 Poster: A snowHead
|
 I have a feeling this might be a contentious one......
Pulling together various threads...... for the purpose of this thread, skinny is 62-70, mid fat is 71 to 85, fat is 86+ (waist or underfoot).
Fat skis are great, in the right place, at the right time.
In soft/deep snow:
1. They are fun (soft flex, forgiving)
2. They are easy to ski (forgiving, large sweet spot)
3. They feel more stable, up to a point (wider platform)
On hardpack/ice:
1. Mostly too soft to hold an edge
2. Requires considerably more effort to get up on edge
3. Incredibly unstable at high speed
Worst of all, with respect to improving your skiing/technique:
1. It's extremely difficult to learn or refine the basic mechanics of edging with the lower joints on fat skis. Most people just haven't the movement/co-ordination of those joints on skinny skis, let alone fat skis. So they just end up compensating (not turning, larger turns, going straight, throwing their hip and/or uppder bodies around) to get the skis turning.
2. Because of the girth, slow speed manoeuvres are difficult on fats. You need speed to get these skis to perform, to come alive. It's a catch-22. You should slow things down to learn new mechanics, but your equipment will hinder you.
3. Achieving the critical edge angle on fat skis is a lot harder than skinnys. It places a lot more torque on the ankle and other joints.
4. Going from edge to edge takes 300 years. It's extremely difficult to teach someone the most basic of mechanics in the transistion of the turn (arguably the most important part of skiing/turning - the transition). It just won't come together when you can't balance on/change your edges effectively.
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.
Remember, you can fake/mask many things with speed and large turns (but not to the experenced eye!). (can you tell it's getting near the end of the season and I'm getting fed up of seeing fat ski non improvers  )
However, if you're a 1 week a year skier and just want to have a blast around - thats great too!
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Sat 31-03-07 16:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
veeeight, makes sense to me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
veeeight,
As a matter of interest who should buy fats then?
I have not got a pair but was thinking of buying a pair as my next ones mainly to make the off piste easier.
I can't really lug two pairs about with me in your definitions are mid fats a compromise or do they hold back learning too? I have never skied anything above about 80mm I don't think.
In Chamonix recently the guide was raving about the Dynastars which he was skiing and are coming out next year and they looked pretty broad to me but he reckoned they were just about the best all round ski he'd used ( He got them free though and was a pretty expert skier).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
If you were to put a gun to my head and ask me to choose a one ski quiver, that I had to ski all season with, it would be the Head iM82.
Everyone that I've put on these this season has been blown away by them (with a few pointers here and there).
Next year sees the iM82 in funky dark green graphics, but also the addition of the iM78. You'll just have to decide your ratio of piste:off piste to choose between these two!
With a mid fat you'd still be a good progresser, and is probably a reasonable compromise (as everything in life is). 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Tell that to Angus, whom before this winter hadn't skied, after 25 days on Nordica Enforcers(98mm) he'll ski the ass off most accomplished skiers in this Valley.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think Fats will take some skiers into terrain that they can't cope with. Its ok to sit on them and ride them on nice pitches..take up the whole hill if you have to. When it gets steeper and the snow isn't so kind, you need plan B and you either have that or you don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
veeeight, which was pretty much what I was saying on the EOSB wishes thread - if someone wants an off piste lesson, I'd rather have them on their hormal skis, than trying a fat pair (especially for the first time). 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's so stinking magical about 62-78mm? Heck, my forefoot is 102mm and I have no trouble getting that up on edge.
It's the thin end of the wedge I tell you: with those arguments by decade's out we'll all be on 38mm waist: http://www.antongliders.com/default.asp
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Sat 31-03-07 16:38; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
easiski, Someone was quizzing me about the explosion of popularity of fat skis on the slope the other day.
One of my colleagues likened it to the explosion of popularity of SUV's and 4x4's in London. It is (was) fashionable, gave a perceived view of safety, and went up kerbs great. Once a handful of people had them, everyone had to have a Chelsea Tractor.
Oh, And all the big mountain greats, pros etc. - Mostly they are all ex-racers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
2. Have the best of both worlds. Have a pair under 86mm for sub 15cm days, and a pair of fats for 15cm+
|
85 is still pretty broad to me!
(My own day-to-day ice/hardpack ski has 68mm waist, I think)
Last week in Wengen, I hired a 78mm waist one for day 2 & 3 (60cm powder) and took TWO powder lesson. At first, I thought the ski wasn't wide enouhg. But after the lessons, I changed my mind. Now, I'm having trouble seeing how much more powder would it take to render a 85mm midfat NOT wide enough. I also notice the instructor's ski wasn't much wider than the one I was on either.
Granted, I'm half the weight of at least 50% of the population, and reasonably coordinated.
What I'm trying to say is I totally agree with you skill is more important than ski width. And using a "over-wide" ski hinders learnin. But I suspect the exact number for the definition of "narrow" to "midfat" to "wide" might depend on the particular student.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my 25 days of skiing experience Ive been lucky enough to try a variety of skis, from Salomon Equipe 2Vs up to the Volkl Gotama (105mm in the waist). I will admit to finding the Gotamas pretty hard work on the piste and pretty unresponsive- these really are a powder day only ski (this may also be due to the fact it was skiing day number 6 when I took them out!). However, my current ski of choice is the Nordica Enforcer (98mm). Whilst sitting comfortably in the 'wide' category, it is remarkably manouverable on the piste. This is a result of a more radical sidecut than most other wide skis. The Enforcer in 177 has a turn radius 3m smaller than an Atomic GS12 WC with 65mm under the foot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
NAKEDZOOKEEPER, Welcome to snowHeads Good to see you have posted at last!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
boredsurfin, Well thankyou- Ive been waiting for SZK to get off the computer!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
NAKEDZOOKEEPER, Welcome to the madhouse - but I guess you're used to mad if you already know the SMALL one !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment - could you not use the 'you should be able to ski powder on skinny skis' argument in reverse with regard to fat skis? Once you have developed good technique for short radius turns/carving/moguls on thinner skis then I think it is good practice to go out and try and ski the same way on fatter skis. Today, for example the snow here in Verbier wasn't very good (hardpack and icy) and ordinarily I would have taken my 174cm Volkl Supersports out but decided instead to take my 190cm Gotamas and work on my technique. It would have been easier with the GS skis but my thinking is if I can do good rhythmical short radius turns with a ski that is 110mm underfoot I won't have a problem doing it with skis that are 68mm
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
| I have a feeling this might be a contentious one...... |
Not at all. These things have been argued for 15 years or more.
The wider a ski gets from the leg bones that control it, the more it's going to perform like a li-lo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
parlor, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| veeeight wrote: |
On hardpack/ice:
1. Mostly too soft to hold an edge
2. Requires considerably more effort to get up on edge
3. Incredibly unstable at high speed |
With Scott Missions
1. Untrue.
2. Certainly have to exaggerate effort to make an edge. Whether that means more physical effort, I am snot so sure.
3. Untrue.
| Quote: |
....2. Because of the girth, slow speed manoeuvres are difficult on fats. You need speed to get these skis to perform, to come alive. It's a catch-22. You should slow things down to learn new mechanics, but your equipment will hinder you.
3. Achieving the critical edge angle on fat skis is a lot harder than skinnys. It places a lot more torque on the ankle and other joints.
4. Going from edge to edge takes 300 years. It's extremely difficult to teach someone the most basic of mechanics in the transistion of the turn (arguably the most important part of skiing/turning - the transition). It just won't come together when you can't balance on/change your edges effectively.
|
Speed certainly helps. Yet on a shallow slope, the skis do run as easily as a thin ski. And I have not found the Missions good for whiffling quick turns. I was skidding in the MSB.
Earlier this year, with easiski, she commented that I was getting better feedback from Missions, than I had been the year previously with B2s.
My own view is that for an off-piste skier, whether or not there is powder, the Missions are a great ski. They hold well on hard pack, they give confidence on what might otherwise be breakable crust, and they are delightful in powder (though again speed helps).
For pure on piste skiing they are not so good, though you can get round the whole mountain on them comfortably. I shall not be using them for the EOSB race, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(I see others have weighed in while I've been thinking about this - and coping with my PC crashing again  )
veeeight, I would probably agree with you where a beginner/early intermediate is concerned, but primarily on the basis that they shouldn't be tackling the terrain where the extra width is useful. For a strong intermediate/advanced skier though, I do disagree fairly strongly. I say this as someone who's just moved this year to fats after spending most of my time on mid-fats (Bandit XXs, then Legend 8000s).
Oh and BTW, the iM82s (albeit partly due to them being a bit on the short side for me) were for me the most uninspiring mid-fats I've ever skied on, (others being Bandit XXs, Legend 8000s, AC4s, 8800s, Missions, BD Havocs, Movement Thunders), although Atomic R9s were certainly down there as well.
If you can find a half decent edge, carve a turn or so, make short radius turns and know what they're supported to feel like but want to get better, then I think they're actually an aid to improvement. As BGA said above, the fact that it's harder to make that edge transition forces you to work harder at it, and when you get back onto a skinnier ski you'll find it so much easier as your comfort zone and associated range of movements has increased. If the ski has a longer sidecut radius, then it just forces you to work harder at making the turns at the radius you need (higher edge angles, or more definite jumped edge changes etc). Edge hold is certainly not necessarily dreadful on hardpack (Stockli DP Pros did not have an obvious problem, although I'd agree with something like the BD Verdicts), although the feeling is a bit disconcerting at first. As for poor stability at speed...spherical objects!
For the deeper stuff, the fact that they are more forgiving there means that your inevitable mistakes do not end up with you repeatedly climbing out of your headplant hole, but you get to continue skiing the pitch and get the opportunity to make the next turn better. I know that my skiing of couloirs, breakable crust, glue etc and the freedom and precision of movements associated with that skiing has been way better (but still has plenty of scope for improvement) this year since I moved up from the 8000s (mostly to Stockli DP Pros and Dynastar Legend Pro Riders). And the effort of trying to find outside edges etc on the Pro Riders means that my range of carving on piste has also improved greatly (e.g. 'scarving' one foot turns down steep reds). Sure there will be differences, e.g. you require a lot more angulation to carve a GS turn on a long radius ski than on a shorter radius ski as your centripetal force is a lot less for similar inclination angles, but adjusting to that is also an important skill to acquire. Just make sure if you're going for any races that you train on the skis you'll be using in the race.....achilles  .
Now of course once you can do the deep and crusty stuff reliably - on the basis of exactly the same arguments that BGA and I have been using here - you should probably start getting narrower skis to hone your soft snow techniques . When I get there I'll let you know.
If you're going to spend your entire time on piste then a fat ski would be a waste - unless used for technique improvement - but if you're going to tackle terrain where a fat ski is useful, then I would suggest that's the thing to go for. As a two ski quiver I think it's completely pointless to have a fat and midfat - go for a fat and a dedicated piste ski (GS or SL according to taste) for the days when there's no sensible off-piste. Funnily enough that's what I'll have when I get some BD Kilowatts .
And what constitutes a fat ski almost certainly depends on you weigh - for someone like easiski (and from what abc has said about herself too) I'm convinced that that RC4 is actually effectively a mid-fat and that Zag is a definite fat, whereas for Frosty the Snowman.....he needs to talk to parlor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really enjoy skiing on my Missions, but they are definitely harder work than my B2s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Kramer wrote: |
| I really enjoy skiing on my Missions, but they are definitely harder work than my B2s. |
Interesting. I used to hire B2s a lot. They were easier to turn quickly, edge-to-edge than the Missions on hard pack. And they ran better on shallow-slope pistes. Faster on hard pack, too, I'd say. But the Missins seem to have more life in them. Much nicer than the B2s in powder or soft snow, and less likely to break crust. I was off colour (to say the least) for a lot of the MSB, so I really didn't let rip speed-wise on the Missions at Wengen - but I gave them a bit of welly at LDA in January, and the seemed fine at speed. I feel just as secure on steep icy slopes on either ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
NAKEDZOOKEEPER,
Is it true that SZK and LZK got their login names after someone saw them naked?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I agree withveeeight's initial post. I used a pair of Head iM72's all season and found them a good all round compromise. They're pretty strong both on and off piste. I certainly wouldn't want anything significantly fatter on piste and I don't feel that they hold me back off piste, so no worries. However, I am curious enough to try both the Missions and Head iM82 to see what all the fuss is about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
(If you can find a half decent edge, carve a turn or so, make short radius turns and know what they're supported to feel like
|
Yes, but I think the point is that if you can't do the above, then a fatty is not the tool you're going to find enlightenment on.
| Quote: |
As a two ski quiver I think it's completely pointless to have a fat and midfat - go for a fat and a dedicated piste ski (GS or SL according to taste) for the days when there's no sensible off-piste. |
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
brian, easiski, agreed, which is why
| GrahamN wrote: |
veeeight, I would probably agree with you where a beginner/early intermediate is concerned,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
achilles, I definitely find it harder to get them on edge, and to hold it there. I find them more tiring to use, but that's probably because they're significantly longer.
Overall they're definitely a step up from the B2s in terms of overall performance, but I do have to work harder to get them to work properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
brian, easiski, agreed, which is why
| GrahamN wrote: |
veeeight, I would probably agree with you where a beginner/early intermediate is concerned,
|
|
I would venture to guess it extends a bit beyond that skill level, depending on the subject.
I'm definitely beyond early intermediate (can do bumpy blacks with control). But I've not seen powder prior to this year. In a way, you can call me a beginer when it comes to off-piste in thigh deep powder.
Through my progression in my powder lesson & pratice, I felt a too wide board might potentially MASK some mistakes and hold back developement of good technique. The student may THINK he's doing well but in reality he's simply riding where the board takes him. Once the condition changes, he may not have the skill to deal.
(It's got nothing to do with fat boards not good at carving on-piste, as veeeight's original point. More to do with fat boards being less sensitive to proper balance -- training wheel effect?)
Though I do share part of your view that too narrow a board for such condition would also inhibits learning. The students simply spending all their time climbing out of the powder insteaad of simply recovering (and learning) from their minor mistakes. So a balance (for suitable width) need to be found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a fun observation.
Get a slalom racer, who normally skis skinny skis to ski fat skis in knee deep powder.
Then get someone who only skis fat skis, to ski skinny skis in knee deep powder.
I think I know who will be better balanced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thats a little wrong veeeight, surely you mean get a big mountain competitor who skis on all mountain/ off piste skis V a slalom racer and when its evened with two competitive atheletes.
In these great debates we have to be very careful of missing the most important part of snowsports. Enjoyment. Thats to say if someone has fun skiing fater ie all mountain skis then be damned with anything else. It's all about fun.
OK I know that a lot of people will say the better tecnique brings better enjoyment of the sport but who cares as long as you're in control and loving what you do.
I also agree that by improving your tecnique, improves confindence etc etc but for those who love bigger skis. Good on ya.
I ski all mountain skis as my main ski (90mm waist) and yes my technique is probably not good but I'm always smiling.
I also think its wrong to term a ski by it's width but rather what it is designed to do ie all mountain ski, piste ski, off piste ski etc etc. By this logic it is correct that a bigger ski can effect techique ie if you spend 90% of your time trying to carve a prophet 130 on the groomed piste it may effect your technique (and also your state of mind) but the reverse can be said by a narrow piste ski in and off piste situation especially if you're close to 17stone like me.
Last edited by After all it is free on Tue 3-04-07 11:07; 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.
|
| kiwi1 wrote: |
| OK I know that a lot of people will say the better tecnique brings better enjoyment of the sport but who cares as long as you're in control and loving what you do. |
That's a tricky balance to get right in my experience. I avoided developing better technique for too many years, until I reached the point where my level of fun was lower than my level of frustration about the limited terrain/conditions I could cope with. Perhaps if I had paid a bit more attention to developing my technique at an earlier stage I wouldn't have spent so long sitting on the intermediate plateau being frustrated about why I couldn't ski the stuff I wanted to ski. In those early years I didn't look to the future to think about what kind of terrain and conditions I eventually wanted to ski, and therefore didn't consider what actions I needed to take in order to achieve that. While I had a lot of fun with my skiing, I look back and consider it to be 'wasted' time to a certain extent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
