 Poster: A snowHead
|
Simple question - is there a simple answer?
There is a current thread about mid-fat skis. I often read the term 'fat' in terms of ski width. I assume that it means the width at the skis narrowest point, but I guess the tip/tail widths could play a part.
I just wondered what widths fit each nominal width category from skinny upwards?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| I assume that it means the width at the skis narrowest point, but I guess the tip/tail widths could play a part. |
I always thought so, and would regard my 85mm waisted skis as 'mid fat' probably. There are a lot of skis around nowadays though that look relatively modest round the waist and have HUUUGE shovels at the front. Those Salomon BBR thingies for example, which seem to be extremely popular round these parts 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?
|
Fashion, darling.
Also a bit of marketing. Skinny is clearly anything under 100mm. Fat is clearly anything over 120mm. There, easy!
Wasn't there a post on here a little while back by someone predicting that 120mm would be the new mid-fat any year now? That particular bit of craziness doesn't not seem to be coming to pass, at least. Seems like manufacturers are looking at different geometries rather than just broad waists this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Pure piste skis usually have a waist width (narrowest point) of around 68-74 mm. Then you get a whole range of 'All-Mountain' skis in widths of mid 70s up to mid 90s. Anything above 100mm waist is usually more powder oriented with full-on powder skis above 120 mm waist. Yes, the tip and tail widths do play a significant part too (not least in defining the turn radius) and can vary dramatically for any given waist width. Salomon BBRs are a fairly extreme example of this.
The trend in recent years has been toward fatter all mountain skis, with the commonly used term 'mid-fat' now typically being around the 90 mm point. Only a couple of years ago this would have been more like 80 mm. But it's a very general term and doesn't mean that much in isolation. Interestingly, the width of pure piste skis hasn't changed much in the last 5 years (still 68-74 mm) which implies that this is still the optimum waist width for hardpack performance. I think what has changed is the versatility of the wider mid-fat skis, which now appear to have a wider performance envelope across different snow conditions. But there is a lot of marketing hype and I don't consider skis above 90 mm waist to be any good at carving on steep hardpack, although they can be a lot of fun in less demanding piste conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Below 80mm = piste. 85-100mm = midfat/allmountain. 100-120ish all conditions offpiste. Over 120/125mm = superfat and heading towards being a pure powder ski.
Flexes, turn radii, shape, etc are as (or more?) important as waist width when looking at ski performance though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
clarky999, you win!! You actually answered the question!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thin 65-75mm
mid fat 75-90mm
fat 90mm+
specialised super fat 120mm+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
clarky999, kitenski, LOL That's the sort of discrepancy I was expecting! Mine are 78mm and I've often wondered where they would fall
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Megamum, 78mm more all mountain than on piste IMHO....
Snowandrock say http://www.snowandrock.com/ski-ski-buying-guide/content/fcp-content
Piste skis focus on providing stability and edge grip on groomed slopes. Piste skis generally have a waist width of between 63mm -73mm
All Mountain skis generally have a waist width between 74mm-81mm
SKI TYPE
WAIST WIDTH
Race
63 - 68mm
Piste
63 - 73mm
All Mountain
74 - 81mm
Freeride
82 - 102mm
Women's Big Mountain
102mm+
Men's Big Mountain
103mm+
Freestyle**
80mm+
** Waist width is dependent on where the ski is designed to be used. Park and Pipe will be narrower than back country freestyle for example. Our range this year starts at 80mm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As regards piste/offpiste, I'd go more for distinguishing between hard snow (for which having a nice long carving edge and camber is good), 3d snow (for which rocker and taper and flat camber is good) and powder (where you can get away with a full reverse camber, reverse sidecut).
I'd probably argue that something like a Bluehouse Monarch (at a positively svelte 96mm) or Whitedot Director is better suited to 3d snow than the fatter but more conventionally shaped Whitedot Preacher... I've spent very little time on skis like the Preacher so I can't be certain, but there are plenty of folk out there who'd prefer narrow rockered skis to fat conventionally cambered skis when it comes to skiing on anything but groomers and boilerplate. Have a read of what McConkey said about pool covers and unstable hookers in the manual for the Volant Spatula (a pure powder ski with a mere 125mm waist!). Its this sort of thinking that has stopped skis just getting fatter and fatter, I reckon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
kitenski, S&R suffer from marketing terms though. Reality is, allmountain means exactly that, 50-50 on-off, *not* a ski with a massive piste bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
very thin ski <70
thin ski 70-90
medium ski 90-120
fat ski 120-140
very fat ski 140-220
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My snowboard is 251 round the waist.
220 per ski. Hahahaha. That's ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| mag1882 wrote: |
very fat ski 140-220 |
Shouldn't they be called Obese Skis ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
It's a monoski, per foot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| mag1882 wrote: |
very thin ski <70
thin ski 70-90
medium ski 90-120
fat ski 120-140
very fat ski 140-220 |
I wanna ski where you ski!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| mag1882 wrote: |
very thin ski <70
thin ski 70-90
medium ski 90-120
fat ski 120-140
very fat ski 140-220 |
So 120 is a medium waist ski is it now? And my manhood is 12" long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| uktrailmonster wrote: |
| mag1882 wrote: |
very thin ski <70
thin ski 70-90
medium ski 90-120
fat ski 120-140
very fat ski 140-220 |
So 120 is a medium waist ski is it now? And my manhood is 12" long. |
WOW .............. MONSTER.................... you could ski on two of them! Well, ............ only if you had a stiffish flex!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
cant find any details on the 200+ skis, but I will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
There is really no set rule. If you look at Powder magazine the narrowest ski in their all mountain category was 97mm underfoot.
An 80mm underfoot ski for a small light skier will float as much as a fat ski on a bigger person. important that people don't get too hung up on width but rather concentrate on what a ski is designed for.
All mountain is the most confusing category because arguably every ski is an all mountain ski. IMO all all-mountain skis have a bias towards something so when people look for an all mountain ski they should consider what they want out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Liberty made an experimental 200 but never released it. They do make a 141 (Genome) or the amusingly named Faty-pus ski company make a 140 (a-lotta) - that seems about as fat as you can buy off the shelf. As for something custom... skis the limit (geddit!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scratch that - bit more digging and Liberty will sell you a 149.u.f. powder ski called the Mutant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DPS's upcoming Spoon is a 150, I think. Igneous mention "160mm absurdities" in their custom section, which sorta implies that someone ordered a pair of those once. All seems a bit frivolous, really; 130-something ought to be more than enough for anyone who's not a 7ft tall, 300lb monster 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Sure there was some french company making something 170-odd underfoot... Think they had goat graphics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah the 220s must have been custom
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
clarky999, Duret Monstre Fats?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Alans deep bath wrote: |
| clarky999, Duret Monstre Fats? |
Yup ........................... a mono!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Not THAT Monstre Fat ........................... THIS Monstre Fat.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
That's clearly a snowboard. It even has snowboard binding holes in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| paulio wrote: |
| That's clearly a snowboard. It even has snowboard binding holes in it. |
Dooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh!!! (THAT's the point Mensa-member!!!!!!!!!!!) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| paulio wrote: |
| That's clearly a snowboard. It even has snowboard binding holes in it. |
Monoski. I was referring to these though:
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
theskibob, paulio, I bet if you gave Masque two of them he'd experiment with mounting ski bindings on them 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
theskibob, well, yes and no - the image you've posted is from their monoski range - although its obviously drilled for board bindings, but if you look at the image they've got of the same plank under their snowboard selection, it's show undrilled, so would be the monoski edition...
So while you've saying it's a snowboard, if you take Duret at their word and don't assume they've c*cked up their pics, it's a weirdly drilled monoski... If you care to check, I think you will find that I am technically correct (which, as everyone knows, is the best kind of correct) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
theskibob, well, yes and no - the image you've posted is from their monoski range - although its obviously drilled for board bindings, but if you look at the image they've got of the same plank under their snowboard selection, it's show undrilled, so would be the monoski edition...
So while you've saying it's a snowboard, if you take Duret at their word and don't assume they've c*cked up their pics, it's a weirdly drilled monoski... If you care to check, I think you will find that I am technically correct (which, as everyone knows, is the best kind of correct) |
Somewhat more than technically you miss the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I've spent a day at a resort predominantly populated by tourists (rather than locals) explaining that my 110ish skis are my skinny skis. Some classics being sported including Teal Rossi 4S from back in the day and more than a few pairs of SX91s. Would have killed for a GS ski for the first hour of boilerplate mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Babes, 78mm are you serious?! My Rossi S7s rip it. Skied first line down pan this season on em. You can't send it as big as I can with those matchsticks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amazing how things have moved on over the last 11 years, mid-fat nowadays is around 110mm!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 you still say fat???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Teal Rossi 4S from back in the day |
While we're on the a resurrected thread, I still have a pair of those that I used until relatively recently (I think 2018 was the first time I used sidecut skis). Lovely pair of skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
