 Poster: A snowHead
|
Full FAT skis the long and short of it!
Following on from other threads on Fat Skis, then I thought it maybe good to get a discussion going, I am sure there will be varied opinions from everyone with regard to what really is a FAT ski these days, and this might help lots of people looking at moving to a wider ski setup.
Are Fat skis here to stay?
Probably, yes, a few years ago it was pretty easy to summarise Fat skis essentially they were just wider versions of a carving ski setup.
Then we got more rise to the front and back of the ski, we got rocker, then reverse camber, then a nice bit of marketing started to talk about multiple contact points.
In amongst all this, the length of the ski as some people understand it has been changed dramatically, we now have skis that are pretty long again, but can ski really short only showing or using their full length in the appropriate conditions or when used in a specific way.
When you look at the recent Backcountry magazine Editors awards
http://www.backcountrymagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=638&Itemid=174
In the All Mountain section then the thinnest underfoot ski was 95mm
In the Freeride section then the thinnest was 108 mm
Some questions to kick it off!
So when is a Fat Ski a Fat ski?
Can we take any notice these days of the ski length many of us are used too?
What is this underfoot measurement all about anyhow?
How FAT can we get?
A one quiver ski, how Fat can they be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Fat skis are a cutch for poor technique - far better you use your race slalom skis everywhere like proper skiers 
Timely topic for a thread as I think there is confusion between labelled length and actual effective edge/length.
Does anyone know the answer to the one ski quiver question? It's highly dependent on what you do and average conditions where you ski.
I suspect there is also a lot of general ignorance at (some) retailers' level. One really needs to have spent some time skiing the new fatter skis in conditions they were designed for to understand how and why they work. I'm not sure a standard industry test/demo always provides this. Then there is the average UK punter and his/her profile of a "little bit" of off-piste. Certainly this year the big companies seem to be throwing rocker at lots of skis and while I can grasp the benefits in piste skis I think there's a further risk that there is a perception that all rocker is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Great post livetoski.
I would love to know more about these NEW fat skis as I am planning on getting into backcountry this winter!
Do you think these new FAT skis are here to stay ?
Its good to have some knowledgeable experts around here 
Do you think the Salmon Lord is the best all round all mountain ski with rocker ?
When I bought them my wife laughed and said they were so big.
I thought it would be like skiing on 2 snowboards, but they carve on piste just like my old Rossignol B2s.
I am strong (purple standard SCGB) skier and like to ski powder.
Though only between the pistes - not real off piste yet!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| livetoski wrote: |
| So when is a Fat Ski a Fat ski? |
I suppose these are just labels, but for me I'd say:
60-80 is a piste-focused ski
80-100 is mid-fat and more of an all-mountain ski
100+ is fat and a deep/crusty/choppy-snow specialist ski
| livetoski wrote: |
| Can we take any notice these days of the ski length many of us are used too? |
Pointless saying I'm going to buy a 170cm fat ski because I normally ski on 165cm if you normally ski on slalom skis. Advice I usually give if people ask me about ski length is to look at the sizes available from the manufacturer for that ski and choose one based on your height/weight and how you ski. So if you are average height/weight choose the ski in the middle of the range, a bit shorter/lighter then drop down a size, a bit taller/heavier go up a size. If you are an aggressive skier maybe go up a size, ski cautiously, drop down a size.
| Quote: |
| What is this underfoot measurement all about anyhow? |
That's the sweet spot on the ski where you (should) stand, so it makes sense to pay a bit more attention to this figure as well as it being a common and easy point of reference between different skis and manufacturers. But with ever complex ski geometry the underfoot measurement becomes less significant IMO.
| Quote: |
| How FAT can we get? A one quiver ski, how Fat can they be? |
Best advice I think is to be honest with yourself about what you actually ski in a typical ski trip, rather than perhaps what you might aspire to one day. If you spend most of your time on piste buy a ski that is not going to reduce the fun factor on piste. If you spend most of your time off-piste then something fatter will make it easier and maybe more fun. A one-ski quiver is always going to be a compromise, especially if you ski on and off-piste, so being honest with yourself about what skiing you do is going to make it easier to reach the best compromise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
fatbob,
| Quote: |
Does anyone know the answer to the one ski quiver question? It's highly dependent on what you do and average conditions where you ski.
|
yep I tend to agree, the one quiver ski will vary from person to person and also country to country
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
yag_si_HS,
| Quote: |
Do you think the Salmon Lord is the best all round all mountain ski with rocker ?
|
I am no expert on Salomon skis, I was under the impression tho that the Lord was more of a twin tip than a rocker ski, its funny the bigger the ski company the less info they publish about there ski setup and profile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finally after 6 years or so, pennies are dropping. 
But then, I would never say, I TOLD YOU SO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, cheers Rob, the sweet spot or under foot measurement though can be a little deceptive sometimes as the min measurement may only be on a very short part of the ski with the under toe and under heel size being quite a bit more than this min 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| livetoski wrote: |
| rob@rar, cheers Rob, the sweet spot or under foot measurement though can be a little deceptive sometimes as the min measurement may only be on a very short part of the ski with the under toe and under heel size being quite a bit more than this min |
Yes agreed, which is why it gets trickier with some skis which have more complex geometry. But as a quick 'n dirty comparison the underfoot width is the best measurement when you begin to look at skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
100+ is fat and a deep/crusty/choppy-snow specialist ski
|
so are you saying that anything over 100 is not all mountain and will not work on piste as a one quiver ski
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
But with ever complex ski geometry the underfoot measurement becomes less significant IMO.
|
Do you mean mounting point or width?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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,
| Quote: |
Do you mean mounting point or width?
|
as you know it can vary, especially as some skiers like to tweek their mounting point 
what about someone who has really long feet? for their height and weight I guess that can make a differnce to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote: |
| Do you mean mounting point or width? |
Width, as it is an unambiguous measurement. But it's only one part of the equation, so the closer you look at ski choices the more you will look at the overall geometry. I'm curious as to why ski radius is rarely mentioned with the same level of interest as width(s) at various points on the ski. When I'm thinking about ski choice turn radius is a very significant factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
It won't work as well on piste as a pair of piste performance skis
|
so playing devils advocate, if a 100 underfoot ski had the same sidecut profile as a piste ski, but just bigger all over, then, the difference will be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
livetoski, edge to edge speed, and to be honest, modern open stance pretty much negates this, so nowt!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Forget the width, sidecut, rocker, camber, profile, mounting, whatever. Get with the top sheet graphics, and check how they look when paired with some AT boots on piste - this is how the majority of punters (well, Brits at least) will be selecting their purchases from the S+R/EB catalogues this year.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
rob@rar, I'd hoped so, as mounting point is even more critical now we have these 134/148/121/100/108/128/138/124 side cut skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Width is still a pretty good measurement of how easy a ski will be to tip over on edge and how much "float" you would have directly underfoot. Radius isn't that hard to deal with - it's fairly obvious a 140-100-130 ski will be "turnier" than a 140-120-130 ski all other things being equal. & of course all skis of similar dimensions aren't equal e.g. I believe Atomic now have a "charger" ski very similar in size to the "fun" BentChetler.
There is no doubt that wider skis take some getting used to on hardpack but it doesn't mean they can't carve. It's the tipping to get them on edge that seems to require more effort. I haven't thought enough about it to know whether actually it would be good training aid for instructors to get pupils on fatter skis so they can develop higher edge angles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER,
| Quote: |
edge to edge speed, and to be honest, modern open stance pretty much negates this, so nowt!!
|
agree but some fat skis are quicker than piste skis edge to edge.
| Quote: |
134/148/121/100/108/128/138/124
|
wow ski with wiggles
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
fatbob,
| Quote: |
Radius isn't that hard to deal with
|
I think it depends on the ski, the effective edge and the shape of the ski even more these days, you can have a 150 x 125 x 145 ski that will turn radius of about 11m on piste and 20m off piste
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| livetoski wrote: |
| so playing devils advocate, if a 100 underfoot ski had the same sidecut profile as a piste ski, but just bigger all over, then, the difference will be? |
I find the extra width makes it much more difficult to ski with any finesse; it's much more difficult to roll smoothly and progressively from edge to edge so I'm required to blend in much more rotation at the start of the turn and much more difficult to feel balanced on the ski's edge as I go around the turn. Compared to a decent piste ski any fat and mid-fat ski I've been on feels dull and unresponsive (although I accept I've not skied a wide range of fat skis), so significantly less fun factor.
With the teaching experience I've had there is a very clear relationship between ski width and how easy people are able to develop good edge control and clean transitions. Fatter ski = much more difficult to develop those skills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| livetoski wrote: |
| I think it depends on the ski, the effective edge and the shape of the ski even more these days, you can have a 150 x 125 x 145 ski that will turn radius of about 11m on piste and 20m off piste |
I spent a bit of time at Hemel on a pair of Armada JJs which I believe have a 12m turn radius. I usually ski at Hemel on a pair of slalom skis which have a 12.5m radius. So in theory the JJs have a tighter turn radius despite having, I think, 115mm underfoot. There is no way on this Earth that I could get the same performance out of the JJs than I can get out of my slalom skis if we are talking about on piste skiing. For the same level of input from me the JJs were dull, unresponsive and didn't feel especially stable. To make them ski nicely I had to put in much more effort than my slalom skis, for considerably less enjoyment. I said at the time to the owner of the JJs that I thought quoting a 12m radius was dishonest because in no way do they ski like a 12m radius piste ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
rob@rar,
| Quote: |
I thought quoting a 12m radius was dishonest because in no way do they ski like a 12m radius piste ski.
|
yep and I think this is were alot of the problems come from, the quoted radius of fatter skis does not really compare to anything.
Fat skis for off piste with a carve radius of lets say 12m makes me think what is going on
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, I'm not sure it's dishonest - you'd have to be mental to think a JJ would be just the same as a slalom ski. I'm guessing with more space to let them run on a softish groomer (and in particular on a corn groomer) you'd find JJs a fair bit easier to ski. I've only skied biggish skis a few times indoors and can't really avoid pivoting whereas in a bit of space don't find them that tricky to get on edge if I concentrate - speed is a factor though. Conversely I find I'm often overcooking the edging if I get on a slalom ski as my brute force and ignorance technique is punished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
They can both have the same sidcut but flex would determine the actual turn?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| livetoski wrote: |
Fat skis for off piste with a carve radius of lets say 12m makes me think what is going on |
Skis like the Shaman come with a quoted radius of about 17m IIRC. I interpret this as meaning they are pretty chuckable and rave reviews of performance in trees together with some complaints about big pitch straightlining would seem to bear this out. I'm not totally really wedded to the idea that for mere mortals fat skis need to have 35m+ sidecuts - that's fine if you are Jeremy Nobis or you spend your time gunning couloirs but even the best recreational skiers often fall some way short of this. I do agree that some skis can feel too "turny".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, maybe dishonest is a bit strong, but that was my reaction. Plenty of times people have quoted turn radius of fat skis when this issue is discussed here so I don't think it is mental to assume that at the very least there is some confusion about the issue.
I fully accept that a small indoor slope is not the best situation to test fat skis. It's not really the best situation to test any skis. All I was quoting was my experience of a "fair test" - easy to get my slalom skis to work, much more difficult to get the JJs to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
fatbob,
| Quote: |
I'm not totally really wedded to the idea that for mere mortals fat skis need to have 35m+ sidecuts
|
Yep I think too that the area of 35m + stiff, fat skis is quite an easy area to get our heads around. Good for AK and Cham but only a small percentage of skiers can handle this type of ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
tiffin,
| Quote: |
They can both have the same sidcut but flex would determine the actual turn?
|
they could do but also they could not, the rest of the skis shape and design also comes into play, i.e. rocker and camber
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
rob@rar I think we're in violent agreement. My core thesis remains that fat skis are more usable than some "old school" purists might suggest. Of course it's easy enough to throw rocks at this as they will never perform as well in the sort of environments that most people get to see them (populated groomers etc) as more dedicated piste skis. Oh and for "old school" read early to mid 2000s mindset, remember the pocket rocket was once viewed as unacceptably fat.
Maybe you need livetoski to bring a full quiver of fats to your IO fun slalom day then you can have a "slalom off" on various skis starting you & Scott on the fattest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| fatbob wrote: |
| rob@rar I think we're in violent agreement. My core thesis remains that fat skis are more usable than some "old school" purists might suggest. |
Yes, I think we're in agreement and it does seem sensible that ski designers have improved their art so that fat skis are more versatile.
| Quote: |
| Of course it's easy enough to throw rocks at this as they will never perform as well in the sort of environments that most people get to see them (populated groomers etc) as more dedicated piste skis. |
And that is my whole point - be honest about where you are going to ski and get the best compromise that fits what you do. I'm not anti-fat ski (I have a few pairs myself) but I am anti-fat skis if all you ski are the groomers.
| Quote: |
| Maybe you need livetoski to bring a full quiver of fats to your IO fun slalom day then you can have a "slalom off" on various skis starting you & Scott on the fattest? |
Livetoski is bringing a bunch of skis to try out 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
rob@rar, fatbob,
| Quote: |
Livetoski is bringing a bunch of skis to try out
|
yep a fat bunch and few others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Going back to yag_si_HS, the Lords were thought to be fat when they were launched, now maybe not, and the term rocker for the tips when compared to some other skis are just early rise tips.
Perhaps the ski makers should be giving us degrees of rocker and camber with more details of the ski profile, or would this just confuse us all more?????
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Thanks livetoski, your clear explanation of these new FAT skis is a real eye opener!
rob@rar - did you really find Armada JJs to be worse worse than a slalom ski on piste ? fascinating!
I really must read your other 24 889 posts one day
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about the DPS wailer.rob@rar, The Wailer 112RP is a true game changer. It is the most versatile ski ever built. It combines the loose and early planing feel of a fully rockered ski with aggressive sidecut and slight camber underfoot. It’s a one ski quiver for planing powder in the morning, laying trenches down to the lift on the groomers, and slaying crud in the afternoon. A 15m radius underfoot and great torsional stiffness allow for maximum versatility, while the rockered and tapered tips and tail allow the Wailer 112RP to get loose and be driven from the ball of the foot in deeper snow. I personally like JJ`s and S7`s find them both easy to ski on in pretty much all conditions JMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| meandrew wrote: |
| What about the DPS wailer.rob@rar, The Wailer 112RP is a true game changer. |
Never tried it, but would like to one day. It certainly gets rave reviews.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| livetoski wrote: |
rob@rar, fatbob,
| Quote: |
Livetoski is bringing a bunch of skis to try out
|
yep a fat bunch and few others. |
Nnnggghhhh. Memo to self: I do NOT need a new pair of skis. Even though mine aren't fat. And even though I intend to do more off-piste. I can stay more or less upright on my present skis, most of the time, in most conditions - that'll do, won't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Also the poorer your technique the larger the waist of the ski 