riverc0il
New member
I do not know the answer. Not in general and surely not for myself in particular as I have yet to ski anything fatter than 94 underfoot. I think especially in the east, but in general no matter where you ski, there must be an upper limit to what is too fat for everyday use and even what is too fat for even powder usage.
Eventually, your stance will be compromised or the ski will either weigh too heavy or not be stiff enough due to having to use light weight materials to get the weight in control. I imagine those skiing out west are more limited by these physical characteristic which would eventually combine to make a ski unwieldy even in the deepest of powder.
But you could never get that wide in the east (at least for mortals or sane people, any ways). It is rare even the best and most knowledgable powder hound skis deep untracked powder for more than half a day (maybe you get one or two jackpots per year if you know what's up and you are lucky). But even on a mid-week surprise powder dump, you are eventually needing to navigate less than stellar conditions somewhere on the mountain, usually you need to ski those conditions to get to more untracked. Powder is often found in the trees which might also be a limitation at some point. And BCers are often in the trees skiing tight lines.
Where does the desire for more float bump up against practicality for an east coast powder ski? Have you hit a ceiling where you said "that is too fat for my needs"? It seems like the trend is "bigger is better" and every few years the "mid-fat" seems to bump up a half dozen mm's. Where will that trend end? Are skiers that rarely ski powder buying into the hype and getting 90mm underfoot powder boards for their one or two times per seasons of skiing powder and then not getting as good performance their vast majority of days? What size will the bulge level off at in general and specifically for those of us in the east?
Eventually, your stance will be compromised or the ski will either weigh too heavy or not be stiff enough due to having to use light weight materials to get the weight in control. I imagine those skiing out west are more limited by these physical characteristic which would eventually combine to make a ski unwieldy even in the deepest of powder.
But you could never get that wide in the east (at least for mortals or sane people, any ways). It is rare even the best and most knowledgable powder hound skis deep untracked powder for more than half a day (maybe you get one or two jackpots per year if you know what's up and you are lucky). But even on a mid-week surprise powder dump, you are eventually needing to navigate less than stellar conditions somewhere on the mountain, usually you need to ski those conditions to get to more untracked. Powder is often found in the trees which might also be a limitation at some point. And BCers are often in the trees skiing tight lines.
Where does the desire for more float bump up against practicality for an east coast powder ski? Have you hit a ceiling where you said "that is too fat for my needs"? It seems like the trend is "bigger is better" and every few years the "mid-fat" seems to bump up a half dozen mm's. Where will that trend end? Are skiers that rarely ski powder buying into the hype and getting 90mm underfoot powder boards for their one or two times per seasons of skiing powder and then not getting as good performance their vast majority of days? What size will the bulge level off at in general and specifically for those of us in the east?
