 Poster: A snowHead
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| DaveC wrote: |
| I'm not convinced that anyone that can be bothered to argue against "mid-fat" skis actually gets more than a week on snow a year... it's like me slagging off expensive golf clubs with big sweet spots just 'cos I'm crap at golf... |
No, not like that, completely different - expensive golf clubs with big sweet spots won't hold you back for most of the golfing you're doing at your level.
|
Think you're missing a point in the analogy - I'm really really bad at golf  If it helps - I'll happily concede that if you're convinced fat skis are a fashion statement, they probably would be for you anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
DaveC, I think you're missing the point.
For most skiers, most of the time, fat skis are going to make life less fun and harder than otherwise.
If you fancy a trip out to Chamonix (or Verbier or Courmayeur as any of those are fee free for me) I'll demonstrate for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
under a new name,
| Quote: |
Skis have had some form of sidecut pretty much forever. They certainly had 20 years ago.
|
Lol I'm too young to really remember when sidecut in the sense of modern carving skis came in, 20 years was just a guess. I can remember when 'shaped carvers' started to appear, but at that point it pretty much went over my head - what was it, 15 years ago or something?
Anyway, that more modern shape changed piste skiing in a big way, I see rocker/width as another modern shape that's changing freeride skiing in a big way. Maybe not to the same degree, not quite as much of a lightbulb moment, but to my mind it's a similar comparison.
slikedges,
| Quote: |
Well of course they do! You can carve pretty much anything but what has that to do with the price of fish 'Twasn't Scarpa's contention...
|
What point exactly are we debating here 
| Quote: |
Yep, would agree, very reasonable and sensible, though not a lot of powder in Europe "most of the time, for most skiers" on their 1 or 2 weeks a year.
|
Doesn't have to be powder conditions for offpsite to be more fun fun than piste, and 95mm ish skis will outperform narrower ones on chopped up/cruddy/crusty/etc stuff.
Although for a one or two week skier who only skis Europe and only skis offpiste in powder conditions, fatties probably aren't the best equipment choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
clarky999, scarpa was intimating that his 98mm skis turned faster on piste than his 76mm skis and I was needling him that he must've been pivoting them, as no way would that be likely with representative examples when carving or even a steered skid. Also agree doesn't have to be pow conditions, any deepish, cruddy etc etc and some width will bring benefits, but rambotion mentioned 30% pow
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Ah OK. Well in that case you could well be wrong. He said his 98mm's had a turn radius of 18m. There are plenty of 70 odd mm piste skis with a bigger turn radius than that (think GS and SG, which are over 25m). Obv the 70mm skis will be quicker edge to edge, but the actual turn doesn't neccesarily have to be quicker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
The fatter it is the easier it is to advance [in powder] and whats the point of unnecesarily holding yourself back. ...
|
Holding youself back!!! No No No, all you are doing is putting off the day that you learn to ski powder. Take the trainer wheels off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you can argue that some people - perhaps dare we say it "all the gear no idea" punters will have skis that are wider than they need to be. However these are the same people that would have insisted on being on race replicas as early intermediates etc. Go somewhere where people really ski hard (beyond the race course) and you'll see all sorts of skis being used highly effectively even by "fashion victims", heck I've even seen a monoskier tearing it up recently. Uann must see this in Verbier & Chx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Holding youself back!!! No No No, all you are doing is putting off the day that you learn to ski powder. Take the trainer wheels off.
|
1. We're talking about more than just powder
2. Put someone who skis powder well on skinny skis on fat skis, and they'll be able to go faster/bigger/harder
3. If you think new shapes are cheating I assume youre on old school 220+cm straight skis (fair play if you are though!!)
4. Watch any freeride comp, filled with amazing skiers, what skis do you see on their feet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clarky999, What is cheating, surely the slope is cheating, the lift is cheating, skis themselves are cheating, ski boots, cheating, warm clothes, cheating.......... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Exactly - the whole point of new 'technology' (jeez that term makes me cringe) is to make things easier, so the limits can then be pushed further.
I can't understand why some people think that a ski designed to make offpiste skiing easier and better is wrong. Dowhnhill racers use skis designed to make downhill racing easier. Slalom skiers use skis designed to make slalom racing easier. Where's the difference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I never had longer than 203's but I learnt to ski powder on them, so the last 3 weeks I have been skiing on a pair of 4 year old Movement Flames with 78mm under foot, plenty wide enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Dowhnhill racers use skis designed to make downhill racing easier. Slalom skiers use skis designed to make slalom racing easier. Where's the difference?
|
No they don't, those measure ment are set by the FIS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
And why do the FIS set those measurements? To make it harder on the racers? Or to make the turn radi appropriate for the gates, To maximise speed, and keep it as safe as possible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Err, how about an even playing field for all as well. So that the best skier is most likely to win?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Exactly - the whole point of new 'technology' (jeez that term makes me cringe) is to make things easier |
I agree. So do you think that fat skis (90mm+ for the sake of argument) are not a sensible idea if you spend the majority of your time on piste because the 'technology' makes that skiing harder and therefore less enjoyable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Yeah, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
Err, how about an even playing field for all as well. So that the best skier is most likely to win?
|
So reading between the lines a little (well, a lot ) you aren't keen on fat skis because they let lesser skiers than you go bigger/harder/faster than you offpsite?*
*Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, just how it sounds to me, and seems to be the main argument from others against fat skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Once i'm in a carved turn, on the edge, doesn't matter how wide my skis are at all. Other than the forces i'll be asking my knees/bindings to deal with, being slightly different. Otherwise nothing different at all, so being on or off piste makes no difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
my LP XXL's are 109 in the waist and they absolutely rule on the groomers...sometimes on a run i will incorporate a left turn AND a right turn......just to keep edge wear even...
okbye
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, mono? no!!! dumb idea.
clarky999, he he he
No.
Dypcdiver, you are so right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clarky999, feck. I think I've been skiing longer than you've been breathing. Not that that means anything. Except to me. Feeling old.
IIRC, "carving" skis (like there's any other kind?) began to creep around mainstream in ~1996. If the internet is to be believed, skis with sidecut originated around 1870. Which is a little older than me.
A perfect example, however, of total internet dog poo is here. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_carving_skis
At no stage were "modern" skis without side cut, They just had less. And required considerable more skill to use properly.
Bah! Humbug!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Dr John, IF I could only ski one pair of skis, then they would probably be somewhere between 90 and 100mm. Since I'm lucky enough to 1. own several pairs, 2. not have to transport them and 3. ski over 50 days a season, then why not some 112mm and 128mm in the mix? 95mm is roughly the mid-point of my "quiver". Is that such a bad thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| slikedges wrote: |
| clarky999, scarpa was intimating that his 98mm skis turned faster on piste than his 76mm skis and I was needling him that he must've been pivoting them, as no way would that be likely with representative examples when carving or even a steered skid. Also agree doesn't have to be pow conditions, any deepish, cruddy etc etc and some width will bring benefits, but rambotion mentioned 30% pow |
Ah OK. Well in that case you could well be wrong. He said his 98mm's had a turn radius of 18m. There are plenty of 70 odd mm piste skis with a bigger turn radius than that (think GS and SG, which are over 25m). Obv the 70mm skis will be quicker edge to edge, but the actual turn doesn't neccesarily have to be quicker. |
You could well be wrong too, as could anyone, but am I likely to be? Do you think invoking some esoteric short fat 98mm ski with a 14m radius to pitch against a long length 76mm hybrid oversize cheater GS with a 21m radius to make your point will move the discussion forwards? Do you really disagree that a common example of a 98mm ski will turn slower than a common example of a 76mm ski?! What do you think I meant by representative skis? His 76mm skis are just all mountains typical of that width. He's even said which ones. 
Anyway my point all the way along has been this:
| clarky999 wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| I agree. So do you think that fat skis (90mm+ for the sake of argument) are not a sensible idea if you spend the majority of your time on piste because the 'technology' makes that skiing harder and therefore less enjoyable? |
Yeah, of course. |
Well done, Rob! You got through when I simply couldn't.
"most of the time, for most people" = too large a proportion of the time spent by most people skiing fat skis is on terrain/snow where the skis will make life more difficult for them = fashion statement.
Chill, bois - no one's actually saying fat skis have no role, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| Once i'm in a carved turn, on the edge, doesn't matter how wide my skis are at all. Other than the forces i'll be asking my knees/bindings to deal with, being slightly different. Otherwise nothing different at all, so being on or off piste makes no difference. |
Complete and utter bollox. The feel of a 67mm race ski and a 98mm off-piste ski (even with race construction) is totally different. The torque of an edged ski on the binding and boot are completely different, which make reacting to bumps/ruts etc a completely different ball-game. Why are all the high-speed skis still only 67mm wide, even where the edge to edge speed is not as dominant? Because that's what's best for skiing on a hard piste (lots of research by manufacturers been done to determine what works best).
As someone who skis high-90s skis as a do-it-all ski, lets make this perfectly clear - fat skis have absolutely NO advantage on a prepared piste. (disclaimer...I don't do parks, so have no idea what ski width does there). Their sole reason for existence is for their perfomance on soft/variable snow.
I'm also amazed that we've got to page 3 and only stuarth has made the most important point regarding what defines how fat a fat ski should be for soft snow - how heavy the lump on top of them is. As you could probably guess, fatbob is not the most sylph-like man in the world, and parlor is a pretty big chap, so it's unsurprising they advocate fat skis. Similarly slikedges and under a new name are both midgets , and for both those a slalom ski is a 'fat' ski. If you weight 60 kg, of course you're going to sink into the snow way less than if you weigh 90kg - and any disparaging comments you make about how unneccessary a fat ski is in those conditions are completely baseless.
The other thing that should be remembered is that fat skis help just as much, if not more, in variable density and breakable crust. As a relatively inexperienced off-pister I remember skiing bottomless powder about 5 years ago in Klosters on 78mm skis (Legend 8000s). While a little scary (first time I'd encountered those conditions) there was little problematic about it, as the snow was uniform, but skiing breakable stuff was a very different problem - I broke through all the time and sank quickly such that the crust would then trip me up. When I moved to 95-ish skis the story was completely different. These balance my weight well and make skiing variable very enjoyable - you either stay on top way more, or only drop down a very small amount if you do break through (and the crust is weaker when you do drop through, so is much less likely to trip you up). They're still not as good as SL or GS though if the surface is rock hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Yup - there is no such thing as a compromise that is best at everything... swings and roundabouts. I agree totally about the breakable crust. On my old skis every few turns I seemed to have one ski break though and spill me over. I know I've got better at making smoother and more equally weighted turns but mid-fats have really helped me in this terrain... especially in spring snow when the frozen surface is just beginning to soften.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I agree about breakable crust, too. Not sure how much the benefit increase beyond a waist width of 90 or so, though. Depends upon the skier's weight, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
GrahamN,
| Quote: |
As someone who skis high-90s skis as a do-it-all ski, lets make this perfectly clear - fat skis have absolutely NO advantage on a prepared piste. (disclaimer...I don't do parks, so have no idea what ski width does there). Their sole reason for existence is for their perfomance on soft/variable snow.
|
Which is why they shouldn't be mis-recommended for the sake of someone wanting to willy-wave.
| Quote: |
I'm also amazed that we've got to page 3 and only stuarth has made the most important point regarding what defines how fat a fat ski should be for soft snow - how heavy the lump on top of them is.
|
I doubt anyone on this site has mentioned this most basic of points in threads more than me but I've gotten bored of bringing it up as strangely few fat bois seem capable of understanding it.
| Quote: |
If you weight 60 kg, of course you're going to sink into the snow way less than if you weigh 90kg - and any disparaging comments you make about how unneccessary a fat ski is in [soft/variable snow] are completely baseless.
|
I have never made any disparaging comments about how unnecessary a fat ski is in those conditions and I don't weigh 60kg but admit that for me the 89mm Mission I skied last year would've been equivalent to a fat person on around 110mm skis. Fat skis are indeed a major advantage in the deeper/variable snow that might be found off piste, but I've always contended that only a small minority of 1-2 week holiday skiers would benefit from skiing anything more than high-80s mm as a one ski quiver, and a majority would actually be better off with a less than mid-70s mm piste ski!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| DaveC wrote: |
| - I'm really really bad at golf |
I'd guessed that already from what you'd said but take it from me, they'd help you just the same as you need your fats to ski pow  |
Given I'm 200lbs~, 6'4, and been skiing skis dimensioned 110/70/100 in pow half the time this year... the complete obsession that wider skis are a crutch for pow is another reason these arguments are cyclical.
GrahamN makes a good point, but "Fat skis have absolutely no advantage on piste", while accurate, doesn't account for the fact they're not that bad either. SZK's "all carved turns are alike" seems to entirely forget steering and controlling a ski in an arc, though.
A 90mm ski is perfectly reasonable for someone who wants to dabble off-piste, given they don't sacrifice much at all on piste and make skiing variable snow (not just powder, let's not be shortsighted) much easier - assuming it's actually worth owning skis in the first place. Obviously people in North America are more likely to dabble off-piste, and one week a year skiers much less likely.
People might buy them as a fashion statement, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a lot of braindeads on the highest end race construction carvers failing miserably too. Funnily enough, in a massively middle class sport, people with money are liable to spend it on random stuff they don't need...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
under a new name, come and ski an Envers du Plan or the Toula glacier one day. We'll find freshies, tracked, windcrust. I'll lend you my wifes Kuros. You'll realise what you're missing.
You're obviously a good skier. Don't you get bored skiing on piste?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
For god's sake, Parlor is 6'1" and 76kg. That's twice in one thread I've been called big.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
parlor, calm down big guy
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
of course its fashion, i've often been embarressed in the lift queue on my 89s that i had to get fatter just so i could steeze it up, but the width of your skis is far less important then the length of your jackets/tshirt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| A 90mm ski is perfectly reasonable for someone who wants to dabble off-piste, given they don't sacrifice much at all on piste ... |
I think they sacrifice a huge amount of fun, are significantly harder to ski well and make learning fundamental skills like edge control and clean transitions more difficult than it needs to be. Sure, if you're going to have one pair of skis and want to ski a bit beyond the pistes get something in the 85-90 mm range (I've just bought a pair of 88mm skis), but please don't be under the illusion that they don't sacrifice much performance on piste because that's just not correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowpatrol, spot on!
under a new name, by any chance do you still ski in a one piece with a pair of skinny 210s for planks?
If not, maybe you should, I really think the look would suit you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
DaveC
| Quote: |
Given I'm 200lbs~, 6'4, and been skiing skis dimensioned 110/70/100 in pow half the time this year... the complete obsession that wider skis are a crutch for pow is another reason these arguments are cyclical.
GrahamN makes a good point, but "Fat skis have absolutely no advantage on piste", while accurate, doesn't account for the fact they're not that bad either. SZK's "all carved turns are alike" seems to entirely forget steering and controlling a ski in an arc, though.
A 90mm ski is perfectly reasonable for someone who wants to dabble off-piste, given they don't sacrifice much at all on piste and make skiing variable snow (not just powder, let's not be shortsighted) much easier - assuming it's actually worth owning skis in the first place. Obviously people in North America are more likely to dabble off-piste, and one week a year skiers much less likely.
People might buy them as a fashion statement, but I'm pretty sure I've seen a lot of braindeads on the highest end race construction carvers failing miserably too. Funnily enough, in a massively middle class sport, people with money are liable to spend it on random stuff they don't need... |
I'd agree with almost all of that.
Fat skis are no more a crutch for pow than race skis are a crutch for racing. Both are the right tool for the job and enhance performance and enjoyment. For a lot of people race skis are definitely also a fashion statement - absolutely no question about that. Only these days most people with such tendencies (and esp younger people) will buy a fat ski.
The only thing I'd disagree with is that a 90mm ski doesn't sacrifice much on piste. It'll sacrifice less at your size for sure, but "most of the time, for most people" it'll just be a liability for too large a proportion of their time on skis. I don't want to put words in his mouth but I think GrahamN also isn't only saying that they have no advantage, but that they are actually a liability (I'm sure he'll say if I'm overstating his view). I still think most piste holiday skiers in Europe would do better on mid-70s mm or less and that the large minority who are off piste dabblers (and presumably are already fair piste skiers - they'd better be, 'cos they're not going to find improving their basic technique easier on even wider skis) wouldn't in general be doing themselves a favour going above high-80s mm. Of course for the accomplished skier with a predilection for off piste wanting a one ski quiver, well, pretty much anything is valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
parlor, sorry - you struck me as being an inch or two taller and not quite so much of a a beanpole - it was a compliment .
slikedges, I was using "you" as in "one" there. Last week I was skiing with ski, who is only 60kg. He actually had a little chuckle about the fact that I was on 97mm/191cm Mantras while he was on 98mm/184cm Apache Chiefs, and also spent a day on K2 Darksides (128mm!) - yet only weighed 2/3 what I did. He did seem to zip along on them pretty smartish though.
I do agree that a 90mm+ does sacrifice a huge amount on piste - so yes they are significantly more difficult to ski well on piste - although they are getting better. The on-piste ability of e.g. the Mantras I'm skiing now is great for a fattish ski, but are still not a patch on a real GS ski. If you never ski off-piste, then having a ski over 75mm is totally pointless, and a significant disadvantage.
But back on the other side of the fence , I don't buy this "1-2 week a year" stuff. If you go off-piste, then you need the tool for the job - however much time you spend doing that job. If you're 200lb, then you're going to find it extremely difficult getting to grips with soft/variable snow on a sub-75mm ski, and you do need something 85mm+ to give yourself a fair chance. Doesn't matter if that's for 1 week a year or 10. When I was skiing only 1 week a year I would also go off-piste as much as possible - albeit just off the sides of the pistes, as that was as far as I could get with my sub-80mm skis before I fell over - as that was what I wanted to ski. Whether I would have done better for my skiing by spending more time on-piste working on my technique before tackling the off- is a completely different question. Last week I was sharing a room with a guy who had skied only 5 weeks, at one week a year, and virtually no off-piste. We were in La Grave and he was skiing Mantras. Should he not have been using those skis? He was clearly inexperienced, but was doing a great job for his experience level - I wish I'd done so well at the corresponsing point in my skiing "career".
Back to the opening question - yes it is a fashion statement, but not in the way the OP meant. It's a statement that the present fashion is to ski off-piste at increasingly low experience levels. Hence you will have more people of lower abilities with what would appear at first sight to be ridiculously over-sized skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
but I have been known to stop and pick up a lot of wide skis. 
The vast majority of who's owners are definitely making a fashion statement (back on subject at last)
). Too many crappy landings, about 18" of delamination and the foam cores had just about had it. When I started demoing mid fats I did get better turns as I could put more force into my turns without the skis washing out. It was most definitely not comparing equal skis. For the odd day I spend on piste I'll rent a pair of slalom skis and get all the fun I can 