Fat Skis, Hard Snow

[skiersleft]

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.

This. I don't think it can be seriously claimed that a fat ski is better at carving hardpack than a narrow ski.

My experience has been the opposite. This year I decided to buy a high end carver ski. 72 underfoot. Game changer. Much better on ice than any other ski I've tried. It's not that a fat ski can't perform well on ice, but saying that it performs better than frontside carvers and race skis on hardpack is just weird.

 

[Highway Star]

seriously?????

 

[skiersleft]

seriously?????

Seriously what?

 

[Nick]

Why would narrower vs. wider impact edge grip. The only difference I can think of is the cantliever action you get on a wider ski ...

Where's that ski physics book Snowmonster recommended

 

[Highway Star]

Seriously what?

Seriously, epicski and alpinezone should have a gaper-off.

I'm going to take a wild guess that I'm the only person in this thread that has actually ever carved a turn.

And I'm certain I'm the only one here who's carved a 120mm+ waist ski.....which are exceptionally difficult to carve on, and can ususally only be carved on soft snow.

You guys all love the wider skis because they are easier to skid.

 

[darent]

Give me a narrower ski and 3 degree side angle on hard pack anyday,I want to have fun not work at it all day

 

[darent]

Seriously, epicski and alpinezone should have a gaper-off.

I'm going to take a wild guess that[ I'm the only person in this thread that has actually ever carved a turn.}

And I'm certain I'm the only one who's carved a 120mm+ waist ski.....which are exceptionally difficult to carve on, and can ususally only be carved on soft snow.

You guys all love the wider skis because they are easier to skid.

your tag is about right, HS= DREAMER

 

[riverc0il]

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?

No. Instead of buying the Mantras, take some lessons. I don't mean to sound flip, but if you see guys making it look easy on fat skis and you're having trouble on Tigersharks... it is you, not the skis. The Mantras will not help you. Also, what are you doing going from 175 in Tigersharks to 184 in Mantras? If you're having trouble making good carves on Tigersharks, I almost have to wonder if you have too much ski under you. Those skis are made for ripping up icy hard pack.

 

[riverc0il]

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.

I appreciate where you are going with this and this is a decent generalization. But we also have to keep in mind how the ski is designed. A floppy foam core 69mm underfoot ski not optimized for torsional stiffness isn't going to rip it as well as race inspired wood core with two sheets of tintinal even at 100mm underfoot. Edge to edge transitions might be a little slower but with the proper radius and lateral stiffness, there are indeed some fat boards that rip better than skinny skis. BUT when you compare skis in the same class and same construction, yes the skinnier ski is going to rip the groomers much better which is why racers still ski skinny skis.

 

[riverc0il]

I call do over. The real answer is fuzzy.

Yes, this this this. I am so tired of blanket generalizations!

 

[riverc0il]

You guys all love the wider skis because they are easier to skid.

Heh. :lol:

This cuts into the heart of the wider/rocker argument for me. So many people swear by certain tech but is it because the tech is actually better or because the tech better fits their technique... or more specifically lack thereof. Can a person demoing a ski and reporting on its various abilities actually command the technique to truly inspire the performance being reported on? Or are they actually just reporting more on their own technique status rather than how the ski truly performs for someone that can us it to its full potential. Not in reference to anyone in particular... just a general comment. HS was a bit out of line with his response but it does bring up an interesting issue regarding how people report on gear. I trust reviews and hearsay less and less.

 

[atkinson]

I'm pretty sure some of you argued that shaped skis were lame too. Not all rocker is the same, so don't take this as a blanket endorsement of any technology. I don't own the Obsethed's either, so there is no buyer pride.

I never said that rockers beat racers for carving, just that rocker skis encourage carving. Tip the ski over and it is already pre-shaped into a flexed carve. Tip and rip. On an early rise or moderate rocker ski, it's easier to teach carving and easier for experts to carve consistently.

Racers and hard snow fanatics don't want or need easy though. They want precision in a limited arena, which generally means narrower and stiffer. Most of the rest of us want fun in a wide arena. I want to blast funk, charge pow, bust crust, carve groomers, float bumps and rip trees. Rocker just adds versatility.

The Obs roll right over steep faced bumps, never get hung up in thick stuff, hold on ice and carve the groomers. You can pick on my abilities if it makes you feel better. I can take it.

 

[Nick]

Dunno WTF is going on but every time I see the title of this thread I read, "Eat Skis"

 

[deadheadskier]

My everyday ice coast ski is 84 underfoot. I doubt there are many skis wider than my Fischer Motive 84's that will handle as well as they do on hard snow conditions. I know there are skis that will handle the boiler plate better and they are significantly narrower. There's a reason why you don't see FIS racers on skis much wider than what? 70 mm underfoot?

 

[goldsbar]

All things equal, fat skis will NEVER grip better than narrow skis. My attempt at the physics courtesy of "Ultimate Skiing" (read the book for nice pictures):

Think of the line of force going through your leg. It's basically going from the center of your knee to the center of your foot. If you had an ice skate on, this force would be almost exactly where the super narrow blade hits the ice. With skis, the force goes through the center of your foot but the edge isn't there; it's off to the side (to confuse things, riser plates grip better because they can make the center of your foot closer to the edge). The wider the ski, the further the edge from the center of your force. In addition to making your edge dig in, the force is also attempting to flatten your ski (bad!).

(Fat skis are also slower edge-to-edge, another physics lesson)

Of course all things aren't equal in real life. Skis lose their ability to grip over time so that new pair of wide skis might feel better than your 5 y/o skinny skis. Take a new GS/SL ski and put it against a Mantra. It's not even close.

As for technique, if you don't know what "counter" is, you'll never grip well on ice. If you do understand counter, know that ice requires very strong counter balance combined with some counter rotation. Carving rr tracks on soft groomers is great but it doesn't mean your technique is correct. Ice is the true measure of carving technique.

 

[atkinson]

Following the conventional wisdom, everybody should clearly be on ice skates. All things equal, it's the best way to get the most power to the edge.

We're not racing world cup here. You shouldn't buy skis based on your least favorite condition, either.

All things are never equal in the real world. If you've never tried a pair, go demo. Don't stay on the ice either, just to prove your own beliefs. Wander and ponder.

 

[Sick Bird Rider]

^ Atkinson speaks the truth. Get the ski that suits the condition you enjoy skiing the most. Learn to make them work in the conditions you find. Or buy many skis and spend countless hours agonizing over which pair to use on any given day. And don't forget to have fun.

 

[deadheadskier]

. Get the ski that suits the condition you enjoy skiing the most..

Sure, provided you are able to ski those conditions most of the time. My condition preference is 2 feet of blower and if I were to ski those conditions often, I'd buy a 110+ underfoot. I get to ski those conditions maybe 1-2 days a season these days due to where I live, ski most often and my work obligations.

In general, I think most Northeast skiers are overly optimistic with their ski selections. I say this having gotten in on the "super fats" early. I've had a 110 in my ski quiver since 2000. I bought them when living in Stowe during the epic 2000-2001 winter when the mountain got 400+ inches. I skied them pretty much everyday that season. But looking back? Even during that crazy winter, I'd have probably been better off skiing on something much narrower half my days out that season.

I bought my Motive 84s this season knowing that 75% of my days are going to be at low natural snowfall areas in NH. The one day I've had 6 inch plus deep conditions, I was wishing I was on something wider, but for the most part, they're spot on for the kind of conditions I know I'll be skiing most.

Don't buy skis based upon the type of conditions you like the best. Buy skis based upon the type of conditions you're likely to encounter the most. Unless you ski Northern VT the most, I'd say under 85 is the right width for most skiers in the East.

 

[goldsbar]

Don't buy skis based upon the type of conditions you like the best. Buy skis based upon the type of conditions you're likely to encounter the most. Unless you ski Northern VT the most, I'd say under 85 is the right width for most skiers in the East.

This. Luckily I have a small quiver (Sultan 85s do it all, Fischer WC SC slalom like ski). I brought my not-so-wide-anymore-but-very-wide-five-years-ago Sultan 85s to the Hunter Mtn demo day. It was pretty much groomers with a couple of small bump sections. In other words, 95% of my skiing that day was on a groomer that ranged from nice to glazed. I took advantage of the demo day and tried some Dynastar Speed Course Ti skis. Same length (+1 mm), same brand, approximately the same turning radius as the Sultans. Fun factor was night and day. I wanted to buy them on the spot. Much faster edge to edge, speed demons and they cut through ice like a hot knife through butter. The Sultans felt like an 18 wheeler compared to these things. Now, give me some fresh snow or slush or crud or whatever and the Sultans will allow me to blast down the fall line like I'm on a groomer. Fun factor for the Sultans in those conditions.

I'm in no way knocking fat skis. The technology is actually amazing. Realskiers, usually conservative, has the 100+mm Ullr Ski Logic (or is that Ski Logic Ullr, whatever) as the overall ski of the year two years straight. They even claim the short turn radius and flex design makes them really quick edge to edge.

 

[deadheadskier]

If I were to add a new fat ski to my quiver, something like the Rockered Ski Logic Urlls Chariot would be it. It sounds like the PERFECT east coast powder ski. But, I'd probably only ski it 5 days a year.