Not impressed by fat skis

drjeff · Mar 17, 2012

Demo'd a pair of 185cm Nordica Patrons that were 118 underfoot and if memory serves right 138 at the tip - yup they were a WIDE pair of skis!! Skied them in pure mashed potatoes today. My 1st time on a WIDE fully rockered ski. 1st impression was that I wasn't going to be adding them to my quiver. A ski that inherently wants to skid, not carve a turn isn't my thing. Crashing through slush piles was fun, but not that much different than my own Atomic VF75's (75mm underfoot).

Demo #2 was a pair of 188cm of Rossi E98's. Liked these much more than the Nordica's - wanted to carve, not skid a turn, very solid feeling, had me thinking aboit quiver expansion

Highway Star · Mar 19, 2012

kingdom-tele said:
I know the feeling.

I rented a "mountain" bike yesterday. I was wondering what it was like to ride on those wide tires I had been seeing. They seemed to be ideal for riding over roots and rocks and generally earthy conditions.

The recommendation from the shop guy was to ride some hard tail 29'er. although not a "true" downhill mountain bike, it has tires that were way bigger than my usual road bike and the biggest I had ever seen

Overall, I didn't see the hoopla. sure they rolled well in circles, I could turn the handle bars, the pedals were nice, even shifting the gears came pretty easily. But man was it slow on the road, the tire hum was loud, it really seemed like a dog on the uphills. I was even forced to stand up and pedal a few times, just to keep it going.

I couldn't maintain my usual speed I can maintain on the road bike. I am far from the most fit cyclist, but the bike I have been riding for years felt so much better on the road.

I really think the wider tires compromised my ability to roll as efficiently as the road bike tires. It is a good bike for rolling over roots, rocks, and other earthy things. probably for off road riding.
But for out here on the road, I am sticking with the road bike

29er's aren't real mountain bikes.

Abubob · Mar 19, 2012

I skied with 190 cm Chubbs this weekend. I think thery're 114-90-110 mm. Yes they are heavy but I had no trouble with moguls or "GS" turns. Seems to me a 170 cm ski would "swivel" quite nicely. A couple years ago I demoed 170 cm Rossi Barras S5's in the trees at Jay and had a blast with them. I think those were 130-100-125 and twin tip. I have yet to demo any "rockered" skis.

my poor knees · Mar 19, 2012

Hard to imagine 90's, I thought I was going really wide when I bought my nordica hot rod Tempest at 80 mm. The main thing I notice about them is they get you though the crud better and obviously better in powder, but they still allow me to turn well in moguls. I think my previous tigersharks were low 70's. It seems like just the right midwidth size, i'm afraid if I went wider I might lose the quick turning.

BenedictGomez · Mar 19, 2012

my poor knees said:
Hard to imagine 90's, I thought I was going really wide when I bought my nordica hot rod Tempest at 80 mm. The main thing I notice about them is they get you though the crud better and obviously better in powder, but they still allow me to turn well in moguls. I think my previous tigersharks were low 70's. It seems like just the right midwidth size, i'm afraid if I went wider I might lose the quick turning.

I bought Line Prophet 90s, and I enjoyed them in the woods this year, and anyplace with fresh snow.

I still like my 68mm skis for icy conditions, early season skiing, and moguls better. But as a 1-ski-quiver, the LP 90s are what I now grab, as they're 100x better in fresh snow. In fact, they may have too much float for me in 179cm as I'm only 5 foot 10 and 168lbs.

I could probably get by fine with shorter skis and still have great floatation, and that's something I'd like to experiment with next year. I think it would be fun to have a really short "tree specific" pair of skis in the quiver. Phantom is the only company I've heard of that makes a ski solely for eastern tree skiing, and it's 162cm long and 113 underfoot. Dont know how I'd like it, but I want to see what it's like.

from their website

Eastern backcountry and tree skiing enthusiasts know that taking the wrong skis into the tight East Coast woods will leave you floundering and potentially set up for a painful close encounter with Mother Nature. Unfortunately for those of us here in the East, traditional ski companies force us to choose between two sets of tools, neither of which are appropriate for the terrain and conditions we encounter every day. They give us narrower skis designed for carving the hard packed on trail and they suggest as an alternative the fat skis for ripping AK-style faces with no stationary obstacles to worry about. There hasn't been any attention paid to the unique needs of Eastern rippers who have to strike a balance between float and turnability. Until now. Phantom Skis are the first skis specifically designed to accommodate the needs of Eastern tree skiers and backcountry adventurers.

SkiFanE · Mar 19, 2012

BenedictGomez said:
I bought Line Prophet 90s, and I enjoyed them in the woods this year, and anyplace with fresh snow.

I still like my 68mm skis for icy conditions, early season skiing, and moguls better. But as a 1-ski-quiver, the LP 90s are what I now grab, as they're 100x better in fresh snow. In fact, they may have too much float for me in 179cm as I'm only 5 foot 10 and 168lbs.

I could probably get by fine with shorter skis and still have great floatation, and that's something I'd like to experiment with next year. I think it would be fun to have a really short "tree specific" pair of skis in the quiver. Phantom is the only company I've heard of that makes a ski solely for eastern tree skiing, and it's 162cm long and 113 underfoot. Dont know how I'd like it, but I want to see what it's like.

from their websiteEastern backcountry and tree skiing enthusiasts know that taking the wrong skis into the tight East Coast woods will leave you floundering and potentially set up for a painful close encounter with Mother Nature. Unfortunately for those of us here in the East, traditional ski companies force us to choose between two sets of tools, neither of which are appropriate for the terrain and conditions we encounter every day. They give us narrower skis designed for carving the hard packed on trail and they suggest as an alternative the fat skis for ripping AK-style faces with no stationary obstacles to worry about. There hasn't been any attention paid to the unique needs of Eastern rippers who have to strike a balance between float and turnability. Until now. Phantom Skis are the first skis specifically designed to accommodate the needs of Eastern tree skiers and backcountry adventurers.

I bought my 90s from a small new ME ski maker. He made the skis for east coast woods. I normally ski slalom race ski, but in the untracked woods (especially with a layer of crust) they tend to dive under the snow too deep and make it hard to turn. So I couldn't follow hubby too easily. Just got them a month ago, my first ever 'wide' ski. They do what I hoped in the woods, and were awesome carving the slush over the weekend. They make it through the bumps nicely (they're 162, my SLs are 155), but I definitely still prefer my SLs for bumps. Yesterday it was a toss up...but I think even in slushy bumps, I'd choose the SLs. But these are just what I need to ski in the East...I don't go out west ever lol...so anything wider for me would be silly.

BenedictGomez · Mar 19, 2012

SkiFanE said:
I bought my 90s from a small new ME ski maker. He made the skis for east coast woods. I normally ski slalom race ski, but in the untracked woods (especially with a layer of crust) they tend to dive under the snow too deep and make it hard to turn.......They do what I hoped in the woods, and were awesome carving the slush over the weekend. They make it through the bumps nicely (they're 162, my SLs are 155), but I definitely still prefer my SLs for bumps.

Yes, trying to stay with people in the trees on race skis is frustrating as they will submarine. What leaps off the page at me is the fact that the folks at Phantom thought 162cm (i.e. pretty short) was optimal for tight eastern trees for the average person. Seems curious. I say that because 162cm for me would seem really short (my other skis are 179cm and 186cm),though Phantom did later release a "long version" in 180cm as well.

I may just demo skis that are both short and fat, like 165cm/100mm or 162cm/110mm next season and try it in the trees to see how I like the short/fat combination. I think going up to 100mm or 110mm underfoot should compensate for the float I'd lose from the drop in surface area from 179 to 162 or 165.

The Sneak · Mar 19, 2012

I love my prophet 90s. I was on Fischer RX8s and Watea 78s and since gettingmy p90s 3 yrs ago they have become my quiver of one. I tried some Dynastar 6th sense 98mm (slicer) with rocker out west and they were not nearly as jack of all trades. Maybe better and more forgiving than the line's in soft snow, but no comparison on hardpack.

goldsbar · Mar 19, 2012

For EC trees, I'd think wide, short, softish with a little rocker would be ideal. For West general off piste give me a pair of Dynastar Pro Riders (never tried but like the concept of essentially a wide GS+ ski) or something similar. So different.

riverc0il · Mar 19, 2012

goldsbar said:
For EC trees, I'd think wide, short, softish with a little rocker would be ideal.

You don't need to go short for the trees. Get the length that you ski best. If you need a shorter ski for the trees, then you probably don't belong in the trees to begin with. 186cm for me and I am a tight and narrow tree hound, no problem at all.

Puck it · Mar 19, 2012

riverc0il said:
You don't need to go short for the trees. Get the length that you ski best. If you need a shorter ski for the trees, then you probably don't belong in the trees to begin with. 186cm for me and I am a tight and narrow tree hound, no problem at all.

I love my Icelantic Nomads at 168cm in the trees. At the time, it was the longest they made. You can fly through the trees on them when the powder is deep. The 177cm Hell and Back are great also. Just depends on the mood.

riverc0il · Mar 19, 2012

Puck it said:
I love my Icelantic Nomads at 168cm in the trees. At the time, it was the longest they made. You can fly through the trees on them when the powder is deep. The 177cm Hell and Back are great also. Just depends on the mood.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't go short, I'm just saying you shouldn't choose your length based on skiing the woods.

deadheadskier · Mar 19, 2012

I'd love to give Skilogik's Ullr's Chariot RL a go in tight eastern trees. 182cm, 101 underfoot, tip rocker, 15m turn radius. Sounds just about perfect.

Cannonball · Mar 19, 2012

riverc0il said:
I'm not saying that you shouldn't go short, I'm just saying you shouldn't choose your length based on skiing the woods.

^ This. I can't offer as much in the way of ski advice. (My skis are 185cm, 115 underfoot but I haven't been on them much this year). But the same applies to boards. A few weeks ago I did about 6-7 long, steep, tree laps with someone I've never ridden with before. We were pretty equally matched and riding very fast through the trees. On a lift ride up he took a closer look at my board and said, " Holy Sh** you're doing that on a 166 super stiff regular camber board?!?!? How is that possible??" He was riding a 154 soft rockered board. It was news to me. I've always ridden boards in the 163-166 range and never thought much about it. I'm very comfortable on them in or out of the trees. It's probably more what you are used to than a need to find just the right ski/board for a certain condition.

Puck it · Mar 20, 2012

deadheadskier said:
I'd love to give Skilogik's Ullr's Chariot RL a go in tight eastern trees. 182cm, 101 underfoot, tip rocker, 15m turn radius. Sounds just about perfect.

I had a pair of these in my hands in Colo. They were on sale for $540. They are unbelievable. The bases are the same as my Icelantics which have never had a core shot. They are fairly stiff like the Hell and Backs so they should be stable at speed.

My 25th anniversary is coming up and my wife asked what I wanted. I told her a pair of these with custom art. I may even go with the full custom though. The only problem is do I ski them or hanhg them over the fire place.

Glenn · Mar 20, 2012

drjeff said:
Demo'd a pair of 185cm Nordica Patrons that were 118 underfoot and if memory serves right 138 at the tip - yup they were a WIDE pair of skis!! Skied them in pure mashed potatoes today. My 1st time on a WIDE fully rockered ski. 1st impression was that I wasn't going to be adding them to my quiver. A ski that inherently wants to skid, not carve a turn isn't my thing. Crashing through slush piles was fun, but not that much different than my own Atomic VF75's (75mm underfoot).

Demo #2 was a pair of 188cm of Rossi E98's. Liked these much more than the Nordica's - wanted to carve, not skid a turn, very solid feeling, had me thinking aboit quiver expansion

Good review! That's about how I expected a wide pair of rockered skis to perform.

SkiFanE · Mar 20, 2012

BenedictGomez said:
Yes, trying to stay with people in the trees on race skis is frustrating as they will submarine. What leaps off the page at me is the fact that the folks at Phantom thought 162cm (i.e. pretty short) was optimal for tight eastern trees for the average person. Seems curious. I say that because 162cm for me would seem really short (my other skis are 179cm and 186cm),though Phantom did later release a "long version" in 180cm as well.

I may just demo skis that are both short and fat, like 165cm/100mm or 162cm/110mm next season and try it in the trees to see how I like the short/fat combination. I think going up to 100mm or 110mm underfoot should compensate for the float I'd lose from the drop in surface area from 179 to 162 or 165.

I'm 5'4" and just picked 162 b/c it seemed right, I have 163 AC30s that I don't ski anymore, I liked that length but found 150s are better for the bumps. Never thought of a long ski for the woods, I guess I feel they'd be harder to control, but I don't know much lol. My hubby can straight line fast down woods and zip between trees...I have this instinctual fear of doing that above a certain pitch/speed/tree closeness...so will never get to where he is, but my new skis are much better at staying on top than my old, but still handle the bumps great.

Bielz · Mar 20, 2012

If you get a chance try the blizzard bushwacker, cannon SHOULD have it on demo, and I know rodgers in lincoln has it in 180 but that may be too long for you. Unless I'm getting my skis mixed up (completely possible I read A LOT about skis) not many people love the kendo/mantra in bumps, the like it more for the midfat all mnt carver that can also go off piste.

I went from an older dynastar legend with a short radius and a 74(?)waist to a 90 waisted ski this year. My regrets on my new skis isn't the width, I love the stabilty in crud and the way it handles in softer snow, but I do wish I had went with a different side cut geometry that would let me take shorter radius turns easier.

drjeff · Mar 20, 2012

Bielz said:
If you get a chance try the blizzard bushwacker, cannon SHOULD have it on demo, and I know rodgers in lincoln has it in 180 but that may be too long for you. Unless I'm getting my skis mixed up (completely possible I read A LOT about skis) not many people love the kendo/mantra in bumps, the like it more for the midfat all mnt carver that can also go off piste.

I went from an older dynastar legend with a short radius and a 74(?)waist to a 90 waisted ski this year. My regrets on my new skis isn't the width, I love the stabilty in crud and the way it handles in softer snow, but I do wish I had went with a different side cut geometry that would let me take shorter radius turns easier.

Agree! I know that personally I just feel comfortable on a ski, regaurdless of width, that has a 13 to atmost 15m turn radius and is atleast moderately tip stiff. That's just what makes me happy. If someone made me a pair that was 120 in the waist and still had a 13.5m radius some good tip stiffness, I'd be on them. That's just me though

Bielz · Mar 20, 2012

drjeff said:
Agree! I know that personally I just feel comfortable on a ski, regaurdless of width, that has a 13 to atmost 15m turn radius and is atleast moderately tip stiff. That's just what makes me happy. If someone made me a pair that was 120 in the waist and still had a 13.5m radius some good tip stiffness, I'd be on them. That's just me though

Getting off topic but the armada JJ has a 12/13m radisu and is 115 under foot. Softer flex though.

Not impressed by fat skis

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Moderator

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Similar threads