Im currently looking to buy some skis and the same question seems to appear: How fat can i go without losing edge to edge performance and having trouble in icy conditions skidding around and struggling to keep control. I am 164cm tall and 50kg, i am quite an aggressive skier. My dad seems to think that any wider than 90mm would cause problems and i would have trouble in icy conditions, although he was skiing on skis around 75-80mm until recently and is new to fat skis. My older brother seems to think to think that anything up to 100m would be fine.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks
Euan
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
EuanFraser, more than 80mm is compromise to me. If you are using a ski on piste a lot and want it to edge and carve like a narrow ski you can't get that in any 90mm ski I've ever used.
Only way to really find out where the line is for you and your size and ability is to test some. Personally I skied the whitedot zero one in April on a normal piste, not icy but not soft, and it skied like my blackstars. But will it do that on a properly boilerplate icy steep piste? No, because you can't cheat physics.
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?
At your size your Dad makes a better choice than your Brother.
Yes a 100mm underfoot ski can be made to work in harder conditions but will aways provide less grip than a 90mm underfoot - going down to 70ish would provide even more grip.
As for the effect in the other direction at 90mm and 50kg you are going to get plenty of float in softer snow. If flat is your worry then make sure your ski of choice has a softer tip.
But in terms of getting edge grip, tortional stiffness is king.
Hi Euan!
Are you looking to do much off-piste on these skis? If so, 95-100 would be a good choice.
If you're skiing mostly or only on-piste, then stick to a traditional carving ski as you'll enjoy it more
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
EuanFraser,
It is not just about the width of ( how fat ) the ski is you need to look at the torsional stiffness of the ski. If you have a few make/model of skis it may be better to list them and hopefully someone who has a pair can give you an informed opinion on how they perform on piste in different conditions.
EuanFraser, I'm 165cm and 60kg and find my Mantras (2010? Model) 98mm remarkably skiable, and perfectly happy carving on ice.
However, I suspect you might (for the moment) be better off with something closer to 80mm.
What off piste are you planning as if you aren't planning much, skinnier the better.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
My dad and the other skiers my brothers and i ski with love to tour and go off piste. We often ski off piste and are especially hoping to this year as we are likely to be going to Alagna in the Monte Rosa area which is widely know for free ride. Obviously we will be skiing on pistes but predominately hoping to be able to ski off piste. So really i would like a ski which can perform well in powder but also be able to hold an edge on piste and not be too wide to carve on and grip in icy conditions but more favoured towards powder
After all it is free
After all it is free
A lot of it is obviously going to come down to ability level, and what you actually want to do. As Kex and under a new name say, if you're not going off piste that much then why bother with a wider ski?
But I'm 5' 11" and and I have a pair of Scott Punishers which are 108mm underfoot. I find them absolutely brilliant on piste, I don't feel they compromise me in any way whatsoever. A true piste ski would probably handle better on boilerplate but I don't find I have any difficulty at all with the Scott's, and off piste they're clearly tremendous. Very light too.
Edit: Just saw your post in which an all mountain ski up to 85mm - 90mm depending on your ability level may be the way to go. With the ski technology these days compared to just 5 or 10 years ago with rocker, camber etc it's about so much more than just the numbers.
Last edited by After all it is free on Sun 12-10-14 18:01; edited 1 time 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.
My dad and the other skiers my brothers and i ski with love to tour and go off piste. We often ski off piste and are especially hoping to this year as we are likely to be going to Alagna in the Monte Rosa area which is widely know for free ride. Obviously we will be skiing on pistes but predominately hoping to be able to ski off piste. So really i would like a ski which can perform well in powder but also be able to hold an edge on piste and not be too wide to carve on and grip in icy conditions but more favoured towards powder
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
If it helps in the BASI instructor exams you are expected to ski all strands (longs, shorts, steeps, bumps & variables (off piste) on the one ski. Very few at the higher levels will be on anything wider than ~75mm under foot.
At your weight you'll not have any trouble with float with a narrower ski off piste. I'd be going for something ~85mm.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
EuanFraser, have a look at the Scott Rook, made with guys like you in mind, 'kids and lightweights' It's not a kiddie ski though, it's a serious ski for youngsters. horizon who knows his stuff has his lad on these and rates them. Have a look.
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.
IMHO, I think it depends more on technique than waist width. To a point!
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Edit:
OK, so off-piste bias then
Probably with your weight which I just spotted, 90mm all mountain ski would be better!
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
At your size anything over 80-90 is pointless and for me over that you start losing edge grip. Race piste skis are 66mm for a good reason. I find up to 80 is still okay edge to edge over that it gets slow and impacts performance.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
EuanFraser, I am not a great tourer but I am told by guides, etc. that if the intention is touring for it's own sake, the general recommendation is for around 80mm...
I'm with the emerging consensus here, at your weight I think about 80-85 would be optimal. I'm 78kg and ski on 100mm and 75mm. I can carve turns on both in nearly all conditions but frankly when it is steep and icy, getting the 100s from edge to edge requires finesse and commitment and if you don't nail it you can get nasty edge judder (even enough to shake a ski off on occasions). The 75s are very stiff and quick from edge to edge and I'm still comfortable off-piste unless its really poridgy or a particularly nasty breakable crust. I imagine they would be a struggle in thigh deep powder but that is not something I've ever been lucky enough to find in Europe in 27 years of skiing. Overall I'd say that the 75s are more fun off-piste than the 100s are on hard pistes. so it depends what skiing you want to do.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Depends on the ski and the quality of the brands cores. Decent wood core, possibly supplemented with carbon or metal = great tortional stiffness even in wider skis.
Something decent like Nordica or Völkl and you can get a perfectly good grip on ice with around 100mm (I have zero issues with my Nordica Soul Riders at 97mm).
If it's just being able to carve pistes rather than ice, then pretty much anything is fine - or at least my Moments at 118mm are. Even now after 5 seasons of abuse and less than 5 tunes in that time they are still perfectly carveable unless it's REAL hardpack out.
, as long as pistes are at least reasonably soft I can rail my 135mm Down CD1s just fine too.
At your weight though there's no point going wider than 100mm.
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?
here we go again, I seriously doubt that any more than about 5% of snowheads can carve a > 100m wide ski on piste! It takes massive wide slopes, great technique and huge commitment!!
I'd say 80-85 for more off piste bias, under 80 for more on piste bias and occasional forays off....
for clarity this video is what I mean by carving a wide ski on hard pistes...
kitenski, bit of A-framing going on there? or just camera angle?
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I think this all depends on both your style and how well you ski.
an example would be if you have a solid technique and are happy going fast there are long, stiff, cambered 100+ skis that will carve on some pretty damn hard stuff.
Or are you looking to do controlled steered turns instead of carving at full speed, that would allow you to go shorter, more rocker and more fun off-piste
Or are you mostly just getting into exploring powder and touring, in which case you might want to accept the loss of control for something that will improve your experience off piste (once you get better the pistes will get a bit boring )
Surely the issue with carving a 100mm ski on piste is the torque created by the fact that the centre line of your foot is quite a distance from the edge. This torque acts to try and flatten the ski, thereby making it much harder to maintain a high edge angle
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Absolutely true, that's a big grip issue...
That's why a few have pointed out that it will require a laterally stiff ski to do this, (with metal or carbon for example) and hence why you often end up having to ski faster
After all it is free
After all it is free
I am not so convinced that ski castor requires additional speed. It does require more skill and better dynamic balance, IMHO
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.
castor = carving?
If you are saying what i think you are saying, that speed shouldnt be required to carve a fat ski, i would disagree. A fat ski for off-piste especially touring should have a medium/long radius thereby minimising the tip width (amongst other things) in order to prevent hooking in powder and to ease climbing.
This is obviously not the case if you consider the Dupraz, BBR or any other oversized snowblade a suitable touring and backcountry ski
(little dig there sorry, but that's my opinion)
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
kitenski, that is pretty far away for carving, unless with fat skis you consider this as carving
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
looks pretty carvy to me
those things just have a radius of like 12-14 meters
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.
It all depends. I can carve my fat (115mm) off-piste skis perfectly well on piste and I even skied them in a GS race once for a joke. But....I didn't come anywhere near winning the race. A 65mm race ski will outperform anything else on really hard snow/ice, which is why world cup racers use them. But in powder or slush a WC race ski will suck big-time.
Anything in between is a compromise. Where you want to be on that compromise is a question of personal taste. It depends on what kind of skiing you like to do and (crucially) on the snow and weather conditions where you go skiing. And as already pointed out, the width of a ski is only one of the design parameters - length, stiffness (in two different directions), radius, camber, swing weight....there are a lot of factors which come into play and then there is the skill and strength of the person skiing the ski. So trying to state that "any ski over X mm wide will be poor on piste" is pretty much nonsense.
That being said, there has actually been some convergence in recent years, due to better ski technology and design. So even pretty fat skis do remarkable things on piste. And a lot of thinner waisted piste skis now have design features such as "piste rocker" and do surprisingly well in soft snow.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
It's seems that I have started a debate here thank you everyone for your input and opinions. Maybe my dad was right after all! He has an annoying habit of that It looks as though I should go for a 80-85mm waist ski although as I will be growing I think that the max I could go would be late 80s to 90..?
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
sarah, yes! The scott rook looks like the perfect ski for me-powder and off piste bias and still good on piste and carving abilities. They are also twin tips I think? And I am wanting to be able to do tricks I would probably go for the 162cm as am 164 at the moment and can probably be expected to grow a few cm before skiing in February. They are 90mm waist, I think that would be the max I could go but still ok?....
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
I have some Nordica Soulriders likeclarky999, . I am female (these days officially Middle aged I suppose ) 165cm tall and 60ish kgs. I ski them in the 177, have always found them a delight to ski on and off piste,and to be honest,despite my off piste aspirations, they are on piste more of the time than off. I call them my "Goldlilocks" skis-not too fat, not too thin, but just right! I am not the world's greatest skier, but these bad boys grip really well. Graphics on the earlier models are outrageous (this season dead boring).
I also have a pair of 88mm underfoot Volkl Kenjas (male version is the Kendo) but they stay resolutely on the rack, as I never feel the need to use them. In my experience the right fatter skis can be remarkably easy to ski on.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
dulcamara, castor= the raising of height due to wide ski geometry! a la car suspension.
Still disagree that speed is required to carve.
I can carve my 203cm SGs at practically warp factor nothing at all.
I can do the same on my 98mm mantras.
I see no problem extrapolating wider..
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
dulcamara wrote:
Absolutely true, that's a big grip issue...
That's why a few have pointed out that it will require a laterally stiff ski to do this, (with metal or carbon for example) and hence why you often end up having to ski faster
Not entirely sure I agree with this either.
You need tortionally stiff skis to deal with the extra width, but that does not mean you have to have a ski that is stiff flex wise - think this is why manufacturers have been able to make such skis because they have better materials, construction techniques, and shapes to play with.
There is a certain amount of technique involved here too. You do not have to ski the ski faster but you do need to ski with your feet a bit further apart such that you can get more edge angle.
As an example an ex-Canadian WC skier on his fat skis demonstrated how good we'd never be by carving a bullet-hard GS course perfectly (to my untrained eye) that us mere mortals were struggling to make the gates on with GS 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?
EuanFraser wrote:
sarah, yes! The scott rook looks like the perfect ski for me-powder and off piste bias and still good on piste and carving abilities. They are also twin tips I think? And I am wanting to be able to do tricks I would probably go for the 162cm as am 164 at the moment and can probably be expected to grow a few cm before skiing in February. They are 90mm waist, I think that would be the max I could go but still ok?....
Glad to have been of help but really just have a good memory and as I mentioned that was what horizon got for his son with similar requirements to you
sarah, yes! The scott rook looks like the perfect ski for me-powder and off piste bias and still good on piste and carving abilities. They are also twin tips I think? And I am wanting to be able to do tricks I would probably go for the 162cm as am 164 at the moment and can probably be expected to grow a few cm before skiing in February. They are 90mm waist, I think that would be the max I could go but still ok?....
I would strongly consider going for the 172. Twintips ski a bit shorter and with a rockered tip they will ski even shorter. Plus the 172 has a longer turning radius and that will suit you better off piste.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
hyperkub, thanks, yes I have considered that too.. They would last me longer too, although longer skis arent as fun to ski on. The question is: how rockered are they and are they full twin tips or semi?
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
EuanFraser, the Freebird, looks, lovely.
Really, I think you need to try before you buy...
After all it is free
After all it is free
You need at least 4 pairs of skis
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.
The Scott rook only has a 350mm tip rocker so I think the 172cm would be too big... From what I know they are a semi twin tip ? Is that right? If so the 162 would be a better option..
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
----------ICE--- PISTE ----- off------- POW
65.-------- XXXXX
74.----------XXXXXXXXX
80.-------------XXXXXXXXXXXX
84.----------------XXXXXXXXXXXX
94.--------------------XXXXXXXXXXX
98.---------------------XXXXXXXXXXXX
104---------------------- XXXXXXXXXXX
114-------------------------XXXXXXXXXXX
124-----------------------------------XXXXXX
Give or take!
Rockers for tighter easier turns
Soft for easier turns
Stiff for stability
Twins for switch
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
, as long as pistes are at least reasonably soft I can rail my 135mm Down CD1s just fine too.
)
) 165cm tall and 60ish kgs. I ski them in the 177, have always found them a delight to ski on and off piste,and to be honest,despite my off piste aspirations, they are on piste more of the time than off. I call them my "Goldlilocks" skis-not too fat, not too thin, but just right! I am not the world's greatest skier, but these bad boys grip really well. Graphics on the earlier models are outrageous (this season dead boring).
