• Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!

    You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!

Skinny Skis in a Fat Ski World

abc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,878
Points
113
Location
Lower Hudson Valley
I think its worse to get caught in a deep pow day with a skinny ski than the other way around..as I have experienced both.
Yeah, I can get my true fats, 122 under foot or my mid fats, 100 to work in about anything. I’d be lost on my stiffer 88’s on a pow day. I’d probably hate it.
Depends on the "powder".

The fluffy POWDER of the west, I can ski it with my skis IN the snow, or ON the snow and have equal fun. Though at only 110lb, I don't need a whole of of width to stay afloat on top of the snow anyway! :)

At my weight, I can totally stay on top of the typical denser eastern "chowder" equally well on 80mm skis too.

But as the snow gets more dense, or in the Pacific coast tackling Sierra Cement or Cascade Concrete. I need 90+, or better yet 100+ skis. In those conditions, a sunken ski is a leg breaker.
 

kingslug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
7,046
Points
113
Location
Stamford Ct and Stowe
On a ski trip to Jackson last year with the club..it snowed almost 3 feet over night. ..then I watched as most of them ...sunk. With 117's I flew by. A lot of them always comment about how wide my skis are...nothing said that day. Considering they all prefer to go out west I find it strange that most of them do not have fat skis.
 

raisingarizona

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
1,083
Points
83
Depends on the "powder".

The fluffy POWDER of the west, I can ski it with my skis IN the snow, or ON the snow and have equal fun. Though at only 110lb, I don't need a whole of of width to stay afloat on top of the snow anyway! :)

At my weight, I can totally stay on top of the typical denser eastern "chowder" equally well on 80mm skis too.

But as the snow gets more dense, or in the Pacific coast tackling Sierra Cement or Cascade Concrete. I need 90+, or better yet 100+ skis. In those conditions, a sunken ski is a leg breaker.
You can get away with it for sure but you won’t be at the same performance level as if you were on a fatter and more floaty ski. It’s just physics and what not.

skinny skis definitely still have there place but the quiver killer is still a bit of a myth. I’m a believer in using the right tool for the correct place. It’s about efficiency and performance and certain skis will out perform others in their respectable preferred arena.

now if I were to only have one ski, it would probably be my atomic bentchetler 100’s in the 180. Damn those skis are all around fun machines. Maybe not so awesome for super icy groomers but I’m not skiing much those days anymore anyways.
 

abc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,878
Points
113
Location
Lower Hudson Valley
You can get away with it for sure but you won’t be at the same performance level as if you were on a fatter and more floaty ski.

What "performance"? I'm not racing some imaginary phantom down the slope!

It’s just physics and what not.
You're not paying attention to the "just physics" even as you typed the words!

At 110lb, my 80mm x 160cm skis has as much surface per pound of MY body weight as your 100x180 under you!
 
Last edited:

BushMogulMaster

Industry Rep
Industry Rep
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
1,815
Points
48
Location
Leadville, CO
It seems I have the opposite problem. I've never owned a pair of skis wider than 66mm at the waist. I'm perfectly content skiing bumps, groomers, trees, crud, and pow on the bump skis. Though I did double eject during a Denver news station special filming me on Chicago Ridge skiing about 3' of untracked snow a few years ago...
 

raisingarizona

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
1,083
Points
83
What "performance"? I'm not racing some imaginary phantom down the slope!


You're not paying attention to the "just physics" even as you typed the words!

At 110lb, my 80mm x 160cm skis has as much surface per pound of MY body weight as your 100x180 under you!
Performance is performance. If you are happy to hinder that then that’s your own prerogative. The physics I mention are about being efficient and skiing at our highest level in said conditions. If you think you can be at your highest potential on a ski not really best suited for a particular condition you are kidding yourself. Width is more about maneuverability and quickness than just float. Skinny skis in 3D snow don’t pivot or butter quite the same making the dynamics very narrowed. No matter your weight.

P.S. I always race a phantom imaginary skier down the slope to push myself if I’m feeling like skiing at my highest potential. Skiing for a lot of us is a sport, it’s ok to be a weekend warrior and being uncompetitive while enjoying the outdoors. No shame in that at all. I fully dig that, but for those of us that like to excel, your logic doesn’t hold any weight.
 
Last edited:

raisingarizona

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
1,083
Points
83
It seems I have the opposite problem. I've never owned a pair of skis wider than 66mm at the waist. I'm perfectly content skiing bumps, groomers, trees, crud, and pow on the bump skis. Though I did double eject during a Denver news station special filming me on Chicago Ridge skiing about 3' of untracked snow a few years ago...
You don’t know any better then.

some say ignorance is bliss so maybe not a bad thing?
 

drjeff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
19,247
Points
113
Location
Brooklyn, CT
My current quiver is Head Supershape iSpeeds (68 underfoot) Fischer The Curv GT (75 underfoot) Stöckli Delta Large (84 underfoot and my daily drivers) and Blizzard Cochise's (108 underfoot).

I was on my Head's all weekend ripping groomers and hardpack with a big 'ol smile on my face. Many of the crew I ski with were on their GS race skis or "Beer League" skis. Pretty sure non of us were on anything over 80 underfoot.

Skinny skis, especially for us East Coasters have a definite place for many of the days that we ski, and arguably a majority of the days many of us ski.

Fat skis certainly can and do have their place, however for so many East Coasters something say sub 85, with maybe just a bit of tip rocker and a turn radius in the 17-20m range, is going to give them more enjoyment more days a season than something wider, more rockered, and of a bigger radius
 

raisingarizona

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
1,083
Points
83
Back at ya. If that’s all you have ever spent a lot of time skiing on.....you definitely don’t know any better and that may not be a bad thing. I’m sure you are a ripping skier and mogul skis are super fun but you can’t freeski natural terrain the same way you can on a rockered fatty. You just can’t, or you can’t to your actual fullest potential.
 
Last edited:

raisingarizona

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
1,083
Points
83
My current quiver is Head Supershape iSpeeds (68 underfoot) Fischer The Curv GT (75 underfoot) Stöckli Delta Large (84 underfoot and my daily drivers) and Blizzard Cochise's (108 underfoot).

I was on my Head's all weekend ripping groomers and hardpack with a big 'ol smile on my face. Many of the crew I ski with were on their GS race skis or "Beer League" skis. Pretty sure non of us were on anything over 80 underfoot.

Skinny skis, especially for us East Coasters have a definite place for many of the days that we ski, and arguably a majority of the days many of us ski.

Fat skis certainly can and do have their place, however for so many East Coasters something say sub 85, with maybe just a bit of tip rocker and a turn radius in the 17-20m range, is going to give them more enjoyment more days a season than something wider, more rockered, and of a bigger radius
Probably with the average east coast snow conditions
 

BushMogulMaster

Industry Rep
Industry Rep
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
1,815
Points
48
Location
Leadville, CO
Back at ya. If that’s all you have ever spent a lot of time skiing on.....you definitely don’t know any better.
I said I've only owned skis 66mm and narrower. I've been in the ski resort industry for 15 years. I've spent plenty of time on fatter skis. Never cared for the overall experience enough to buy a pair. But yeah, think what you will about what I know. More power to you. Meanwhile, I'll continue enjoying the sport on the equipment I prefer.
 

abc

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,878
Points
113
Location
Lower Hudson Valley
it’s ok to be a weekend warrior and being uncompetitive while enjoying the outdoors. No shame in that at all. I fully dig that,
You described me perfectly!

but for those of us that like to excel, your logic doesn’t hold any weight.
Yet, you insist YOUR logic must apply to ME, and everyone else!

Skiing for me is NOT a sport. It's a recreation that involves some element of physical activities.

Just like your drive to the mountain isn't a motor sport. Yet we all criticize your run about car isn't the "best" for motor racing! "you won’t be at the same performance level"! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

raisingarizona

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
1,083
Points
83
I said I've only owned skis 66mm and narrower. I've been in the ski resort industry for 15 years. I've spent plenty of time on fatter skis. Never cared for the overall experience enough to buy a pair. But yeah, think what you will about what I know. More power to you. Meanwhile, I'll continue enjoying the sport on the equipment I prefer.
And you should. Enjoy whatever you like. The discussion turned into one about performance and ski use. You simply can’t freeski the same way on a 70mm waisted ski as you can on a rockered fatty when free skiing “big mountain “ terrain and conditions. I guarantee you that. It’s physically impossible. You could be a more talented freestyler but if we are skiing together through say.....wind buffed pow through 40 degree trees and I’m on my 122 waists fattys I would drop you like a dead raccoon, the same thing would happen if we reversed roles. Or we could get into a dick waving contest if you like? Do you really want to talk about achievements and accomplishments? I’m not an industry worker FYI but I do have some time in the sport. It’s physics man. It will outperform the other with fairly equally skilled skiers. That all I’m sayin.
 
Last edited:

BushMogulMaster

Industry Rep
Industry Rep
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
1,815
Points
48
Location
Leadville, CO
And you should. Enjoy whatever you like. The discussion turned into one about performance and ski use. You simply can’t freeski the same way on a 70mm waisted ski as you can on a rockered fatty when free skiing “big mountain “ terrain and conditions. I guarantee you that. It’s physically impossible. You could be a more talented freestyler but if we are skiing together through say.....wind buffed pow through 40 degree trees and I’m on my 122 waists fattys I would drop you like a dead raccoon. It’s physics man. It will outperform the other with fairly equally skilled skiers. That all I’m sayin.
Outperform according to what metric? Speed? You keep talking about physics as if speed is the only thing that matters, and floating is inherently superior in all situations. I personally find skiing to be about a great deal more. I enjoy the physics and dynamics of my skinnier skis, even in steep & deep. The weighting/unweighting, in & out of the snow is way more satisfying to me than floating and "carving" through powder. At the end of the day, ski on the gear that gives you joy. Everything will have its pros and cons
 

raisingarizona

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2014
Messages
1,083
Points
83
Outperform according to what metric? Speed? You keep talking about physics as if speed is the only thing that matters, and floating is inherently superior in all situations. I personally find skiing to be about a great deal more. I enjoy the physics and dynamics of my skinnier skis, even in steep & deep. The weighting/unweighting, in & out of the snow is way more satisfying to me than floating and "carving" through powder. At the end of the day, ski on the gear that gives you joy. Everything will have its pros and cons
Fair enough. I suppose I do focus on speed and smoothness through all terrain situations. Each his own.
 

kingslug

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
7,046
Points
113
Location
Stamford Ct and Stowe
Well I know one thing for sure...I skied with a racer out in Chile in pretty hardpack conditions. I had 98 twin tips..he had friggin real GS skis. I couldn't accelerate anywhere near him. He could 60 on those things. So he switched to more conventional skis..well..still blew me away. Talented guy..fun trying to keep up with him.
 

RISkier

Active member
Joined
Dec 3, 2003
Messages
1,062
Points
38
Location
Rhode Island
Wider skis certainly have a place. I once heard someone describe all mountain skis as being compromised everywhere. I did a lesson with a level 3 at Alta. He said a lot of folks he saw and taught were on skis that were too wide. I don't recall what he was skiing but they were pretty narrow, something in the 80 range. They're harder to get on edge and there's mounting evidence they are harder on knees. In the early 2000's Atomic had a ski that was < 70 under foot. Wide skis can certainly be advantageous for folks that have the opportunity to ski deep soft snow. But I do think comparatively narrow skis are better for the the conditions most of us get most of the time.
 
Top