At what point is it too fat?

[Catbert]

Alrighty, I have been looking at all these skis lately that are 120-150 underfoot and am enticed by the idea of having my skis float like a snowboard. But at what point does it become too fat? I know that if you are skiing deep, untracked, heli accessed terrain in alaska, a fat ski is practical to about the point you look like you are riding a horse. But with the 130s and even 140s, what is it like skiing crud? Seems like you would break your ankles on every turn.

All of these new fat skis from major companies (volkl, line, atomic, elan, k2) seem so impractical. I mean, two or three times a year max... until lunch. I was in a ski shop the other day and was looking at the new big daddys and the old sumo, and I asked the owner how they were. He replied that they were pretty much too fat for anything but deep snow.

What do the maggots think?

If this is already done, please tell me so I can delete this.

[fez]

i dont agree about 'too fat for anything but the deepest'. one nice aspect of a big fat ski is that it can make a marginal day ski great. If the ski floats well enough to make a few inches ski bottomless then it can be useful for a much wider range of conditions.

as long as they can handle the cut up stuff well too.

and besides, if you are skiing west si-ide, you should only be skiing pow anyways.

[yesIsaidyes]

if you can feel your lats working when you spread the cheeks, its too fat...

[Catbert]

and besides, if you are skiing west si-ide, you should only be skiing pow anyways.

Word fez. Bridger doesn't get a ton of snow though. I am going to edit anything but the deepest into "pretty deep" snow. Do you really think that 125 under will make ok (soft snow, 1-3 inches) conditions great?

[mrw]

When you are thinking, damn, I am deep in side, this broad is tight and she says...

You're not in yet

[P_McPoser]

When she starts crying for her mommy everyTIME you put it in.

[mc_roon]

For anything but the deepest days of the years, and i mean 5+ feet of untracked that you sink to the bottom of, 100-110 is more then enough. An even on those deep deep days, it just means more face shots.

[lobstahmeatwad]

Word fez. Bridger doesn't get a ton of snow though. I am going to edit anything but the deepest into "pretty deep" snow. Do you really think that 125 under will make ok (soft snow, 1-3 inches) conditions great?

Are you smoking some montucky cranK? "Bridger doesn't get a ton of snow"
HA!!!
You must be trying to ski Big Rock! Good, stay there.

I don't no about 125mm under foot but I get a fuck load of face shots and bottomless turns droppin' the knee on my 100mm.

[descender]

My pow skis are 105mm and there have been many days this year I wish I was on something wider. I demoed the Line prophets (130) in spring conditions and it did feel like my ankles were going to break on each turn, but they still worked fine on hardpack. I think 130 is fine for pow days, even into the afternoon. Then switch to your 100ish ski for the day after.

[Catbert]

no way man, I ski bridger... in fact, almost 40 days so far this year. This has been a great year though. I could see taking a ski with over 120 underfoot out maybe five or six times this year until about lunch. On the other pow days, 100ish would be much more manageable. If I was constantly doing ridgehikes, this may be a different story. Last year though, maybe 3?

And Big sky gets fifty more than us a year... but that still doesnt mean it is any good.

Hear about the 1-3 feet forecasted this week?

[fez]

I havent skied the new generation of REALLY fat skis. <scratches chin, flashback music>since back when my Big Stix 106 first came out and were about the fattest thing you could get</flashback music> The first season or so some of my favorite days on those things were the 4-6" days they really made the skiing more fun. Dust on crust was a little less crusty.

Though for the 100" storm at BB, I really wished they were about 10cm longer and at least 1cm wider throughout.

[4matic]

In 1992 or 93 I started skiing on the Rossignol DP 110 because my pals snowboarded. People made fun of me in the lift line and a lot of skiers turned their noses up. I switched to boarding in 1995 full time and 4 years ago started sharing time 50/50 ski to board. The deeper the snow the more likely I'm on a board

imo super fat skis take a lot of the challenge and athleticism from the sport. While snowboarding powder is not difficult I like the dynamics better than super fat skis.

I'm looking to get on some Sanouk's for next year to check that out. I've never skiied deep powder on a soft fattie..

[YB]

Fatness is useful when you're skiing IN the snow more than ON it. For me the 130 works great, I really prefer having the option to go sideways like a snowboarder. Plus I'd rather be floating enough to stay manueverable than to be so deep I'm getting face shots. Skis that are between 95 and 115 underfoot are more between'er type skis in my opinion because narrower skis also have real advantages for skiing crud, slush, anything more compacted than fresh snow.

As for the upper limit, I think 130 works fine but I wouldn't mind having something longer than the Prophet for days when I'm not skiing mainly trees. A 200cm ski that is 125-130 would be what I'd like to try, a real water ski type ski.

[lobstahmeatwad]

Catbert- I like to lap the ridge and you know how deep it is up there. Didn't mean to be a dick but fatter is better even with 3-5. Big sky blows.

[frorider]

Alrighty, I have been looking at all these skis lately that are 120-150 underfoot and am enticed by the idea of having my skis float like a snowboard. But at what point does it become too fat? I know that if you are skiing deep, untracked, heli accessed terrain in alaska, a fat ski is practical to about the point you look like you are riding a horse. But with the 130s and even 140s, what is it like skiing crud? Seems like you would break your ankles on every turn.

All of these new fat skis from major companies (volkl, line, atomic, elan, k2) seem so impractical. I mean, two or three times a year max... until lunch. I was in a ski shop the other day and was looking at the new big daddys and the old sumo, and I asked the owner how they were. He replied that they were pretty much too fat for anything but deep snow.

What do the maggots think?

If this is already done, please tell me so I can delete this.

yeah sure this subject comes up all the time.

that ski shop you refer to is waaaaay out of the loop. most sierra skiers i know have a pair of 100mm+ skis that are their go-to skis for most days. 4 inches, 8 inches, 30 inches of fresh, whatever.

my most recent fat ski purchase (big daddy) was just a few weeks ago but they've already seen many days of use. when i get around to getting the lotus 120 or 138, i'm expecting i'll use 'em 30 - 40 days a year, i.e. about 50% of the time i ski.

[Catbert]

You'd use a ski thats more than 120mm in four inches as opposed to the big daddys?

And yeah, I would use a 106 underfoot ski as my everyday (gotama), but at bridger bump, fat skis dont like the deeper bumps. SO my daily is 92 underfoot. I just dont see the practicality in a ski over 120 being used almost daily. Mogul performance seems miserable.

[warthog]

When you go to bed at 2 with a 10 and wake up at 10 with a 2.

That's too fat.

[Arty50]

as long as they can handle the cut up stuff well too.

In my opinion this is where fat skis really shine. All that width just pummels the chunks you encounter. It's like skiing with a steamroller. I'd love a pair of 130s to slay the crud, and this is coming from someone who skis 105s most every day.

[fez]

In my opinion this is where fat skis really shine. All that width just pummels the chunks you encounter. It's like skiing with a steamroller. I'd love a pair of 130s to slay the crud, and this is coming from someone who skis 105s most every day.

depends on the skis, I think they need some beef in the shovel to drive through crud. my m103s kill crud. but my big stix 106 are way too soft in the shovel and deflect pretty badly once it gets cut up. otoh, the big stix are better in untracked pow. The m103 is my everyday ski, but the 106s come out for deeper days.

i never got a chance to ski my big daddies before i blew my knee so i dont really know how those compare.

[tywhy]

imo super fat skis take a lot of the challenge and athleticism from the sport.

no way! It's just means you can charge faster and make bigger turns.

[Uncle Rico]

Plastic boots and releasable fixed-heel bindings take alot of the challenge and athleticism from the sport. That's why I still ski leather boots with bear trap bindings. Come on...

Once you go fat, you never go back. Unless it's been > 1 week without snow, I ski wide boards all the time. You can carve turns on hardpack with all but the fattest of skis - just takes a little more effort.

I've used my Spatulas about 30% of the time this year - some days epic dumps, other days just a few inches on top of crud. I NEVER REGRETTED BRINGING THEM OUT. You'd be surprised how versatile the fatties are. Go big.

[hop]

I've been skiing the 189 Pontoons a fair amount over the past month and at 5'10", 150# I could definitely see them as a 200 and fatter... they're sooooo easy to ski that why not? At the current dimensions they're fucking rad and all, but...
Skinning with them sucks, but going downhill with them makes up for it.

[Huck_Schmuck]

i dont agree about 'too fat for anything but the deepest'. one nice aspect of a big fat ski is that it can make a marginal day ski great. If the ski floats well enough to make a few inches ski bottomless then it can be useful for a much wider range of conditions.

as long as they can handle the cut up stuff well too.

and besides, if you are skiing west si-ide, you should only be skiing pow anyways.

WORD. My Prophets are my everyday ski. The Exploders & V-Pros just don't get a look in anymore. I live in Verbier, famous for it bump runs 2 days after snowfall. You NEED 130mm underfoot for moguls. (only skied for access)

How big can I go? When I was skiing my Exploders I thought 100-110 would be enough, now I'm not sure. It's not how big can I go, it's how big can they make something that can still be stood on and made to go downhill. There must be a maximum though cause I don't think I can ski with my feet wider than my hips. Whatever. I'm in. Give me the largeness.

[Idris]

Time for Devil's Advocate. I think much over 100mm is too much. 105-106 ok if you realy charge hard. But in anything variable over 100mm isn't particularily clever. I have just taken the binders off my Powder Plusses - They are going into permanet storage. I get just as much float out of Bros at 15mm narrower - probably because they are less than hlf the weight. But on hardpack of variable they are 10x easier / better to ski than the wider plank. On a really deep day I have some wierd 162mm (Tip width) skis for playing with and have access to some Phantoms if I am feeling silly.

Here in Chamonix most of the hard chargers ski 97-105 underfoot, there is 1 or 2 on sanooks or sumos most of the time, but they revert to exploders when things harden up. The local big name brands top out at 97 (Dynastar)and 100 (Rossignol) anyway.

If I just skied Mt Baker my ideas may be different however.

[ctarmchair]

Once you go fat, you never go back. Unless it's been > 1 week without snow, I ski wide boards all the time. You can carve turns on hardpack with all but the fattest of skis - just takes a little more effort.

I've been thinking about this regarding hardpack. AlpineDad expressed the ingenious unit of "approximate float index" in this thread, http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...te+float+index

In terms of an analogous "waist index" for groomers, my 6 year old at 52 lbs by last month was railing big turns (in good snow) on a 66mm waisted ski. She doesn't know any different, so she's never complained about their being slow edge-to-edge or about having to ski a wider stance to tip them over. The dimensions of a ski that could work for me at twice her height and 3.5 x her weight are pretty interesting, assuming the torsional flex issues for that size ski could be worked out, etc.