How Fat is Too Fat?

[Philpug]

Yeah, I guess it depends on what you're intending on doing with the ski and personal preference. I like both my skis and cars nimble; I'd take a STI or Evo over the X5 any day (in fact, I'm not sure there's a production car I'd rather have as a daily driver than the STI, no matter the price.) Recreationally I'd take a Lotus or MR2. Engineering can only do so much with that much additional heft and higher Cg. Under 70 underfoot may be less versatile than a upper 80s, low 90s ski, but 90% of the days I skied last year I didn't miss the float, and the quickness of bump skis I find just so incredibly fun. The days I did miss the float are the reason I bought the Wateas. The Wateas do fine on hardpack, so I can see the argument, but the feel of the ski is just different.

So yes, there is a thing as too wide, but it's different for everyone.

LOL, it is funny, I hate SUV's as vehicles, but I like them as skis. I have an 09 Forester and I cannot wait to go back to a wagon, I miss my 06 Legacy SW.

 

[Marc]

I skied a lot on my 92 mm waist touring skis last year, no big thing.

When I notice it most is when I'm in something really tight and steep (I can think of two instances right away... the woodbox at MRG and the top of Sluice at Tux) and I'm making jump turns... having lighter skis would be a nice thing, especially with tired legs.

Also since I seem to be doing a lot of touring now, lighter skis on the way up would preserve my legs on the way down. Wide and light and mid flex... that'd be my bag. Skiing on ice/hardpack takes more work and angulation, but I can deal with that tradeoff I think.

 

[Geoff]

Take that X5 along with most of the cars you "quoted" up and down Rt 100 in Vermont driving in a (semi) responsible spirited manner, they will all be about the same speed.

You can probably drive a garbage truck (an empty one) speed limit + 20 the entire length of Route 100. That's a $250.00 ticket and 5 points on your license in Vermont and I guarantee you'll get pulled over at least twice and end up with your license suspended for 10 days. What's your point?

 

[Philpug]

You can probably drive a garbage truck (an empty one) speed limit + 20 the entire length of Route 100. That's a $250.00 ticket and 5 points on your license in Vermont and I guarantee you'll get pulled over at least twice and end up with your license suspended for 10 days. What's your point?

If you read the whole threat you would see where the basis of the post was instead of getting into symantics.

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

I regularly ski a 101 in the east...I'd say around 100mm is as wide as necessary for eastern pow and trees...but wider floats better, even in 6" of fresh...better float = faster turns in the trees...so if I had to choose between a mid 90s and a 110 or so on a 6" day where I'd be in the trees a lot, I'd probably go with the 110. Once I get into the crud or on the groomed I'm making big turns anyway so I'm more than willing to sacrifice quick and nimble for float and stability.

 

[skimore]

too fat

 

[Marc]

GAAAH!!

EYE BLEACH, STAT!

Better..

/and hot!

 

[Trekchick]

Marc, here is some fresh wash for the eyes.

http://www.theskichannel.com/news/skinews/20090722/SuperBabes-Of-Snow

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Marc, here is some fresh wash for the eyes.

http://www.theskichannel.com/news/skinews/20090722/SuperBabes-Of-Snow

GSS approves!!!! Doesn't the fatness of a ski depend on the fatness of a skier? A 200 pound guy is gonna need a fatter ski than a 160 pound guy right???

 

[millerm277]

For me? I ski 70mm normally, 83mm on powder days around here, and there's only been one time when I wanted something wider.

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

Marc, here is some fresh wash for the eyes.

http://www.theskichannel.com/news/skinews/20090722/SuperBabes-Of-Snow

Thanks Trekchick...that was a fantastic pubic service! :beer:

 

[snowmonster]

Last season, my go to ski was 100 underfoot with a soft-flexing 94 waisted ski as my tree and tight spaces weapon. I have a 70 waisted carver that got used only on Wachusett. Everywhere else, I was on the fatties. This year, I have a 115 reverse camber monster to play with. Praying for monster snow!

 

[Trekchick]

Thanks Trekchick...that was a fantastic pubic service! :beer:

You can always count on me, eh?

I thought Marc would appreciate the added eye candy but he's gone missing.

 

[Marc]

You can always count on me, eh?

I thought Marc would appreciate the added eye candy but he's gone missing.

I was in my bunk.






For a long time.

 

[2knees]

you rang?

 

[mondeo]

you rang?

I've gotta say, TC crushes you in the picture posting department.

 

[madskier6]

I used to think that anything above 90 was too fat for the East. Then I started actually skiing some of the fatter skis & was amazed what they could do even in non-powder conditions. My powder board is a 105 mm Volkl Gotama & it is very versatile so I don't only use it on deep powder days. It is very nimble & thus an excellent choice in the trees (for me anyway).

My daily driver is an 84 mm Nordica Afterburner which addresses most day to day conditions in the East. When I'm in Northern VT (unless it hasn't snowed in a while) or spring skiing, my default then shifts to the Gotama as it performs better for me in those conditions than the Afterburner.

It is amazing what fatter skis can do these days. A 90-95 mm waisted ski is not considered that fat for powder these days although I realize many people in the East still think skis that fat are plenty wide. All I can say is until you try the fatter boards, you don't know what they are capable of (and what you're missing).

 

[snowmonster]

All I can say is until you try the fatter boards, you don't know what they are capable of (and what you're missing).

I agree. I was a huge fatty skeptic and thought that my old ski at 74 underfoot was already way too fat. Then I got a 94 waist and enjoyed that especially as I went off-piste more. Last year, a 100 waist ski was my daily driver. I probably will never ski a Pontoon out here but there are a lot of fatties out there that challenge the conventional wisdom that fat skis have no place in the East.

 

[riverc0il]

I asked a lot of questions in my original post but never offered my opinion. I think the 100 underfoot is getting close to being "just right" for powder days in New England. Give or take a few mm's. I think once you start getting into the 110+ range, that seems like it may be too excessive. But despite that thought, I claim complete ignorance as I have never skied skis that wide so maybe the fat frontier looms even larger for New England. I know there are skiers on 110+ in the east. I just don't know if it is over kill or not yet. But my thoughts are it may be whereas I never really counted out anything under the triple digit range ever.

 

[dropKickMurphy]

I asked a lot of questions in my original post but never offered my opinion. I think the 100 underfoot is getting close to being "just right" for powder days in New England. Give or take a few mm's. I think once you start getting into the 110+ range, that seems like it may be too excessive. But despite that thought, I claim complete ignorance as I have never skied skis that wide so maybe the fat frontier looms even larger for New England. I know there are skiers on 110+ in the east. I just don't know if it is over kill or not yet. But my thoughts are it may be whereas I never really counted out anything under the triple digit range ever.

My 2 ski quiver for (most of) last year consisted of Fisher RX8s and Fisher Watea 84s. I ended up using the Wateas probably 85% of the time, as I just found them more fun under a wider variety of conditions.

Toward the end of the year, I came across a "too good to pass up" deal on Volk Gotamas and Marker Dukes at Procter Jones. I bought them with the idea that they'd be used primarily on my trips out west.

I got a chance to try the Gotamas on 3 spring days...at Jay, the Loaf, and Saddleback. What an eye opener. They were a blast in the corn, making trails like upper Nitro feel like a fast blue cruiser.

At Jay, late in the day the snow turned to mashed potatoes, I switched between the Wateas and the Gotamas for comparison purposes. Where the Wateas struggled a bit, the Gotamas handled the heavy wet conditions effortlessly.

At Saddleback, the morning started out cold and the trails were packed and very firm... normally the conditions that call for the RX8s. I wanted to see how the Gotamas would handle the hardpack. This is where they totally shocked me. They were so easy to get on edge and make long, fast, stable turns. I expected them to be okay, but they far exceeded my expectations.

There happened to be a Volkl rep at Saddleback that day doing demos. I stopped by and told him how surprised I was that a 105 mm waisted ski could carve so easily. He pointed out that the bindings have a lot to do with it, which was an excellent point. Bindings like the Duke, Baron, and Jester, which were specifically designed for wider skis, are probably a major factor in why 100+ mm skis have become so versatile.