Fat skis are not getting out of hand

[garrett.]

ok so go get a ruler and put your thumb on 150mm and you will see that 150mm is really not that fat, and the only ski made at 150mm is pollards personal ski. so now move that back 20mm to 130mm and you will still see that its not that fat if you really think about it.

i know i was a fictim of this at first and i was imagining it would be like a foot wide and your stance would have to be like double your shoulder width. but in reality the fattness of skis really isnt that fat

just my 2 cents

 

[BFFset.]

agreed

 

[eheath]

177 is too much.

 

[steezeninja]

I ski 104 in the park.

 

[tjski]

ya agreed. i mean my stance changes a tad from moving from 84ish underfoot to 94ish.

 

[Ben.]

word fat is where its at. there is no reason for any ski other than a race ski to be less than 100 at the waist

 

[Swick825]

pretty sure the fatypus alotta is wider than pollards new pro model.

 

[Squirrel_Murphy]

no no Pollards actual pro model that only HE rides is 150mm under foot. But it had the Elizabeth topsheet graphic.

Yeah, I agree that they aren't gettin out of hand. They're very functional and very stable. For what they're made for, they work great. MOST suck big time in trees and making any sort of quick turn in any snow condition, but that's why they aren't made for that. That's why most people in the east don't ride a "fat" ski in the park, right?

 

[FUUUCK]

no no, pollard has many pro models including a 130mm bacon, and a 150mm elizabeth

 

[Sideways_Shane]

170mm are a little wide

 

[4ReeL_]

dude its huge if you compare it to 7 years ago when a "fat" ski was 80mm under waste

 

[garrett.]

exactly, 7 years ago is not today now is it

 

[Literature]

I can shred groomers perfectly well on my P4s, and they have a 108 waist and a 28m turn radius. I don't get why people make such a big deal about fat skis, with construction and technology, you do not compromise anything by buying a fatter ski for out of park ripping in this day and age.

 

[[~_~]]

skiing fat skis in the park is only nice if you have access to tables with a shitload of hangtime. If you're stuck in shitty parks, they suck.

 

[Sir_SkrillALot]

fat skis are good for powdah too guys! and i for sures love float

 

[garrett.]

there are no skis axept for one pair that are that fat under foot, and if its in the shovel its not out of hand

 

[PacificRimJob]

thats a goddamn snowboard.. haha.

 

[Skillz]

Snowboards are like minimum 220 so no its not a snowboard.

 

[Albino]

once u go fat, u never go back.

if its less than 90, its a carve ski

 

[PacificRimJob]

Lol..

that depends on where you live too...

being in california, the snow is dense enough that having a pair of rossi scratch FS's do the trick in pow without any problem...

whereas if I went to Jackson, I would be in serious shit haha..

 

[Baker]

I like skinnier skis for park. ^and park skis work fine for landing in deep fluffy pow. I spent my youth in jackson on some skogens, but pow skis make it better. I say no fatter than is necessary, just cause it's a weight issue. Would say 100 underfoot is my ideal pow ski, cause then when it gets chopped up you don't have all that surface area to get smacked around and you can plow through it. I'd reall like to try out some rockered skis. Traditional designs seem like they might become obsolete in the next few years, atleast for pow skis.

 

[4ReeL_]

ya fat skis are to heavy

 

[nitsua]

mhm

 

[crunkasfuck]

no fat skis are not gitting out of hand there gitting better and better!!

 

[SteezeNINE]

I have AR6's and I think they are just about as wide as I would go for east coast cause of ice problems but out west I can see the use of fat skis jsut not too much for icy crappy mountains....

 

[Aenigma]

I ride 97mm skis with a 29.4m turn radius on everything and they work really well. I see no problem with having traditionally shaped skis up to 120mm or so, but going wider than that is kind of pointless because you can't use the shape of the ski. And that is why reverse sidecut skis exist.

 

[hollygrove]

I've got 110 at the waist.

And they've surpised me on how well I can ride them on when not in deep snow.

 

[thejackal1177]

they deffinatly dont need to be any wider than 150

 

[TWoods]

I Lived in Cali my whole life till this year, I would never want to ski anything less than a 95-100 in the waist anywhere ever again... I dunno. I think it's just preference. I would actually rather have fat skis in cali snow and skinny skis in lighter pow if I had to decide

 

[Troop801]

100 mm is the new 80.

 

[PacificRimJob]

Iono dude.. I have Rossi FS's as well as a pair of JP v. Juliens.. and I rarely use my Jp. V. J's unless there is some seriously dry cali snow.. something that hasnt happened this season...

they rule whenever I go to Utah though.. oh goodness.

 

[wdbo.]

word left

 

[SwitchMahFuckah]

Did someone say skis were getting to fat?

 

[skoganskier101]

agreed, 120 isnt bad, but i personally dont want something so massive that a nice powder day will be no as enjoyable as with skinnier skis, i use 185 scratch bc's and they are sex in any kind of pow becauyse i sink down some and it still feels like powder, not a groomer. that is just my opinion, but fat skis still are awesome

 

[watchmefall15]

if i didnt live on the east i would be all about fat skis but i do

 

[FNJ]

jea me too

 

[LookinBack]

I ski a 1O6x78x98 for park/everything on my 4frnts.....i kinda wish i had a wider set but i keep telling myself its not worth it

 

[TWoods]

stop telling yourself that! it's soooo worth it. pick up something around 90 underfooot.... you will love it

 

[Black-Bandanna]

98 underfoot for me