Check Out Our Shop
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: How fat is too fat?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    300

    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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Skiattle
    Posts
    7,750
    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    bozone montuckey
    Posts
    4,337
    Quote Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
    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.
    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    Ben Franklin

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    C-Town
    Posts
    5,541
    nothing is too fat...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    504
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    utar
    Posts
    2,741

    All in favor?...

    Quote Originally Posted by Phill View Post
    nothing is too fat...
    I second the motion!
    Quote Originally Posted by SpinalTap View Post
    I'm really troubled by whatever pictures the Don had to search through to arrive at that one...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    in the land of milk and honey
    Posts
    350
    nowadays, skis are so fat you might as well strap two monoskis (gasp) to your feet and rip it


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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    4,024
    Too fat is when you have to roll her in flour to find the wet spot
    "There is a hell of a huge difference between skiing as a sport- or even as a lifestyle- and skiing as an industry"
    Hunter S. Thompson, 1970 (RIP)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    the wasteland
    Posts
    3,181
    Too fat is when her school picture is an aerial photo
    You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    sandy, sl,ut
    Posts
    9,968
    Quote Originally Posted by pechelman View Post
    100mm is the new 80mm.
    All mountain do anything for outwest
    Yup.

    80-95=midfat

    96-110=fat

    111+=superfat
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________
    "We don't need predator control, we need whiner control. Anyone who complains that "the gummint oughta do sumpin" about the wolves and coyotes should be darted, caged, and released in a more suitable habitat for them, like the middle of Manhattan." - Spats

    "I'm constantly doing things I can't do. Thats how I get to do them." - Pablo Picasso

    Cisco and his wife are fragile idiots who breed morons.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Banff
    Posts
    22,524
    90-100ish and you will do fine


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    newport
    Posts
    268
    I'm too fat

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    No Name, CO (seriously)
    Posts
    77
    kid4lyf you bin wheeelin'?
    Run-off is going to be sick !

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Redwood City and Alpine Meadows, CA
    Posts
    8,276
    My everyday Sierra ski is the 99mm waist 188 Bro. FWIW.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    wherever my car takes me
    Posts
    1,718
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by wintermittent
    And furthermore. What is up with turkey bacon? Healthy bacon? Unpossible.
    Quote Originally Posted by snowsprite
    That is like masturbation. People resort to it when they can't have the real thing!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    729
    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.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,782
    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)

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Melburn
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by teambigdave View Post
    I'm too fat
    as am i.
    I ski therefore I am.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Looking down
    Posts
    50,490
    I knew a girl who was so fat, she used diet soap.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Lyon
    Posts
    2,103
    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....

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    WYO
    Posts
    9,707
    This cat is too fat.


  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Looking down
    Posts
    50,490
    That cat is so fat, it's water bowl has a lifeguard.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •