How fat is too fat?

I'm looking for a new pair of all mountain/powder/crud/do anything skis.
I'm a 6'-190 pounder who loves to do terrain my skills aren't quite up to.
I live in the MW but do most of my skiing in Utah and Tahoe.
Live for powder and feel grooming machines are evil incarnate.
I like to ski somewhat fast but it's not a priority.
I've been skiing a pair of Powercarves since the days when they were the bomb.
Last spring at Squaw (14" night before April1) convinced me it's time to move up.
I was origionally going to stick with the crop of 88mm skis (Outlaw, Monster, 8800, etc). Then, a cheap pair of Beasts, at 92mm, got my attention. Then I thought about a couple others like the Line Mothership or Mantra, all in the mid 90s.
That made me consider the Seth at just under 100mm.
Too damn much thinking.

For the type of skiing I love, what parameters should I be looking at?

100mm is the new 80mm.
All mountain do anything for outwest

SV, Gotama, Mantra, Bro, LP, Mojo 103 or 105, ANT, Wailer 95 or 105, Iggy FFL, Explosiv, Sugar\Heli Daddy, Kingswood MidFat, etc etc etc.

Sounds like youd want a medium-stiff flexing ski with a little shape.
25-35m radiusish

make friends with this thread
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=41028

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

100mm is the new 80mm.
All mountain do anything for outwest

---

seriously, of 5 pairs of skis i have, 4 are 100mm+ underfoot. the remainder is a pair of 198 G41s that i use as rock skis.

nothing is too fat...

Well Pocket Rockets were my first fat ski and I've always thought they ski really nice in powder, especially in the trees, the can turn on a dime.

I went cat skiing last year and rentals were free so I tried out a pair of K2 Maidens and Volkl Sanuks, both were very fat (sorry I don't remember the exact dimensions). Anyway both were fun skis, but they almost made skiing to easy if that makes any sense.

I think you would be happy very happy with the Beasts at "only" 92 under foot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phill

nothing is too fat...

---

I second the motion!

nowadays, skis are so fat you might as well strap two monoskis (gasp) to your feet and rip it


...wait, not a good idea...

Too fat is when you have to roll her in flour to find the wet spot :biggrin:

Too fat is when her school picture is an aerial photo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pechelman

100mm is the new 80mm.
All mountain do anything for outwest

---

Yup.

80-95=midfat

96-110=fat

111+=superfat

90-100ish and you will do fine

I'm too fat :D

kid4lyf you bin wheeelin'?

My everyday Sierra ski is the 99mm waist 188 Bro. FWIW.

I've skied the beast pretty regularly over the past 3 years. I like them for powder, but from teh sounds of your post I like to go a little fast. I also check in @ 225 so I am a bit heavier too.

Two complaints I have heard about them though is that they get bonced around in the crud, and don't float all that well for a 92mm waisted ski. I actually like them in the crud, but my extra weight probably helps.

I don't like them too much in heavy snow though. Given your weight, I woudl go with a ski that is a little fatter and heavier than the beast.

Just picked up a pair of Mojo 90's. Putting them next to the old Big Stix 84's makes me think I should have gone fatter. Actually, I'm super excited to get out on them. Hopefully soon.

That ski is sooooo fat, there are smaller fat skis orbiting around it.

(not directed at any ski mentioned)(used to be my best fat mamma joke)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by teambigdave

I'm too fat :D

---

as am i.

I knew a girl who was so fat, she used diet soap.

my everyday ski is 108 underfoot. I'd say anything above 120 is too fat for an everyday ski, but then again, I'll probably change my mind on that soon. I wonder when the first 200mm underfoot ski will be produced....:rolleyes2

This cat is too fat.

http://english.people.com.cn/200602/17/images/c1.jpg

That cat is so fat, it's water bowl has a lifeguard.