# How Fat can an East Coast skier go?



## Vano (Oct 31, 2005)

Now that all the information is out on this year's ski models, it is evident that the fat ski craze continues.  There are more and more all mountain skis in the 80mm+ under foot category.

So the question to the people that are getting new gear for this season.  How fat are you willing to go with your every-day East Coast skis?

I ski on last year's K2 Public Enemy skis which are 80mm under foot.  I love them and I think they do everything very well, even on the east coast, but wouldn't want to go much fatter for my primary EC ski.  The new ones are 85mm under foot.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 31, 2005)

i think for the east coast, 80mm is ideal.  if you just like to rip up groomers, race skis around 70mm are fine.  90mm+ for epic pow days, but 90+ is not ideal for an everyday east coast ski, imo.  i don't even think stuff in the 80-90 range is ideal for everyday east coast unless you are skiing natural snow all day which is pretty rare for most EC skiers.


----------



## Vano (Oct 31, 2005)

I agree - above 80mm is pushing it on the EC.  I like my Public Enemy skis cause they are wide enough for soft snow in Jay Peak, for high speed cruising and yet are narrow enough for hardpack and icy conditions...more or less.

Everywhere i read, manufacturers are figuring out how to make wider skis that still remain solid on hard snow.  So I was just wondering if anyone on the forum has the balls to start using 80mm+ wide skis as their every day EC ski.


----------



## eatskisleep (Oct 31, 2005)

If you ski places like Jay Peak a lot 90mm wouldn't be a bad idea. But for a good all around ski I think 80 hits the spot.


----------



## freeheelwilly (Oct 31, 2005)

PHAT!  is where it's at!

I ski on 80 mm most days but am probably gonna get a pair of G3 Tickets which I think are 89.  That's not too big.  70mm is so five minutes ago. On bigger days or in heavy corn gone bad (mash potatoes) I bring out the biggies:  Dynastar Legend Pro Riders - 97mm.  Yesterday at Whiteface I saw a guy RIPPING up the wind buff crud on a pair of Igneous - 120mm underfoot!  Looked like a couple of ironing boards strapped to his feet!  Fatter skis can be a handful until you adjust but anything less than 80 - no thanks.  Go Phat! :beer:


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 31, 2005)

freeheelwilly said:
			
		

> PHAT!  is where it's at!
> 
> I ski on 80 mm most days but am probably gonna get a pair of G3 Tickets which I think are 89.  That's not too big.  70mm is so five minutes ago. On bigger days or in heavy corn gone bad (mash potatoes) I bring out the biggies:  Dynastar Legend Pro Riders - 97mm.  Yesterday at Whiteface I saw a guy RIPPING up the wind buff crud on a pair of Igneous - 120mm underfoot!  Looked like a couple of ironing boards strapped to his feet!  Fatter skis can be a handful until you adjust but anything less than 80 - no thanks.  Go Phat! :beer:


89 is definitely great for those big days!  i have a dynastar intuitiv big that is 89 at the waist and it simply RIPS on natural snow.  not so much on the groomers, but for pow and natural snow it's killer.  took em' for a skin to the top of the cat yesterday and turns were incredible coming down the wildcat trail.  those pro riders are pushing it for EC.  i'd love to give them a rip though!  don't think i would use them much at all though.

but as an everyday ski, the fatter stuff doesn't work for much other than natural snow.  you get into 90+ and you can forget about the groomers.  tips bang in the bumps gets to be annoying with the wider skis too.


----------



## freeheelwilly (Oct 31, 2005)

The Pro Riders go West with me every year and get dusted off every now and again back here.  It may be the EC but we still have our moments and when we do it's nice to have a pair of romper stompers.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 31, 2005)

I first read this and was like, "is he making fun of my stomach or something?" :lol: :lol:  

No, I ski on 74 mm waists and love them.


----------



## loafnut (Oct 31, 2005)

I ski 82mm underfoot every day but then again i don't ski trails with snowmaking.


----------



## Vano (Oct 31, 2005)

I agree - I am a big fan of fat skis.  I have a pair of Seth Pistols (189cm long and 95mm under foot) and love them when I go out west or to South America.  Big burly skis feel stable and controlable, constantly waiting for your input.  Its a reassuring feeling compared to smaller skis, such as my Rossi 9S slalom skis.  The Rossis are overly hooky, refuse to stay stable going fast and straight and just don't give that encouring feeling.

Most maganizes are saying that with recent advances in ski design and materials you can +5mm under foot and not feel like you are losing any edge control.  In other words, the K2 Public Enemy skis of this year should has the same performance on the hard snow even though they are 5mm wider under foot than the ones that I have.  A number of 90 to 95mm skis are marketed as all mountain now, while 2 years ago anything over 90mm was a 'powder' or 'big mountain' ski.  I just wonder if anyone has that first hand experience of this.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 31, 2005)

loafnut said:
			
		

> I ski 82mm underfoot every day but then again i don't ski trails with snowmaking.



Welcome to the boards, loafnut :beer:

Hope you continue to contribute and share some of your adventures with us.


----------



## John84 (Oct 31, 2005)

Mine are pretty skinny, 70 mm, but I do most of my skiing in MASH so powder days are non-existant.


----------



## salida (Oct 31, 2005)

I like this topic!

I've got a pair of 78mm underfoot that I have been using as my everyday ski (alpine) for the past year and a half, I started teleing last year and used an 84 mm underfoot and liked it (Atomic TMX).  Working for atomic this summer I got to inspect the product line and picked out a pair of fairly soft Atomic park skis (Stomp 88mm) for my new tele boards.  Am I excited... will be the everyday powder boards, and the touring skis.

Can't wait

-porter


----------



## skibum1321 (Nov 1, 2005)

I've got a pair of 74 Intuitivs that I really like but I do want to go wider. I'd like to get the Legend 8000s. 80mm underfoot seems like about the right balance.


----------



## Geoff (Nov 1, 2005)

My everyday skis are  116/82/108.  I have plenty of grip on all but the most bullet-proof days when I probably don't want to be out there anyways.

My all-out powder skis are 120/95/112


----------



## DEVO (Nov 1, 2005)

Perfect timing for this thread.  I skied last year on a 72mm waist ski and loved it for groomers, but now really want to find a 80mm for this season.  I agree that 80mm seems to about right for this coast.  Anyone have any suggestions for just such a ski?  Preferably in a twin tip.


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 1, 2005)

I don't know about going up to 80mm, but the 3mm difference between my old Dynastars and my new Heads felt huge Sunday. I had to think ahead a bit to switch edge to edge, I thought. The extra width made cruising through all that ungroomed chopped up snow easy, though. If I'd been on the Dynastars, I'd have been all over the place. The Heads though, like butter. Stayed on the snow and kept me honest. 

A little fat is a good thing.


----------



## Vano (Nov 1, 2005)

DEVO said:
			
		

> Perfect timing for this thread.  I skied last year on a 72mm waist ski and loved it for groomers, but now really want to find a 80mm for this season.  I agree that 80mm seems to about right for this coast.  Anyone have any suggestions for just such a ski?  Preferably in a twin tip.



I highly recommend the K2 Public Enemy skis from last year (the new ones are up to 85mm under foot).  They are twin tips and very versatile.  K2 markets them as all-mountain skis that happen to be twin tips, so their focus is versatility all over the mountain, not just the park.  They are pretty burly too, which helps when the cover is thin and you are risking some rocks.  The mounting point on these skis is considerably further back than on a normal park ski - thats probably where most of its versatility and stability at speed comes from.  You can probably find these for under $300 on the net since their MSRP was in the 400s to begin with.

People say that the 1080s and Scratch skis are real good for the east too.  They aren't quite as durable, but have a lower swing weight and are probably quicker edge to edge.  I am about to mount a pair of Scratch skis up and try them out this year - will let you know what I think.  Both of these skis are 80mm.


----------



## freeheelwilly (Nov 1, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I don't know about going up to 80mm, but the 3mm difference between my old Dynastars and my new Heads felt huge Sunday. I had to think ahead a bit to switch edge to edge, I thought. The extra width made cruising through all that ungroomed chopped up snow easy, though. If I'd been on the Dynastars, I'd have been all over the place. The Heads though, like butter. Stayed on the snow and kept me honest.
> 
> A little fat is a good thing.



I'd be quite surprised if the difference you felt between those skis had anything to do with that 3mm.  You're talkin about less than one-tenth of an inch!  JMHO


----------



## Greg (Nov 1, 2005)

Moving to Gear


----------



## ctenidae (Nov 1, 2005)

_I'd be quite surprised if the difference you felt between those skis had anything to do with that 3mm. You're talkin about less than one-tenth of an inch! JMHO_

Sure, part of the diff was probably going from a less-than-high quality ski to a nice ski, plus the (seemingly) foot wide nose on the Heads, but it sure felt different. Among other sensations was a noticeable difference in the overall width.

Either way, the Heads are wider, and they skied better. Correlation may not equal causation, but I'm going with it.


----------



## molecan (Nov 10, 2005)

Well, 

I picked up a pair of 183 Volkl Gotama's over the summer, and they are 105mm waist, but with the severe upturn on the tail, look like they will actually ski much shorter.  
I also  was given a pair of (beater) 180 Explosiv's w/a 95mm waist.   
The explosiv's were a friends _only_ ski for a season or two, mounted tele. They were used in all conditions, but when snow permitted, almost 100% off-piste. 

I'm likely to try the explosiv as a day to day ski, and the Gotama I'd like be on as often as possible.  

My day-to-day groomer ski was the Bandit X (70mm), which for my size is near useless in any deep snow, and after 30-40 days are feeling pretty dead. 

I had a pair of 180 Atomic Beta Carv 9.11 (67mm?) I got a few years ago, which I will never ski again.  Worst ski (IMO) I've ever owned. 


I've never owned a ski w/more than 70mm waist before, so like the switch a few years back to a sub 200cm ski, w/sidecut, this will be an interesting test.


----------



## Vano (Nov 10, 2005)

molecan said:
			
		

> Well,
> 
> I picked up a pair of 183 Volkl Gotama's over the summer, and they are 105mm waist, but with the severe upturn on the tail, look like they will actually ski much shorter.
> I also  was given a pair of (beater) 180 Explosiv's w/a 95mm waist.



The Explosivs may be ok in the east, but definitely not ideal.  I skied them once, and even though they were very 'carvy' for such a wide ski 95mm under foot is still 95mm under foot.  I haven't tried the Gotamas but i have heard that they are very versatile for such a wide ski.


----------

