 Poster: A snowHead
|
The title of this thread has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The vast majority of skiers spend the vast majority of time on-piste, so anything wider than 80 underfoot is not only wasted, but is positively detrimental to performance, technique and, ultimately, enjoyment. There is a place for the hairy-chested brigade (a lot of whom have joined this thread, with crushing inevitability), but even the top 20% of recreational skiers, if they were completely honest, spend at best 20% of their skiing time in conditions that would merit something more than 80cm underfoot, and wearing skis an wider is just an exercise in vanity.
The people benefitting most from the trend in fat skis are the ski manufacturers, let's face it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I think most of you lot smacked your heads when you last fell over yourselves to say what spankingly fat skis you ski and lost the ability to read 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Dr John wrote: |
| The vast majority of skiers spend the vast majority of time on-piste. |
Agreed, but the vast majority of skiers are not skiing on fat skis. Taking today as an example, a pretty good powder day, I'd estimate that <5% of the skis I saw were over about 95mm
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Fat skis are a statement yes, for all to see that you have yet to learn to ski powder, and can only manage with the help of a wide ski, a bit like trainer wheels on a bike.
Off to get my hat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I swapped from a soft 76mm ski to a 98mm and the wider skis seem to turn even quicker on the piste... although I did take the edge anges up a touch and keep them pretty sharp. I'm nowhere near a good skier but still in my average week I spend 50% of my time off piste and have found that the fatter ski really helps me to enjoy terrain that otherwise I would be struggling on. I do take lessons, do lots of guided days and practice plenty of drills so eventually my technique will improve. I have skied on race skis but to be honest my interest takes me away from the groomed stuff so to me the width is perfect for an all round ski. I've also demo'd and loved the Black Crow Navis (104mm)and found them pretty good on piste, even in the moguls.
As an aside... high 90's are a pretty good match for mens boot sizes... not much extra leverage on the knees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patch, 95mm is incredibly wide. To even consider that >5% of skiers would be using (correctly) skis that wide is a testament to the marketing skills of the ski companies and the delusions of otherwise intelligent people who seem to thing that buying skis marketed for "experts" automatically qualifies them as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For people who spend less than 70% of time off piste they are making up for having an extremly small pee pee. If not maybe a clever equipment choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
95mm is incredibly wide
|
No it's not, that's considered 'mid-fat' these days.
| Quote: |
I can turn any ski very quickly - it's called rotation! A 98mm ski just isn't going to perform a carved or even a steered turn on piste quicker than a 76mm ski (all other things being equal and assuming representative examples of each). It'll perform on piste like a 76mm ski does in deep snow. Edge angles would make zero difference, I'm afraid
|
I'm not entirely convinced. As long as the ski is stiff enough (inc torsionally), if you rail it properly it'll still carve a turn just like any other ski, just usually with a bigger turn radius that many people can not handle - often something between gs and super g type radi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
No it's not, that's considered 'mid-fat' these days.
|
sorry mate, but you're proving my point about the power of marketing. Whoever heard of the phrase "mid-fat" five years ago?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Whoever heard of sidecut 20 years ago?
And frankly with ski widths ranging from 66mm slalom skis to 140mm plus pure pow barges, 95mm is midfat, albeit on the larger side of it.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Sat 20-02-10 22:41; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 like to keep ski waist proportional to my waist - buying ever fatter skis is far easier than going to the gym.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| Quote: |
95mm is incredibly wide
|
No it's not, that's considered 'mid-fat' these days.
| Quote: |
I can turn any ski very quickly - it's called rotation! A 98mm ski just isn't going to perform a carved or even a steered turn on piste quicker than a 76mm ski (all other things being equal and assuming representative examples of each). It'll perform on piste like a 76mm ski does in deep snow. Edge angles would make zero difference, I'm afraid
|
I'm not entirely convinced. As long as the ski is stiff enough (inc torsionally), if you rail it properly it'll still carve a turn just like any other ski, just usually with a bigger turn radius that many people can not handle - often something between gs and super g type radi. |
My 98s have a turn radius of 19m. Not brill for powder but pretty good for any terrain. Again... a bit of an all rounder. I still mess up and skid turns but they are not bad for any purpose and are great fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
In an ideal world I'd only have something about 110. In an ideal world it'd snow more, for a start.
I think that 33mm race skis and spider jackets are a fashion statement (albeit a very poor one) so yes, I'd agree most skis are some sort of fashion statement. It's just that my taste is better than yours
Frank Zappa goes viking in a fartbag? That's awesome :thumb:
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Sat 20-02-10 23:22; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
clarky999, sidecut was a revolutionary technical innovation, mid-fat is anything but.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
But it was still controversial when first introduced. Do you not think increased width and rocker could do for freeride skis what sidecut did for piste/race 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?
|
So much passion over something so unimportant... It's only a few cm guys, don't you know that size doesn't matter?
I don't think fat skis are so much a fashion statement as a development. But.....
On the one hand; a development from the R&D department or the marketing department...?
On the other hand; I suspect there are plenty of cash-rich fashion victims out there who opt for fat because they believe fat is a fashion statement. Although I'm in no position to pass final judgement, I can't imagine that on a groomer a fat ski, designed for powder, is going to out-perform a "regular" ski designed for on-piste, when on the foot of a typical intermediate skier.
I very much doubt that a good skier needs a fat ski for powder. In fact, no, I know that a good skier doesn't need a fat ski for powder. If you find a fat ski necessary for ski enjoyment, maybe it's time for more lessons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
I very much doubt that a good skier needs a fat ski for powder. In fact, no, I know that a good skier doesn't need a fat ski for powder. If you find a fat ski necessary for ski enjoyment, maybe it's time for more lessons.
|
Totally, but fatter skis without a doubt do make things easier - which allows you to push yourself harder and go bigger?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
andyph, Ahhhh... it sounded better than 'grin like a keyboard obsessed sad snowHead deprived of the fluffy white stuff'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Me not mad at all... and my invisible floorboard shoebox will back me up on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
clarky999, and make bigger mistakes and have bigger accidents, cf a piste skier going out of control at a higher speed on a carver than an old-skool 205cm straight?
I'm just playing devil's advocate, but this is
|
No worries lol.
Maybe, yeah - it certainly opens up that possibility, but if we want to think like that we should all revert to blades. It would be better if people looked after themselves than hold back on new 'technologies' though surely?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| slikedges wrote: |
| Scarpa wrote: |
| I swapped from a soft 76mm ski to a 98mm and the wider skis seem to turn even quicker on the piste... |
I can turn any ski very quickly - it's called rotation! A 98mm ski just isn't going to perform a carved or even a steered turn on piste quicker than a 76mm ski (all other things being equal and assuming representative examples of each). It'll perform on piste like a 76mm ski does in deep snow. Edge angles would make zero difference, I'm afraid
|
I'm not entirely convinced. As long as the ski is stiff enough (inc torsionally), if you rail it properly it'll still carve a turn just like any other ski, just usually with a bigger turn radius that many people can not handle - often something between gs and super g type radi. |
Eh? What aren't you convinced by?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I just mean that with some of the stiffer, chargier fat skis if you're willing to accept a bigger turn radius then they can still carve well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
clarky999, Totally with you on that statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
110s are too fat (have ones) for onpiste and icy offpiste skiing& moguls.
110s and more... they aree true deep powder skis. i use them in europe maybe 6-5 days per season on fresh pow.
offpiste skiing is not only deep powder skiing.
80-85 cms is enough for all the stuff but the slalom or GS, etc races.
i can ski pow on 67 cms carvers. only hard thing, they need more work and fitness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I'm not convinced that anyone that can be bothered to argue against "mid-fat" skis actually gets more than a week on snow a year... it's like me slagging off expensive golf clubs with big sweet spots just 'cos I'm crap at golf...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Even if you are spending 70% on hard terrain and only 30% in powder but its the 30% in powder that you live for, surely a 90+mm ski makes sense.
And to all those who say that fat skis are only for those who can't ski powder on skinny ones, Shane McConkey (RIP) was skiing a 130mm underfoot pin tailed ski, supposedly one of the easiest skis in the world to turn in powder and you're not going to challenge his ski ability are you? The fatter it is the easier it is to advance and whats the point of unnecesarily holding yourself back. There's room for evetybody on here to improve
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
rambotion, and that's making the assumption that a thinner ski is easier on "hard terrain" - unconsolidated/ungroomed snow is much easier to perform on with a more stable base so 90mm-ish is a good waist there...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| DaveC wrote: |
| I'm not convinced that anyone that can be bothered to argue against "mid-fat" skis actually gets more than a week on snow a year... it's like me slagging off expensive golf clubs with big sweet spots just 'cos I'm crap at golf... |
Ding. Ding.
If you are posting in this thread and ski less than 60 days per year, shut it.
I once hit a 70 (gross) on the Wentworth East. Suck it. (Yes, all 18 holes too!  )
Dr John, I'm not going to look it up but around 5 years ago I had a very good argument with a  re Fat Skis, at the time my everyday ski was 94mm, I was called all kinds of names, last year the same was using a 94mm ski as his everyday ski. The following year I had a pair of Prophet 130s, and anyone who has skied them can tell you they are a blast all over the mountain - 18m side cut and inverse sidecut on the tip, it was, as the Austrians call it, a "fun carver". The Prophet 130 at the time was the fattest production ski and now there are a few skis fatter than that but not many. As it goes I sold the Prophets, but I am in the market for something 120-130mm underfoot again for Canadian trees...
Hold on your hair piece granddad, the mid-fats, and fats are here to stay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
parlor, something Spat-esque - I really like the hybrid shapes (WDF redeemer?, Praxis Protest, Moment Night Train, DPS138 if you're rich) - would be the boys for trees here. Where in .ca are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| parlor wrote: |
| .....If you are posting in this thread and ski less than 60 days per year, shut it........ |
Hmm. I suspect the vast majority of sHs are recreational skiers who cannot get 60 days away form work and home to go skiing - but they are entitled to have opinions.
FWIW, I don't think fat skis are a fashion statement. My Missions are 89 at the waste, but I have seen far fatter skis than mine performing very well on piste - and, of course, brilliantly off. The torsional stiffness of modern skis can be quite incredible.
Me, well I find the Missions tolerant of my ancient legs, and of missing the sweet spot on turns when a lowly 20 days or so a year skiing shows up the ineptness of my skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| I just mean that with some of the stiffer, chargier fat skis if you're willing to accept a bigger turn radius then they can still carve well. |
Well of course they do! You can carve pretty much anything but what has that to do with the price of fish  'Twasn't Scarpa's contention...
| DaveC wrote: |
| I'm not convinced that anyone that can be bothered to argue against "mid-fat" skis actually gets more than a week on snow a year... it's like me slagging off expensive golf clubs with big sweet spots just 'cos I'm crap at golf... |
No, not like that, completely different - expensive golf clubs with big sweet spots won't hold you back for most of the golfing you're doing at your level.
| parlor wrote: |
Ding. Ding.
If you are posting in this thread and ski less than 60 days per year, shut it.
|
So the only sH's opinion you'd like to hear is your own I'm not a ski bum flitting between resorts with my quiver picking out strictly bluebird powder days only. Like "most of the time, for most skiers" I go at the times I've set aside to a fixed place decided on months ago and ski what there is in the conditions there are, 'cos I have a career and both personal and professional responsibilities to attend to! 
| rambotion wrote: |
Even if you are spending 70% on hard terrain and only 30% in powder but its the 30% in powder that you live for, surely a 90+mm ski makes sense.
...The fatter it is the easier it is to advance [in powder] and whats the point of unnecesarily holding yourself back. ... |
Yep, would agree, very reasonable and sensible, though not a lot of powder in Europe "most of the time, for most skiers" on their 1 or 2 weeks a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
