Fat symmetrical skis?

ButteredToast.

ButteredToast.

Active member
Looking to get a new pair of skis this year, had Atomic Patents last year and absolutely fucking loved them. They were 95 in the waist and symmetrical which I loved and they could plow through all kinds of shit. They also handled remarkably well switch. They were also manageable in the powder which I really liked.

The only thing I didn't like was that the edges were strangely delicate and cracked day 1 or 2 and ripped out pretty fast. I've been told that's fixed on this year's model though.

What would a comparable ski be? I can't find this year's model anywhere...
 
Take a look at the new Rossingnol Scimitar, 99 underfoot and nearly symmetrical dimensions along with a full rocker profile....the ski should be able to handle everything very well while remaining playful.
 
Other than the different sizes available (2012 model: 171, 178, 185. 2013 model: 167, 174, 181) and very minor difference in waist width (1 mm), I dont believe so.
 
1. Are you looking for 3 point or 5 point geometry?

2. How wide? IMO under ~105 isn't considered "fat" anymore...most all mountain skis seem to be in the 95-105 range now.

3. Whoever said the 4frnt YLE...I haven't skied it but have heard good things. It is also on the softer side I believe.
 
Yeah Hoji's have the perfect tails for landing switch:

15q3gid.jpg


 
1) Iunno. Rocker would be nice in the deeper stuff though.

2) I'm thinking in the 110-100 range now....

I want something that will do well in the park and groomers but can handle MUCH deeper things when I go out west. I want something close to symmetrical so skiing switch isn't too big of a challenge.

Ideally, something fat enough to handle deeper things but still hold well in midwest/manmade snow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top