Not impressed by fat skis

[Bumpsis]

I rented a "performance" pair at Cannon yesterday. I was wondering what's it like to ski on those fat skis that I see fairly often. They seem to be set as the a great tool for pwoder and lots of loose snow. Given the spring mush that was on the mountain, I though I give these a try.

On recommendation of the guy at the rental place, I got a pair of Volk Kedno (127-88-109). Although not a "true" fat, still, it's the widest ski I ever had (with exception of one rental out west on a great powder day) on my feet skiing in the east. I'm about 5' 7", about 165 lb. The ski was 170cm.

Overall, I don't see what the big hoopla about these wide skis is all about. Yes, they carved nicely and they held really well at higher speeds, slicing some big arcs through the heavy mung, but thet felt heavy and less than inspiring. It was real work to get them to do short radius turns and not much rebound.
It was like drivig a truck. They also had a fairly narrow zone where I really had be to stay on top of them, otherwise, I'd find myself in the back seat and a bit out of control. I took a surprisng face plant once when I crossed my tips going pretty fast. It's kind of rare for me to make a mistake like that.

I could not do anything in moguls with those skis. Too heavy to swivel and I just could not stay in a picked line. OK, I'm far from being really good in moguls to begin with, but my own K2 Raiders can get me through some moguls just fine.

I do think that the wider waist of the ski really does compromise the ability to quickly change edges. It's very good ski for GS type turns but far from what the ski is billed as: an all mountain ski. Probably out west with plenty of powder.
Out here, I'm sticking with skis that don't exceed 78mm in their waist.

 

[wa-loaf]

I wouldn't base your impression on skiing one "wide" ski. Sounds like the Volkl was just too much ski for you. Try a few different ones that aren't as stiff as the Volkl.

 

[kingdom-tele]

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

 

[bobbutts]

Maybe just a shorter length of the same ski. I think any ski would feel like that if you ski it too long.

 

[WWF-VT]

I wouldn't base your impression on skiing one "wide" ski. Sounds like the Volkl was just too much ski for you. Try a few different ones that aren't as stiff as the Volkl.

+1

 

[kingslug]

Every ski is different, try some different ones. Some have rockers in the tip, some in the tip and tail..some have metal in them, some bamboo...some are light..some are heavy..my 98 underfoot, double rocker, reverse camber ones are great in slush, powder, crud, and in wide moguls..I can bounce right over them..also because of the double rocker the actual on snow surface is about 170mm out of the 186 total length, so they turn quickly. You also have to get used to them before you can really start using them well..I rented my Rossi s3's many times before I bought them.

 

[bvibert]

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

Well put

 

[bvibert]

I would hardly consider an 88 waist a fat ski. My everyday ski is 94 in the waist, and I don't consider it fat. They're actually pretty light and can carve well (when the edges are sharp). I ski them in the bumps all the time, especially soft spring bumps like we have down here right now. They're surely not as good as a narrower ski on hardpack, nor are they as good as a wider ski in pow, but I find them to be be an excellent compromise for the kind of skiing that I typically do. I'm not much of a carver guy anyway.

Try some other skis before you swear off anything over 78.

 

[Rambo]

I guess different people will like different skis.

I demoed the Volkl Kendo in a 176 length and just loved it. It was wide enough to float in the soft slush and it carved like crazy on the hardpack - really held an edge. Also liked the Volkl RTM 84, a little less wide. However both these skis have metal in them so they are not the best in moguls although they will get through the bumps fine. I am 6' 1" 210 lbs. However I demoed the Volkl Mantra in a 176 (a wider ski than the Kendo) and did not really like it... not a lot of sidecut and seemed sluggish in the turns... like a Mack Dump Truck.

 

[gmcunni]

harshness...

there've been a few threads recently with peeps praising the powers of a fat ski and how it could do anything and everything. sounds like bumpsis tried it out and didn't agree. tho i'll send wa-loaf's comment about not finalizing an opinion on a single set of skis.

 

[Bumpsis]

I wouldn't base your impression on skiing one "wide" ski. Sounds like the Volkl was just too much ski for you. Try a few different ones that aren't as stiff as the Volkl.

Perhaps it is too much of a ski, so I could not get the rebound I like in a ski.

But I'm far from sure if that's really all about being too stiff. I have another pair (Head Cyber World Cup, 108 - 62-95) that I still really like a lot. The ski is really stiff and not very forgiving, yet, I like it for its energy in the turns. It's a super fast turner that's great for GS and eben shorter turns. I do have to work it for shorter arcs, but the ski is lively. It gives back the energy you put into it. It's actually longer that I need it to be, 185 cm, but that's actually adds to being super stable at higher speeds.

The Volkl Kendo just felt heavy with little life that took a bit of more work than I expected. The main point that I was trying to get at, and that's just personal observation after spending a few hours on the ski, is that the wider waist and the over all wider shape of the ski did not really add anything to the performance that narrower waist skis provide for most of the conditions we get here, including the spring mush.

As a matter of fact, my experience tells me that a narrower waist ski with a good side cut is probably a better choice for the conditions we typically encounter in NE.
Then, there is a personal preference that I have for a shorter radius and quick edge change. Skiing a ski that seems to be highly rated and in my skill range, yet it's not delivering the expected joy is in my mind a test of its design. Again, I don't really see what the wider ski brings into the game unless you ski powder.
I guess that's why there is a ton of different skis out there. Personal preference will dictate what we find most enjoyable.

 

[wa-loaf]

The Volkl Kendo just felt heavy with little life that took a bit of more work than I expected. The main point that I was trying to get at, and that's just personal observation after spending a few hours on the ski, is that the wider waist and the over all wider shape of the ski did not really add anything to the performance that narrower waist skis provide for most of the conditions we get here, including the spring mush.

As a matter of fact, my experience tells me that a narrower waist ski with a good side cut is probably a better choice for the conditions we typically encounter in NE.
Then, there is a personal preference that I have for a shorter radius and quick edge change. Skiing a ski that seems to be highly rated and in my skill range, yet it's not delivering the expected joy is in my mind a test of its design. Again, I don't really see what the wider ski brings into the game unless you ski powder.

Demoed an Scott Dozer a couple weeks ago. It was 100mm at the waist and 187cm long. The thing has a 13m turn radius and no metal (has a carbon construction like the Wateas). It was an absolute blast in the spring crud and bumps, very different than a lot of other big skies I've tried. That thing loved to turn. A similar ski I tried was the Atomic Alibi 98mm and 186cm, that one has a sheet of metal and an 18m radius. I also really enjoyed this one, but it was a different ride. I kinda like the 18m radius, it's what my GS skis (68mm) have and I feel comfortable with it. They were just as fun in the crud and bumps, but not as turny and could hang on when you got your speed up on the run-outs. Hawkshot mentioned he has skied these and didn't like them, so everyone has a different experience and opinion on these kinds of skis. I just don't think you can lump a whole category into one experience and I get the feeling you really didn't want to like them to start with. Did you hold onto your straight skis for a long time .... ?

 

[Bumpsis]

Did you hold onto your straight skis for a long time .... ?

Yes. You can call me retro grudge I still like my pink K2 Kevalr Comps in moguls.

As to lumping a whole category... far from it. I'm just providing a counter view that wide skis may not necessarily be the new revolution on the same scale as shaped skis when they came on the scene.

Just so I insulate myself from further anti "progerss" assumptions, I'd like to state for the record that do not have a one piece ski suit with fluorescent colors on it and I wear a helmet.

 

[kingdom-tele]

... my experience tells me...

and

... Personal preference will dictate what we find most enjoyable.

/thread.

well, budget will have some impact too.

 

[Angus]

Until this season I skied a 78mm underfoot/167cm length pair of quick turning, stiff tipped skis. After skiing a "fat" ski (it wasn't really) on a powder day last year out west, I bought myself a pair of 90mm/179cm softer skis over the summer.

My experience this winter has been mixed but trending positive as I learn to ski them...

I find I need to stay centered over my skis much more or my skis tend to cross on steeper terrain. Although more stable, the softer tip is more chattery at really high speeds - this has made me uncomfortable but I also think the issue is going away as my skiing fitness improves.

My real frustration came skiing bumps. I literally was a basket case when I initially tried to ski a bump line regardless of whether it was a gentle or steep slope - like most people I run into problems with steep, big bump runs. Literally, I went back and started from the beginning. I noticed a couple of things 1) the longer, wider ski doesn't turn as fast, you need to be more patient 2) the ski has a way of getting out ahead of me thus requiring me to pull it back underneath me - keeping me over center. 3) I really needed to work on the whole extension/absorption thing when skiing bumps and 4) the ski really wants to ski the fall line and performs better when skied that way.

I would say I wish I'd purchased a stiffer ski but that is mostly predicated on my belief that it would help at higher speeds and help cut through the crud better.

the Scott Dozers Wa-loaf referenced sound really interesting. As a couple of people have said, I'd keep after it.

 

[riverc0il]

This post should be titled "Not Impressed with the Kendo".

Try another pair. 88mm isn't fat. It is barely mid-fat.

I just got this year's Theory. At 95 underfoot, I found them quicker to turn than my 79 underfoot Legends. If a ski isn't doing what you want, you have the wrong ski, not the wrong width.

 

[riverc0il]

The main point that I was trying to get at, and that's just personal observation after spending a few hours on the ski, is that the wider waist and the over all wider shape of the ski did not really add anything to the performance that narrower waist skis provide for most of the conditions we get here, including the spring mush.

You are suggesting that width is the main performance driver of the ski. But it is not. You didn't like the ski because you didn't like the characteristics of the Kendo specifically, not because you dind't like the characteristics of a fat ski. You don't have a large enough sampling size that you can accurately separate the effects of a ski being fat from the effects of a ski's build characteristics and construction.

 

[Trekchick]

First of all, I totally respect having the right tool for the right conditions. I wouldn't say that the Kendo was a good ski for the spring like conditions you described.

Second of all, if you have the skills and passion for a narrower ski then ROCK ON!!!

As for me, I skied the women's version of the Blizzard Bonafide = the Samba, which is 98 mm under foot, with flip core rocker, and was amazed at some of the sensations I got railing it.

I'd been working on skills with a front side carver, trying to cross over the skis and doing drills over and over and over and over.
One day I tried something new on this (too fat to carve) Samba and ..........AH HAH!!!! There it was!

Point being, its the indian, not the arrow. Enjoy the ski you enjoy and don't apologize for it.

 

[goldsbar]

As someone who thinks fat ski advantages are way overblown for the East, dont judge on one pair. They should be much better than narrow in slop. The particular ski you tried might not fit your style and/or not be good for the condition despite the width. Turn radius is generally if not always higher so you may have to pivot and skid where you could normally carve.

For the record, I am finishing a week at Jackson on a pair of Sultan 85s that are considered narrow out here. Corn, fresh, heavy fresh, slush at times all in one run. Not a problem.

 

[snoseek]

Demo lots of skis, take notes. There is no right or wrong here.

I skied with a dude last week on a pair of mid 1990's force nines (straight, skinny). Noone will ever ever call him a gaper, he pretty much smoked me in every imaginable terrain.

That said I will probably never own a ski less than 90mm again, but thats just me.