How Fat is Too Fat?

[deadheadskier]

Agreed. In completely untracked powder on terrain that isn't very challenging I will always take a 75mm waist, 14m turn radius ski over a powder ski.

Just curious... what length are you guys getting these fat skis in? Length is going to have a lot to do with how they maneuver and float. I would actually rather have length than excessive width. My ideal one ski quiver would have a 100mm waist and be about 185cm long. For reference I only weigh a 140lbs.

I weight 205....hopefully 190 come ski season

My High Society FR's are 179 by 124-92-114

I would have rather purchased them in the 187, especially because they're twins, but the width profile changes to 136, 104, 126.

This seems to be common in no name brands. Different lengths have different overall dimensions.

I'm sure the affective area will leave something to be desired on deep days with what I've got set up, but I think they'll be real quick and very capable on the Front Side of the mountain where they'll probably be used 90% of the time on a give season.

 

[JD]

No answer is right to this question. Everyone is different.

I spent an entire season on Rossi Axioms in Stowe which are somewhere in the 120 range underfoot. It was 2000-2001, so many, many deep days, but they were my everyday board too, even on hard pack days. I'd try and switch back to a 'normal' ski in the 70s and it just didn't feel substantial enough under foot. I'm not a bump addict, but do like to ski them a lot and really didn't feel like my performance was compromised skiing bumps in them, you just adapt to a wider stance. I've never been on to give a crap about WC style bump skiing and whether mine approaches it, so I'm fine with that. I still have friends up there that use these particular Rossi's as their everyday boards having bought several pairs back then. These were surplus from 99 and a local Rossi Rep was selling them for $75 a pair at the time.

It's the preference and skill of the Wizard, not the Wand.

I have 2 pairs. I peeled the top sheet off because they were too stiff, but
I love the shape. 110 under foot. I think 100mm is the magic number but I don't ski tracked snow ever so my perspective is scewed. If it was blower powder every day, I would be on fatter boards, but sometimes you have to ski wind buffed snow, or variable snow, and with my light boots I start to loose control.
What's too fat? I haven't gotten there yet...but 110 is not too fat for someone who skis BC exclusively on the east coast.

 

[JD]

Alpine touring skis are the new snowboards.

 

[Philpug]

RE: Marker Royal bindings on wide skis. Yes the wide platform is better, but more so, they are laterally stiff. That lateral stiffness gives better edge hold. When you put the ski up on edge and expect (example) a 45* angle, you get it, there is little or no lateral flex. This is very important when you are getting into a wider ski. Are there other bindings that are just as laterally stiff? Yeah, but they tend to be much heavier. What I personally like about the Jesters is I can get a high DIN binding that is very stiff w/o needing an "Equipe" level metal binding. In testing, I have tried the same ski with both a Jester and an other binding and yeah there was a huge difference in performance.

 

[dropKickMurphy]

The Duke is primarily an alpine binding, not an AT binding. Any compromises in its design were made in the touring function, not the downhill function.

I hadn't been planning on buying Dukes, but the Barons were on my radar. However, when the shop offered me the Dukes at half the msrp, I decided to grab them.

I really don't know how much I'll use the touring mode, but I like having the option. I only got to use the Gotamas/Dukes 3 times at the end of the season. The only time I put them in touring mode was on the traverse to Muleskinner at Saddleback. As a sidenote, I had some problems on Muleskinner with this setup. For some reason, I wasn't able to control my turns, and had to stop after every 3 or 4 turns. I was exhausted at the end of the run. Then I discovered that one of my bindings wasn't fully engaged in the lockdown position. Even though I had flipped the lever, apparently some snow that was packed under the binding kept the binding from engaging on one side. Just something to be aware of. It might not be a bad idea to carry something like a popsicle stick to clean it out before locking down.

My impression of the edging/carving ability of the Gotama/Duke setup was based on comparing it to my Watea 84s, which are flat mounted with (Head branded) LD-12s. While this setup can easily make a variety of turns, it takes a bit more angulation to really get them up on their edges.

The Gotama/Dukes on the other hand, responded to more subtle edging movements, much like a pure carving ski. This despite being 21 mm wider in the waist than the Wateas.

I'm sure the stand height of the Dukes has a lot to do with that. The extra leverage does make a difference. The Dukes give me the impression of rock solid contact between my foot and the ski (when they're locked down correctly), despite the extra height. I really couldn't tell you whether or not that's the result of Marker designing them for wider skis.

I'm looking forward to trying them in a wider variety of conditions this season. Based on skiing only 3 days on them, they gave me the impression that they can be a great choice for the bigger steeper, and deeper mountains in the Northeast. I think they'd feel right at home at places like Cannon, Stowe, Sugarloaf, Jay, Wildcat, Saddleback, Sugarbush, MRG, WF, Smuggs, or Burke.

 

[JD]

One thing to think about if you are thinking about buying AT bindings like Dukes "just to have the option, but might never use the touring mode" is no lateral heel release. You are giving up alot of the advancement in safety that helps prevent ACL injuries in seated "backseat" twisting falls by running these bindings. When I injured my ACL I was in freerides and feel pretty confident that if I still had my looks or solomons I would have just popped out of a ski. They are not as safe as alpine bindings. If you think you may tour side country of BC once or twice a season, I would recomend trekkers over any AT set up.

 

[mondeo]

One thing to think about if you are thinking about buying AT bindings like Dukes "just to have the option, but might never use the touring mode" is no lateral heel release. You are giving up alot of the advancement in safety that helps prevent ACL injuries in seated "backseat" twisting falls by running these bindings. When I injured my ACL I was in freerides and feel pretty confident that if I still had my looks or solomons I would have just popped out of a ski. They are not as safe as alpine bindings. If you think you may tour side country of BC once or twice a season, I would recomend trekkers over any AT set up.

What lateral heel release?

 

[JD]

Look bindings heel piece allows your heel to release sideways via the heel piece swiveling. My solomons had heel pices with cams to allow for the same thing. Newer alpine bindings like the Kneebinding and Lines binding take this a step forward. AT bindings do not adress this.

 

[riverc0il]

Look bindings heel piece allows your heel to release sideways via the heel piece swiveling. My solomons had heel pices with cams to allow for the same thing. Newer alpine bindings like the Kneebinding and Lines binding take this a step forward. AT bindings do not adress this.

The turn table style binding of the P12 was replaced with the PX12 with a non-turn table style binding. I don't know if Look addressed lateral release of the heel with other tech aspects, but newer look binding heel pieces do not have swiveling parts any more. I don't think a heel piece needs to swivel to allow for lateral release of the heel. Maybe I am mis-interperting many of my falls, but I am pretty sure my Freerides have released me via lateral heel release. Regardless, I can not see the risks of AT bindings being that much more than Alpine bindings or at least I have not seen peer reviewed research to indicate there is a significantly higher incidence of injury. I will freely admit that research could be available and I am ignorant and would welcome any links.

 

[Philpug]

Look's nor do any other bindings beside Kneebindings are designed to release laterally from the heel.

 

[riverc0il]

Look's nor do any other bindings beside Kneebindings are designed to release laterally from the heel.

Thanks for the clarification. Seems like AT bindings have no other problems that Alpine bindings don't already have. I think WindSnow.com did a test once and showed that the Freeride actually had the same or better release than The Marker 1200.

 

[roark]

FYI The tyrolia system binding that came on the ripsticks (and I presume others) a few years back heel swivels similar to the older look style.

 

[mondeo]

Thanks for the clarification. Seems like AT bindings have no other problems that Alpine bindings don't already have. I think WindSnow.com did a test once and showed that the Freeride actually had the same or better release than The Marker 1200.

Yeah, the Dukes are just Griffons on top of an AT system, so far as I know.

 

[wa-loaf]

Yeah, the Dukes are just Griffons on top of an AT system, so far as I know.

So can you mount the Dukes "flat" without the AT portion?

 

[Philpug]

FYI The tyrolia system binding that came on the ripsticks (and I presume others) a few years back heel swivels similar to the older look style.

We are talking lateral release, not diagonal. Tyrolia Diagonal, they have been using that heel since the Tyrolia 350 from the mid 70's. The diagonal release really doesn't come into play until after the binding releases.

 

[mattchuck2]

Yeah, the Dukes are just Griffons on top of an AT system, so far as I know.

I don't think so.

The Dukes are the Jester with an AT system, I think.

The Barons are the Griffon with AT.

 

[mondeo]

I don't think so.

The Dukes are the Jester with an AT system, I think.

The Barons are the Griffon with AT.

Yeah, mixed up the high/less high DIN flat mounted versions.

 

[JD]

I'm just going by what ski tech friends told me after I tore my acl. Could be totally wrong.

 

[Highway Star]

Yikes.....this has to be one of the worst ski tech threads ever. Right up there with realskiers/PMTS.

Anyway, my two cents.....

I just did a count, and out of my ~15 ski quiver/collection, 8 pairs are in 85mm to 91mm range:

- 179cm K2 PE w/ z-racing tt (85mm) - bumps, trees, park, all around
- 179cm K2 PE w/ zr18 tt - rock, dirt skis.
- 186cm Head im88 w/ 180 Freeride tt (89mm) - all around Killington/NE ski (all conditions and terrain). Last time I skied them was the benches at stowe, chewed them up a bit, need work.
- 186cm Stockli SS (old grey version) w/ 997 11-17 & driver plates (91mm) - all around Killington ski, hard snow and speed bias.
- 188cm Stockli SS (purple version) w/ 150 pro tt (89mm) - all around Killington ski.
- 192cm Elan 777 w/ S916, lift and Vist plate (~85mm) - ice, death cookie, coral reef weapon of choice.
- 195cm K2 AK Launcher w/ 957 composites (88mm) - bumps and spring skiing.
- 201cm Stockli Asteroid w/ 957 11-17 (91mm) - speed, and keepin' it real.

So, the ~85-90mm width range is a VERY important part of my quiver, and I'll spend about 60-75% of my ski days per year on them. This width range provides me with the best overall mix of stablity, edge grip, quickness, and plowablity. However, there is a very wide range of setups, from light wood/glass skis with turntable bindings weighing less than 15 lb per pair, to a 20+ lb setup with a ti sheeted ski with a vist plate and metal salomons.

OTOH, powder skis should normally be around 110 to 140mm in the waist these days, east or west.....unless you are talking about "narrow" powder skis that are intended to not float much.

 

[deadheadskier]

I knew my quiver was missing something. I need a keepin' it real set of boards. :lol: