Why fat skis?

[Cheese]

I bought a fatter ski (96 under foot, but rethinking that now), for east coast chop and the rare powder day once a year or two. For me, the length has not factored into it. Since my 96 under foot are also longer, I use them for GS speeds, for the stability.

It's this "rare powder day" and "stable GS speed" mid-fat combination that confuses me. Don't take it personally as many mid-fat skiers make the same claims. Are your mid-fats soft and rockered? I would assume for the "rare powder day" you'd want that but at GS speeds a soft rocker ski is going to flap like a noodle. Additionally the soft rockered ski will skid turn quite easily so as the powder day turns into bumps and crud or you chase the powder into tight trees, you're still on the correct board. Conversely the stiff GS ski ("stable GS speed") which is traditionally cambered will be tough to turn quickly in the morning powder. Nobody would want a GS ski in the trees and once the powder turns to bumps and crud the day gets even more challenging on the GS ski since the stiff ski will store and release energy which in turn will launch the skier from the moguls. Clearly the stable GS board should stay in the car on a powder day. That's why I mentioned type 1 (powder) and type 2 (GS carver) as I didn't think they could ever be swapped but your post indicates you have a 96 underfoot designed for both.

I should have mounted back but went on center.

Finding the sweet spot is fairly easy on a demo ski. Normally both the toe and heel binding slide so rather than adjusting them to where the boot center line and ski center line meet up, shift the boot forward or backward and take a run. If you're doing this yourself, just be mindful of the forward pressure when adjusting.

 

[Puck it]

Finding the sweet spot is fairly easy on a demo ski. Normally both the toe and heel binding slide so rather than adjusting them to where the boot center line and ski center line meet up, shift the boot forward or backward and take a run. If you're doing this yourself, just be mindful of the forward pressure when adjusting.

No demo done on them.

 

[Cannonball]

Maybe this has something to do with it......

 

[BenedictGomez]

Maybe this has something to do with it......

View attachment 8071

We covered this in a health thread before, but I know for a fact that that graph is based on BMI = horsepoop, because it drastically overstates the overweight and obese in America. For instance, I'm in pretty darn good shape, yet I'm extremely close to being "overweight" in the metrics the government keeps. Many (if not most depending on which league we're talking about) pro athletes are counted as "obese" in BMI metricing. Worse, even on a good day, some of the ranges are just totally unrealistic to the point where what they call "healthy" would be IMO, a sickly-thin human being. It's just dumb. [/pet peeve health issue rant]

 

[St. Bear]

We covered this in a health thread before, but I know for a fact that that graph is based on BMI = horsepoop, because it drastically overstates the overweight and obese in America. For instance, I'm in pretty darn good shape, yet I'm extremely close to being "overweight" in the metrics the government keeps. Many (if not most depending on which league we're talking about) pro athletes are counted as "obese" in BMI metricing. Worse, even on a good day, some of the ranges are just totally unrealistic to the point where what they call "healthy" would be IMO, a sickly-thin human being. It's just dumb. [/pet peeve health issue rant]

I'll second this, and throw in the fact that that graph distorts the slope to make it look like obesity is rising faster than it really is. I'm not saying American's aren't getting fat, we certainly are. But the x-variable increments go from 9 years, to 5, to 4, to 21, to 8, to 11.

 

[drjeff]

Maybe this has something to do with it......

View attachment 8071

Hmm, the personal computer and home video game revolution really started taking off in the early/mid 80's..... Coincidence??

Then it leveled out a bit about the time that AZ really started taking off (and we all wanted to get outside a bit more and get some cool snow, biking, and hiking TR's )

And my guess is that the projected increase in the next decade or so will be because quite soon we'll be virtual skiing

 

[bigbog]

....Fat technology allows for a shorter ski but instead skiers stay at the same length so essentially increase the length from the narrow ski it's replacing..........

For myself...a fatter ski isn't for correction of anything...but I do understand how limited skilled skiers are taking more chances than ever before. With a little added rocker and not taken beyond its functional envelope, a wider ski just allows me to ski through deeper, and potentially cruddier(word?) snow... I go a little longer for anything I'll (hopefully) use in deeper pow & mixed snow....better float. A little rocker helps in heavier stuff, and early rise helps with smaller blowdowns that I might miss.

 

[Cheese]

For myself...a fatter ski isn't for correction of anything. With a little added rocker and not taken beyond its functional envelope, a wider ski just allows me to ski through deeper, and potentially cruddier(word?) snow... Length remains about the same....as I like to be able to pseudo-carve in heavy stuff 12"+ ...however being able to throw in a pivot, if needed, really adds a veil of security when off-resort....with the amount of tight tree lines here in NewEngland.

This is essentially what I use my fat rockered skis for. They're shorter than my GS skis but longer than my slalom skis. It's a ski with a pretty specific day in mind though. It's too soft and cambered the wrong way for hard pack and it's too long and fat for moguls. It can't turn as quick as my slalom skis and it won't smooth out hard pack like my GS skis.

 

[gmcunni]

wider is better

 

[BenedictGomez]

I'll second this, and throw in the fact that that graph distorts the slope to make it look like obesity is rising faster than it really is. I'm not saying American's aren't getting fat, we certainly are. But the x-variable increments go from 9 years, to 5, to 4, to 21, to 8, to 11.

Great catch, I didnt even notice that (which is exactly what whoever built that graph intended).

 

[Cannonball]

We covered this in a health thread before, but I know for a fact that that graph is based on BMI = horsepoop, because it drastically overstates the overweight and obese in America. For instance, I'm in pretty darn good shape, yet I'm extremely close to being "overweight" in the metrics the government keeps. Many (if not most depending on which league we're talking about) pro athletes are counted as "obese" in BMI metricing. Worse, even on a good day, some of the ranges are just totally unrealistic to the point where what they call "healthy" would be IMO, a sickly-thin human being. It's just dumb. [/pet peeve health issue rant]

There's your answer Cheese. New skis aren't fat, it just that the old ones were sickly-thin.

 

[deadheadskier]

This is essentially what I use my fat rockered skis for. They're shorter than my GS skis but longer than my slalom skis. It's a ski with a pretty specific day in mind though. It's too soft and cambered the wrong way for hard pack and it's too long and fat for moguls. It can't turn as quick as my slalom skis and it won't smooth out hard pack like my GS skis.

I'd venture to say that you are one of very few recreational skiers that still has GS skis and slalom skis. That really hasn't been common since the 90s. I always had both kinds back in the day but now it really no longer makes sense to me when "carving" skis exist that are more than adequate for all turn shapes. I'm 5'8" and 190#. I feel 175cm is the ideal size carving ski for my build. A 100mm width ski with today's rocker? 185 seems about right. I demoed 107mm gotamas in a 178 cm length and while fun, I think the 186 would be better for my size and performance preferences.

 

[ScottySkis]

To car my fat as$

 

[Cheese]

I'd venture to say that you are one of very few recreational skiers that still has GS skis and slalom skis. That really hasn't been common since the 90s. I always had both kinds back in the day but now it really no longer makes sense to me when "carving" skis exist that are more than adequate for all turn shapes. I'm 5'8" and 190#. I feel 175cm is the ideal size carving ski for my build. A 100mm width ski with today's rocker? 185 seems about right. I demoed 107mm gotamas in a 178 cm length and while fun, I think the 186 would be better for my size and performance preferences.

Absolutely I could be old fashioned but I'd argue that this is the age of the "cheater ski" so why not choose weapons accordingly? Most tend to go for a ski somewhere between GS and slalom but when the radius of these two types of skis ranges from 27m to 12m there's an awful lot of turn shape difference between the two. The slalom ski is designed to make more than twice the turns as the GS ski and the GS ski is designed to hold on ice and be stable at speed. These are fundamental differences in the design stiffness and side cut and compromise is obviously up to the skiers priority.

I'm 30# lighter at your height so basically choose men's skis at women's lengths. A men's slalom ski would be 165cm but I ski a 162cm. A men's GS ski would be 185cm but I ski a 181cm. A carving ski which sacrifices both short turns and hold on ice would probably land in the middle at ~175cm. If I fatten this carving ski up to all mountain I should get the same result from a 165cm ski with the added advantage of float should I find some unplanned fresh. I guess I'll have to take the Rossi 98 out for a rip and see if I can decrease it's large 20m radius substantially. I'll also have to see how much work it is to keep the oscillating tips of a 165cm ski under control at speed. Maybe it's time mothball the GS skis outside of the race course and start riding a traditionally cambered mid-fat.

 

[deadheadskier]

Absolutely I could be old fashioned but I'd argue that this is the age of the "cheater ski" so why not choose weapons accordingly? Most tend to go for a ski somewhere between GS and slalom but when the radius of these two types of skis ranges from 27m to 12m there's an awful lot of turn shape difference between the two. The slalom ski is designed to make more than twice the turns as the GS ski and the GS ski is designed to hold on ice and be stable at speed. These are fundamental differences in the design stiffness and side cut and compromise is obviously up to the skiers priority.

You're definitely right on the differences in design. I guess I just find that a good "mid-fat" carving ski can be a decent compromise and for most people, the better way to go for recreational skiing where you want to greatly vary turn shapes throughout not just the day, but the given run. My Fischer Motive 84s have a 17m turn radius. Do they make quick turns like a 12m slalom ski? Not as good, but close enough. I can most certainly ski them like I would a 27m GS ski and to tell you the truth, I haven't found a speed limit on them with Super G sized turns. They have great edge hold and no chatter. Just a great super fun carving ski, but that's really all they are.

Before buying them I read a review on epicski and the user thought they were good in the bumps. I think they suck personally. It's a system ski with a progressive flex control and I personally don't think you want to be on a high mounted system binding for good bump performance to begin with. Regarding the flex, even on the softest setting, I find the tails way too stiff for swift tail compression and release on the backside of a bump. I may have higher expectations on bump performance than most though. The thing is, all the characteristics that make them suck in the bumps are the qualities that make them great carving.

I know this isn't the "one-ski quiver" thread, but personally I think I'm too picky to go with anything less than 3. 80ish flat mount 175cm softer ski for bumps and spring days; something to carve with like my Fischers and then something over 100mm and 180cm for powder days. I'm compromising with some older skis to fit the "need" of the skis described other than my Fischers......looks like it's time to buy again. :lol:

 

[Cheese]

I know this isn't the "one-ski quiver" thread, but personally I think I'm too picky to go with anything less than 3. 80ish flat mount 175cm softer ski for bumps and spring days; something to carve with like my Fischers and then something over 100mm and 180cm for powder days. I'm compromising with some older skis to fit the "need" of the skis described other than my Fischers......looks like it's time to buy again. :lol:

I'm a 3 ski quiver guy as well (Slalom, GS and powder). As I look into a 4th (mid-fat) it seems that it's most likely going to overlap my GS ski so perhaps I'll just mothball that one except in the gates. It's use is limited to mornings or bullet proof days anyway. I really like my slalom skis for crud as those days typically progress into the bumps where I want a short narrow ski. The powder ski is fine in the trees but if I'm late and it's already tracked out, I'll likely put the slalom skis back on to treat the trees like it's a mogul day. Hopefully the mid-fat will better fit the gap between slalom and powder than the GS ski has in the past.

 

[BenedictGomez]

A men's slalom ski would be 165cm but I ski a 162cm.

A men's slalom ski would be 150cm to 160cm, but FIS put the brakes on that and said "enough", which is why 165cm is now the minimum allowed. They'd go way shorter if you let them.

 

[Cheese]

A men's slalom ski would be 150cm to 160cm, but FIS put the brakes on that and said "enough", which is why 165cm is now the minimum allowed. They'd go way shorter if you let them.

Yeah, I've strapped on a 150 slalom ski. Although it does offer an unfair advantage in the gates, outside of the gates on a wide open slope when someone in the group wants to set a new Alpine Replay speed record it's borderline dangerous. The ski absolutely wants to be making short turns so gets really squirrely when pointing it straight down the hill. A little extra length helps a bit.

 

[jrmagic]

Yeah, I've strapped on a 150 slalom ski. Although it does offer an unfair advantage in the gates, outside of the gates on a wide open slope when someone in the group wants to set a new Alpine Replay speed record it's borderline dangerous. The ski absolutely wants to be making short turns so gets really squirrely when pointing it straight down the hill. A little extra length helps a bit.

Agree 100%. Back in the early 2000s I picked up a pair of Atomic SL 11 in a 171 as a compromise between GS and SL and even at that length I had tobstaybon top of them and keep the edge engaged at all times. If I tried to let them run, the slightest shift would engage and the ski would just go in that direction fast.

 

[Cheese]

Agree 100%. Back in the early 2000s I picked up a pair of Atomic SL 11 in a 171 as a compromise between GS and SL and even at that length I had to stay on top of them and keep the edge engaged at all times. If I tried to let them run, the slightest shift would engage and the ski would just go in that direction fast.

Probably would help if I didn't always succumb to peer pressure. Dad always said, "He skis like he doesn't know how old he is."