Are fat skis getting out of hand?
- Thread starter Lickmy9
- Start date
[sebastian]
Member
Hm. I actually did screw some Markers to a pair of snowboards. Not enough snow yet to even think about it. So far the majority of people think i'll just kill myself, but it should be an interesting experiment. I figure the binders will just release me as soon as I try to make a turn, but we'll see. And no, I'm not joking. I get crazy ideas when I'm bored in the summer.
AptosFreeskier
Active member
It would be so hard to ski a 178 waist ski. They are 172/140/158.
crunkasfuck
Member
def not!! they make pow sking more fun and easer!
sack
Active member
most snowboards have around a 230-250 mm waist... for pow boards they make the nose really wide and the tail narrower.
I was working at the factory that used to make 4FRNTs and I was looking at some of the 190 cm pow skis that were leftover, and I didn't know it was possible to ride skis that wide--haha.
I was working at the factory that used to make 4FRNTs and I was looking at some of the 190 cm pow skis that were leftover, and I didn't know it was possible to ride skis that wide--haha.
skoganskier101
Active member
i really love fat skis, i have scratc bc's at 98mm underfoot which realy isnt very fat at all compared to a lot of skis that companies have been comingout with lately. but the scratch bc's ski great all mtn and there super stable even on hardpack. i jhavent even been able to ski any pow on them yet, but from what ive seen of them on hardpack i know they will rip in pow where they really belong. skiing switch on them is also super easy, i think its easier on them than it is on my invaders, i have the bc's mounted -2cm from true center.
tride
Active member
I've seen it done, and it worked really well. The guy that I saw do it made a set of homemade risers (basically a couple of big thick chunks of plastic, maybe 2-3 inches high) and mounted those to the snowboards, then put his bindings on those. It gave him a little more leverage to put the boards on edge.
Anyways, they were definitely sketchy for him when he hit hardpack, but he was killing it in even the slightest amount of powder, shredding all the closed runs early season, because his floatation was so good he only needed a few inches of snow on a run to be able to hit it.
You're going to be stoked.
Anyways, they were definitely sketchy for him when he hit hardpack, but he was killing it in even the slightest amount of powder, shredding all the closed runs early season, because his floatation was so good he only needed a few inches of snow on a run to be able to hit it.
You're going to be stoked.
[sebastian]
Member
^^^sweet. I'll post pics once I try 'em out.
shralpingthegnar
Member
if you don't like fat skis you SUCK......or maybe you live in the midwest
DaysToCome
Active member
and x
DaysToCome
Active member
go to jackson hole and then tell try to tell us they have no purpose
dowalibeast
Active member
that was the stupidest thing i have ever heard. ever. it pisses me off actually how stupid that was. fuck.
Love_Wins.
Active member
I have Prophet 130s...and let me tell you; they kill it all over the place. I've ridden these things in pow, chopped pow, groomed, jumps (mostly lofty-ass 180's) even a box or two and they are amazing skis, they float like nobodys business in the soft stuff, stomp everything with confidence, and even hold a solid edge on groomed and packed snow. Only downsides are pretty slow edge-to-edge transition, and they feel damp (by damp, I mean very little pop, but it's more than likely cause I'm a light guy and haven't ever really been able to throw my weight into skis and flex them well), but other than that, and being slightly heavier than your average skis, they are sick. Takes a little time to get used to the extra amount of ski you've got under you, but I love them and wouldn't ever ride pow on anything under 100 waist again.
My two skis are Armada ANT (106mm) and Dynastar 8800 188cm (89mm). I use the ANTs if there has been any new snow in the last few days (e.g. powder, chop, soft packed, soft spring mank/corn) and the Dynastars on harder snow days or if I am lazy. I can carve GS/SG turns on hardpack groomed runs on the ANT no problem, sure they are slow edge to edge compared to a race ski but you can still have a great time on groomed and wider/stiffer/long skis kill everything else. I would never buy a ski under 90mm again unless I was racing. 90mm you can rail turns easily (Dynastar 8800, Head Mojo etc).
Mex_LineJib^a
Active member
my experience with fat skis is the prophet 100 and it fucking owns. good for everykind of snow and every type of terrain, such a sick ski
=)
Anyway.....I agree that a lot of it depends on where you ski. Fat skis are not neccesay on the east coast. On the west coast, it is a completely different story.
I skied skis in the 90-95mm waist when I used to ski in CO. No reason to ever go thinner as they could do everything. You really don't need them to be fatter, but until you have skied on a 110+ waisted ski or a reverse sidecut ski, you really can't say anything. These skis absolutely kill skinny skis on any sort of soft snow, not just deep powder. That is what people often forget.....
One of the best snow conditions for skis like Spats, Toons, the lotus 138, etc, is when it is heavier, windblown snow only 3-6" deep. They just kill it in those conditions. Normal skis just cannot compare.
As you get even further west (CO, OR, WA, and BC) I think fat skis are even more important. The snow is much heavier out here and float becomes extremely important. When I first got to WA, my everyday CO skis were just too fucking thin and small (179cm Seth Pistols). They just didnt float enough and were not long enough to bust through the now heavier chopped up snow. Now I pretty much ski a 190cm long 118 waisted ski everyday. I have no issues on groomers and it allows me to ski anything I want. I may not be able to rip groomers as well as the 95-waisted ski....but I can ski what matters to me much better.
I think now I plan on going to a 191cm 140/113/128 full twin as an everyday ski, then make a reverse camber ski for powder days.
I do believe there is a limit to how fat you can go. The euro company Durets (?) who just made a pair of skis that was 170mm in the waist (the exact same size as a monoski they make...they just maded two pairs and called them skis...) is ridiculous. I cam see, though, were skis such as the Kingswood midfat (at 146mm in the waist) would be an awesome ski to be on. You would need deep snow for something that fat, but there are people who get to ski snow like that on occation.
What everyone needs to remember is most of the people buying these uber fat skis are doing so as part of a quiver. Most people who own spats do not ski them everyday.
Anyway.....I agree that a lot of it depends on where you ski. Fat skis are not neccesay on the east coast. On the west coast, it is a completely different story.
I skied skis in the 90-95mm waist when I used to ski in CO. No reason to ever go thinner as they could do everything. You really don't need them to be fatter, but until you have skied on a 110+ waisted ski or a reverse sidecut ski, you really can't say anything. These skis absolutely kill skinny skis on any sort of soft snow, not just deep powder. That is what people often forget.....
One of the best snow conditions for skis like Spats, Toons, the lotus 138, etc, is when it is heavier, windblown snow only 3-6" deep. They just kill it in those conditions. Normal skis just cannot compare.
As you get even further west (CO, OR, WA, and BC) I think fat skis are even more important. The snow is much heavier out here and float becomes extremely important. When I first got to WA, my everyday CO skis were just too fucking thin and small (179cm Seth Pistols). They just didnt float enough and were not long enough to bust through the now heavier chopped up snow. Now I pretty much ski a 190cm long 118 waisted ski everyday. I have no issues on groomers and it allows me to ski anything I want. I may not be able to rip groomers as well as the 95-waisted ski....but I can ski what matters to me much better.
I think now I plan on going to a 191cm 140/113/128 full twin as an everyday ski, then make a reverse camber ski for powder days.
I do believe there is a limit to how fat you can go. The euro company Durets (?) who just made a pair of skis that was 170mm in the waist (the exact same size as a monoski they make...they just maded two pairs and called them skis...) is ridiculous. I cam see, though, were skis such as the Kingswood midfat (at 146mm in the waist) would be an awesome ski to be on. You would need deep snow for something that fat, but there are people who get to ski snow like that on occation.
What everyone needs to remember is most of the people buying these uber fat skis are doing so as part of a quiver. Most people who own spats do not ski them everyday.
hemlockjibber8
Active member
of course its a waste of money. why the fuck would you buy a powder ski if you only ski powder 3 days a year. thats not an argument against super fats, thats just a blatantly obivous comment that any one could make using common sense.
then again i would ski the elizabeths ina place that never gets pow.but they are a different story
then again i would ski the elizabeths ina place that never gets pow.but they are a different story
Kevo
Active member
^Right on Scott.
I don't think that I will be buying another ski that is less than 100 underfoot for the foreseeable future. My everyday skis are 94 in the waist, and there have been several days where I wish they were more like 110. Moving up to a 105-110 underfoot ski for an everyday ski won't seriously affect everyday performance for me.
That being said, I have never skied anything further east than the front range of Colorado. I have no idea what people on the east coast deal with for their everyday conditions, but I would assume that they don't need anything too fat and that edge hold/edge control is an important aspect out there.
I don't think that I will be buying another ski that is less than 100 underfoot for the foreseeable future. My everyday skis are 94 in the waist, and there have been several days where I wish they were more like 110. Moving up to a 105-110 underfoot ski for an everyday ski won't seriously affect everyday performance for me.
That being said, I have never skied anything further east than the front range of Colorado. I have no idea what people on the east coast deal with for their everyday conditions, but I would assume that they don't need anything too fat and that edge hold/edge control is an important aspect out there.