 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I haven't read this thread thoroughly but have any of the fat ski afficionados stated exactly why they like fat skis? What do you get that you wouldn't get on diet skis? GS turns in deep? Access to a wider range of terrain/conditions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
slikedges, in fresh powder the difference is not so big. Anyone with half decent technique can ski light powder with almost any ski. The big difference comes when skiing old heavy crud. Fat skis turn the experience round from being hard work to a very enjoyable ride. I have recently converted from old long Voelkl P30 RCs to Voelkl Mantras. The difference in crud is simply amazing. While of course real men like to work hard and prefer the challenge of fighting through the crud on skinnies, I personally have come to the conclusion that I ski for fun and hence fat skis are a good thing for me. The other thing to note is that they are not half bad on piste either. My personal opinion is that all the talk about edge to edge speed being bad on fatties is a load of dangly bits! I get down the moguls just as quick on my Mantras as I did on my RCs, so what's the point of sticking with the skinnies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
This thread seems to have evolved from the original assertion that fat skis are less good for learning technique into fat skis are more fun, especially in demanding conditions. I think both statements are true and there seems to be something of a false dichotomy going on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
slikedges, Mike Lawrie sums it up. on my last trip i went for a lesson and hired some rossi multix (think that's the name - the ones with rods which supposedly allow you to alter the radius of the turn). these are pretty much race ski dimensions and felt reasonably "high-performance" - ie not noodly. they have a turning radius of 11m or 17m depending on which rods you use. i normally ski on dynastar legend pros. these are 97mm under foot and pretty straight - 28m radius. they are a couple of seasons old so were built in the dynastar race room. these are stiff and damp - a bit like wide GS/Super-G skis.
it took a little bit of skiing to get used to the multix and they were great for what i hired them for - carving quite fast on piste. However, they were very twitchy and didn't really like going in a straight line. we went off piste and the multixes were better than i thought once i got used to them, but they weren't very confidence inspiring, particularly on the crusty bits. also they sunk in to the soft snow (which wasn't very deep) and you ended up sort of carving on the hard base below, rather than getting the nice floaty feeling of the ski flexing and the whole base being in contact with soft snow.
once i got back on the LPs, OK, they weren't as good for doing lots of short turns on piste but in an ideal world, the only time i'm on piste is getting back to the lifts after an off piste run. and i'm not really a short turns type of person - i prefer medium to long radius turns wherever possible. you could also go in a straight line without the skis wanting to turn all the time. they're longer so they help with fore-aft balance. and if you do want to carve, they actually do it very well. you do have to make a more positive movement to get them on edge but it isn't a huge adjustment. overall, i find them a lot more fun for what i am doing than narrower skis.
there is a point where skis get one dimensional. i have some skis which are 120mm underfoot. these are GREAT on any type of soft snow, but a bit of a nightmare on icy pistes. that's real survival skiing. i think the width is only one part of that equation - these skis really are almost straight with a 41m turn radius so you'd need a lot of room if you wanted to carve them!
anyway, that's a bit of a ramble. i think the title of the thread is correct, but also a bit misleading (in that non-fat skis won't necessarly help you if they're too demanding or not demanding enough). there also seems to be an assumption amongst some posters that piste skiing is the base from which what's normal is judged - so you get comments like "ski X is great on piste and surprisingly OK off-piste - i can't see why you'd need anything fatter". my (and quite a lot of people's) outlook is the opposite - i'm happy if skis are great off-piste and surprisingly OK on piste. that probably puts me out of the target audience of veeeight's original post, but i can't help but rise to the bait 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
There seems to be a theme here that people with very fat skis (100+) do not really enjoy skiing on pistes. mmm.... I wonder why that would be?
Personally I think it's better to hone technique on narrower skis and use really fat skis for their intended purpose i.e serious back country surfing. But I can understand those who are simply not bothered about the technique thing and/or consider piste skiing a complete waste of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
uktrailmonster, it's definitely down to the width of their skis. nothing to do with crowds, a more artificial environment, being told where to go etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arno,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uktrailmonster,
| Quote: |
But I can understand those who are simply not bothered about the technique thing and/or consider piste skiing a complete waste of time.
|
Is that an assumption that people who dont ski on piste have no care at all for technique?
Although I've only been skiing for the last 4 months, I did a bit of snowboarding before that (yes, it was a waste of time) and the combined experiences from these ventures into the mountains have resulted in my interest/skiing preferences to be based firmly around powder skiing.
I've also realised that skiing proficiently in powder, even with skis that are over 100mm in the waist, is definitely a technique and not purely achievable by using wide skis.
What also perhaps needs to be defined more is each persons idea of 'off-piste'. It's become clear from this thread, and from talking to a large cross-section of skiers that each persons idea of 'off-piste' can range from the consolidated bits at the edges of the pistes to bottomless backcountry powder bowls. With these changing definition of off-piste comes an entirely different set of requirements for the skis.
I've taken a pair of Salomon GS skis 'off-piste' and they were good fun, but the snow at that time was very consolidated and heavy. That same pair of skis on a botomless powder day would have been pretty limiting compared to the 98mm Enforcers I currently play with 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
NAKEDZOOKEEPER, with all due respect, with your level of skiing experience, you would be a prime example of someone who would benefit massively from spending some time skiing on piste with a half decent pair of carvers. If only as a means to an end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
4x4s hold back good driving tecnique 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Arno wrote: |
| uktrailmonster, it's definitely down to the width of their skis. nothing to do with crowds, a more artificial environment, being told where to go etc |
Well I can't say I would enjoy piste skiing at all on pure back country planks, crowds or not. But in the right conditions on the right skis, it's all good fun. Personally, I prefer skiing off piste in light fresh powder and on piste when there is none. Off piste is not automatically the most fun for me in all conditions. But then again the pistes I ski are not in the slightest bit crowded and allow lots of opportunity to get off into the trees etc. As for requiring massively fat skis, I simply don't need them to go off-piste. I currently do everything on a relatively narrow mid-fat (73 mm) and it doesn't feel like hard work. Perhaps if I was featuring in some extreme back country movies I'd invest in some 100+ pure powder skis.
Everyone is free to ski on whatever makes them happy, race, mid-fat, powder, snow blades, snowboard, whatever. But I still agree with the original post about technique being hampered by using fat skis all the time. It just comes down to whether or not this matters to you. I was brought up on old school straight skis, so all modern skis seem fat and easy to ski off piste anyway (as well as being loads better on piste too).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Lawrie, Arno, so the answer is more fun, in that they allow you to more comfortably do GS turns through crud/crust and give more of a floaty feeling in soft stuff? Sounds about right to me, but any other reasons to add?
rob@rar, yes, largely true I think, but what I'm trying to find out is if there's another facet to it
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
uktrailmonster, my view is that if skiing off piste is what you want to do then learning on fatties is going to be the best way of achieveing your goal. The major reason for that being that you achieve the necessary level of confidence much quicker on the fats. You need the confidence in order to ski in heavy snow with sufficient speed to make the ski work for you, instead of against you. Of course you can do the same thing on skinnies but it's a much harder learning path and it's just simply not as much FUN 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
slikedges, yup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Mike Lawrie wrote: |
| uktrailmonster, my view is that if skiing off piste is what you want to do then learning on fatties is going to be the best way of achieveing your goal |
I disagree, sounds more like the best way to get into lots of trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
There seems to be a theme here that people with very fat skis (100+) do not really enjoy skiing on pistes. mmm.... I wonder why that would be?
Personally I think it's better to hone technique on narrower skis and use really fat skis for their intended purpose i.e serious back country surfing. But I can understand those who are simply not bothered about the technique thing and/or consider piste skiing a complete waste of time. |
To echo Arno I'd have to say a piste is a piste is a piste. With minor variations in gradient, width etc from a pure skiing point of view nothing much changes with them until the spring when they start to corn up into something far more interesting (and challenging to "piste only" skiers who may decide to go home early because its all turned to slop). As a result piste skiing is obviously going to be far more orientated towards technique and form e.g. perfecting the perfect carve or simply hammering around.
Note I'm not talking about moguls here nor racing skills which I would love to learn but simply can't envisage myself in a skinsuit
If learning core technique is what its all about what about the claim that everyone should start on straight skinny skis as I suspect a number of snowheads did before "cheating" by using shaped skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| fatbob wrote: |
As a result piste skiing is obviously going to be far more orientated towards technique and form e.g. perfecting the perfect carve or simply hammering around.
|
So are you implying that there isn't much emphasis on technique when skiing off piste? I've always found that good technique is even more important off piste.
| fatbob wrote: |
If learning core technique is what its all about what about the claim that everyone should start on straight skinny skis as I suspect a number of snowheads did before "cheating" by using shaped skis? |
Old school straight skinny skis do not assist learning of modern carving technique, so there isn't much point in starting off with them. They are a world apart from contemporary "narrow" piste skis. The only reason I ever skied on them was because there wasn't anything better at the time. As soon as shaped carving skis appeared, I was on them like a shot. I can't say the same for super fat skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
uktrailmonster, I think wide skis help people to make the transition from piste to off piste. The technique is hugely different and a wider ski will make the transission quicker. So, Does it hold back learning technique? In NZK case no, but in others maybe. May i give this thread a little poke, if Fat skis hold back learning technique(off piste was the focus of this question), do Narrow skis hold back learning technique(on the piste?).
P.S. the mountain is a dangerous place, however personal responsibility for where you ski and how is up to you. If you want to ski off piste with fat skis without any experience of the terrain it may be dangerous, however that's you're decision. Spare a thought for the people that might have to rescue you, but don't be put off by people telling you that you shouldn't ski where and how you want. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I definitely think Fat skis 'allow' people to think skiing off-piste is achievable and they might do this after a relatively short time on skis. If they think that is all there is to skiing off the track then that is a dangerous mind-set to have. Even a day-out down the VB ca be no fun at all if you have even a minor kit failure.
Typically it might have taken 10 years and a lot more than one week a year to venture down some of these classic routes. Not many people wait that long now. In that time you might have expected to get some sort of exposure to a few adventures. Take someone who knows..!!!
They probably do hinder technique somewhat but then that is what pistes are for...practicing, but all the turns I go looking for give me the practise I want and need.
Are we posing or having fun..?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Well I'm a fat ba***rd so it's not posing.. must be fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, yeah I'd agree that wider skis are useful when making the transition to off-piste, but I haven't come across any professional instructors who think you should be learning to ski on 100+ fats, on or off piste. Maybe there are a few out there? I also disagree about technique being hugely different off-piste. Good basic technique works just about everywhere and is easier to master on piste oriented skis, skiing in a variety of terrain and conditions. That doesn't mean you have to be on 62 mm wide slalom skis. In this discussion "narrow" could mean anything up to around 80 mm wide. For me that's about the point where fatter skis start to become too much of a compromise for both everyday use and for improving core technique (which is useful both on and off piste). I think there are plenty of skis in the 70-80 mm category that can do a pretty good all-round job, from honing basic core skills on-piste to having fun off-piste. Those who only ever ski on super fat skis (say 95+ mm) cannot be serious about anything other than off-piste skiing, which is fine if that's the case. But they are unlikely to have good technique if they haven't bothered to learn the basics first - which I would say is virtually impossible on really fat skis. Hence the subject of this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| fatbob wrote: |
As a result piste skiing is obviously going to be far more orientated towards technique and form e.g. perfecting the perfect carve or simply hammering around.
|
So are you implying that there isn't much emphasis on technique when skiing off piste? I've always found that good technique is even more important off piste. |
No but its not necessarily an obsession of everyone - look at some ski tourers and you can clearly see they are in it primarily for the mountaineering experience and their ski technique is just what's necessary to get down the hill. Also the toolkit seems to me to be less prescribed - what about "schmear" style turns, to me they look a lot of fun but I'm not sure they are taught prescriptively. How about "surfing" on the tails of your skis, again a lot of fun, or the powerslide?
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| fatbob wrote: |
If learning core technique is what its all about what about the claim that everyone should start on straight skinny skis as I suspect a number of snowheads did before "cheating" by using shaped skis? |
Old school straight skinny skis do not assist learning of modern carving technique, so there isn't much point in starting off with them. They are a world apart from contemporary "narrow" piste skis. The only reason I ever skied on them was because there wasn't anything better at the time. As soon as shaped carving skis appeared, I was on them like a shot. I can't say the same for super fat skis. |
I'm by no means a technique expert but surely old skis taught you about weighting and unweighting (using the camber) more than modern carvers which you can simply rock on their edge & that is a fairly useful lesson to have learnt for skiing in variable snow. Don't get me wrong skinny waisted skis are a real giggle & it would be madness for absolute beginners to be put on straight skis but wouldn't it be a valuable lesson for the "blue run superheroes" to have to ski some 2m long straight planks and see how much they still had to learn?
Last edited by After all it is free  on Wed 11-04-07 22:49; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| ...but wouldn't it be a valuable lesson for the "blue run superheroes" to have to ski some 2m long straight planks and see how much they still had to learn? |
what they need is a tap on the shoulder from Francois Pinatel followed by him offering to take them "somewhere they can go fast"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| I'm by no means a technique expert but surely old skis taught you about weighting and unweighting (using the camber) more than modern carvers which you can simply rock on their edge & that is a fairly useful lesson to have learnt for skiing in variable snow. Don't get me wrong skinny waisted skis are a real giggle & it would be madness for absolute beginners to be put on straight skis but wouldn't it be a valuable lesson for the "blue run superheroes" to have to ski some 2m long straight planks and see how much they still had to learn? |
Straight skis force a technique that uses far more unweighting by the skier than is necessary today. I've spent 4 seasons trying to dial that out of my skiing, and have progressed a lot, but I'm still dialing it out. You can use straight skis to learn some things (the L 4 clinician at Copper this year took his charges out on straight skis all season), but lower-level skiers are more likely to learn bad habits than good ones from skiing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ssh, Just Dial, 0800 DISNEY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
... do Narrow skis hold back learning technique(on the piste?).
|
That's an interesting thought. Most of my skiing this season has been on 90mm skis (Karmas) but for the past week I've been skiing on my slalom skis (Rossi 9S WC). Once I'd got used to being back on a tight radius ski my impression was that I was skiing better than I've ever done before, and was carving pretty well. Perhaps this was because I've been developing my carving technique on mid-fats for most of the season and that this has actually been an advantage for when I get back on a tight radius ski? One caveat, all this soft snow has given me confidence to get fairly good angles because there's no danger of loosing an edge, so maybe my new found ability is just a reflection of easy snow... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
ssh, Snow White and the Seven Perspectives. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
I think it is far easier to look good blatting down a fast piste on a GS ski than it is onboard a Fat ski in deep snow. So if you can tame a mogul field on tankers, then you must have the technique down, I'd say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| JT wrote: |
| I think it is far easier to look good blatting down a fast piste on a GS ski than it is onboard a Fat ski in deep snow. So if you can tame a mogul field on tankers, then you must have the technique down, I'd say. |
I don't think there are many skiers who can really tame a tough mogul field on tankers though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
uktrailmonster,
| Quote: |
| I don't think there are many skiers who can really tame a tough mogul field on tankers though |
I seem to get down the moguls on my Mantras at about the same speed as I used to on my P30s ( 190 vs 200 ). Maybe that's just because I don't get down moguls very fast on either of them!
Anyway as SZK has pointed out, skiing is there to be enjoyed, so use whatever it takes to get max enjoyment. You are not going to be given any prize money for having perfected your technique on skinnies before venturing into the deep and cruddy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Anything that makes something too easy or too difficult holds back learning good technique. I think fat skis hold back both learning good basic ski technique (best learnt on piste) and, in making some off piste easier, learning those off piste skills which would otherwise be required. But who cares? Those skills are no longer required. The Internet holds back learning the skill of trawling holiday brochures and then serially visiting travel agencies discussing and negotiating with travel advisors to find the best deal. Many and I think now most are actually very happy to always ski on fat skis off piste. The aim is to have fun - easiest way of achieving this wins. When the conditions get that bad that having said missed out on skills would after all have been useful even though on fat skis, they'd then be learnt at that time and in the context of said fat skis. Now people who get fat skis then spend the majority of their time on piste...they're the ones that worry me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that if I hadn't used mid-fat skis I would have given up off-piste very quickly. I've done 40 days off piste this year, including 6 powder days, and love it. I don't bother with the piste much now, only as a means to an end. JT, I even did the run you did with Graham, Terry and Lin (2 days ago and I'm still on a high). Technique comes with practise but I wouldn't have bothered as using my carvers off piste was too difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that if I hadn't used mid-fat skis I would have given up off-piste very quickly. I've done 40 days off piste this year, including 6 powder days, and love it. I don't bother with the piste much now, only as a means to an end. JT, I even did the run you did with Graham, Terry and Lin (2 days ago and I'm still on a high). Technique comes with practise but I wouldn't have bothered as using my carvers off piste was too difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the discussion has drifted away slightly from the original post. I still agree with all the conclusions below.
| veeeight wrote: |
Conclusion/observations:
1. If you own just one pair of skis (and want to improve technically outside the park), don't make it a fat pair.
2. Have the best of both worlds. Have a pair under 86mm for sub 15cm days, and a pair of fats for 15cm+
3. It doesn't matter how fat your skis are on a powder day, if your technique isn't there, you're not going to ski it any better. You might float better and go faster in a straight line easier, but thats about it.
4. If however you are after that elusive one ski quiver - remember - technique is more relevant. I've been in deep bottomless powder without fats - and still kept up with the 105+ boys and girls.
Fats are great in deep snow, park etc. and certainly have their place in skiing. But not for learning/improving. In the same way that too stiff a ski/boots hinder beginners and intermediate skiers.
However, if you're a 1 week a year skier and just want to have a blast around - thats great too! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
