I was about to say that fat skis didn't come in shorter sizes, but a quick fact-check shows me that my 192s were also available as short as 180, which I just don't get. Like you I feel that length is at least as important as width.
It seems to have been forgotten that not everyone is 186cm tall and weighs 80kg. Even a “short length” ski at 180cm is way too long for a small skier.
To extend the parameters of the discussion, my widest ski is 107 and 171 long, but I'm short and don't weigh much. I could go a little wider, but I don't have the long-limbed leverage of a taller skier, so my knees would probably be in a worse state than they are already. I actually find a mid 90s (I have 93 and 95 available, around 165 long) ski gets a lot more mileage, and is still fine in powder, for me. Trying to use a 192 ski would be ridiculous!
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@Old Fartbag, it also doesn't take into account skillz.
As someone who "learned" to ski powder on 207 GS skis, and without suggesting that modern skis are a universe forward in skiability, fun and efficiency, I do still giggle a bit at the concept of a "powder" ski, or "flotation"...
... notwithstanding that I am thinking I want something a bit fatter for those full on fresh days. My ~100mm skis are a bit tiring by the end of the day, if it's powder all the way down.
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 wrote:
@Old Fartbag, it also doesn't take into account skillz.
As someone who "learned" to ski powder on 207 GS skis, and without suggesting that modern skis are a universe forward in skiability, fun and efficiency, I do still giggle a bit at the concept of a "powder" ski, or "flotation"...
... notwithstanding that I am thinking I want something a bit fatter for those full on fresh days. My ~100mm skis are a bit tiring by the end of the day, if it's powder all the way down.
IMV. On Straight skis, it didn't matter how much skill you had - as there wasn't enough surface area to allow the skis to rise to the surface and then plane.
On wide skis - where skill can come in, is generating enough speed to overcome a small lack of surface area.
In other words, this is not about being able to ski Off Piste on narrow skis - but about physics, where there is enough upward force to overcome the downward force of the skier. Even if the the upward and downward force match - the skier won't float to the surface (and stay there).
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 27-10-22 11:19; edited 1 time in total
All this talk of Fat Skis reminds me of recent headlines regarding the whole Transgender thing....
It's just a phase people go through
And those that carry on do tend to get very evangelical over it all.
It was about 7 or 8 seasons ago that I entered my Fatski phase, with some beautiful 115 K2 Coombacks with lovely graphics of La Grave / La Meije and some of the local villages.
I also used these for touring.
Then I was out and out fan of BlackCrows Atris a mere 108, in fact I loved them so much, I bought another pair.
But like all phases, I eventually grew out of it*
My go-to ski which I use for pretty well everything is a SuperGuide 105 and being out in the mountains from Nov to the beginning of May I tend to notch up a fair amount of time/vertical on skis that I use
I've done two trips to Japan and was more than happy with the performance of the BlackCrows, not wanting for anything wider, and we did score classic conditions, same true of Colorado where I think 95's were the widest I could rent
The vast majority of skiers I know inc a number of very good guides all ski sub 105 nowadays it seems, gone are the days in La Grave where all the Scandi tourists are waiting for the lift with 120's, though for sure on a big Powder day, which I've been able to count on one hand most seasons, they have their place.
Actually my Mrs skis is on wider skis than me, now is that because of her skillsets?
*wide skis for touring whilst can be light, the skins weigh almost double it seems, run-outs on uber fat skis I've had more than a few mares
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Thu 27-10-22 11:22; edited 1 time in total
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@Old Fartbag, uhhh, on planing? yes, you could, although much of the pleasure was being knee deep in the snow.
For the avoidance of doubt, we are talking proper powder here. Not "just" fresh snow.
First heli trip I did there was a chap who really couldn't ski and shouldn't have been there. Guides just said they'd put him on increasingly wide skis until he was floating on top (and finally having fun).
He might as well have been on a piste by that stage !
...same true of Colorado where I think 95's were the widest I could rent
I was in Crested Butte a few years ago, which just coincided with the worst Jan that anyone could remember. Anything at all steep was shut. Pistes had bare patches and hard (though not really icy). My Brother was hiring skis and had a devil of a job finding anything with a waist below 100 - as the area was simply not used to having these conditions, so there was little demand. After about 4 or 5 shops - we eventually found some Rossi Experience 88.
Apparently they have an allocated amount of snowmaking, which they had used up.....Normally not an issue, due to expected snowfall. The whole thing was made worse as Europe had decent snow conditions at the time.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
under a new name wrote:
@Old Fartbag, uhhh, on planing? yes, you could....
On that we will have to disagree.
On a Straight ski, the technique was shortish turns, either with a bouncing upward movement, or with an Avalement move, where the legs were extended into the snow and then retracted when the upward pressure of the snow pushed the skis up to the surface, where you changed edges and pressed down again.
The point was - that the skis were always under the snow but had to surface to change edges. I do not believe you could smear along the top - which requires modern wide powder skis.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Thu 27-10-22 12:41; edited 1 time in total
After all it is free
After all it is free
@Old Fartbag, they're called "powder 11s" ... you didn't say turns had to be involved ...
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.
albertosaurus wrote:
I’m buying a set of wide skis for powder days,
Just a reminder of what the OP was about, for everyone reverting back to versatility and what makes sense fir every day offpiste
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
skimottaret wrote:
Most All Mountain or Off Piste skis now come in a range of widths and lengths. My example was Atomic Backlands. I would MUCH rather have the longest middle width ski as it will be more versatile than the fattest version but in a size shorter. They come in 117, 107 and 100 wide and pretty much similar sidecuts but if you go down a length and go wider you will have less float and be less versatile on piste or in crud.
* agreed nice to be talking skiing not politics or whatever.. just about gave up on this site
If you’re looking for versatility I completely agree - which is why I bought the longest version of the 104mm ski from Völkls Revolt line for my every day ski.
But as good as it is for a 104 ski in powder, I would absolutely 100% pick the 121mm Revolt over it for a powder day (which is what the OP asked about), even if I was forced to take it in a shorter length fir whatever reason (obviously I’d prefer wider AND longer outside the context of the point).
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
@clarky999, in which case, "how wide becomes unusable in anything other than fresh snow? " is surely the most pertinent elemnt of the question?
And to my mind, there are a couple of considerations, one being the effect of castor on your knees when skiing them on firm-hard snow. Clearly an individual response ... but still?
As long as you can maintain the edge angle required, I (without thinking too hard about it) can't see width being an absolute barrier to skiability, with up to date technique?
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.
You’re not skiing fast enough. even a 80mm ski will plane..,
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
under a new name wrote:
@Old Fartbag, they're called "powder 11s" ... you didn't say turns had to be involved ...
Hah! - Skiing Off Piste without turning is more skill than I possess.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Old Fartbag wrote:
On Straight ski... the skis were always under the snow but had to surface to [turn]
Are you sure that skis "have to surface"?
With snowboards, you use your legs to change the bank of the board to turn. That generates a reaction force which accelerates you around the turn.
You can't get a horizontal force without a vertical component as you have to bank through vertical ... the vertical component pushes you up briefly,
but the horizontal component makes you turn. A powder turn isn't a jump followed by a torque of the board.
In skis, I think Rocker affects where the tip of the ski is in relation to the skier's centre of gravity, and certainly raises the tip in that sense.
I'm not sure how that actually works mechanically as I've not ridden modern skis. And don't understand buoyancy
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@abc, 80mm is a fat ski!
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
phil_w wrote:
Old Fartbag wrote:
On Straight ski... the skis were always under the snow but had to surface to [turn]
Are you sure that skis "have to surface"?
With snowboards, you use your legs to change the bank of the board to turn. That generates a reaction force which accelerates you around the turn.
You can't get a horizontal force without a vertical component as you have to bank through vertical ... the vertical component pushes you up briefly,
but the horizontal component makes you turn. A powder turn isn't a jump followed by a torque of the board.
In skis, I think Rocker affects where the tip of the ski is in relation to the skier's centre of gravity, and certainly raises the tip in that sense.
I'm not sure how that actually works mechanically as I've not ridden modern skis. And don't understand buoyancy
This
Not straight, but straightish 177cm 115-84-106 centre mounted twin tip skis. I'm 90kg buck naked, more like 110kg with all the gear (including skis)
No need to come out of the snow unless the terrain and snow depth beneath your feet necessitate / facilitate it
There's a 3D element to the turn shape underneath the snow surface - you just can't see it
It may look like straight lining, but it's actually a balance between the required turn shape and the friction from the snow against the equipment and body to maintain a speed which is comfortable and manageable (too slow and you get bogged down)
The shallower the snow the more rounded the turn shape
You would certainly struggle on a heavyweight monster like these juggernauts
But I bet you could ski the Spoons in powder. They are light and incredibly easy to turn. I reckon my 12yr old could ride them this season on a pow day.
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?
@BobinCH, friend of mine used to ride those - full camber/no rocker too!
@BobinCH, friend of mine used to ride those - full camber/no rocker too!
I did a lap of the Galtiberg in Engelberg on a rented pair of those back in 2009 and oh boy was I knackered by the end of it!
Did another lap on some Volkl Kuro’s and liked them so much I bought them
Fortunately fat skis are much lighter these days!!!
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
phil_w wrote:
Old Fartbag wrote:
On Straight ski... the skis were always under the snow but had to surface to [turn]
Are you sure that skis "have to surface"?
On straight skis - I'm now going back over 30 years - I was taught to allow the pressure of the snow (either by creating a "platform" by bouncing; or by extending the legs down through the turn and then allowing the pressure of the snow to push your knees up) to bring the skis (or at least the tips) to the surface, when you then were able to change edges.
I completely agree that it's a 3D motion within the snow - but the upward pressure of the snow at the end of the turn brought the skis to the surface, at which point you could change edges.
Wide skis* have changed the game. Snowboards, with their surface area (not split into 2 narrow skis), already played this game.
* Aside from the dedicated Fat Boy powder skis, wide skis for the masses really started in around 1997 with the likes of the Salomon X Scream Series @ 68mm under foot (106 68 96) and gone up from there.
"Edge change" is probably a concept more appropriate for hardpack than powder. Transition?
---
Wide skis? The standard "heli" ski in the 1980s was the Miller Soft, which google says were 99/82/89. I never rode them, as I didn't want to pay extra for rentals. No one cared how easy it was to ride race skis in bottomless snow, Millers were used because they were more fun. When Miller's manufacturer crashed and burned, the people who bought the company made them skinnier, not fatter. And then crashed and burned too. You couldn't make it up.
Sometime in 1989 or 1990 I sat in a hot tub and watched Craig and a few other snowboarders try to persuade Atomic to build the Powder Plus. The point of that discussion wasn't that "wider is easier" - it was that "wider is more fun". Both Wiegele and Moser worked closely with their Austrian mates at Atomic. In retrospect it says a lot about how conservative the ski business is that it took so long to work it out, and that it turned into a massive money making machine for the manufacturers and heli operators alike.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
[quote="Old Fartbag"][quote="phil_w"]
Old Fartbag wrote:
* Aside from the dedicated Fat Boy powder skis, wide skis for the masses really started in around 1997 with the likes of the Salomon X Scream Series @ 68mm under foot (106 68 96) and gone up from there.
I had some of those in 98, used them as my do-everything ski for years, even won a ski race[1] on them.
Weird to think that they were considered wide at the time - I'd only been skiing for four or five years at the time, so was kinda developing at the same time as carving skis, and these newer and wider variations were very much part of that technology shift. But to me it was all new so I didn't really know any better.
[1] White grouse pub challenge in Flaine, during my first SCGB repping slot in 2000. First race I'd ever been in, and it was slushy as hell, so suited me just fine, and I won the men's 40+ category, cos everyone else was on their long straight race skis. First time I met Chemmie too, she opened for us and presented the prizes, which was nice. xxx
After all it is free
After all it is free
phil_w wrote:
I'll leave the physics thing where it is.
"Edge change" is probably a concept more appropriate for hardpack than powder. Transition?
I think that is getting into the realm of semantics. Transition is surely the point between turns, where you go from one set of edges to the other. You may not necessarily be using your edges in the same way as On Piste - but the skis are tilted on their side (when not pointing straight down the falline) - so are on their edges (for want of a better description).
Last edited by After all it is free on Thu 27-10-22 19:35; edited 3 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.
The temperature and quality of the snow is an important factor. It’s fairly easy and fun to ski deep cold light snow on any ski. The warmer and heavier the snow, the harder it gets to move and turn. If you’re skis are too small then you are forced onto steeper slopes just to move with the added risks that brings. After a cold night, snow will often settle and lighten up enough for smaller skis again. So the question is; if you have say a 95 all mountain ski, can you justify a really wide ski for those few days of deep heavy snow when even a 115 ski will struggle. I think we would all love to have a set of bent nocta spoons but would make travelling even more of a hassle. Personally I would love to have a go as they look a lot of fun.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Chaletbeauroc wrote:
I had some of those in 98, used them as my do-everything ski for years, even won a ski race[1] on them.
Weird to think that they were considered wide at the time - I'd only been skiing for four or five years at the time, so was kinda developing at the same time as carving skis, and these newer and wider variations were very much part of that technology shift. But to me it was all new so I didn't really know any better.
I replaced mine (when they got trashed on a rock in L2A) with some 170 Atomic Beta Ride 11.20 (107 70 98 ) - which were less playful, but more stable - they felt quite like a punter GS ski. They were my Do Everything ski for a decade and a half. Scott The Ski makes everything much easier away from the Piste (which doesn't happen that often these days).
My X Screams (179) replaced some Force 9 3S (201?) in around 1997/8
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
under a new name wrote:
Seriously though for how many (Euro holiday) peeps is proper powder an issue?
This
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.
zzz wrote:
under a new name wrote:
Seriously though for how many (Euro holiday) peeps is proper powder an issue?
This
how many euro holiday peeps actually buy them?
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
@Mother hucker, too many, by observation
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
@Mother hucker, @under a new name, I started skiing in 2006 and not counting days in the peak district or on dryslope I think that I have clocked up 98 days skiing, and all in Europe, assuming that includes the Lake District and Scotland, so very much a Euro holiday peep. Owning a pair of 108mm skis with marker barons has allowed me to join guided off piste groups and ski competently, score face shots under the Varet gondola in Les arcs after a 3 day storm, land off piste jumps in soft snow, explore over the back of Grimentz and generally have great time whenever there is fresh snow (I do think that I have had very good luck with snow) so I whole heartedly reject the idea that holiday skiers should restrict themselves to narrow skis, if anything, holiday skiers benefit from them more as they open up the 80% of the mountain to them that isn't groomed
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@under a new name, The retailers wouldn't say that,
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Clearly, @rambotion, you are atypical of the average euro holiday skier. And very lucky with the snow. Which is great for you.
I’m on my phone and can’t be bothered scrolling but I don’t think I said what think I said.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@phil_w, was the problem with making wider skis not at least partially down to materials and manufacturing?
That said, in 89-90, the coolz was all about race skis (and boots) …
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 wrote:
... was the problem with making wider skis not at least partially down to materials and manufacturing?
Could be. Although monoskis had been made for years, and snowboards too, all in ski factories, mostly by ski companies and with standard ski construction.
I don't recall Atomic guys saying "we'd do that if only we could build it".
I do recall a Transworld Snowboarding guy suggesting taking a buzz saw to a snowboard or monoski to produce something more
useful in powder than Atomic's skis of the day...
@phil_w, I seem to recall that Elan had been working on wider skis for some time and they had, in the early period, had manufacturing issues. But I could easily be making that up.
Thnking about it though, the first Rossi 7Ss were (at least marketed as) having unusually robust torsional rigidity - which is required to make wider skis. I have a suspicion that the situation isn't quite the same on a snowboard - transverse boots/bindings - but haven't thought too deeply about it.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
IIRC. Having had remarkably little change for years, the Ski industry finally did so when Snowboarding started "wiping the floor" with it, at least where the young were concerned. They needed to attract back lost customers - so Carving, Freeride and Powder skis started to appear to make skiing less staid and thus more fun.
It also needed technology to improve, to allow skis to get wider and keep torsional strength while also being flexible along their length - without being impossibly heavy.
And here is what it's like to ski on 105's in very cold champagne powder, and as you can see with that uber fine cold powder you just sink straight through to the base, I don't think on a fatter ski that there would be any better float?
And this was just after the first dump of the year (Dec 8th at lower altitude 1,850m) before the resort had opened and pistes had been made ready, so the skis were nigh on going down to the ground!
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.
And here is my party trick for all the clients who said "I didn't bring fat skis, how will I be able to ski powder". Lets just have a go and to make sure you will be okay I will do it on one 70mm wide ski to make it feel like two super skinny skis
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Fri 28-10-22 14:33; edited 1 time in total
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Weathercam wrote:
I don't think on a fatter ski that there would be any better float?
Agreed. Because skis don't float. More surface area will get you on the plane earlier, but to me the difference isn't important.
uann wrote:
... Elan had been working on wider skis for some time
Yes, I remember they were into "shape", and google does too. That's later in time, but heading in the same direction. My buddies were pushing ski company people on both width and shape.
The Atomic stuff was a bit heli focused, I think, where as Elan were probably piste focused?
Torsional rigidity is really important to me on hardpack, carving hard, you need the whole edge to participate evenly.
Other technologies exist to help with that.
sm wrote:
And here is my party trick for all the clients who said "I didn't bring fat skis, how will I be able to ski powder".
Very good, I like the approach. Although I'd say you're riding the base there, which actually is agreeing with the point you're making. You could ride that on one SL ski no bother.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
