Cheese
New member
The purpose of the fat ski is to allow a shorter ski to perform like it's longer counterpart. In the longer ski quiver I would consider two types.
1. A soft powder ski that uses the extra length for surface area to float and the extra length of the tip and tail to flex easier in deep snow.
2. A stiff GS ski that uses the length to smooth imperfections on hard pack and therefore remain stable at higher speeds.
Obviously these two skis are very different so the fat ski replacement would also be very different. The fat powder ski would likely be soft with rockered tip and tail whereas the GS ski would be stiff and traditionally cambered.
Not only do I see the need for two types of fat skis, if I return to the original benefit which was a shorter length, I still find issue in believing the fat theory holds true.
1. Shortening the tip and tail of a powder ski compromises the front to back stability. Why is front to back stability required in powder? Mostly because the resistance of powder is very inconsistent. As the depth, wind loading and temperature of the powder changes (I mean during a single run) the balance of the skier is typically forced forward or backward. The front to back stability of the ski allows the skier to compensate for these balance shifts before falling forward or backward. Although surface area does some, the majority can only be done by counteracting the large lever arm of the skier with a longer platform underneath. As an example, a 300mm wide snow blade that is 61cm long probably isn't going to stop a skier from going over the handlebars nearly as well as a 100mm wide ski that is 183cm long even though it has the same surface area.
2. Shortening the tip and tail of a high speed GS ski allows the ski to twist or turn back and forth instead of remaining straight under the skier. Again, if given the 300mm wide snow blade in a downhill course vs a 100mm wide 183cm long ski I don't believe the surface area is going to overcome the stability lost due to length.
So, those of you that made the jump to fat skis, was it to replace a type 1 or type 2 ski?
How much shorter did you go?
How are you overcoming the concerns I addressed above?
1. A soft powder ski that uses the extra length for surface area to float and the extra length of the tip and tail to flex easier in deep snow.
2. A stiff GS ski that uses the length to smooth imperfections on hard pack and therefore remain stable at higher speeds.
Obviously these two skis are very different so the fat ski replacement would also be very different. The fat powder ski would likely be soft with rockered tip and tail whereas the GS ski would be stiff and traditionally cambered.
Not only do I see the need for two types of fat skis, if I return to the original benefit which was a shorter length, I still find issue in believing the fat theory holds true.
1. Shortening the tip and tail of a powder ski compromises the front to back stability. Why is front to back stability required in powder? Mostly because the resistance of powder is very inconsistent. As the depth, wind loading and temperature of the powder changes (I mean during a single run) the balance of the skier is typically forced forward or backward. The front to back stability of the ski allows the skier to compensate for these balance shifts before falling forward or backward. Although surface area does some, the majority can only be done by counteracting the large lever arm of the skier with a longer platform underneath. As an example, a 300mm wide snow blade that is 61cm long probably isn't going to stop a skier from going over the handlebars nearly as well as a 100mm wide ski that is 183cm long even though it has the same surface area.
2. Shortening the tip and tail of a high speed GS ski allows the ski to twist or turn back and forth instead of remaining straight under the skier. Again, if given the 300mm wide snow blade in a downhill course vs a 100mm wide 183cm long ski I don't believe the surface area is going to overcome the stability lost due to length.
So, those of you that made the jump to fat skis, was it to replace a type 1 or type 2 ski?
How much shorter did you go?
How are you overcoming the concerns I addressed above?