 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
kitenski, You'll be fine on missions, our studdies have concluded, on average, that 111mm is the limit. Albeit we've dropped a few super fats in the range for the locals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Megamum, I'll quite happily ski around on the piste all day with my 140mm it's a mind thing, plus my knees aren't going to last much longer anyhow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Martin Bell wrote: |
Fatter skis make it easier to float in deep snow.
Narrower skis make it easier to grip on hard snow.
|
Yeah but much over 80mm is a waste of time for 95% of the powder conditions we get in Europe. I remember having this debate with an American instructor this winter - his opinion was similar... in the US you encounter conditions where you simply can't ski without bottoming out and you really need the float. This year I skied one day in Europe in such conditions (in March). The last time I remember snow as light was in 1999.
Most of the time I ski 67mm underfoot but sometimes ski 80mm. I think this is a good width for anyone learning powder.
That said the varialbe snow conditions, esp. crust, that we get in France do benefit from a wider ski.
YMMV
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I do believe width helps enjoyment in slush, breakable crust and other conditions as well as deep powder....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I skied Kiwi1's range of Icelantics in VT and loved the Shamans on everything I took them on. There was no deep powder we could get to that day due to lousy visibility, but in the off (as in next to) piste they blasted through crud and were a joy, on the piste they were no worse with over 100mm underfoot than my scream xtra hots are with 80mm'ish. Had I had them on the weds when the vis cleared after 2 days of snow then I am sure the days off (as in well off) piste guiding would have been even better. Next year when they are out I shall be having a pair and thats that.
Todays fat skis are generally great (though I hated a pair of Rossi Scratch Back Country I tried), but I would choose to own a pair of skinnier skis too. maybe in Europe we don't have to have so much float to avoid bottoming out, but whats the harm in having it? I would have liked something a bit wider underfoot in St Anton in March when it was coming down in buckets, for the off piste and also to bash the crud and slush into resort as it was very warm.
there you go thats my take and seeing as it involves a Yorkshireman spending money you can tell I'm serious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Agree with kitenski Fat skis not only excel in powder - frozen crud, slush, chopped up powder etc are all conditions where the stability and power of a fat ski can be major benefits...
Anyone that claims fat skis are a waste of time obviously has never had a chance to compare 80 and 1000mm skis in spring snow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skibomb, OMG where can i try those 1000mm 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone change the thread title to 'Waist'? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
A Super Fat ski needs a sidecut of 35m(approx) to equal all the forces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, What would you define as super fat then? >120 mm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skibomb, In there.  It changes Bi Annually
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| But if you take em on piste they turn like battleships, taking ages to get from edge to edge and struggle to make short radius turns. |
Seems like someone forgot to tell my 95mm, 25m radius skis that. OK, they're rubbish if the piste is rock hard, when the only thing worth skiing is a FIS SL/GS ski, but with a few mm of softish snow on the surface they're fine. You just need to ski them rather than be a passenger.
I think Arno's fix was almost right, but still needed a slight revision.
| Quote: |
| Unless you ski em fast and hard, I reckon most pistes are a waste of time for most decent skiers. |
Unless of course there's no snow on the mountain. And even then the pistes are too full of grockles to get any decent skiing in anyway.
And to be serious for a moment, European powder's no great problem with e.g. a 78mm ski (and davidof must've been unlucky, I've had about half a dozen 'bottomless powder' days in Europe in the last 5 or so years), but a ski mid-90s wide makes breakable crust a joy to ski. That's a trump card in my book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I've played in the local powder all winter, i know which i prefer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I have jumped from 84 to 94 this season and it was a big jump, but apart from scratching they are just great for the big lines. My 63 SC skis are only good for hard pistes of whitch there were few this year.
SZK knees v liver the race is on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
jbob, My point, Cham' ain't europe. Well it is, but here, speed is your 'Mistress'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
That said, nothing beats a great GS ski on the piste in Jan/March.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
The thinner the ski the faster you need to go, but going fast on a fat ski ....bliss... or is it blister.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
GrahamN, 4 full seasons bottomless powder- 3 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Oh dear SMALLZOOKEEPER,
"kitenski, You'll be fine on missions, our studdies have concluded, on average, that 111mm is the limit. Albeit we've dropped a few super fats in the range for the locals. "
My Factions are 112mm.
Best get aggressive with the edge file to make them safe!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN, says:
I think Arno's fix was almost right, but still needed a slight revision.
Quote:
Unless you ski em fast and hard, I reckon most pistes are a waste of time for most decent skiers.
Or as my daughter said after 3 days of Pow-Pow-Pow
"Pistes are really just for people who can't ski"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
actually, i have decided that fat skis are a tremendous waste of my time. i hate to think how much time i have wasted:
- looking for deals on ebay
- writing in threads like this
- agonising over gaps in my quiver
etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Nah, I'm now convinced fat skis are great. They cope well with anything that isn't rock hard and help us punters ski in the offpiste (be that powdery, chopped or slush) by making up for lack of technique with greater float and stability.
They even cope with bumps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Arno wrote: |
actually, i have decided that fat skis are a tremendous waste of my time. i hate to think how much time i have wasted:
- looking for deals on ebay
- writing in threads like this
- agonising over gaps in my quiver
etc
|
So what is your new fat reverse/reverse in the quiver if you're selling the dps?
(Still trying to justify snaffling them myself - do you think dukes would remount in the existing holes?
Unless they've gone)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
NO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Bigger faster lines need a more stable ski.....you'll be better off on 90mm plus. If you want to wiggle S's then you can come down a bit.
If you want a decent day on-piste with a few little excursions, then 80mm plus. Hooning around on hardpack, get out a race orientated ski.
You likely have to make a few changes to how you want to ride them...but is more a mind-thing than technical... ie, don't try and throw around a big ski...you'll just tire yourself out when you don't have to.
If you have notched up 300 weeks, then it doesn't matter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| fatbob wrote: |
So what is your new fat reverse/reverse in the quiver if you're selling the dps?
(Still trying to justify snaffling them myself - do you think dukes would remount in the existing holes?
Unless they've gone) |
not sure - I'm quite keen on my XXLs having finally manned up and tried them. i was a bit intimidated by the 194 length, but actually I like it. so maybe i'll stick with them as my ski for big days. there is a part of me that wants to try the 200cm Lotus 120s though...
you're very welcome to take a look at the dps or even take them to a tech for his views on a remount. that said, the price does take into account the fact that they might be a pain to mount
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
What TelemarkKing said 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Karmas are 87 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I went from 75mm underfoot, 168cm length skis to Liberty Hazmat's that are 94mm underfoot and 186cm long. Dead easy to ski. Amazing on bumps, crud, slush but did not get to try them in powder. Just bought some in 181cm length.
So the answer is NO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 last, pennies are dropping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Has anyone tried the old monoskis with just one binding per ski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I tried a monoski at the EOSB. Very disconcerting. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Kramer wrote: |
| ... disconcerting. |
I think the word you're looking for is entertaining 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kramer, I used to sometimes when I was young. Cool but difficult. Now, the idea I had was to get two identical monoskis and make them a pair for the ultimate fat ski powder experience!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, for bysitters (boarders) and skiers alike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't need fat skis to ride offpiste.
Thin skis are perfectly fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
