 Poster: A snowHead
|
Red rag to a bull for some of you but made you look 
What is a mid-fat? 80mm? 90mm? 120mm?
And anyway, what is a mid-fat? A slightly fat ski? A fattish piste ski? A narrow off piste ski? A fat ski of average(="mid") but not particularly wide width?
If mid-fat means slightly fat and is 100mm these days, what's an 80mm ski? A piste ski? An "all-mountain" ski?
Under what width do you consider a ski piste only?
What do you consider as mid-fat?
What do you consider fat but not obese/mega-fat?
Educate the luddites!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Depends on whether you're wearing a helmet and/or goggles. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
andyph, I probably ought to be wearing both right now, plus a back protector! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Depends who you are, where you are, what you do.
If the spectrum of skiable ski widths now is say 65mm - 130mm then 97-99 is midfat. If we're allowed to include cross country skis then your hypothesis may be correct
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
depends what you mean by "easily accessible" - the right 97-99mm ski will make powder, slush and crud a lot more easy for your average holiday skier once they have taken a bit of time to get used to them. they might struggle to do perfect carves on corduroy but that's not the be all and end all
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, Good answer but if the fat get fatter next year then mid fat will get fatter too
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
fatbob, 146cm - they're not skis, that's a single bed chopped in half!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think 120mm is the upper bound of conventional sidecut fatness. I wouldn't really want to go any fatter than a Sally Rocker/Hellbent/DPS120 if I planned to put it on edge a lot. I've always thought of 80-90mm as mid-fat/all mountain waist. The 100-110's are a bit more soft snow specific, and 120+'s are soft snow skis - that includes stuff like Spats/DPS138. I think "soft snow" is much more accurate than pow, since I'm happiest on my 115mms in soft or variable snow - doesn't have to be pow. I think it works both ways quite well too - <60mm skis are pretty ridiculously hard snow specific, 60-70 likely have a heavy race type bias, 70-80 are usually pretty all-round with a preference for harder snow and groomers.
Saying that, waist size gets way too much attention compared to other important contributing attributes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I take mid-fat to be just another name for 'All Mountain', so could be anything from high 70s to 90+
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| I've always thought of 80-90mm as mid-fat/all mountain waist. The 100-110's are a bit more soft snow specific, and 120+'s are soft snow skis ... I think it works both ways quite well too - <60mm skis are pretty ridiculously hard snow specific, 60-70 likely have a heavy race type bias, 70-80 are usually pretty all-round with a preference for harder snow and groomers. |
Sounds about right to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
70-80 are usually pretty all-round with a preference for harder snow and groomers.
|
Phew, that's a relief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Arno wrote: |
| depends what you mean by "easily accessible" - the right 97-99mm ski will make powder, slush and crud a lot more easy for your average holiday skier once they have taken a bit of time to get used to them. they might struggle to do perfect carves on corduroy but that's not the be all and end all |
That's just it. By easily accessible what I'm really driving at is I don't think the average holiday skier will ever get used to them - at least not until they could no longer be considered an average holiday skier! I don't therefore think that for the kind of snow the average holiday skier is mainly skiing (different consistencies and depths but nonetheless still on piste) they would never be best advised to ski such a ski as their main everyday ski (though I realise that's not necessarily relevant to the vernacular).
| DaveC wrote: |
Personally, I think 120mm is the upper bound of conventional sidecut fatness. I wouldn't really want to go any fatter than a Sally Rocker/Hellbent/DPS120 if I planned to put it on edge a lot. I've always thought of 80-90mm as mid-fat/all mountain waist. The 100-110's are a bit more soft snow specific, and 120+'s are soft snow skis - that includes stuff like Spats/DPS138. I think "soft snow" is much more accurate than pow, since I'm happiest on my 115mms in soft or variable snow - doesn't have to be pow. I think it works both ways quite well too - <60mm skis are pretty ridiculously hard snow specific, 60-70 likely have a heavy race type bias, 70-80 are usually pretty all-round with a preference for harder snow and groomers.
Saying that, waist size gets way too much attention compared to other important contributing attributes. |
DaveC, well put, sounds more or less right to me too, though I didn't realise that there were <60mm alpine skis 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| though I didn't realise that there were <60mm alpine skis :~/ |
down to 35mm in truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
comprex, 35mm, for who/what?! D'you happen to have a link? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
slikedges, looks like the question is "what should a holiday skier who can't and doesn't want to handle slush, crud and powder be on?" in which case something 80mm or below would probably do the trick
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
This mythical "average holiday skier" probably doesn't know what width he/she skis on as he/she just takes what the hire shop give him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
fatbob, irrelevant anyway. If the economy recovers soon we're 10-15 years away from programmed automatic management of ski waist, flex, sidecut, where *every* ski can reconfigure from 50-120mm waist as needed or set by instructor or corrupted by Turkish hackers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
looks like the question is "what should a holiday skier who can't and doesn't want to handle slush, crud and powder be on?"
|
A different holiday???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arno,
| Quote: |
the right 97-99mm ski will make powder, slush and crud a lot more easy for your average holiday skier once they have taken a bit of time to get used to them. they might struggle to do perfect carves on corduroy but that's not the be all and end all
|
This is true, IMV.
You can gun those slopes with more stability...but you will have to try harder to be able to ski on-piste to the level you used to ski at with thinner skis.
I took my skis down a fast red run ...which I had really liked before...and was taken aback how much work I had to put in the get them to ski fast and correct from my POV...
So where these skis are stable and faster in deep snow...they aren't so table and on edge on hard snow....
so, you advance in one type of skiing..and take a step back in another... but which is easier to control... ???
I can find people passing me on Tornado's for example..when they wouldn't get near me on a Tiger or Stockli ....
You decide...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Arno wrote: |
| slikedges, looks like the question is "what should a holiday skier who can't and doesn't want to handle slush, crud and powder be on?" in which case something 80mm or below would probably do the trick |
Why would such a skier even need an 80 mm wide ski? They might as well get an easy to drive 70 mm piste ski and at least give themselves half a chance to make carved turns on the groomed stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
uktrailmonster, the hint is in the quote (ie "80mm or below) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arno, I'm just questioning why such a stereotypical holiday skier would even go as wide as 80 mm if they're going to stay in the bar when there's slush, crud or powder around. But I think in reality most skiers go out in whatever conditions happen to be around during their holiday, so then a more versatile mid-fat makes more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| JT wrote: |
Arno,
| Quote: |
the right 97-99mm ski will make powder, slush and crud a lot more easy for your average holiday skier once they have taken a bit of time to get used to them. they might struggle to do perfect carves on corduroy but that's not the be all and end all
|
This is true, IMV.
You can gun those slopes with more stability...but you will have to try harder to be able to ski on-piste to the level you used to ski at with thinner skis.
I took my skis down a fast red run ...which I had really liked before...and was taken aback how much work I had to put in the get them to ski fast and correct from my POV...
So where these skis are stable and faster in deep snow...they aren't so table and on edge on hard snow....
so, you advance in one type of skiing..and take a step back in another... but which is easier to control... ???
I can find people passing me on Tornado's for example..when they wouldn't get near me on a Tiger or Stockli ....
You decide... |
Are you saying people pass you when you're skiing Tornados but wouldn't on carvers? If I'm reading it right, I'd argue that's a stiffness not waist thing. I ski my Prophet 90s way faster than my RX9s (RX9s not really being very stiff, P90s being the stiffest twin I could find).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Wot a load of tosh, any thing 78-85 is fine for a 50-50ski. I have bought some head monster im78 in 177 and am 6ft 14 stone. These have plenty of lift in knee deep pouder for me and are good on piste also. I really don't see the need to go fatter unless you are after a all out pouder ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DaveC, No, I am saying I can't hammer a red with my Gladiators like I could with a Spark...for example...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
pouder? Is that a type of fish?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
| pouder? Is that a type of fish? |
Hahaaaa your right, bloody iphone predictive txt, that will teach me not to read it before i hit submit POWDER is what i wanted to type. Also teach me not to browse the web and submit posts on the iphone whilst on my way to work OOPS 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
depthjunkie, 
I agree, anyone who needs a ski fatter than 85 mm to venture off-piste should be thinking more about lessons than ski widths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Boooommmm !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
depthjunkie,
I agree, anyone who needs a ski fatter than 85 mm to venture off-piste should be thinking more about lessons than ski widths. |
I have 2 pairs of skis. My skiiny touring skis are about 95 underfoot. The skis i choose to ski most of the time are about 110 underfoot. I choose to ski these skis cause they are more fun off piste. If i wanted to i could happily ski something that's 65 underfoot off piste in softsnow in an old school frenchy style. Though the point is i choose to ski a fat ski cause they're more fun off piste not because i need lessons to ski something skinnier off piste. I also guarantee you that i ski my fat skis on piste faster than 99.5% of piste skiers.
I think a lot of the argument about using skinnier skis cause they serve most people is quite disenguous & stinks of an old world attitude that was just as prevelant 10-15 years ago when shaped/carving skis came into being about people learning to carve. Most advanced intermediate to expert piste skiers that are looking to progress to skiing off piste would be much better served using a wider ski 90+ underfoot to learn their trade off piste & putting up with the slight additional difficulty this adds to their piste skiing. As opposed to continually using narrower skis that suit their piste skiing but hinder their progress learning off piste skiing. my €0.02
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| frank4short wrote: |
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
depthjunkie,
I agree, anyone who needs a ski fatter than 85 mm to venture off-piste should be thinking more about lessons than ski widths. |
I have 2 pairs of skis. My skiiny touring skis are about 95 underfoot. The skis i choose to ski most of the time are about 110 underfoot. I choose to ski these skis cause they are more fun off piste. If i wanted to i could happily ski something that's 65 underfoot off piste in softsnow in an old school frenchy style. Though the point is i choose to ski a fat ski cause they're more fun off piste not because i need lessons to ski something skinnier off piste. I also guarantee you that i ski my fat skis on piste faster than 99.5% of piste skiers.
I think a lot of the argument about using skinnier skis cause they serve most people is quite disenguous & stinks of an old world attitude that was just as prevelant 10-15 years ago when shaped/carving skis came into being about people learning to carve. Most advanced intermediate to expert piste skiers that are looking to progress to skiing off piste would be much better served using a wider ski 90+ underfoot to learn their trade off piste & putting up with the slight additional difficulty this adds to their piste skiing. As opposed to continually using narrower skis that suit their piste skiing but hinder their progress learning off piste skiing. my €0.02 |
That wasn't really my point, but I agree with most of what you're saying. I've also got 2 pairs of skis, one pair 83 mm and one pair 100 mm wide. I'll use the wider ones on a powder day, but I'll more than happily ski the "narrow" ones (I actually don't think 83 mm is particularly narrow) in any off piste conditions. I'll also ski the fatter skis on piste, but they're really not the best thing. My 83 mm skis are pretty good on piste and a lot faster than my 100s, but there are more fun narrow piste skis out there.
IMHO, the best thing intermediates can do to progress their skiing (on and off piste) is to learn to ski properly on piste. That would be better achieved on a relatively narrow piste oriented ski. They can always hire a fatter ski when learning to go off piste. There's nothing old world about a modern piste ski, so I don't really buy your analogy with shaped skis, which were undoubtedly better than straight skis in almost every respect. The first time I tried a shaped ski in the mid 90s, I never skied a straight ski ever again. Fat skis are different. I think they're a lot of fun, but there is a compromise.
I can ski faster than most people on piste on my fat skis too, but my narrower ones are much faster in the turns and more fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
