Fat park skis are overrated

Wizerd

Wizerd

Member
Pretty much. Im talking STRICLY park. I haven't owned a ski with a waist bigger than 95. I've ridden 108s and I just don't see the hype, they're heavier, have a higher swing weight, slower edge to edge. I've never, ever said to myself "I wish my skis were fatter" when taking laps. I ride 90 waist magnus' now and I can take them all over the mountain and still be hauling ass. I guess I get it if you're riding in waist deep pow, but for park/ all mountain, anything fatter than 95 waist is just a waste imo.
 
topic:Wizerd said:
Pretty much. Im talking STRICLY park. I haven't owned a ski with a waist bigger than 95. I've ridden 108s and I just don't see the hype, they're heavier, have a higher swing weight, slower edge to edge. I've never, ever said to myself "I wish my skis were fatter" when taking laps. I ride 90 waist magnus' now and I can take them all over the mountain and still be hauling ass. I guess I get it if you're riding in waist deep pow, but for park/ all mountain, anything fatter than 95 waist is just a waste imo.
Click to expand...

Is this an East coast rant?

*edited because east coat doesn't make any sense*

**This post was edited on Nov 4th 2019 at 2:18:28pm
 
Its all personal preference.. I've had both and personally enjoy some fatter skis in the park. There's a reason they make both!
 
14072847:mystery3 said:
Is this an East coast rant?

*edited because east coat doesn't make any sense*

**This post was edited on Nov 4th 2019 at 2:18:28pm
Click to expand...

Grew up skiing east coast and have skied a lot around the US and Europe. All mountain and even powder. Nuking thru pow at

Courchevel on 84mm center mounted park skis, I did not wish I brought my JJ's with me that day. Hard edge to edge performance is really hard for fat skis to beat, especially when you're above tree line and are doing a lot of cutting between trails while going fast.
 
My Blends were suuper easy to balance on rails tubes and boxes lmao but I'm a fat ski guy. I demoed Liberty Origin 116s last winter and thought they were fucking great on groomers lol...

Let's see how the Outsiders are, but I'm worried about the swing weight given I got the 189cm version...
 
tbh i love fat skis man. i loved the blends and now i have the poachers and i deff dont have as much fun on them (mostly due to the width)
 
not for me, 105 has sort of become my minimum width for a park ski. the stability of a fatter ski is nice
 
It really depends on a person's style and tricks. A guy trying to do a quad cork 16000000 is going to want a different ski than the guy trying to do a NB2 on dripping with style. Similarly, a lighter person might also want a lighter and therefore skinnier ski.
 
Gotta be honest...will never regret upping to a 100-110mm park ski. Awesome stability in all snow conditions, floaty on jumps and so fun on rails for surface swaps etc. I guess it completely depends on where you ski though.
 
14072847:mystery3 said:
Is this an East coast rant?

**This post was edited on Nov 4th 2019 at 2:18:28pm
Click to expand...

It's this. The people don't know that when you're skiing 100% fake snow or solid ice, fat skis are just slow edge to edge. I'm also on Magnus 90's and that's as wide as I'll ever go for a park ski. Used to have 85's until I got these. I also have a pair of JJ's though.
 
I spent a solid few years thinking the same kinda thing until last season i rode arv 106s in the park for a while.. definitely changed my opinion on it but hey, each to their own..
 
Pretty much. Im talking STRICLY powder. I haven't owned a ski with a waist narrower than 120. I've ridden 115s and I just don't see the hype, they're lighter, have a lowerswing weight, faster edge to edge. I've never, ever said to myself "I wish my skis were skinier" when taking laps. I ride 135 waist pontoons' now and I can take them to the park and still be hauling ass. I guess I get it if you're riding only park, but for powder, anything skinnier than 120 waist is just a waste imo.
 
14073095:TRVP_ANGEL said:
Pretty much. Im talking STRICLY powder. I haven't owned a ski with a waist narrower than 120. I've ridden 115s and I just don't see the hype, they're lighter, have a lowerswing weight, faster edge to edge. I've never, ever said to myself "I wish my skis were skinier" when taking laps. I ride 135 waist pontoons' now and I can take them to the park and still be hauling ass. I guess I get it if you're riding only park, but for powder, anything skinnier than 120 waist is just a waste imo.
Click to expand...

Do you ever say anything serious on this site
 
14073095:TRVP_ANGEL said:
Pretty much. Im talking STRICLY powder. I haven't owned a ski with a waist narrower than 120. I've ridden 115s and I just don't see the hype, they're lighter, have a lowerswing weight, faster edge to edge. I've never, ever said to myself "I wish my skis were skinier" when taking laps. I ride 135 waist pontoons' now and I can take them to the park and still be hauling ass. I guess I get it if you're riding only park, but for powder, anything skinnier than 120 waist is just a waste imo.
Click to expand...

this^ lmaooo
 
I still run 84mm waist Rossi Scratch for those bulletproof ice coast days. I find them to be my best park ski but the chronic or even the bentchetler will do but i get what you are saying. skinnier than 90 is way more nimble

**This post was edited on Nov 5th 2019 at 9:52:17am
 
14072931:toast said:
not for me, 105 has sort of become my minimum width for a park ski. the stability of a fatter ski is nice
Click to expand...

This. I rode 120's in the park last year on a bum knee & loved the flow and stability of them. So much fun
 
14072931:toast said:
not for me, 105 has sort of become my minimum width for a park ski. the stability of a fatter ski is nice
Click to expand...

What’s a good park ski for you? Just curious what you’d be on that’s over 105
 
I think it depends on the ski, I’ve skied 108 waist skis that were fun all mountain but sucked in the park. Had surface outsiders which were amazing in the park, hellbents might be my favorite park ski ever.

if you’re gettin super techy I think a low swing weight ski around 100-105 can still be fine. And if you’re not super techy, I don’t see why 105+ Wouldn’t be awesome. Some decent rocker definitely helps the wider skis to whip around easier. I wouldn’t want a wide ski with minimal rocker in the park.
 
14073192:XtRemE11 said:
I think it depends on the ski, I’ve skied 108 waist skis that were fun all mountain but sucked in the park. Had surface outsiders which were amazing in the park, hellbents might be my favorite park ski ever.

if you’re gettin super techy I think a low swing weight ski around 100-105 can still be fine. And if you’re not super techy, I don’t see why 105+ Wouldn’t be awesome. Some decent rocker definitely helps the wider skis to whip around easier. I wouldn’t want a wide ski with minimal rocker in the park.
Click to expand...

you obviously dont hit big jumps then.. i'll gladly take a full camber ski over anything with rocker in the park. There is a reason those that get on the podium are not on anything over 100 with stupid amounts of rocker. (and dont say henrik, his style to me is awful)
 
14073190:XtRemE11 said:
What’s a good park ski for you? Just curious what you’d be on that’s over 105
Click to expand...

For the last couple years I used the J Skis Friend. Not a park ski but I love how it skis in the park.
 
14073206:freeskibum82 said:
There is a reason those that get on the podium are not on anything over 100 with stupid amounts of rocker. (and dont say henrik, his style to me is awful)
Click to expand...

1 - untrue

2 - why is this your metric anyway if you’re not going to get on a podium
 
14073269:toast said:
1 - untrue

2 - why is this your metric anyway if you’re not going to get on a podium
Click to expand...

Agreed! I don't care if wide skis aren't on the podium... That doesn't mean that wide skis are overrated
 
14073269:toast said:
1 - untrue

2 - why is this your metric anyway if you’re not going to get on a podium
Click to expand...

my metric is stability, speed, power, and energy. You all of those things out of a cambered ski. It just works for me.
 
14073242:freeskibum82 said:
my opinion i'm allowed to it, no? ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, but I’d like to hear who you think has good style. My assumption would be the comp jock skiers based off your taste in skis
 
14073298:Obie. said:
Yes, but I’d like to hear who you think has good style. My assumption would be the comp jock skiers based off your taste in skis
Click to expand...

Tanner Rainville, Sammy Carlson, Candide, Liam Downey, Wallisch, ABM to name a few.

My taste in skis is all over the board based on what im doing that day. From Rossi Scratch to Bentchetler 100 to Rustler 10. I've also got Rossi S3s, Chronics, Magnum Opus, Mordecai, and just recently picked up the Armada JJ Ultralite with a frame binding. Last season i used a honeybadger but it was too soft for me so i sold it after only 3 days on snow with it. I'd call that pretty diverse and not geared towards one thing at all. I like to think that i'm at least testing a good array of skis to form a solid opinion on the different flexes, waist widths, and rocker profiles of the skis available currently. Still deciding if i want to pick up a punx 7 or an nfx as a possible replacement to the Scratch.
 
14073206:freeskibum82 said:
you obviously dont hit big jumps then.. i'll gladly take a full camber ski over anything with rocker in the park. There is a reason those that get on the podium are not on anything over 100 with stupid amounts of rocker. (and dont say henrik, his style to me is awful)
Click to expand...

Ha I used to hit all the freeway jumps on my EP pro's. I wasnt doing anything more than 5's and 7's but once you get used to it they're fun AF on big jumps. learned my first rodeo 5's and 7's on them into a sketchy powder landing where i was landing anywhere but centered and they'd pull me out.

Yes they'll wash out if you get way backseat, but you dont have to land perfect, i've had some pretty backseat landings that i've pulled away from. I think there's a significant adjustment period to get used to big rocker skis, and some people naturally will like how they ski, where some people's style probably needs that support of a fully/mostly cambered ski.

I mean no shit people arent on the podium on fat big rocker skis when the standard comp run is an all the doubles on all the hits tech fest. but if you're not training for your comp run trying to squeek in one more rotation on your tornado dub 16, I think you can ski park fine on a 100-110 ski.
 
14073095:TRVP_ANGEL said:
Pretty much. Im talking STRICLY powder. I haven't owned a ski with a waist narrower than 120. I've ridden 115s and I just don't see the hype, they're lighter, have a lowerswing weight, faster edge to edge. I've never, ever said to myself "I wish my skis were skinier" when taking laps. I ride 135 waist pontoons' now and I can take them to the park and still be hauling ass. I guess I get it if you're riding only park, but for powder, anything skinnier than 120 waist is just a waste imo.
Click to expand...

I've found that length can make a bigger difference than width in the pow. 115's in a 190 feel like they float better than 120's in a 185, especially when up to speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top