fat skis for Chicks

I must be losing it. I have moved this to Tech talk when I couldn't even find my own post and realized I put in the wrong forum.

Self JONG

So given the current predicament of arriving in Utah on Monday night with all the beautiful snow and US customs screwing us royally and keeping all our stuff from the move from Europe the wife has no fat skis for our week in Ootah!!!!

I'm wondering what the women maggettes are skiing and more importantly what length. She has been on 178 Soli Supamtns and liked them more or less as long as the snow was soft. She can ski the whole mtn and (depending on the day) would be able to keep up ripping Alta.

She tried a few skis at Whitler last week, but didn't loove any of them. She thinks they were all to short. Some were free demo's so she wasn't complaining.

160cm Phat Luv, hated it, way too short/soft she said
170 Atomic R11, thought maybe a wee bit too stiff
170cm Atomic R10 liked it
168ish B3, liked it but again thought too short. (first day and a half they had the demo bindings set behind center which didn't help)

What is in the 173-177ish range that women have liked? I'm thinking 85-99mm underfoot?

Thanks maggettes

Get her a pair of 173 or 180 explosives. My lady has been digging them this season.

173 Sugar Daddies. She wouldn`t be the first girl to like them!

176 scratch BC's. love them so far. the sidecut makes them easier to turn when stuck on bumps or groomed runouts, but the stiffness and width give you what you need!

or a longer (than 160) phat luv if she doesnt need a twin tip.

not as fat, but dynastar little big phats get props from the laydays as well.

i hated the softness, but you do see girlz on blue noodles for some reason too...

My wife just got a pair of 168 Dynastar Inspireds and loves them. She's 5' 5", 125 lbs, skis every day.

Beats fat chicks on skis.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Beats fat chicks on skis.

---

Heh, decript minds think alike.

Anyhow, I've talked to two women this winter (yeah, after the first three minutes and me drooling on myself we didn't talk) who were on Phat Loves and were really diggin them. One said she had been on Enemies before and liked these much more...then, thars always the PR's.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Suit
My wife just got a pair of 168 Dynastar Inspireds and loves them. She's 5' 5", 125 lbs, skis every day.

---

I ski on 178 Inspired. They are 89 mm underfoot. I love them. 5'8" 135 lbs.

I'm only 5'3". What's a good ski length in a powder ski to look for? So far from the feedback I've garnered here I think little big fats might work best for me, and I'm going to try to demo these when I'm at the Tahoe Summit.

I am also bringing my atomic c.19s (152) to the Tahoe trip. These work fine for me here on typical EC bulletproof conditions, and I've skiied them in deep powder here too but it's a *lot* of work.
Sprite

As everyone on this board should know by now, you can't go wrong with the Pocket Rockets. And they compare favorably to every other ski. (Joking aside, they might not be bad for you--I have no idea, though.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
As everyone on this board should know by now, you can't go wrong with the Pocket Rockets. And they compare favorably to every other ski. (Joking aside, they might not be bad for you--I have no idea, though.)

---

ive heard jsut as much negitive about them as positive........................................go tamas is where its at

Quote:

---

Originally posted by snowsprite
I'm only 5'3". What's a good ski length in a powder ski to look for? So far from the feedback I've garnered here I think little big fats might work best for me, and I'm going to try to demo these when I'm at the Tahoe Summit.

I am also bringing my atomic c.19s (152) to the Tahoe trip. These work fine for me here on typical EC bulletproof conditions, and I've skiied them in deep powder here too but it's a *lot* of work.
Sprite

---

Lengthwise I think you would be looking between 160 and 170 because most of the fat skis don't come in anything shorter. I would think you'd probably be best off trying the following skis in decending order lengthwise

168 Volkl Gotama

168 Dynastar Inspired Big

168 Dynastar Little Big Fat

167 K2 Phat Luv

166 Nordica Beast 12 TT (if you can find it)

166 Head Madtrix Mojo

165 Volkl Explosive

165 Volant Chubb Fat Bastard

165 Volant Chubb

165 Solomon Pocket Rocket

163 Atomic Sugar Daddy

160 Phat Luv

158 Little Big Fat

158 Inspired Big

155 Volant Chubb Fat Bastard

155 Volant Chubb

153 Phat Luv

thats the rundown of pretty much every fat ski in the category that would fit your needs. I think you're right on with the Little Big Fat but I would check out the Phat Luvs the Chubbs and the Pocket Rockets
[wondering out loud] why is every one of those skis has phalic implications???) [wondering out loud]

the other ski that I would take a LONG look at is the Explosive, I have both the 165 and the 180 and though I doubt that the insights of a guy who's 5' 9" and 235 really are going to be very meaningful to you I will say that the 165 performs very similarly to my 180's and the Explosive itself is VERY versitile, in fact more so then I think a lot of people who haven't ever skied a pair of fats will give it credit for. No its not going to make perfectly carved slalom turns down an easy intermediate run but really who spends most of their time doing that??? It WILL hold an edge on pretty much anything around here. It does mogels/chopped up skied off garbage as well as your Atomics do and it will be a VAST improvement in Powder/Crud and as for speed limits, well, there isn't any so let em rip. You just have to get used to the fact that they will need a little more gas to feel comfortable, but they're so smooth at speed you really won't feel nervous skiing them faster then your atomics

178 g4's and 180 explosives...best boards i've ever owned.

Not quite a fat ski, but my girl loves the K2 Enemies she got this year. I believe it's only 80 under foot tho.

Inspireds sound like they'd be what she's looking for. I use 178 G4s as my everyday ski, but I demoed some Inspireds last year and while I liked them I thought they were a little too soft for crud and I already have dedicated pow skis. Since she thinks Volkls are too stiff would probably make them just about right.

I also would recommend she try the Phat Luv in a longer length. I just got some for Christmas and like them a lot (I wanted something shorter and softer but still stable and they're working great for that) - I think she just went too short on the demo.

Pocket Rockets, Gotamas, Beasts - all probably good to try too.

Laser,
That was really helpful. Thank you!! I'm printing the list right now.
:)
Sprite

I would be real hesitant to pick up a pair of explosives. It definitlly wins in the "my skis are more gnar than yours" category, but unless her quads are the size of tree trunks, they're really, really stiff. It takes a lot to push a ski that big. A softer ski might be much more enjoyable to a female picking up her first pair of big boards, like the pocket rockets, inspired, or seth pistols.

Anyone ever see Wendy Fischer rip? She seems to do ok on a pair of 183cm Pocket Rockets.

Volkls are just super-stiff in general. I had P-50 motions and I simply could not flex them. It's a miracle I could control them at all! I got tired of it and just traded them in for the Atomic c9's I am happy with now.
Sprite

http://www.epicski.com/cgi-bin/ultim...c;f=5;t=002452

I've been on 178 supermountains for about 4 years, skied a 178 Rossi XXX all summer in Las Lenas and ruined them on the rocks and have since upgraded to a Rossi B3 - 178 and 94mm underfoot. Skied them in Tahoe mashed potatoes and deep pow at Baker and am liking them . . . nice and light (good for touring), and not too stiff. I absolutely loved the XXX for an all-mountain ski, and am surprised that nobody has suggested a Rossi so far! I definitely get a lot more control out of the B3 than the SuperMountain, and I was glad to have them this weekend!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cmor
I would be real hesitant to pick up a pair of explosives. It definitlly wins in the "my skis are more gnar than yours" category, but unless her quads are the size of tree trunks, they're really, really stiff. It takes a lot to push a ski that big. A softer ski might be much more enjoyable to a female picking up her first pair of big boards, like the pocket rockets, inspired, or seth pistols.

Anyone ever see Wendy Fischer rip? She seems to do ok on a pair of 183cm Pocket Rockets.

---

I would tend to agree but for some reason the 165's that I have seem to be MUCH softer flexing then the 180's, I have no idea why this is?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by laseranimal
I have both the 165 and the 180 and though I doubt that the insights of a guy who's 5' 9" and 235 really are going to be very meaningful to you I will say that the 165 performs very similarly to my 180's and the Explosive itself is VERY versitile

---

Quote:

---

I would tend to agree but for some reason the 165's that I have seem to be MUCH softer flexing then the 180's, I have no idea why this is?

---

how are they 15cm different in length and very different in flex and very similar? I'm lost!

A cheap option snowsprite for the cost of maybe 5 expensive demo days is to just buy a pair of used Chubbs on Ebay where they pop up regularly. Any of lasercritter's fine current model selections may be better if you really want the new tool. I've been keeping my ear to the tbuzz on powder skis this season too and am not convinced yet from conversations alone that any of the new fats are going to be any more fun than the Chubbs I've been riding on powder days the last few years. Old Chubbs are reasonably versatile on the rest of the mountain too for that manner. I'm just a light 133 pounder that skis fresh classically like an easy bouncing ball. In my case am set to demo some PRs soon. -dave

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kellie
I absolutely loved the XXX for an all-mountain ski, and am surprised that nobody has suggested a Rossi so far!

---

hey, dont my scratch bc's count as rossi's? ;)

edit: PS Kellie -- what do you think of the straighter sidecut on the B3 vs. last years XXX??

Any women out there tried the 179 Head Monster 85? We have a pair in great shape for cheap so were thinking that might be an option. Wondering if its a touch stiff/long? How are they in stiffness compared to XXX or G4's for example. I'm picturing sorta in between.

dont have experience on heads, but on length, how big is she? sounds like she is an aggressive skiier and will be all over the mtn on utah powder?

She is 5'8. She used to be more aggresive in the pow. It really sorta depends on if she has her mojo or not. Some days, right behind me in the pow, others definitely not. Luckily she just tells me to go as she gets mad at herself (like today in the deeeeep alta POOOOOWWWWW!!!) Spent the first 2 together and she was working too hard on the skinny skis so off I went.

She is a trouper and close to a true ripper, but it really depends on the day and conditions. Hence she doesn't want a G4 ish stiff ski. We are thinking the French skis ala Rossi, Dynastar might be better for her. More medium flex while the Head (from flexing in the store today) is fairly stiff. Damn is the B3 soft?!

Kellie, thanks a lot for your insight since you know the supamtn and sound similar. Thanks!

Have fun all, because we will!