Fat Skis, Hard Snow

[Sick Bird Rider]

Well, you make a fair point. In the interest of brevity, I failed to add "within reason" to my advice above. That said, I respectfully disagree with you. Your 110 skis from 2001 are nothing like the 110 skis of today. In the last five years, I gone from 75 to 94 to 100 to 108 underfoot. That may be the limit for the east. Current ski has camber plus early rise at both ends (Line SFB). No powder days so far and I am still happy I bought them. I do admit that it would be nice to have something skinnier for the super-icy days but if I can only ski on one ski, I'd rather make do with the SFB. They make everything so much fun.

As the French say: "à chacun son goût."

Or, if you prefer the Latin; "de gustibus non est disputandum."

 

[deadheadskier]

The 70mm skis today are nothing like 10 years ago either. Physics are still physics. The ice skate analogy someone made earlier in the tread is spot on.

 

[snowmonster]

Been a fan of fat skis for a while now and I use a 100-waister as my daily driver. I also use a reversed camber skis in a 112 and 115 waist on this coast. On soft snow and in the trees, they are superb. They are fun and, with the right technique, can carve on very hard snow. However, they are not a substitute for more narrow waist-ed skis. I finally discovered their performance limits last week on a very slick and steep National headwall at Stowe. No matter how sharp my edges were, it was a struggle to get them to bite.

 

[Sick Bird Rider]

The 70mm skis today are nothing like 10 years ago either. Physics are still physics. The ice skate analogy someone made earlier in the tread is spot on.

Physics, schmisics. I'm talking about having fun. Are you thinking physics while you ski? If so, I feel sorry for you.

And pay attention. The ice skate analogy was made by Atkinson, who is clearly in the fat/rockered ski camp:

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.

I agree with Atkinson, the wider, rockered ski gives you the most versatility. Why, just the other day we skied groomers with a bit o' fresh on the sides. The smoothest transitions I have ever experienced.

Pay attention also to what rivercOil says (and I paraphrase): it is a poor craftsman that blames his tools.

 

[atkinson]

Blaming your gear for not being able to ski a trail?

Sorry for the NVT bias, but I encounter a wide variety of conditions weekly. Do any NE'ers live in a place that doesn't get warm-ups and cool-downs during winter? Sure, we get more pow, but there are far more variable surfaces most of the time. Rockered and fat are just more fun across a wider spectrum.

How would I be better off on a narrower ski? Better grip? Faster edge to edge? The turns seem to happen plenty fast and when the going gets rough, these boards dance through it. Chunk, cookies, glacier, glop, they just seem to inspire confidence.

Your mileage may vary, but the original poster mentioned skiing at Cannon and they get their share of pow too. Maybe it's okay that he gets a wider ski and loves it?

 

[deadheadskier]

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.

my ice skate comment was in reference to the above post, not John A.

Physics, schmisics. I'm talking about having fun. Are you thinking physics while you ski? If so, I feel sorry for you.

And pay attention. The ice skate analogy was made by Atkinson, who is clearly in the fat/rockered ski camp:

I agree with Atkinson, the wider, rockered ski gives you the most versatility. Why, just the other day we skied groomers with a bit o' fresh on the sides. The smoothest transitions I have ever experienced.

Pay attention also to what rivercOil says (and I paraphrase): it is a poor craftsman that blames his tools.

I know rivercoil. He doesn't blame his equipment, but always skis the right equipment for the conditions present. He's been rocking 78mm Dynastar Legends for years and those have been his skis underfoot I think every time I've skied with him.

I don't think about physics when I ski, but I do know that physics play a role in how much fun I'll have on the slopes regarding my equipment choices. The one day I've had this season where there was 6 plus on the hill, I swapped out my 84 Motives for my 92 High Society Free Rides (and they still weren't wide enough)

If I were to have an ideal 2 ski quiver in the east, it would be my Fischers and then something in the 100-110 range. High 80s through 100 are useless in the east as far as I'm concerned.

though, I also want a bump specific ski around 70 underfoot which I have with my old Rossi BX's

 

[laxski]

I am skiing Volkl Gotomas 106 underfoot rockered after Volkl supersport 5 stars. 6 days no powder just groomers and 1 day of brutal conditions.For 5 of those day I have been very happy with the ski and the icy day let's just say even if I had skates on it would have sucked Ski east coast exclusively and not going skinner anytime soon.

 

[riverc0il]

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.

You are debating a point with yourself, here. No one is saying that if you need a one ski quiver that you shouldn't go fatter. The points being suggested are that for icy hard pack (where the OP was having some major problems) skinny skis are clearly the best tool for the job.

When I think of "conventional wisdom" I think of "go bigger". Go skinny is old school wisdom. Everybody these days says go fat. I think a lot of people that could be better served by skinnier hard pack skis (those that never or rarely get off the groomers) are being misled. I think the OP might fall into this category buying a fatter ski to improve his icy hard pack groomer skiing (!!!).

 

[hammer]

FWIW when I was at Loon last Friday I brought what seemed to be the wrong skis for the job (Fischer Progressors). Made some adjustments in technique and I still managed to do a passable job in the shallow powder.

Guess my own opinion from an intermediate's perspective is that unless there is some terrific deal out there I won't worry about optimizing my equipment until my skills are more solid. In the meantime my skinny front-side skis (which hold an edge nicely when driven properly) will do just fine for most cases and I still have 3YO all-mountain skis to use when the front-side skis don't perform as well.

 

[Glenn]

I'm just not convinced anything wider than a 90 underfoot can hold as good as a 75-80 underfoot. I really need to demo to test my hypothesis.

 

[atkinson]

More beginners and intermediates (experts too) need to try early rise/rockered boards. Their abilities and fun would dramatically improve.

As for the conventional wisdom, I was talking about the wisdom being offered by the peanut gallery. You know, like 80-110mm skis being useless around here.

 

[skiersleft]

I finally discovered their performance limits last week on a very slick and steep National headwall at Stowe. No matter how sharp my edges were, it was a struggle to get them to bite.

Funny you mention this. I also tried the National headwall at Stowe this weekend with mid fats. Tried it twice on Saturday and just couldn't get them to bite. Slid all the way down to the moguls. Same story Saturday. It was a f-ing glacier. Haven't seen ice like that in a while. Was wishing I brought with me my skinny 72 underfoot carvers.

 

[gmcunni]

More beginners and intermediates (experts too) need to try early rise/rockered boards. Their abilities and fun would dramatically improve.

in all seriousness, would you mind expanding on this as to WHY? i'm not much of a gear head and thought rockers were simply for deep/soft snow.

 

[Cheese]

More beginners and intermediates (experts too) need to try early rise/rockered boards. Their abilities and fun would dramatically improve.

Disagree:
This reverts to the skidding comment made many posts earlier. If the goal is to put beginner and intermediate skiers on skis that are easier to skid turn so they'll have some fun on greens and blues, sure. However, if that same intermediate skier winds up on a black run in New England after 2pm, they're going to skid dangerously, get discouraged, scared and perhaps even hurt.

The design of a snow ski requires it to be bent into an arc (reverse camber) to turn. Original thinking was to lean forward on the tips to flex the ski. Shane McConkey complained frequently that this wasn't possible to do in powder as the soft snow wouldn't provide the resistance required to flex a narrow ski. It was his experimenting with water skis in powder that sparked this whole movement to use water ski technology (fat reverse cambered skis) for powder. They work great in water and on powder which is where they were designed to work.

A typical recreational skiers quiver might include the following:

Powder ski
Bump ski
SL carving ski
GS carving ski

Chances are I'll need at least 2 if not 3 of these ski pairs as the snow conditions change during the day. If I can't afford this or don't wish to carry 4 pairs of skis to the mountain everyday, that's my own compromise. Claiming that a new ski design has all the functions of these dedicated ski types, yeah .. I'm not buying it. I've seen the "multi-tool" infomercials on TV too but it doesn't mean I'm ready to throw out my toolbox.

 

[skiersleft]

Disagree:
This reverts to the skidding comment made many posts earlier. If the goal is to put beginner and intermediate skiers on skis that are easier to skid turn so they'll have some fun on greens and blues, sure. However, if that same intermediate skier winds up on a black run in New England after 2pm, they're going to skid dangerously, get discouraged, scared and perhaps even hurt.

The design of a snow ski requires it to be bent into an arc (reverse camber) to turn. Original thinking was to lean forward on the tips to flex the ski. Shane McConkey complained frequently that this wasn't possible to do in powder as the soft snow wouldn't provide the resistance required to flex a narrow ski. It was his experimenting with water skis in powder that sparked this whole movement to use water ski technology (fat reverse cambered skis) for powder. They work great in water and on powder which is where they were designed to work.

A typical recreational skiers quiver might include the following:

Powder ski
Bump ski
SL carving ski
GS carving ski

Chances are I'll need at least 2 if not 3 of these ski pairs as the snow conditions change during the day. If I can't afford this or don't wish to carry 4 pairs of skis to the mountain everyday, that's my own compromise. Claiming that a new ski design has all the functions of these dedicated ski types, yeah .. I'm not buying it. I've seen the "multi-tool" infomercials on TV too but it doesn't mean I'm ready to throw out my toolbox.

+1.

The original question was not what ski would be the best ski if you have a one ski quiver. The question was whether fat skis can perform as well or better than narrow skis on hardpack. The obvious answer is no, which doesn't mean that if you can only afford one ski and you live in the East you should get a narrow ski.

 

[gmcunni]

A typical recreational skiers quiver might include the following:

Powder ski
Bump ski
SL carving ski
GS carving ski

the typical recreational skier has a quiver of 4?

 

[mister moose]

Claiming that a new ski design has all the functions of these dedicated ski types, yeah .. I'm not buying it. I've seen the "multi-tool" infomercials on TV too but it doesn't mean I'm ready to throw out my toolbox.

Yup, go get some. The world has changed. Every thing you have is now obsolete. You simply must buy the new version. It's better. Better for everything. Really. Please buy them. Buy them now, because next year we'll have something else to sell you and it will be too late to sell these.

 

[Cheese]

the typical recreational skier has a quiver of 4?

No, those were options and I even cut that list down. I'd prefer my glade ski be short but instead I compromise and use a long fat board that's better suited for charging pow and landing cliffs. I'd love to add GS ski that isn't race stock for days when I just want higher speed and larger radius turns but again I compromised.

 

[Cheese]

Yup, go get some. The world has changed. Every thing you have is now obsolete.

That was the shape ski marketing angle that was going to bring big profits to the ski manufacturers. Unfortunately snow boards showed up so ski companies lost customers instead of the huge sales they were expecting. Boy did that timing suck!

 

[Highway Star]

85mm to 90mm is the optimal waist width for all around, east coast, expert level skiing.