# Mid fat advice



## mondeo (Dec 22, 2008)

So, after the last couple powder days, I've been thinking I need a fatter ski for those 10% of days where bump skis just mean extra effort. Still want something decent in bumps in case a few pop up, so no powder skis even though that's what I'll be using them as. Twin tips might also be good in case I want to hit the park. Thinking something along the lines of Trouble Makers.

Anything I'm missing here?


----------



## Trekchick (Dec 22, 2008)

Blizzard Titan Cronus!!


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 22, 2008)

I can only comment on dimensions, not specific skis themselves as I haven't tried nearly as many different kinds of skis as most.  I know my B2s are great in the bumps, but at 116-78-105 they help very little in conditions deeper than 5-6 inches.  My true Powder ski is 115-120ish underfoot with almost no side cut (1999ish model year) and they actually work great in powder bumps.

I would aim for 90 + underfoot and go about 10cm longer than your bump skis.   My B2s are 174, the Axioms are 184.   

Perhaps a Fischer Watea 94?


----------



## Creakyknees (Dec 22, 2008)

Go with the B2's great ski for any depth snow, the 78mm under foot is perfect. you do not need a ski over 100mm under foot. The B2 has a soft shovel for moguls and it holds well on ice.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 22, 2008)

CreekyKnees said:


> Go with the B2's great ski for any depth snow, the 78mm under foot is perfect. you do not need a ski over 100mm under foot. The B2 has a soft shovel for moguls and it holds well on ice.



completely disagree, especially with your ice hold assessment.  I like the B2, but it's ice hold performance is borderline horrid.  The BX is far superior in those conditions and I think it has more to do with the wood core than the 70 mm waist on it.   These two models are my primary skis, with an old school Axiom powder ski in the quiver as well.  I would definitely NOT recommend the B2 for someone looking for a somewhat powder specific board. 

This is also the second thread you've suggested there is no need to go over 100 mm under foot and the other thread you admitted lack of experience on such skis.  For his stated purpose, I would put 90 as the starting point, but I'm sure there are certain current boards over 100 that work well in bumps and those skis shouldn't be eliminated from the discussion.  I thought I read Greg mention Mr. Magic skiing a 105 in the bumps and ripping it.  You may want to check out what he's riding.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 23, 2008)

I would also consider the Wateau 94. I ski a wateau 101 for deep days and the are awesome in soft bumps, even @ 193 length. I would pay the $$$ to demo as many different models as possible. Try out some of the smaller brands out there as many are excellent value (less marketing?) and constructed better IMO. My everyday ski has over 200 days and still have a some life left.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 23, 2008)

CreekyKnees said:


> Go with the B2's great ski for any depth snow, the 78mm under foot is perfect. you do not need a ski over 100mm under foot. The B2 has a soft shovel for moguls and it holds well on ice.




Your talking about a one ski quiver. He wants a ski to rip on deep days, ice grip would not be a concern on a powder day. He already has mogul skis for everyday skiing. Oh, and noone really needs 100+ mm but then again noone really needs shaped skis, fiberglass skis, plastic boot shells, gore-tex ect.... but skiing and equipment continues to evolve. If you have never skied 100+ mm on a soft day you should try it, it's really fun.


----------



## Creakyknees (Dec 23, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> completely disagree, especially with your ice hold assessment.  I like the B2, but it's ice hold performance is borderline horrid.



Not sure if you know this you are able too sharpen the steel edges of the skis. I did not say the B2 was great on ice I wrote "it held well on ice"

We are talking east coast powder it's gone in a few hours and you are than skiing hard pack or ice. I don't think Mondeo needs a powder specific ski just an all-around ski. As for Ice I understand this is not a slalom ski so the B2 will be fine, I have been on this ski for two years. 
I didn't say you couldn't ski bumps on skis over 100mm I just do not see the need for this size ski on the east coast.
As for experience I have never gotten my tongue pierced but I could tell you it will hurt, so I don't need that much experience to tell you that 100mm is much too wide.
As for the reviews from ski magazines the testers only get and hour or two with (if that much) with each piece of equipment is this enough experience for you to get an opinion.

Stay thin it's more of a challenge


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 23, 2008)

CreekyKnees said:


> Not sure if you know this you are able too sharpen the steel edges of the skis. I did not say the B2 was great on ice I wrote "it held well on ice"
> 
> We are talking east coast powder it's gone in a few hours and you are than skiing hard pack or ice. I don't think Mondeo needs a powder specific ski just an all-around ski. As for Ice I understand this is not a slalom ski so the B2 will be fine, I have been on this ski for two years.
> I didn't say you couldn't ski bumps on skis over 100mm I just do not see the need for this size ski on the east coast.
> ...



I'm not going to bother arguing with you as I remember the other thread quite well with your skinnier is better stance.  If it works for you great.  Some people screw in philips screws with a flat head driver too.....doesn't mean its the best tool for the job.


----------



## davidhowland14 (Dec 23, 2008)

CreekyKnees said:


> We are talking east coast powder it's gone in a few hours and you are than skiing hard pack or ice.



-1
I disagree entirely.

I've been skiing Scott Aztec Pros this year. They're great. I have yet to find the point where I feel out of control on this ski. Hardpack at Waterville Valley two sundays ago was incredible. These things rail. Powder and bumps at MRG today: likewise. They float (not like a pow ski, but still really really well). They're maneuverable in the bumps, and they're downright bombproof. 

However, when I bought them, it was a tossup between them and trouble makers.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 23, 2008)

CreekyKnees said:


> Not sure if you know this you are able too sharpen the steel edges of the skis. I did not say the B2 was great on ice I wrote "it held well on ice"
> 
> We are talking east coast powder it's gone in a few hours and you are than skiing hard pack or ice. I don't think Mondeo needs a powder specific ski just an all-around ski. As for Ice I understand this is not a slalom ski so the B2 will be fine, I have been on this ski for two years.
> I didn't say you couldn't ski bumps on skis over 100mm I just do not see the need for this size ski on the east coast.
> ...



Dude six inches over ice and the 100mm will stay on top and the b2 will keep scratching the underneath. is this not common in the east? . How about those heavy wet snow days? I haven't even skied anything less that 90 in five years now. That includes a couple hundred days in the east. 

Mondeo, you should borrow, demo ect.... don't assume anything until you have skied it.


----------



## Greg (Dec 23, 2008)

Legend 8000s. Great all mountain ski. Not the best on hardpack, but they do pretty well everywhere else.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Dec 23, 2008)

I love my Hellcats and use them often. They are stiffer then the Helldivers, so they hold and edge better, but the Helldivers turn with less effort at slower speeds. You can’t go wrong with either. When I’m skiing my Hellcats I ski bumps just like I had any of my other skis on. IMO it's the driver not the car.

http://www.nordica.com/site/ski.php?site=2&lang=1&id=25

http://www.nordica.com/site/ski.php?site=2&lang=1&id=26


----------



## snoseek (Dec 23, 2008)

The g.f. demoed a pair of icelantic shaman a few weeks ago on a powder day and was tearing up the bumps with them. They run very short but are suprisingly stable. I think they are like 130 under foot. I would not personally even look at skis under 90 if you really want a ski that is truly just for soft days.


----------



## gmcunni (Dec 23, 2008)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> I love my Hellcats and use them often. They are stiffer then the Helldivers, so they hold and edge better, but the Helldivers turn with less effort at slower speeds. You can’t go wrong with either. When I’m skiing my Hellcats I ski bumps just like I had any of my other skis on. IMO it's the driver not the car.
> 
> http://www.nordica.com/site/ski.php?site=2&lang=1&id=25
> 
> http://www.nordica.com/site/ski.php?site=2&lang=1&id=26



that hellcat sounds like a nice ski. I was looking to get something new next year and was thinking wider than the Volkl's i have now.  the hellcat might be the one.


----------



## Creakyknees (Dec 23, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm not going to bother arguing with you as I remember the other thread quite well with your skinnier is better stance.  If it works for you great.  Some people screw in philips screws with a flat head driver too.....doesn't mean its the best tool for the job.



This is not an argument it's a discussion. This is a thread for one ski for many jobs. Your analogy of the screw driver is great; we should apply this to this thread. If you only could have one tool to screw in both types of screws (philips and flat) what tool would it be. One tool for all uses just like the ski Mondeo needs.
Sorry if you think this is an argument I just want to express my opinion, this is the point of this thread, correct? This is why I love Alpinezone many opinions to learn from, and discuss the one thing we are on this site for "skiing". People could sit back just read the site and not express their opinion how much fun is that?
This is all in fun...................Sorry for the comment about the edges I thought that was funny. :razz:

Later,
Mr. My skis don't need a diet


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 23, 2008)

No worries, not offended by edge sharpening comment.  I stand by my statement as a B2 skier, for the type of conditions he is describing and the performance he is looking for there are better alternatives on the market. They will only offer marginally better powder/crud performance than his bump skis.  A B3 or even a B4 in the Rossi line from that era would be the better choice.


----------



## snowmonster (Dec 23, 2008)

I ski a B4 (122/94/112). It's a good powder day ski and it is my go to ski in the trees. It's a quick turner and very maneuverable. It does decently in the bumps but then again, I don't go the zipperline like some folks. If you're looking to go off-piste and are looking for a tool to handle the ungroomed freshies in the glades and do quick turns in trees as well as the bumps that form in there, this is a good ski. It does a good job on groomers too and, if you keep the edges sharp, it'll do decently on ice. It's not the quickest edge-to-edge (but what do you expect from that width) but it can rip. On the downside, because it's designed for powder skiing, it's on the soft side of things so if you straightline it, the tips start flapping. All in all, I have been a happy customer on these.


----------



## Glenn (Dec 23, 2008)

mondeo said:


> So, after the last couple powder days, I've been thinking I need a fatter ski for those 10% of days where bump skis just mean extra effort. Still want something decent in bumps in case a few pop up, so no powder skis even though that's what I'll be using them as. Twin tips might also be good in case I want to hit the park. Thinking something along the lines of Trouble Makers.
> 
> Anything I'm missing here?



Evogear.com....outlet: http://www.evogear.com/outlet-shop.aspx?text=trouble+maker

I have the Nothin' But Troubles which are more of a park twin. However, they're a ton of fun for all mountain...even with the bindings mounted a bit more forward than a traditional mount.


----------



## mondeo (Dec 23, 2008)

I think DHS and Snoseek get what I'm looking for the best. The only thing I'm worried about with a 90+ ski is that it would sacrifice my stance and bring back bad habits, but I suppose I could survive a few runs like that now and then.

Need to check out what the demo center at K-ton has the after next dump.


----------



## bvibert (Dec 23, 2008)

I would look for something 90+, no need to go less than that if you're looking for a ski to use mostly in powder.

You're welcome to take out my Line Anthems for a few runs at Sundown if you'd like.  They're 93mm under foot.  They have demo bindings so getting them to fit your boots wouldn't be a problem.  I think they're 178cm in length.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Dec 23, 2008)

mid 90's is a good place for an "east coast" pow ski for someone who likes skinny bump skis usually.  You'll get pleny of use out of them...spring time slush is much more fun on a fatter ski too.  I was skiing on a Fischer Watea 94 on saturday...would have been on something over 100 on Sunday and Monday if I was on the hill.  Then again, my hard snow ski has an 82mm waist.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 23, 2008)

mondeo said:


> I think DHS and Snoseek get what I'm looking for the best. The only thing I'm worried about with a 90+ ski is that it would sacrifice my stance and bring back bad habits, but I suppose I could survive a few runs like that now and then.
> 
> Need to check out what the demo center at K-ton has the after next dump.



I wouldn't worry too much about your stance with something in the 90's provided it doesn't have massive side cut.

Case in point, the B2 is 116-78-105, where as Snowmonsters B4's are 122/94/112.  So, not too much difference in the tips and tales and your stance can only go as narrow as what they allow for as well, so that's something to think about when thinking about stance.


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 23, 2008)

Watea 94 is a great recommendation. My current Atua 96 owns in power. Watea is shorter and just a touch less wide and without the twin which are improvements from my perspective. Certainly worth consideration along with some others. If your primary target is powder, I would recommend skipping the "mid" in the fat. You don't need a mid-fat on a powder day and a far board will eat up the tracked out crud much better as well.


----------



## snoseek (Dec 23, 2008)

I will also mention that I'm on my second pair of 4frnt msp and they handle all terrain very well. They are 91 mm underfoot and have less sidecut than many skis out there so that may work very well for you in the bumps. To be honest they ski all conditions very well, even hardpack. They are also fairly indestructable as I'm over 200 days on them and they're still skiing great. This would probably be a tough ski to find a demo of though.

They are great in deep snow, but I still reach for the fischers on the deep days.


----------



## awf170 (Dec 23, 2008)

CreekyKnees said:


> We are talking east coast powder it's gone in a few hours and you are than skiing hard pack or ice.



You = fail.  

(thanks for that one HighwayStar)


----------



## Creakyknees (Dec 24, 2008)

awf170 said:


> You = fail.



Fail=You   ????????????????????


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 24, 2008)

CreekyKnees said:


> Fail=You   ????????????????????



You = Fail  i.e. wrong on your assessment that east coast powder last for a few hours and goes back to hard pack and ice.  That's definitely not true.

There are plenty of places in New England where you can find powder for days following a storm....mainly in the woods at the major areas, but lesser known places, right on the trails.


----------



## hardline (Dec 25, 2008)

CreekyKnees said:


> We are talking east coast powder it's gone in a few hours and you are than skiing hard pack or ice. I don't think Mondeo needs a powder specific ski just an all-around ski.



never a more untrue statment. even at mt snow i was able to get powder for 2 days after the storm. at stowe/mansfield i can do its for two weeks as longs as it stays cold and not two windy. hell i could find wind affected a month later. maybe south of vt but thats not the case in the north.


----------



## Trekchick (Dec 29, 2008)

mondeo said:


> I think DHS and Snoseek get what I'm looking for the best. The only thing I'm worried about with a 90+ ski is that it would sacrifice my stance and bring back bad habits, but I suppose I could survive a few runs like that now and then.
> 
> Need to check out what the demo center at K-ton has the after next dump.



FIscher Watea 94.
My husband loves his Cronus' (88) but then he's not the most adept at skiing powder no matter what he does. 

Another friend, John, ahd the Watea 94 which I helped him get this fall.  Recently he used it in our huge dumps of snow and LOVED it!

Consider this for your demo list.

Also, if you get a chance to ski something in the 100+ range, do it.

I think you'll be surprised how much fun they are.


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 29, 2008)

Watea 94 getting a lot of suggestions here. Surprised I don't see more of the Watea series out there. Or the older Maori lines for that matter such as my Atuas. Fischer has perhaps the most under rated line of mid-fats and fats from the larger players.


----------



## mondeo (Feb 17, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> Watea 94 getting a lot of suggestions here. Surprised I don't see more of the Watea series out there. Or the older Maori lines for that matter such as my Atuas. Fischer has perhaps the most under rated line of mid-fats and fats from the larger players.


I'm so close to pulling the trigger on these. Anyone know of a mountain that has Fisher demos?

And assuming I do eventually get them, I'm thinking about putting Dukes or Barons on them. From what I've heard, they're plenty capable, just expensive and heavy compared to an alpine binding. That way if I decide to do some BC stuff I'll be set for skis. Would negate the benefit of the Watea's weight, though.


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 17, 2009)

Most of the high end all mountain expert skiis are in the hir 80's low 90's.  I may make more sense if you demo them on a hardpack day.  You know they are going to float its the edge grip you need to make sure is there.


----------



## Terry (Feb 17, 2009)

I just bought a pair of Line Prophet 100's and can't believe how well they ski the hard pack.You can lay them right over in a hard carve and they hold. You definately should try a pair of these.


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 17, 2009)

mondeo said:


> I'm so close to pulling the trigger on these. Anyone know of a mountain that has Fisher demos?
> 
> And assuming I do eventually get them, I'm thinking about putting Dukes or Barons on them. From what I've heard, they're plenty capable, just expensive and heavy compared to an alpine binding. That way if I decide to do some BC stuff I'll be set for skis. Would negate the benefit of the Watea's weight, though.



The dukes and Barons are light compard to alpine bindings.  Its funny Markers integrated set up is now what the dukes look like.  Its about time marker bindings needed a change for the better.


----------



## mondeo (Feb 17, 2009)

Looking for a 80% powder / 20% powder bumps ski. Looking for soft flex and low weight for that 20%, quickness side to side I figure will be about the same for most of the skis in the category. If I can't avoid hardpack (other than traverses and the like,) I'll be on my bump skis.

Killington is big enough that the day of a 12" dump, powder can be found at close. Not concerned about hardpack.


----------



## tjf67 (Feb 17, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Looking for a 80% powder / 20% powder bumps ski. Looking for soft flex and low weight for that 20%, quickness side to side I figure will be about the same for most of the skis in the category. If I can't avoid hardpack (other than traverses and the like,) I'll be on my bump skis.
> 
> Killington is big enough that the day of a 12" dump, powder can be found at close. Not concerned about hardpack.



I have the nortica Enforces with the dukes on them.  I think its light,  when you compare the weight next to my ac4 they are light.  They bacame my everyday ski for a few weeks and they handled the hard pack pretty well.  the only problem was floppy tongue syndrome,  When I go fast on hardpack if I am not setting the edge hard the front of the ski slaps up and down.   Its a great ski though.  I like the twin tip part.  not for the parks but when you ski off into the woods to pee you can back out and not have the rear of the ski sink in.    Its mid 90's under foot with an 18 turning radius.  Its a turner once you get it up to speed.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Feb 17, 2009)

mondeo said:


> I'm so close to pulling the trigger on these. Anyone know of a mountain that has Fisher demos?
> 
> And assuming I do eventually get them, I'm thinking about putting Dukes or Barons on them. From what I've heard, they're plenty capable, just expensive and heavy compared to an alpine binding. That way if I decide to do some BC stuff I'll be set for skis. Would negate the benefit of the Watea's weight, though.



plenty of places selling Fischer and demo-ing...but not many places in the east demo or stock the watea 94...try Peak Performance at KL...they carry Fischer, but not sure if they have the 94.  The duke/baron are lighter than a typical alpine binding, heavier than an AT binding...but burlier.  A watea mounted with either would make for a versatile resort/sidecountry set up.  I ski on a watea 94...floats like its 94 under foot but holds on hard snow like its mid 80s.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 17, 2009)

I dunno about the Watea 94, but the Atua is not a light ski. So if you are looking for a light weight setup or at least a light weight ski to compensate for a heavier touring cross over binding, you might want to consider another ski. I can really whip the Atua around in powder but they are heavy when it is not powdery. Perhaps the Watea 94 backed off the weight a little bit. At the least, it does not have a turned up tail, is shorter, and 2mm narrower in the waist, so there should be a decrease in weight from the Atua. But I can not believe it would be enough to suggest the Watea 94 is light for its class. I would put that ski in the upper end of the mid-weight fat skis.

As far as demos, I never found one and bought sight unseen.


----------



## mondeo (Feb 17, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> As far as demos, I never found one and bought sight unseen.



The more I read, the more I like these skis. Supposedly lighter than the Atuas in part due to the addition of carbon I-beams. My guess is that the I-beam part of it is a gimmick, but the horizontal parts of the carbon should do their job.

Dammit, I think I'm there. I do want them before the next powder day (unfortunately, looks like I have some time.)


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 17, 2009)

Ah, yes. Forgot about those I-Beams. Honestly, if I could have held out for the latest version of the ski, I would have. But for $200 used but in perfect condition, I wasn't about to wait around until I had the money. If you are looking for 80% or more powder, you'll find these babys turn beautifully regardless of weight any ways. They almost feel as light as my legends when I am skiing boot deep. They just flooooooooooooat, baby. Surfing, man. I can't get enough. I thought I liked powder but my Atua's took the romance to a whole new level.


----------



## mondeo (Feb 18, 2009)

One last question before I pull the trigger...length. Widely spaced trees or open spaces, definately 186s, but a little concerned about tight trees. I think they're the right choice, but wondered what length you guys are on.

5'10", 215.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Feb 18, 2009)

mondeo said:


> The more I read, the more I like these skis. Supposedly lighter than the Atuas in part due to the addition of carbon I-beams. My guess is that the I-beam part of it is a gimmick, but the horizontal parts of the carbon should do their job.
> 
> Dammit, I think I'm there. I do want them before the next powder day (unfortunately, looks like I have some time.)



no gimmick, there really are two carbon I-beams milled into the woodcore...middle 1/3rd of the ski, under the binding area.  I ski it in a 186...6'1 200lbs...only make short turns when I have to...78 would be better for tight trees but I prefer a longer ski. They are lighter than the Atua...its one of the lightest mid 90's waisted skis out there...no metal in them either.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 18, 2009)

My opinion is that one size down from 186 would probably be perfect. Just my opinion. The only ski longer than 180 in my quiver is my Atua at 186... but it has a twin tip that negates at least 6cm, if not more. 6'1" 220 lbs. I wouldn't be worried about tight trees specifically. The right size is the right size, regardless.


----------



## riverc0il (Feb 18, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> no gimmick, there really are two carbon I-beams milled into the woodcore...middle 1/3rd of the ski, under the binding area.  I ski it in a 186...6'1 200lbs...only make short turns when I have to...78 would be better for tight trees but I prefer a longer ski. They are lighter than the Atua...its one of the lightest mid 90's waisted skis out there...no metal in them either.


Niiiice. Glad to hear that the I-Beam stuff really lowered the weight on the new Watea 94s. Almost makes me want to core shot my Atua's sooner than I might have! :lol:


----------



## mondeo (Feb 18, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> no gimmick, there really are two carbon I-beams milled into the woodcore...


Not doubting that they're there, just doubting the effectiveness of putting I beams in instead of a couple of carbon sheets. The reason for the I beam shape is that the vertical section connects the two horizontal sections, so one is in compression and the other is in tension when in bending, leading to an optimized shape for strength and stiffness. In a carbon-wood-carbon laminate, the wood should perform the same function as the vertical web of an I-beam. There is some benefit of adding the carbon through the cross-section, I'm just not sure that it's the most effective use of it. Seems like a marketing attempt to seperate the Fishers from skis that just use layers of carbon to me.

Just my $.02 as an engineer. I could be missing a unique aspect of ski construction here.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Feb 19, 2009)

mondeo said:


> Not doubting that they're there, just doubting the effectiveness of putting I beams in instead of a couple of carbon sheets. The reason for the I beam shape is that the vertical section connects the two horizontal sections, so one is in compression and the other is in tension when in bending, leading to an optimized shape for strength and stiffness. In a carbon-wood-carbon laminate, the wood should perform the same function as the vertical web of an I-beam. There is some benefit of adding the carbon through the cross-section, I'm just not sure that it's the most effective use of it. Seems like a marketing attempt to seperate the Fishers from skis that just use layers of carbon to me.
> 
> Just my $.02 as an engineer. I could be missing a unique aspect of ski construction here.



milling out the section of the wood core where the i-beams are inserted reduces the overall weight where layers of carbon fiber on top and bottom of the core wouldn't.  plus it looks much cooler when you have a core sample cut in half!


----------



## Terry (Feb 22, 2009)

Terry said:


> I just bought a pair of Line Prophet 100's and can't believe how well they ski the hard pack.You can lay them right over in a hard carve and they hold. You definately should try a pair of these.



Got into the trees with them yesterday and skied some stashes that have been untouched this year! The float was incredible! I haven't found anything these don't do well. I even ran them in the race course on Wed night and got my fastest time ever through the gates. I am in LOVE!!!! All my friends have commented on how my skiing has drastically improved since getting them.


----------

