot of full rockers showing up at Cannon. I am not quite sure as to why though.

 

[filejw]

My Mantras have been just great in about anything . Killington, Wa Wa , Mt Snow , Jackson Hole, Squaw, Alta . In deep deep snow I may have been better off last year with powder skis but last year was special out west as ever day was a powder day.

 

[Nick]

I'm seeking input from the Fo and hope this gets some discussion going. I had a fun day at Cannon yesterday but I found the conditions to be pretty icy. I've skied a long time and I am on Volkl Tigershark 12 foot skis. (124/79/108 @ 175 cm) These fairly narrow waist skis should be able to carve and hold on hard snow. Others were struggling too so it was not just me. Then there were the folks on wide skis tearing it up like it was corduroy. Guys going down Cannonball at ~40 mph doing super G turns. Three guys in snowmaker-do-not-follow jackets on practically water skis. I did not get to see them skiing (I did not follow) but they seemed to be having a great day. The rack in front of the Peabody lodge looked like we were at Alta. I'm guessing the average waist was around 120mm. I have some Volkl Mantra's on the way to me. I bought them primarily for trips out west. (Alta for Feb vacation this year) They are 132/98/118 @ 184 cm. These are described as all mountain skis with powder capabilities. From what I saw yesterday, they will fit right in here in the east too. So obviously some folks have the skills to make yesterday's conditions look great, while others (me) only thought it was OK. I am a pretty strong skier who can carve turns well as long as the surface is carve-able. I would have said yesterdays snow was too hard to carve, if I didn't see so many others doing so. Will my new Mantra's help me on this kind of day? What have others experienced when going to fat skis? Anyone willing to share their tricks for this type of snow?

Thanks!

I was up at Cannon yesterday also and noticed the exact same thing. Super fat skis. I just picked up new skis (more on that later... Atomic Crimson TI's) and I felt downright narrow compared to some of the others. One guy in particular I rode on the Tram with had some telemarking skis - they must have been 190cm long and probably 120+ underfoot. They were enormous. But he was absolutely tearing it up, I followed him down Avalanche on the way to the tram and he was really cooking.

 

[Cheese]

I am a pretty strong skier who can carve turns well as long as the surface is carve-able. I would have said yesterdays snow was too hard to carve, if I didn't see so many others doing so. Will my new Mantra's help me on this kind of day? What have others experienced when going to fat skis? Anyone willing to share their tricks for this type of snow?

I haven't seen you ski, but my initial assumption is that technique will help you more than the Mantras. So, to prove to yourself whether or not you can carve well enough, I suggest this fairly telling two step drill.

1. On a wide blue trail clear of any traffic below and above you, link several turns together, forming "S" patterns down the slope. This will be very simple for anyone that can carve.

2. Once you are comfortable, change the shape of your turns from the "S" to more of an "8" on it's side. The finish of your turn will now be heading back up the slope crossing the ruts of your previous turn. This "8" pattern requires a strong carve so should let you know fairly quickly if it's time to invest in a carving lesson.

 

[JSHSKI]

Alta last Feb:

My Mantras have been just great in about anything . Killington, Wa Wa , Mt Snow , Jackson Hole, Squaw, Alta . In deep deep snow I may have been better off last year with powder skis but last year was special out west as ever day was a powder day.

Thanks for the input. I was at Alta last year during a very snowy week! I skied it on my Tigersharks, but I knew I would have been having a better time on something bigger. (the rental shop at Collins Base sold out of fat boards) Our Eastie Skis looked funny alongside all the super wide twin tipped "Clown Skis". There's some folks who can ski at Alta. We were swimming in the deep end that week!

 

[thetrailboss]

Agree on the edges. FWIW I have been very surprised how the transition from my Tigersharks and narrow skis to my fatter skis (102 and 105 waists) has gone. I can get the super stiff Head Monster 102sw's on edge and carving well...just GS turns.

 

[Smellytele]

I was at Cannon yesterday as well. While I thought some trails were a little "slick" I didn't think Cannonball was. I skied it around 2pm and it seemed better than some other times I had been there. Avalanche and the other front five were more slick in spots.

To add I was not the tele skier mentioned above - my skis are only 85 under foot

 

[legalskier]

Agree on the edges.

My experience is the opposite. I have new Rossi Experience 88s (170s, with slight front rocker) which I've skied @ 6 days. My old skis are Volkl Allstar Supersports (163s) which are narrow waisted. I've skied them both on the same day, same conditions/trails, both with newly sharpened edges. To my pleasant surprise the Rossi's held on ice and hard pack much better than the Volkls (and the Volkls are very good there). It's totally counter-intuitive; looking at them side by side, you'd assume the opposite.

I bought the Rossi's to serve as a one ski quiver for any condition we find in the east, and they are living up to their sparkling reviews in every respect (though I'm still waiting for enough cover for tree skiing). Extremely pleased with them.

 

[kingslug]

I think it would also depend on if the skis where rockered or not. I have Rossi S3's which do not like ice..they tend to schmear turns and get very slippery on the hard stuff..fat skis without rocker but stiff are just a bigger platform. IMHO

 

[Nick]

Where the hell where all you guys last week when I was seeing who wanted to ski Cannon on Sunday :roll:

 

[St. Bear]

Where the hell where all you guys last week when I was seeing who wanted to ski Cannon on Sunday :roll:

The boss is always the loneliest guy at lunchtime.

 

[BenedictGomez]

A little surprised at this thread.

If we're assuming the poor conditions, boilerplate etc... that the OP seems to be suggesting...... and we can scientifically superimpose the exact same skier with the exact same skillset on the exact same run in the exact same conditions, the narrow waisted 68 or 74 underfoot ski should perform better than the fat/wide 120 or 130 underfoot. Physics/design.

 

[SKIQUATTRO]

my line elizabeths (110 under) carves better on ice than my rossi powderbirds (76 under) and they get the same tune...

 

[atkinson]

I've been skiing a pair of K2 Obsethed's (118mm waist, powder rocker, with camber underfoot) all season long at Sugarbush, every condition imaginable and they have changed my life. I carve and hold on ice better, they charge the bumps, funky snow is no issue, pow is dreamy and I never catch an edge.

The physics of rocker actually encourages carving. Skiing is easier and more fun than ever before. Go demo.

John

 

[Cheese]

The physics of rocker actually encourages carving.

That's why all the racers are on them this year.

Wait, what?

 

[Puck it]

The physics of rocker actually encourages carving. Skiing is easier and more fun than ever before. Go demo.

I call do over. The real answer is fuzzy. Yes reverse camber does start a turn faster, but also has problems going flat.

http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/physics-of-skiing.html

 

[JSHSKI]

Mantra's arrived!

Thanks to all that have replied. UPS brought my Mantra's awhile ago. I am dying to try them now. Everyone here has encouraged me to consider them my skis and not just my "powder skis". The responses have raised many different issues from edge sharpness, my ability to carve, rocker or not, etc. What makes me happy is the ones saying they enjoy their wider skis more than skinny in most or all conditions.

As for the science: I thought that the reason narrow waist skis would be better on hard snow was the greater side-cut. That during a carved turn, the whole length of the ski is engaged with the snow and the ski is following it's natural arc through the turn. Less side-cut, less engagement so less edge hold on ice. I know that when I was 20 -30 yo and I skied on 207cm K2 KVC Comps, I was able to hang on tight through some very hard cuts on firm snow. However, if a ski is about 110mm wide underfoot and you put it up on edge, aren't you applying more force to the edge than if the ski is only 78mm wide? Isn't that extra width acting like a longer lever?

I'm going to get the tigersharks sharpened, try the mantra's on whatever snow there is next weekend, and read with interest any input you all have regarding the "science"
Thanks,
Joe

 

[BenedictGomez]

What makes me happy is the ones saying they enjoy their wider skis more than skinny in most or all conditions.

There are many conditions in which the wider skis can outperform. The conditions you specifically asked about, however, typically arent one of them, despite some of the responses you received, and frankly I think some replies suffer from "I own this and love it" bias.

Were it true that fat skis perform better in "all conditions", then why dont Lindsey Vonn and Bode Miller ski on 120mm underfoot skis? Why doesnt Ted Ligety go with 130mm under his boot? When Bode essentially changed the world on K2 Fours, I believe they were 65mm under the foot.

Different tools are required for different applications. Fat is great for float, not as great for extremely quick and precise changes.

 

[Cheese]

As for the science: I thought that the reason narrow waist skis would be better on hard snow was the greater side-cut. That during a carved turn, the whole length of the ski is engaged with the snow and the ski is following it's natural arc through the turn. Less side-cut, less engagement so less edge hold on ice.

Nope. Side-cut is merely a variable in how easy it is to flex a ski into a reverse camber or carving arc. Increasing side-cut will increase the amount that the weight of a skier aides in flexing the ski into the reverse camber or carving arc. Once the arc is formed, holding the edge on ice requires more than side-cut.

Let's consider the tire of your car. The rubber comes in contact with the road and offers traction, right? What happens if the road surface isn't smooth? Does the tire still work or do we need additional springs and and shock absorbers to make sure that tire stays in contact with the road?

Since a ski doesn't have springs or shock absorbers we give it camber and stiffness. So, although the side-cut of a ski may make it easier to place the edge on the snow, it is camber and stiffness that keep the edge on the snow through the carve at speed and on uneven surfaces.