At what point is it too fat?

[N170]

IMO, if the ski is over 120mm, it needs to have something "funky" going on like the 138, pontoon, spatula, or they are just too wide (prophet, fatypus)

[Conundrum]

I have this rule. You make two "hang loose" gestures, one with each hand and the put your thumbs together with your pinkies pointed out. You then get a posterior view of the target and if her ass won't fit in the distance between your pinkies, she's too fat.

The alcohol clause-for every six beers you drink, you get to use the short distance of the six pack holder (the shortest side), between your thumbs to open up the field a little. Now lets say you drink between 12 to 18 beers, you should be prepared to wake up with the 2 Warthog was talking about.

[KANUTTEN]

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.

Ok, so I was used to skiing k2 launchers (at 90) and dynastar legend pros (at 97), when I got my Lotus 120's the other day. I'd say I would choose the Lotus'es any day with a reasonable amount of soft snow. Meaning you could get at least 5 cm of the ski into the sno, maybe 10. I would include chopped windpacked in that category. I would chose the LP's if I knew I would hit ice somewhere along the way (especially steep ice as in colouirs) or if I knew there would be a lot of groomer access skiing and if the soft snow we were accessing weren't really that deep.

Thing is, these wide boards makes skiing more fun in the conditions I like the most. The question is if you are willing to sacrifice some on the access to it.

My 2 cents, or a prayer for my sick grandma

[4matic]

Why did it take so long for super fat skis to catch on? They've been around since the late 80's (Powder plus, Axioms). Seems like it's a phenomenon of the last two or three years.

[Schralper]

I found that 430lbs was WAY to fat for me.
I'm 1/2 the man I use to be and faster, too.

My skinniest ski is now Pimp Daddy, 99mm waist.
AT- '06 Big Daddy's
Everyday schralpin- Original Big Daddy's, read SUPER FAST.
Fattest, Line Prophet 130!!
Mammoth last Sat, 1' new. Whacked out pretty early but top was good late.
NO problem, anywhere, ALL day on Prophets.

[The Dad]

AlpineDad expressed the ingenious unit of "approximate float index" in this thread, http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...te+float+index

One man's ingenious is another man's fool's errand. But thanks.

I got my Bros in December, intending them to compliment my Solly Scream 8s. Since then, I've got about half a day on the Sollys, a day or two on the Kastle CarveMachine GSes I picked up from Coreshot mid-winter, and 20 on the Bros. The Bros have just turned out to be incredibly versatile.

The only times I've been on the Bros and really wished I were on something else were either when we hadn't had fresh in a while and I was tempted to break out the GSes, or when we had 3' of light blower Utah pow and I still hit bottom. So I think my next addition to the quiver will be an uberfat -- used Spats, maybe, or Lotus 138s or 'Toons if I hit the lottery or prices drop at the end of next season. I'd expect that there will be many days when I could be happy with either the Bros or uberfats, and it'll be a toss-up.

But for me, perhaps the more pertinent question is, at what point is it too fat unless you go for an unconventional shape?

[mtnjam]

I have this rule. You make two "hang loose" gestures, one with each hand and the put your thumbs together with your pinkies pointed out. You then get a posterior view of the target and if her ass won't fit in the distance between your pinkies, she's too fat.

The alcohol clause-for every six beers you drink, you get to use the short distance of the six pack holder (the shortest side), between your thumbs to open up the field a little. Now lets say you drink between 12 to 18 beers, you should be prepared to wake up with the 2 Warthog was talking about.

that's f'n hilarious...I forgot about that rule. Plenty of ladies in Boise fit into that category and plenty don't. Kinda fit's right in there with Sammy Hagar thing, index finger and thumb together

[jonski]

I'm agreeing with Idris. Over 115, it needs an unconventional shape. Having skied the Fatypus earlier this year, I found it reinforced this theory...

The measurements Idris quotes work well because they allow for the control in the varying condition you get in High Alpine Enviroments, like Cham - soft snow, rotten snow, windbuff, hardpack, ice, the whole kit and kaboodle.

[BanditXXX]

How fat can the skis go? Probably not much more. It boils down to personal preferance. Some guys like skinny chicks. Some guys like fat chicks. And some guys like in betweeners. Personally, I like my fat Elizabeth. She makes me hard all day long. In all conditions. Plus, her graphics are like silky , smooth panties. HHHHHHMMMMMMMMMM!!

[Conundrum]

Plus, her graphics are like silky , smooth panties. HHHHHHMMMMMMMMMM!!

You sure? Chances are they are like white cotton briefs. BUT MAYBE they're like satin, maybe like silk, maybe a thong, maybe they're are something crazy you don't even know about yet.

[YB]

Fat skis with a turn radius number just like narow ones... The Sanouk for example with a 45 meter radius probably only works becasue the thing is so soft.

I'm thinking the bigger that radius number the softer the ski has to get. A big plank with no sidecut and no flex is going to smear but never carve. I want my fat (125-135cm underfoot) skis to carve the pow and am wondering how reverse sidecut is going to help that happen, but I don't want to buy Lotus 138's just to find out. Maybe I'll get to try some out tomorrow.