# Fat Skis, Hard Snow



## JSHSKI (Jan 23, 2012)

I'm seeking input from the Fo and hope this gets some discussion going. I had a fun day at Cannon yesterday but I found the conditions to be pretty icy. I've skied a long time and I am on Volkl Tigershark 12 foot skis. (124/79/108 @ 175 cm) These fairly narrow waist skis should be able to carve and hold on hard snow. Others were struggling too so it was not just me. Then there were the folks on wide skis tearing it up like it was corduroy. Guys going down Cannonball at ~40 mph doing super G turns. Three guys in snowmaker-do-not-follow jackets on practically water skis.  I did not get to see them skiing (I did not follow) but they seemed to be having a great day. The rack in front of the Peabody lodge looked like we were at Alta. I'm guessing the average waist was around 120mm. I have some Volkl Mantra's on the way to me. I bought them primarily for trips out west. (Alta for Feb vacation this year) They are 132/98/118 @ 184 cm. These are described as all mountain skis with powder capabilities. From what I saw yesterday, they will fit right in here in the east too. So obviously some folks have the skills to make yesterday's conditions look great, while others (me) only thought it was OK. I am a pretty strong skier who can carve turns well as long as the surface is carve-able. I would have said yesterdays snow was too hard to carve, if I didn't see so many others doing so. Will my new Mantra's help me on this kind of day? What have others experienced when going to fat skis? Anyone willing to share their tricks for this type of snow?

Thanks!


----------



## Puck it (Jan 23, 2012)

A sharp edge on any width waist will hold.  Mantras will be just fine.  My everyday skis are Hell and Backs.  They hold really well on any surface with an edge.  There are a lot of full rockers showing up at Cannon.  I am not quite sure as to why though.


----------



## filejw (Jan 23, 2012)

My Mantras have been just great in about anything . Killington,  Wa Wa , Mt Snow , Jackson Hole, Squaw, Alta . In deep deep snow I may have been better off last year with powder skis but last year was special out west as ever day was a powder day.


----------



## Nick (Jan 23, 2012)

JSHSKI said:


> I'm seeking input from the Fo and hope this gets some discussion going. I had a fun day at Cannon yesterday but I found the conditions to be pretty icy. I've skied a long time and I am on Volkl Tigershark 12 foot skis. (124/79/108 @ 175 cm) These fairly narrow waist skis should be able to carve and hold on hard snow. Others were struggling too so it was not just me. Then there were the folks on wide skis tearing it up like it was corduroy. Guys going down Cannonball at ~40 mph doing super G turns. Three guys in snowmaker-do-not-follow jackets on practically water skis.  I did not get to see them skiing (I did not follow) but they seemed to be having a great day. The rack in front of the Peabody lodge looked like we were at Alta. I'm guessing the average waist was around 120mm. I have some Volkl Mantra's on the way to me. I bought them primarily for trips out west. (Alta for Feb vacation this year) They are 132/98/118 @ 184 cm. These are described as all mountain skis with powder capabilities. From what I saw yesterday, they will fit right in here in the east too. So obviously some folks have the skills to make yesterday's conditions look great, while others (me) only thought it was OK. I am a pretty strong skier who can carve turns well as long as the surface is carve-able. I would have said yesterdays snow was too hard to carve, if I didn't see so many others doing so. Will my new Mantra's help me on this kind of day? What have others experienced when going to fat skis? Anyone willing to share their tricks for this type of snow?
> 
> Thanks!



I was up at Cannon yesterday also and noticed the exact same thing. Super fat skis. I just picked up new skis (more on that later... Atomic Crimson TI's) and I felt downright narrow compared to some of the others. One guy in particular I rode on the Tram with had some telemarking skis - they must have been 190cm long and probably 120+ underfoot. They were enormous. But he was absolutely tearing it up, I followed him down Avalanche on the way to the tram and he was really cooking.


----------



## Cheese (Jan 23, 2012)

JSHSKI said:


> I am a pretty strong skier who can carve turns well as long as the surface is carve-able. I would have said yesterdays snow was too hard to carve, if I didn't see so many others doing so. Will my new Mantra's help me on this kind of day? What have others experienced when going to fat skis? Anyone willing to share their tricks for this type of snow?



I haven't seen you ski, but my initial assumption is that technique will help you more than the Mantras.  So, to prove to yourself whether or not you can carve well enough, I suggest this fairly telling two step drill.

1. On a wide blue trail clear of any traffic below and above you, link several turns together, forming "*S*" patterns down the slope.  This will be very simple for anyone that can carve.

2. Once you are comfortable, change the shape of your turns from the "*S*" to more of an "*8*" on it's side.  The finish of your turn will now be heading back up the slope crossing the ruts of your previous turn.  This "*8*" pattern requires a strong carve so should let you know fairly quickly if it's time to invest in a carving lesson.


----------



## JSHSKI (Jan 23, 2012)

*Alta last Feb:*



filejw said:


> My Mantras have been just great in about anything . Killington,  Wa Wa , Mt Snow , Jackson Hole, Squaw, Alta . In deep deep snow I may have been better off last year with powder skis but last year was special out west as ever day was a powder day.



Thanks for the input. I was at Alta last year during a very snowy week! I skied it on my Tigersharks, but I knew I would have been having a better time on something bigger. (the rental shop at Collins Base sold out of fat boards)  Our  Eastie Skis looked funny alongside all the super wide twin tipped "Clown Skis". There's some folks who can ski at Alta. We were swimming in the deep end that week!


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 23, 2012)

Agree on the edges.  FWIW I have been very surprised how the transition from my Tigersharks and narrow skis to my fatter skis (102 and 105 waists) has gone.  I can get the super stiff Head Monster 102sw's on edge and carving well...just GS turns.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 23, 2012)

I was at Cannon yesterday as well. While I thought some trails were a little "slick" I didn't think Cannonball was. I skied it around 2pm and it seemed better than some other times I had been there. Avalanche and the other front five were more slick in spots.

To add I was not the tele skier mentioned above - my skis are only 85 under foot


----------



## legalskier (Jan 23, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> Agree on the edges.



My experience is the opposite. I have new Rossi Experience 88s (170s, with slight front rocker) which I've skied @ 6 days. My old skis are Volkl Allstar Supersports (163s) which are narrow waisted. I've skied them both on the same day, same conditions/trails, both with newly sharpened edges. To my pleasant surprise the Rossi's held on ice and hard pack much better than the Volkls (and the Volkls are very good there). It's totally counter-intuitive; looking at them side by side, you'd assume the opposite.

I bought the Rossi's to serve as a one ski quiver for any condition we find in the east, and they are living up to their sparkling reviews in every respect (though I'm still waiting for enough cover for tree skiing). Extremely pleased with them.


----------



## kingslug (Jan 23, 2012)

I think it would also depend on if the skis where rockered or not. I have Rossi S3's which do not like ice..they tend to schmear turns and get very slippery on the hard stuff..fat skis without rocker but stiff are just a bigger platform. IMHO


----------



## Nick (Jan 23, 2012)

Where the hell where all you guys last week when I was seeing who wanted to ski Cannon on Sunday :roll:


----------



## St. Bear (Jan 23, 2012)

Nick said:


> Where the hell where all you guys last week when I was seeing who wanted to ski Cannon on Sunday :roll:



The boss is always the loneliest guy at lunchtime.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 23, 2012)

A little surprised at this thread.

If we're assuming the poor conditions, boilerplate etc... that the OP seems to be suggesting......  and we can scientifically superimpose the exact same skier with the exact same skillset on the exact same run in the exact same conditions, the narrow waisted 68 or 74 underfoot ski should perform better than the fat/wide 120 or 130 underfoot.  Physics/design.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Jan 23, 2012)

my line elizabeths (110 under) carves better on ice than my rossi powderbirds (76 under) and they get the same tune...


----------



## atkinson (Jan 23, 2012)

I've been skiing a pair of K2 Obsethed's (118mm waist, powder rocker, with camber underfoot) all season long at Sugarbush, every condition imaginable and they have changed my life. I carve and hold on ice better, they charge the bumps, funky snow is no issue, pow is dreamy and I never catch an edge. 

The physics of rocker actually encourages carving. Skiing is easier and more fun than ever before. Go demo. 

John


----------



## Cheese (Jan 23, 2012)

atkinson said:


> The physics of rocker actually encourages carving.



That's why all the racers are on them this year.

Wait, what?


----------



## Puck it (Jan 23, 2012)

atkinson said:


> The physics of rocker actually encourages carving. Skiing is easier and more fun than ever before. Go demo.


 
I call do over.  The real answer is fuzzy.  Yes reverse camber does start a turn faster, but also has problems going flat. 

http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/physics-of-skiing.html


----------



## JSHSKI (Jan 23, 2012)

*Mantra's  arrived!*

Thanks to all that have replied. UPS brought my Mantra's awhile ago. I am dying to try them now. Everyone here has encouraged me to consider them my skis and not just my "powder skis". The responses have raised many different issues from edge sharpness, my ability to carve, rocker or not, etc. What makes me happy is the ones saying they enjoy their wider skis more than skinny in most or all conditions. 

As for the science: I thought that the reason narrow waist skis would be better on hard snow was the greater side-cut. That during a carved turn, the whole length of the ski is engaged with the snow and the ski is following it's natural arc through the turn. Less side-cut, less engagement so less edge hold on ice. I know that when I was 20 -30 yo and I skied on 207cm K2 KVC Comps, I was able to hang on tight through some very hard cuts on firm snow. However, if a ski is about 110mm wide underfoot and you put it up on edge, aren't you applying more force to the edge than if the ski is only 78mm wide?  Isn't that extra width acting like a longer lever?  

I'm going to get the tigersharks sharpened, try the mantra's on whatever snow there is next weekend, and read with interest any input you all have regarding the "science"
Thanks, 
Joe


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 23, 2012)

JSHSKI said:


> What makes me happy is the ones saying* they enjoy their wider skis more than skinny in *most or *all conditions*.



There are many conditions in which the wider skis can outperform.  The conditions you specifically asked about, however, typically arent one of them, despite some of the responses you received, and frankly I think some replies suffer from _"I own this and love it"_ bias.

Were it true that fat skis perform better in "all conditions", then why dont Lindsey Vonn and Bode Miller ski on 120mm underfoot skis?   Why doesnt Ted Ligety go with 130mm under his boot?    When Bode essentially changed the world on K2 Fours, I believe they were 65mm under the foot.   

Different tools are required for different applications. Fat is great for float, not as great for extremely quick and precise changes.


----------



## Cheese (Jan 23, 2012)

JSHSKI said:


> As for the science: I thought that the reason narrow waist skis would be better on hard snow was the greater side-cut. That during a carved turn, the whole length of the ski is engaged with the snow and the ski is following it's natural arc through the turn. Less side-cut, less engagement so less edge hold on ice.



Nope. Side-cut is merely a variable in how easy it is to flex a ski into a reverse camber or carving arc.  Increasing side-cut will increase the amount that the weight of a skier aides in flexing the ski into the reverse camber or carving arc.  Once the arc is formed, holding the edge on ice requires more than side-cut.

Let's consider the tire of your car.  The rubber comes in contact with the road and offers traction, right?  What happens if the road surface isn't smooth?  Does the tire still work or do we need additional springs and and shock absorbers to make sure that tire stays in contact with the road?

Since a ski doesn't have springs or shock absorbers we give it camber and stiffness.  So, although the side-cut of a ski may make it easier to place the edge on the snow, it is camber and stiffness that keep the edge on the snow through the carve at speed and on uneven surfaces.


----------



## skiersleft (Jan 23, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> A little surprised at this thread.
> 
> If we're assuming the poor conditions, boilerplate etc... that the OP seems to be suggesting......  and we can scientifically superimpose the exact same skier with the exact same skillset on the exact same run in the exact same conditions, the narrow waisted 68 or 74 underfoot ski should perform better than the fat/wide 120 or 130 underfoot.  Physics/design.



This. I don't think it can be seriously claimed that a fat ski is better at carving hardpack than a narrow ski. 

My experience has been the opposite. This year I decided to buy a high end carver ski. 72 underfoot. Game changer. Much better on ice than any other ski I've tried. It's not that a fat ski can't perform well on ice, but saying that it performs better than frontside carvers and race skis on hardpack is just weird.


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 23, 2012)

*seriously?????*


----------



## skiersleft (Jan 23, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> *seriously?????*



Seriously what?


----------



## Nick (Jan 23, 2012)

Why would narrower vs. wider impact edge grip. The only difference I can think of is the cantliever action you get on a wider ski ... 

Where's that ski physics book Snowmonster recommended


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 23, 2012)

skiersleft said:


> Seriously what?


 
Seriously, epicski and alpinezone should have a gaper-off.

I'm going to take a wild guess that I'm the only person in this thread that has actually ever carved a turn. 

And I'm certain I'm the only one here who's carved a 120mm+ waist ski.....which are exceptionally difficult to carve on, and can ususally only be carved on soft snow.

You guys all love the wider skis because they are easier to skid.


----------



## darent (Jan 23, 2012)

Give me a narrower ski and 3 degree side angle on hard pack anyday,I want to have fun not work at it all day


----------



## darent (Jan 23, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> Seriously, epicski and alpinezone should have a gaper-off.
> 
> I'm going to take a wild guess that[ I'm the only person in this thread that has actually ever carved a turn.}
> 
> ...



your tag is about right,  HS= DREAMER


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 23, 2012)

JSHSKI said:


> I'm seeking input from the Fo and hope this gets some discussion going. I had a fun day at Cannon yesterday but I found the conditions to be pretty icy. I've skied a long time and I am on Volkl Tigershark 12 foot skis. (124/79/108 @ 175 cm) These fairly narrow waist skis should be able to carve and hold on hard snow. Others were struggling too so it was not just me. Then there were the folks on wide skis tearing it up like it was corduroy. Guys going down Cannonball at ~40 mph doing super G turns. Three guys in snowmaker-do-not-follow jackets on practically water skis.  I did not get to see them skiing (I did not follow) but they seemed to be having a great day. The rack in front of the Peabody lodge looked like we were at Alta. I'm guessing the average waist was around 120mm. I have some Volkl Mantra's on the way to me. I bought them primarily for trips out west. (Alta for Feb vacation this year) They are 132/98/118 @ 184 cm. These are described as all mountain skis with powder capabilities. From what I saw yesterday, they will fit right in here in the east too. So obviously some folks have the skills to make yesterday's conditions look great, while others (me) only thought it was OK. I am a pretty strong skier who can carve turns well as long as the surface is carve-able. I would have said yesterdays snow was too hard to carve, if I didn't see so many others doing so. Will my new Mantra's help me on this kind of day?


No. Instead of buying the Mantras, take some lessons. I don't mean to sound flip, but if you see guys making it look easy on fat skis and you're having trouble on Tigersharks... it is you, not the skis. The Mantras will not help you. Also, what are you doing going from 175 in Tigersharks to 184 in Mantras?  If you're having trouble making good carves on Tigersharks, I almost have to wonder if you have too much ski under you. Those skis are made for ripping up icy hard pack.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 23, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> A little surprised at this thread.
> 
> If we're assuming the poor conditions, boilerplate etc... that the OP seems to be suggesting......  and we can scientifically superimpose the exact same skier with the exact same skillset on the exact same run in the exact same conditions, the narrow waisted 68 or 74 underfoot ski should perform better than the fat/wide 120 or 130 underfoot.  Physics/design.


I appreciate where you are going with this and this is a decent generalization. But we also have to keep in mind how the ski is designed. A floppy foam core 69mm underfoot ski not optimized for torsional stiffness isn't going to rip it as well as race inspired wood core with two sheets of tintinal even at 100mm underfoot. Edge to edge transitions might be a little slower but with the proper radius and lateral stiffness, there are indeed some fat boards that rip better than skinny skis. BUT when you compare skis in the same class and same construction, yes the skinnier ski is going to rip the groomers much better which is why racers still ski skinny skis.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 23, 2012)

Puck it said:


> I call do over.  The real answer is fuzzy.


Yes, this this this. I am so tired of blanket generalizations!


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 23, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> You guys all love the wider skis because they are easier to skid.


Heh. :lol:

This cuts into the heart of the wider/rocker argument for me. So many people swear by certain tech but is it because the tech is actually better or because the tech better fits their technique... or more specifically lack thereof. Can a person demoing a ski and reporting on its various abilities actually command the technique to truly inspire the performance being reported on? Or are they actually just reporting more on their own technique status rather than how the ski truly performs for someone that can us it to its full potential. Not in reference to anyone in particular... just a general comment. HS was a bit out of line with his response but it does bring up an interesting issue regarding how people report on gear. I trust reviews and hearsay less and less.


----------



## atkinson (Jan 23, 2012)

I'm pretty sure some of you argued that shaped skis were lame too. Not all rocker is the same, so don't take this as a blanket endorsement of any technology. I don't own the Obsethed's either, so there is no buyer pride.

I never said that rockers beat racers for carving, just that rocker skis encourage carving. Tip the ski over and it is already pre-shaped into a flexed carve. Tip and rip. On an early rise or moderate rocker ski, it's easier to teach carving and easier for experts to carve consistently. 

Racers and hard snow fanatics don't want or need easy though. They want precision in a limited arena, which generally means narrower and stiffer. Most of the rest of us want fun in a wide arena. I want to blast funk, charge pow, bust crust, carve groomers, float bumps and rip trees. Rocker just adds versatility. 

The Obs roll right over steep faced bumps, never get hung up in thick stuff, hold on ice and carve the groomers. You can pick on my abilities if it makes you feel better. I can take it.


----------



## Nick (Jan 23, 2012)

Dunno WTF is going on but every time I see the title of this thread I read, "Eat Skis"


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 23, 2012)

My everyday ice coast ski is 84 underfoot.  I doubt there are many skis wider than my Fischer Motive 84's that will handle as well as they do on hard snow conditions.  I know there are skis that will handle the boiler plate better and they are significantly narrower. There's a reason why you don't see FIS racers on skis much wider than what? 70 mm underfoot?


----------



## goldsbar (Jan 23, 2012)

All things equal, fat skis will NEVER grip better than narrow skis.  My attempt at the physics courtesy of "Ultimate Skiing" (read the book for nice pictures):

Think of the line of force going through your leg.  It's basically going from the center of your knee to the center of your foot.  If you had an ice skate on, this force would be almost exactly where the super narrow blade hits the ice.  With skis, the force goes through the center of your foot but the edge isn't there; it's off to the side (to confuse things, riser plates grip better because they can make the center of your foot closer to the edge).  The wider the ski, the further the edge from the center of your force.  In addition to making your edge dig in, the force is also attempting to flatten your ski (bad!).

(Fat skis are also slower edge-to-edge, another physics lesson)

Of course all things aren't equal in real life.  Skis lose their ability to grip over time so that new pair of wide skis might feel better than your 5 y/o skinny skis.  Take a new GS/SL ski and put it against a Mantra.  It's not even close.

As for technique, if you don't know what "counter" is, you'll never grip well on ice.  If you do understand counter, know that ice requires very strong counter balance combined with some counter rotation.  Carving rr tracks on soft groomers is great but it doesn't mean your technique is correct.  Ice is the true measure of carving technique.


----------



## atkinson (Jan 23, 2012)

Following the conventional wisdom, everybody should clearly be on ice skates. All things equal, it's the best way to get the most power to the edge. 

We're not racing world cup here. You shouldn't buy skis based on your least favorite condition, either.

All things are never equal in the real world. If you've never tried a pair, go demo. Don't stay on the ice either, just to prove your own beliefs. Wander and ponder.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Jan 23, 2012)

^ Atkinson speaks the truth. Get the ski that suits the condition you enjoy skiing the most. Learn to make them work in the conditions you find. Or buy many skis and spend countless hours agonizing over which pair to use on any given day. And don't forget to have fun.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 23, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> . Get the ski that suits the condition you enjoy skiing the most..



Sure, provided you are able to ski those conditions most of the time.  My condition preference is 2 feet of blower and if I were to ski those conditions often, I'd buy a 110+ underfoot.  I get to ski those conditions maybe 1-2 days a season these days due to where I live, ski most often and my work obligations.

In general, I think most Northeast skiers are overly optimistic with their ski selections.  I say this having gotten in on the "super fats" early.  I've had a 110 in my ski quiver since 2000.  I bought them when living in Stowe during the epic 2000-2001 winter when the mountain got 400+ inches. I skied them pretty much everyday that season.  But looking back?  Even during that crazy winter, I'd have probably been better off skiing on something much narrower half my days out that season.  

I bought my Motive 84s this season knowing that 75% of my days are going to be at low natural snowfall areas in NH.  The one day I've had 6 inch plus deep conditions, I was wishing I was on something wider, but for the most part, they're spot on for the kind of conditions I know I'll be skiing most.

Don't buy skis based upon the type of conditions you like the best.  Buy skis based upon the type of conditions you're likely to encounter the most.  Unless you ski Northern VT the most, I'd say under 85 is the right width for most skiers in the East.


----------



## goldsbar (Jan 23, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> Don't buy skis based upon the type of conditions you like the best.  Buy skis based upon the type of conditions you're likely to encounter the most.  Unless you ski Northern VT the most, I'd say under 85 is the right width for most skiers in the East.



This.  Luckily I have a small quiver (Sultan 85s do it all, Fischer WC SC slalom like ski).  I brought my not-so-wide-anymore-but-very-wide-five-years-ago Sultan 85s to the Hunter Mtn demo day.  It was pretty much groomers with a couple of small bump sections.  In other words, 95% of my skiing that day was on a groomer that ranged from nice to glazed.  I took advantage of the demo day and tried some Dynastar Speed Course Ti skis.  Same length (+1 mm), same brand, approximately the same turning radius as the Sultans.  Fun factor was night and day.  I wanted to buy them on the spot.  Much faster edge to edge, speed demons and they cut through ice like a hot knife through butter.  The Sultans felt like an 18 wheeler compared to these things.  Now, give me some fresh snow or slush or crud or whatever and the Sultans will allow me to blast down the fall line like I'm on a groomer.  Fun factor for the Sultans in those conditions.

I'm in no way knocking fat skis.  The technology is actually amazing.  Realskiers, usually conservative, has the 100+mm Ullr Ski Logic (or is that Ski Logic Ullr, whatever) as the overall ski of the year two years straight.  They even claim the short turn radius and flex design makes them really quick edge to edge.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 23, 2012)

If I were to add a new fat ski to my quiver, something like the Rockered Ski Logic Urlls Chariot would be it.  It sounds like the PERFECT east coast powder ski. But, I'd probably only ski it 5 days a year.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Jan 23, 2012)

Well, you make a fair point. In the interest of brevity, I failed to add "within reason" to my advice above. That said, I respectfully disagree with you. Your 110 skis from 2001 are nothing like the 110 skis of today. In the last five years, I gone from 75 to 94 to 100 to 108 underfoot. That may be the limit for the east. Current ski has camber plus early rise at both ends (Line SFB). No powder days so far and I am still happy I bought them. I do admit that it would be nice to have something skinnier for the super-icy days but if I can only ski on one ski, I'd rather make do with the SFB. They make everything so much fun.

As the French say: "à chacun son goût."

Or, if you prefer the Latin; "de gustibus non est disputandum."


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 23, 2012)

The 70mm skis today are nothing like 10 years ago either.  Physics are still physics.  The ice skate analogy someone made earlier in the tread is spot on.


----------



## snowmonster (Jan 23, 2012)

Been a fan of fat skis for a while now and I use a 100-waister as my daily driver. I also use a reversed camber skis in a 112 and 115 waist on this coast. On soft snow and in the trees, they are superb. They are fun and, with the right technique, can carve on very hard snow. However, they are not a substitute for more narrow waist-ed skis. I finally discovered their performance limits last week on a very slick and steep National headwall at Stowe. No matter how sharp my edges were, it was a struggle to get them to bite.


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Jan 23, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> The 70mm skis today are nothing like 10 years ago either.  Physics are still physics.  The ice skate analogy someone made earlier in the tread is spot on.



Physics, schmisics. I'm talking about having fun. Are you thinking physics while you ski? If so, I feel sorry for you.

And pay attention. The ice skate analogy was made by Atkinson, who is clearly in the fat/rockered ski camp:



atkinson said:


> Following the conventional wisdom, everybody should clearly be on ice skates. All things equal, it's the best way to get the most power to the edge.
> 
> We're not racing world cup here. You shouldn't buy skis based on your least favorite condition, either.
> 
> All things are never equal in the real world. If you've never tried a pair, go demo. Don't stay on the ice either, just to prove your own beliefs. Wander and ponder.



I agree with Atkinson, the wider, rockered ski gives you the most versatility. Why, just the other day we skied groomers with a bit o' fresh on the sides. The smoothest transitions I have ever experienced. 

Pay attention also to what rivercOil says (and I paraphrase): it is a poor craftsman that blames his tools.


----------



## atkinson (Jan 23, 2012)

Blaming your gear for not being able to ski a trail? 

Sorry for the NVT bias, but I encounter a wide variety of conditions weekly. Do any NE'ers live in a place that doesn't get warm-ups and cool-downs during winter? Sure, we get more pow, but there are far more variable surfaces most of the time. Rockered and fat are just more fun across a wider spectrum.

How would I be better off on a narrower ski? Better grip? Faster edge to edge? The turns seem to happen plenty fast and when the going gets rough, these boards dance through it. Chunk, cookies, glacier, glop, they just seem to inspire confidence.

Your mileage may vary, but the original poster mentioned skiing at Cannon and they get their share of pow too. Maybe it's okay that he gets a wider ski and loves it?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 23, 2012)

goldsbar said:


> All things equal, fat skis will NEVER grip better than narrow skis.  My attempt at the physics courtesy of "Ultimate Skiing" (read the book for nice pictures):
> 
> Think of the line of force going through your leg.  It's basically going from the center of your knee to the center of your foot.  If you had an ice skate on, this force would be almost exactly where the super narrow blade hits the ice.  With skis, the force goes through the center of your foot but the edge isn't there; it's off to the side (to confuse things, riser plates grip better because they can make the center of your foot closer to the edge).  The wider the ski, the further the edge from the center of your force.  In addition to making your edge dig in, the force is also attempting to flatten your ski (bad!).
> 
> ...



my ice skate comment was in reference to the above post, not John A.



Sick Bird Rider said:


> Physics, schmisics. I'm talking about having fun. Are you thinking physics while you ski? If so, I feel sorry for you.
> 
> And pay attention. The ice skate analogy was made by Atkinson, who is clearly in the fat/rockered ski camp:
> 
> ...



I know rivercoil.  He doesn't blame his equipment, but always skis the right equipment for the conditions present.  He's been rocking 78mm Dynastar Legends for years and those have been his skis underfoot I think every time I've skied with him. 

I don't think about physics when I ski, but I do know that physics play a role in how much fun I'll have on the slopes regarding my equipment choices.  The one day I've had this season where there was 6 plus on the hill, I swapped out my 84 Motives for my 92 High Society Free Rides (and they still weren't wide enough) 

If I were to have an ideal 2 ski quiver in the east, it would be my Fischers and then something in the 100-110 range.  High 80s through 100 are useless in the east as far as I'm concerned.  

though, I also want a bump specific ski around 70 underfoot which I have with my old Rossi BX's


----------



## laxski (Jan 24, 2012)

I am skiing Volkl Gotomas 106 underfoot rockered after Volkl supersport 5 stars. 6 days no powder just groomers and 1 day of brutal conditions.For 5 of those day I have been very happy with the ski and the icy day let's just say even if I had skates on it would have sucked Ski east coast exclusively and not going skinner anytime soon.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 24, 2012)

atkinson said:


> Following the conventional wisdom, everybody should clearly be on ice skates. All things equal, it's the best way to get the most power to the edge.
> 
> We're not racing world cup here. You shouldn't buy skis based on your least favorite condition, either.
> 
> All things are never equal in the real world. If you've never tried a pair, go demo. Don't stay on the ice either, just to prove your own beliefs. Wander and ponder.


You are debating a point with yourself, here. No one is saying that if you need a one ski quiver that you shouldn't go fatter. The points being suggested are that for icy hard pack (where the OP was having some major problems) skinny skis are clearly the best tool for the job. 

When I think of "conventional wisdom" I think of "go bigger". Go skinny is old school wisdom. Everybody these days says go fat. I think a lot of people that could be better served by skinnier hard pack skis (those that never or rarely get off the groomers) are being misled. I think the OP might fall into this category buying a fatter ski to improve his icy hard pack groomer skiing (!!!).


----------



## hammer (Jan 24, 2012)

FWIW when I was at Loon last Friday I brought what seemed to be the wrong skis for the job (Fischer Progressors).  Made some adjustments in technique and I still managed to do a passable job in the shallow powder.

Guess my own opinion from an intermediate's perspective is that unless there is some terrific deal out there I won't worry about optimizing my equipment until my skills are more solid.  In the meantime my skinny front-side skis (which hold an edge nicely when driven properly) will do just fine for most cases and I still have 3YO all-mountain skis to use when the front-side skis don't perform as well.


----------



## Glenn (Jan 24, 2012)

I'm just not convinced anything wider than a 90 underfoot can hold as good as a 75-80 underfoot. I really need to demo to test my hypothesis.


----------



## atkinson (Jan 24, 2012)

More beginners and intermediates (experts too) need to try early rise/rockered boards. Their abilities and fun would dramatically improve. 

As for the conventional wisdom, I was talking about the wisdom being offered by the peanut gallery. You know, like 80-110mm skis being useless around here.


----------



## skiersleft (Jan 24, 2012)

snowmonster said:


> I finally discovered their performance limits last week on a very slick and steep National headwall at Stowe. No matter how sharp my edges were, it was a struggle to get them to bite.



Funny you mention this. I also tried the National headwall at Stowe this weekend with mid fats. Tried it twice on Saturday and just couldn't get them to bite. Slid all the way down to the moguls. Same story Saturday. It was a f-ing glacier. Haven't seen ice like that in a while. Was wishing I brought with me my skinny 72 underfoot carvers.


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 24, 2012)

atkinson said:


> More beginners and intermediates (experts too) need to try early rise/rockered boards. Their abilities and fun would dramatically improve.



in all seriousness, would you mind expanding on this as to WHY?  i'm not much of a gear head and thought rockers were simply for deep/soft snow.


----------



## Cheese (Jan 24, 2012)

atkinson said:


> More beginners and intermediates (experts too) need to try early rise/rockered boards. Their abilities and fun would dramatically improve.



Disagree:
This reverts to the skidding comment made many posts earlier.  If the goal is to put beginner and intermediate skiers on skis that are easier to skid turn so they'll have some fun on greens and blues, sure.  However, if that same intermediate skier winds up on a black run in New England after 2pm, they're going to skid dangerously, get discouraged, scared and perhaps even hurt.

The design of a snow ski requires it to be bent into an arc (reverse camber) to turn.  Original thinking was to lean forward on the tips to flex the ski.  Shane McConkey complained frequently that this wasn't possible to do in powder as the soft snow wouldn't provide the resistance required to flex a narrow ski.  It was his experimenting with water skis in powder that sparked this whole movement to use water ski technology (fat reverse cambered skis) for powder.  They work great in water and on powder which is where they were designed to work.

A typical recreational skiers quiver might include the following: 

Powder ski
Bump ski
SL carving ski
GS carving ski

Chances are I'll need at least 2 if not 3 of these ski pairs as the snow conditions change during the day.  If I can't afford this or don't wish to carry 4 pairs of skis to the mountain everyday, that's my own compromise.  Claiming that a new ski design has all the functions of these dedicated ski types, yeah .. I'm not buying it.  I've seen the "multi-tool" infomercials on TV too but it doesn't mean I'm ready to throw out my toolbox.


----------



## skiersleft (Jan 24, 2012)

Cheese said:


> Disagree:
> This reverts to the skidding comment made many posts earlier.  If the goal is to put beginner and intermediate skiers on skis that are easier to skid turn so they'll have some fun on greens and blues, sure.  However, if that same intermediate skier winds up on a black run in New England after 2pm, they're going to skid dangerously, get discouraged, scared and perhaps even hurt.
> 
> The design of a snow ski requires it to be bent into an arc (reverse camber) to turn.  Original thinking was to lean forward on the tips to flex the ski.  Shane McConkey complained frequently that this wasn't possible to do in powder as the soft snow wouldn't provide the resistance required to flex a narrow ski.  It was his experimenting with water skis in powder that sparked this whole movement to use water ski technology (fat reverse cambered skis) for powder.  They work great in water and on powder which is where they were designed to work.
> ...



+1.

The  original question was not what ski would be the best ski if you have a one ski quiver. The question was whether fat skis can perform as well or better than narrow skis on hardpack. The obvious answer is no, which doesn't mean that if you can only afford one ski and you live in the East you should get a narrow ski.


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 24, 2012)

Cheese said:


> A typical recreational skiers quiver might include the following:
> 
> Powder ski
> Bump ski
> ...



the typical recreational skier has a quiver of 4?


----------



## mister moose (Jan 24, 2012)

Cheese said:


> Claiming that a new ski design has all the functions of these dedicated ski types, yeah .. I'm not buying it.  I've seen the "multi-tool" infomercials on TV too but it doesn't mean I'm ready to throw out my toolbox.









Yup, go get some.  The world has changed.  Every thing you have is now obsolete.  You simply must buy the new version.  It's better.  Better for everything.  Really.  Please buy them.  Buy them now, because next year we'll have something else to sell you and it will be too late to sell these.


----------



## Cheese (Jan 24, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> the typical recreational skier has a quiver of 4?



No, those were options and I even cut that list down.  I'd prefer my glade ski be short but instead I compromise and use a long fat board that's better suited for charging pow and landing cliffs.  I'd love to add GS ski that isn't race stock for days when I just want higher speed and larger radius turns but again I compromised.


----------



## Cheese (Jan 24, 2012)

mister moose said:


> Yup, go get some.  The world has changed.  Every thing you have is now obsolete.



That was the shape ski marketing angle that was going to bring big profits to the ski manufacturers.  Unfortunately snow boards showed up so ski companies lost customers instead of the huge sales they were expecting.  Boy did that timing suck!


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 24, 2012)

85mm to 90mm is the optimal waist width for all around, east coast, expert level skiing.


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 24, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> Well, you make a fair point. In the interest of brevity, I failed to add "within reason" to my advice above. That said, I respectfully disagree with you. Your 110 skis from 2001 are nothing like the 110 skis of today. In the last five years, I gone from 75 to 94 to 100 to 108 underfoot. That may be the limit for the east. Current ski has camber plus early rise at both ends (Line SFB). No powder days so far and I am still happy I bought them. I do admit that it would be nice to have something skinnier for the super-icy days but if I can only ski on one ski, I'd rather make do with the SFB. They make everything so much fun.


 
His "110 skis from 2001" are Rossignol Axioms which were actually new in 1994. They are one of the best expert level powder skis EVER built and compare favorably with modern powder skis. I own two pairs, but also own modern pow skis.

If you are freeskiing ice on 108mm waist rockered skis, you clearly are not carving very many turns. If you want to skid all the time, fat skis will certainly make that easier.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 24, 2012)

interesting.  I knew they were a from a prior model year when I bought them new in the fall of 2000.  Didn't realize they hailed from all the way back in 1994.  I'd eventually like to replace them with a "modern" powder ski, but for now they still ski very well after 11 years and probably 150 days on them.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 24, 2012)

heh

can still find them on ebay

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ROSSIGNOL-A...?pt=Skiing&hash=item5ae48fb963#ht_2128wt_1139


----------



## atkinson (Jan 24, 2012)

Thank god I am on 118mm rockered waist skis, I wouldn't want to skid around on a pair of 108mm skis. 

Remember when shaped skis came out and lots of people poo-pooed it? Now everybody pretty much accepts them as standard. Be prepared for this progression with rockered skis. The definition of wide has changed over time too. 80mm used to be considered fat ...


----------



## kingslug (Jan 24, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> 85mm to 90mm is the optimal waist width for all around, east coast, expert level skiing.



Agreed!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 24, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> The points being suggested are that* for icy hard pack* (where the OP was having some major problems) *skinny skis are clearly the best tool *for the job.



Exactly.  Case in point, Whiteface this weekend.   

Conditions were decent packed powder lower on the mountain, but rather icy higher up.  Lets just say my Line Prophet 90s (a jack of all trades, master of none ski) stayed in the cozy comfort of the motel room in Lake Placid, in favor of my rather old Salomon XScreams that are 68mm underfoot and absolutely phenomenal at holding an edge on ice.



riverc0il said:


> When I think of "conventional wisdom" I think of "go bigger". Go skinny is old school wisdom.* Everybody these days says go fat. I think a lot of people that could be better served by skinnier hard pack skis (those that never or rarely get off the groomers) are being misled.* I think the OP might fall into this category buying a fatter ski to improve his icy hard pack groomer skiing (!!!).



Yes, which leads us to.........




mister moose said:


> Yup,* go get some.  The world has changed.  Every thing you have is now obsolete.  You simply must buy the new version.  It's better.  Better for everything.  Really.  Please buy them.  Buy them now, because next year we'll have something else to sell you *and it will be too late to sell these.



THIS...

You had to get something 85 or 90.  Then, 90 wasnt enough, so go 100.  What's that you say, 110 to 120 is really Nirvana?  Oh, I'll get those then. 

It's the same as the golf industry.  First the CCs of head size kept getting bigger, until they made a maximum allowable size.  So now they fiddle with the shaft materials every year, the sole plate construction, moment of inertia, etc.... WTH they can think of to get you to buy the 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 etc..... model.  The ski industry is no different.


----------



## atkinson (Jan 24, 2012)

I haven't skied anything narrower than 100mm in over a decade, so I must not be skiing right. If you've haven't tried a mix of wide/ rockered skis, but still have a strong opinion against them, no amount of talk is going to change your mind. Try before you deny.

Anything that makes skiing more fun and accessible for a wider range of skiers is good for the industry. Playing luddite and poo-pooing new technology may make you feel core, but it's just a pose.


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 24, 2012)

atkinson said:


> I haven't skied anything narrower than 100mm in over a decade, so I must not be skiing right. If you've haven't tried a mix of wide/ rockered skis, but still have a strong opinion against them, no amount of talk is going to change your mind. Try before you deny.
> 
> Anything that makes skiing more fun and accessible for a wider range of skiers is good for the industry. Playing luddite and poo-pooing new technology may make you feel core, but it's just a pose.


 
I'm guessing that you haven't made a carved turn in a decade either, if ever.


----------



## atkinson (Jan 24, 2012)

Ding ding! HS wins the prize for the best judging without having an actual clue. 

Come on up big guy and we'll go for a little spin. Then you can trash talk. The lift ticket is on me.


----------



## BMac (Jan 24, 2012)

HS, I bet watching you carve is like Jodie Foster's trip in contact.  "So beautiful.  Should have sent a poet."


----------



## Glenn (Jan 24, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> I'm guessing that you haven't made a carved turn in a decade either, if ever.



I have to give credit where credit is due...this made me LOL. True or not...it was funny.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 24, 2012)

atkinson said:


> *I haven't skied anything narrower than 100mm in over a decade, so I must not be skiing right.* If you've haven't tried a mix of wide/ rockered skis, but still have a strong opinion against them, no amount of talk is going to change your mind. Try before you deny.
> 
> Anything that makes skiing more fun and accessible for a wider range of skiers is good for the industry. Playing luddite and poo-pooing new technology may make you feel core, but it's just a pose.



You may be skiing "right" on your 110mm or 120mm or whatever, but you're certainly not skiing hard snow and ice conditions as well as you could be.

And frankly, I really dont understand why you're so adamant and attacking people in this thread, especially about a subject that is accepted as fact.

Sure, you can take a .50 caliber belt-fed machine gun pheasant hunting, but it doesn't mean it's the best weapon for that application.


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 24, 2012)

atkinson said:


> Ding ding! HS wins the prize for the best judging without having an actual clue.
> 
> Come on up big guy and we'll go for a little spin. Then you can trash talk. The lift ticket is on me.


 
Are you calling me out for a ski off???


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Jan 24, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> You may be skiing "right" on your 110mm or 120mm or whatever, but you're certainly not skiing hard snow and ice conditions as well as you could be.
> 
> And frankly, I really dont understand why you're so adamant and attacking people in this thread, especially about a subject that is accepted as fact.



Atkinson has not attacked anybody, in fact has defended himself against several attacks and simply offered to prove his point on the snow. Which is a lot more than a good portion of narrow-ski-minded people in this discussion are prepared to do. 

SBR, signing out of this discussion for good and staying happily on my rocker. You guys are taking this way too seriously. It's just skiing for cripe's sake.


----------



## JSHSKI (Jan 24, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> Atkinson has not attacked anybody, in fact has defended himself against several attacks and simply offered to prove his point on the snow. Which is a lot more than a good portion of narrow-ski-minded people in this discussion are prepared to do.
> 
> SBR, signing out of this discussion for good and staying happily on my rocker. You guys are taking this way too seriously. It's just skiing for cripe's sake.



Thanks SBR / Atkinson and others who tried to offer input and have a discussion in response to my post. They are not the ones attacking anyone in this thread. They have remained patient and positive while being attacked by some and while others have said the attacks made them lol. I feel bad for folks who have to deal with the likes of the attackers on a regular basis. I can just log out and be rid of that attitude.  SBR is so right. It's skiing and some of you need to relax.


----------



## JSHSKI (Jan 24, 2012)

*Stripes*

Any of you homos talk about my skis and I'll Kill ya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnpkDWbeJs&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Relax Francis!


----------



## tt431 (Jan 24, 2012)

Oh, this is fun.  Pass the popcorn please.


----------



## mister moose (Jan 24, 2012)

atkinson said:


> Ding ding! HS wins the prize for the best judging without having an actual clue.
> 
> Come on up big guy and we'll go for a little spin. Then you can trash talk. The lift ticket is on me.



Wait, I might want in on this.  What mountain are we talking  about for this free lift ticket?


----------



## atkinson (Jan 24, 2012)

I believe HS called me out. I was just offering to inform his opinion and don't want to travel for the opportunity. The ticket offer stands for HS at Sugarbush. 

Thanks for bringing some reality to the interwebz, JSHSKI and SBR.


----------



## JSHSKI (Jan 24, 2012)

The ticket offer stands for HS at Sugarbush. (said Atkinson) 


Your offer has great potential to ruin an otherwise good ski day. Francis, I mean HS, would not be enjoyable to ski with under any circumstances, regardless of who won the carving contest. Somethings got his panties in a bunch.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 24, 2012)

JSHSKI said:


> I had a fun day at Cannon yesterday but I found the conditions to be pretty icy....... the folks on wide skis tearing it up like it was corduroy...... I'm guessing the average waist was around 120mm*. I have some Volkl Mantra's on the way to me*.............*Will my new Mantra's help me on this kind of day?*




With all due respect JSHSKI, its become pretty obvious that you didn't want an answer to the question you asked in your OP (above).

You simply wanted the answer that you wanted to hear

The people that gave you that answer you make kissy-kissy with
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




The people that didnt give you that answer you're now slagging.


----------



## JSHSKI (Jan 24, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> With all due respect JSHSKI, its become pretty obvious that you didn't want an answer to the question you asked in your OP (above).
> 
> You simply wanted the answer that you wanted to hear
> 
> ...



I will not argue that I have a bias and that it shows. I do enjoy reading that others use, and like using, skis similar to my new ones even here in the east. I have no intention of loosing my Tigersharks, which I will use most of the time. I'm also willing to admit that the suggestion to get a tune up and to work on my skills and not just rely on equipment are appropriate and appreciated. 
What I am slagging is the poster who joins by saying Seriously??? then proceeds to say he is the only one who can carve a turn, not once, but several times. He has a real attitude problem and his contributions don't improve this forum that I can see. I tried to search for other posts to see if he is sometimes a valuable contributor. I honestly could not find the way to do this. So based on his posts in this thread, I think the others he was attacking showed great self control. As the OP, I felt it was my obligation to say something when positive contributors were being slagged. Many others who were not on the pro fat side of the discussion made positive contributions too. Sure I'm a hypocrite, but at least I don't post that everyone who disagrees with me is a looser noob in an obnoxious manner.


----------



## atkinson (Jan 24, 2012)

All bluster HS? A free ticket gets offered and all of sudden you're silent? I don't plan any sabotage if you come and was even going to invite few friends to join us, like Egan. We don't want to hurt, we want to convert. 

Here's some physics for everyone to ponder. 

It wasn't until I got on early rise and rockered skis did I realize my biggest potential ability to drive the front of the ski without challenge of getting tossed or catching an edge. I roll forward, push down as hard as I want, they just smoothly accept the pressure and flow over changes in terrain. It's like suspension on a mountain bike. 

Speaking of pressure ...  a traditional cambered ski has a longer effective edge, plus it takes more energy to flex than a rockered ski. Potential pressure is spread out over a greater area, where a rockered ski tends to concentrate ski pressure underfoot, almost like a skate. 

It also takes less energy to flex a ski that starts out slightly flexed. Tip and rip. With slight camber underfoot and tip/tail rocker, I've held on the slick plate confidently.  

Do I ever skid turns, sure. Every skier and rider does, as we should. It's a vital skill and one we blend with carving on a regular basis. Bode's okay with it, so am I. 

Wide skis are better for a wider variety of snow conditions and can be really good on ice too. You simply can't judge a ski by its width or shape alone. 

Are early rise or rockered skis going to show up at races? Check out what Volkl is producing now. "Völkl’s Code Speedwall combines two worlds – racing and rocker. The Speedwall technology has its roots in the ski world cup. The gentle tail-tip rocker is a combination of classic camber pre-tension in the center and rocker curve in the tip and tail. The result: playful handling while gliding with easy turn initiation without the danger of catching an edge."

 The OP noted that others were ripping the firm on wide rockered skis and wondered if he might get this boost in ability. Who knows? Time will tell. I suspect he'll do just fine. 

If HS doesn't claim it soon, the ticket is yours, JSHSKI. Hugs.


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 24, 2012)

JSHSKI said:


> I will not argue that I have a bias and that it shows. I do enjoy reading that others use, and like using, skis similar to my new ones even here in the east. I have no intention of loosing my Tigersharks, which I will use most of the time. I'm also willing to admit that the suggestion to get a tune up and to work on my skills and not just rely on equipment are appropriate and appreciated.
> What I am slagging is the poster who joins by saying Seriously??? then proceeds to say he is the only one who can carve a turn, not once, but several times. He has a real attitude problem and his contributions don't improve this forum that I can see. I tried to search for other posts to see if he is sometimes a valuable contributor. I honestly could not find the way to do this. So based on his posts in this thread, I think the others he was attacking showed great self control. As the OP, I felt it was my obligation to say something when positive contributors were being slagged. Many others who were not on the pro fat side of the discussion made positive contributions too. Sure I'm a hypocrite, but at least I don't post that everyone who disagrees with me is a looser noob in an obnoxious manner.



Seriously?

I didn't attack anyone in this thread, merely stating the obvious.

Fact is, most people don't carve. Try looking some time.  I'll bet some people you identify as carving, are not actually carving. Many pretty good advanced skiers never carve. Most experts only carve part time, especially not on steeps.  Anyone making short turns on a large radius ski isn't carving.    And I assure you, someone who is on fat skis all the time is not doing much, if any, carving.

I've carved on rossi axioms (110mm), powder plus (115), big daddies (125), S7's (118mm), and chopsticks (128mm) on firm packed powder.   It's NOT EASY and exceptionally hard on the knees.  They are meant to be skidded on harder snow, nobody is going around carving them, trust me.

I do most of my carving on razor sharp 192cm Elan M777 with a Vist V13 plate and 11-17 din 997's w/lifters.  They are a 26m radius, 85mm waist.  Weigh about 20 lb.   Carve great GS turns, super smooth on granular and ice gnar.


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 24, 2012)

atkinson said:


> All bluster HS? A free ticket gets offered and all of sudden you're silent? I don't plan any sabotage if you come and was even going to invite few friends to join us, like Egan. We don't want to hurt, we want to convert.
> .



Which skis should I bring...hint: one is for carving, the other is for owning trees tighter than you can imagine.






Can I bring my posse? 4 free tix and you've got yourself a deal.  :wink:


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 24, 2012)

JSHSKI said:


> I will not argue that I have a bias and that it shows. I do enjoy reading that others use, and like using, skis similar to my new ones even here in the east. I have no intention of loosing my Tigersharks, which I will use most of the time



I'm not here to defend anyone in this thread or slag anyone in this thread.

I'm simply stating that anyone who thinks that something like a 130mm underfoot ski is going to perform "as well" or "better" than something like a 65mm underfoot ski (READ: Literally twice the width) etc... *on firm snow, and/or boilerplate ice* (which is exactly what was being stated by some), either doesnt know what he/she is talking about or is consuming crazy pills.

Look, I too, like to hear other people's thoughts and opinions.  But facts are facts, and to state the above is like stating that Thomas Jefferson was the president before Bill Clinton and after Jimmy Carter.  When something is just factually incorrect, it's no longer an opinion.



EDIT:  And with that I'm bowing out of this thread, but I will continue to lurk with some popcorn and a lawnchair.


----------



## atkinson (Jan 24, 2012)

Sorry dude. Four tickets is more than I have to share. Nice try though.


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 24, 2012)

I can assure everyone that nobody is using fat skis for a ski-off........


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 24, 2012)

legalskier said:


> My experience is the opposite. I have new Rossi Experience 88s (170s, with slight front rocker) which I've skied @ 6 days. My old skis are Volkl Allstar Supersports (163s) which are narrow waisted. I've skied them both on the same day, same conditions/trails, both with newly sharpened edges. To my pleasant surprise the Rossi's held on ice and hard pack much better than the Volkls (and the Volkls are very good there). It's totally counter-intuitive; looking at them side by side, you'd assume the opposite.
> 
> I bought the Rossi's to serve as a one ski quiver for any condition we find in the east, and they are living up to their sparkling reviews in every respect (though I'm still waiting for enough cover for tree skiing). Extremely pleased with them.



I'm going to take a wild guess that you have integrated markers on the volkls and rossi bindings on the rossi's.  The difference you're noticing is in the lateral stiffness in the binding, the rossi's are much stiffer bindings.  Put the ski down on a wood floor and stand on it, put empty boot in, move boot side to side - how much movement?

Or, your volkls have too much base bevel.


----------



## mister moose (Jan 25, 2012)

atkinson said:


> Ding ding! HS wins the prize for the best judging without having an actual clue.
> 
> Come on up big guy and we'll go for a little spin. Then you can trash talk. The lift ticket is on me.....   I believe HS called me out. I was just offering to inform his opinion and don't want to travel for the opportunity. The ticket offer stands for HS at Sugarbush....
> 
> All bluster HS? A free ticket gets offered and all of sudden you're silent? I don't plan any sabotage if you come and was even going to invite few friends to join us, like Egan. We don't want to hurt, we want to convert.





Highway Star said:


> Which skis should I bring...hint: one is for carving, the other is for owning trees tighter than you can imagine.
> Can I bring my posse? 4 free tix and you've got yourself a deal.  :wink:





atkinson said:


> Sorry dude. Four tickets is more than I have to share. Nice try though.



Forget the ski-off, HS.  You just lost the AZ-off.  You get invited to Sugarbush, offered a free lift ticket, the chance to meet some new people that are probably pretty good skiers, ski with some guy named Egan that only has a trail named after him and just might know something about skiing... and you say that isn't enough, I need to bring more people and you have to cover them too?

Putz.

Next time take the hand outstretched, drop the ego, and see the world.


----------



## Cheese (Jan 25, 2012)

This thread has really got me looking forward to the AZ Loaf trip.  I am looking forward to sharing runs with other great skiers, talking technique and observing how a varied collection of gear performs under all these exceptional skiers.

I'll most likely have my Rossi Z10s (soft slalom ski) and Rossi S7s (tip and tail rocker w/traditional camber underfoot) along for the trip which ski completely differently (IMO).  The S7s have demo bindings on them so if anyone has another quick adjust binding and wants to swap for a run or two, seek me out on the slopes. :beer:


----------



## skiersleft (Jan 25, 2012)

mister moose said:


> Forget the ski-off, HS.  You just lost the AZ-off.  You get invited to Sugarbush, offered a free lift ticket, the chance to meet some new people that are probably pretty good skiers, ski with some guy named Egan that only has a trail named after him and just might know something about skiing... and you say that isn't enough, I need to bring more people and you have to cover them too?
> 
> Putz.
> 
> Next time take the hand outstretched, drop the ego, and see the world.



I agree with MMoose. Although I think HS is right that it's obvious that narrow skis outperform fat skis in hardpack, refusing the offer to ski free at sugarbush and meet new people is very lame. I'm sure HS is a a great skier, especially with narrow skis that are recently tuned. Now, if he would just tune his attitude, things would be better. 3 degree bevel angle would be ideal.


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 25, 2012)

mister moose said:


> Forget the ski-off, HS. You just lost the AZ-off. You get invited to Sugarbush, offered a free lift ticket, the chance to meet some new people that are probably pretty good skiers, ski with some guy named Egan that only has a trail named after him and just might know something about skiing... and you say that isn't enough, I need to bring more people and you have to cover them too?
> 
> Putz.
> 
> Next time take the hand outstretched, drop the ego, and see the world.


 
I've been to sugarbush plenty of times, thanks. I'll have to figure out a time when I would be available to go solo, then I can accept the challege. Not to mention, the guy is a middle manager at Sugarbush, I'm sure he can come up with 4 comp tix.

Oh, and he's always welcome to come to Killington for a ski-off.


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 25, 2012)

Cheese said:


> .........all these exceptional skiers.


 
You need to check out the trip reports section.


----------



## WWF-VT (Jan 25, 2012)

I have been amused following this thread.  I have skied with Atkinson and can assure you that he does carve on hardpack with his 118 mm underfoot skis.  Ski with him in the woods and you will see skills that separate him from mere mortals.


----------



## atkinson (Jan 25, 2012)

I get two vouchers a season to give away, same as every other employee. I was willing to burn 50% of my stash on you. 

Could I ask for four more? Sure. For what reason? Some internet guy asked for them when I offered him one for free. Yeah, that'll go over well.


----------



## skiersleft (Jan 25, 2012)

atkinson said:


> I get two vouchers a season to give away, same as every other employee. I was willing to burn 50% of my stash on you.
> 
> Could I ask for four more? Sure. For what reason? Some internet guy asked for them when I offered him one for free. Yeah, that'll go over well.



I'll take one and ski with you if HS doesn't want it. I'm not challenging you to a ski off, nor do I think I can ski better than you. But it would sure be fun to ski the mountain with a local. 

I know it won't work, but I had to try. Sorry.


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 25, 2012)

atkinson said:


> I get two vouchers a season to give away, same as every other employee. I was willing to burn 50% of my stash on you.
> 
> Could I ask for four more? Sure. For what reason? Some internet guy asked for them when I offered him one for free. Yeah, that'll go over well.


 
Lol.  Tell them it's for a ski-off, I bet that would go over well.

Don't waste your free ticket on me, I'm just fine skiing Killington or Pico.  Thanks.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 25, 2012)

atkinson said:


> I get two vouchers a season to give away, same as every other employee. I was willing to burn 50% of my stash on you.
> 
> Could I ask for four more? Sure. For what reason? Some internet guy asked for them when I offered him one for free. Yeah, that'll go over well.



Aren't you also able to purchase something like 30 employee discount tickets for others during the season? My friend is only a kids coach on weekends & is able to get them for me when I ski with him during the week for like $30. I'm not suggesting you do that for anyone here with the attitude you've gotten from some, just asking.

HS I also have a Pico/K pass but it's nice to ski around a bit also. Probably only spend 1/2 my ski days  at Pico/K.


----------



## Edd (Jan 25, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> I'm going to take a wild guess that I'm the only person in this thread that has actually ever carved a turn.





WWF-VT said:


> I have been amused following this thread.  I have skied with Atkinson and can assure you that he does carve on hardpack with his 118 mm underfoot skis.  Ski with him in the woods and you will see skills that separate him from mere mortals.



As you can see by the quote above yours WWF, just by posting in this thread you've lost your ability to carve a turn so I'm not sure you're a good judge.

Ah shit, I just lost mine. Delete!


----------



## Cheese (Jan 25, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> You need to check out the trip reports section.



I'd rather reserve judgment for the slopes.  Everybody is young, fit and an expert at everything on the Internet.



JSHSKI said:


> I had a fun day at Cannon yesterday but I found the conditions to be pretty icy. Then there were the folks on wide skis tearing it up like it was corduroy.



So, to prove or disprove the opinions in this thread, how does a ski-off proceed?  Are we looking for someone with the skill to carve ice like it was corduroy even on fat boards or are we looking for someone lacking the skill to carve a narrow waisted ski that can suddenly carve ice on a fat ski?

I've lost track ...


----------



## Glenn (Jan 25, 2012)

Cheese said:


> I'd rather reserve judgment for the slopes.  Everybody is young, fit and an expert at everything on the Internet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think the ski-off needs to include a bump run on 200cm straight skis and a boiler plate run on 120mm wide powder boards.


----------



## 2knees (Jan 25, 2012)

Cheese said:


> I'd rather reserve judgment for the slopes.  Everybody is young, fit and an expert at everything on the Internet.
> 
> ...


   Ahh, the passive aggressive approach to dick waving


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 25, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> I know rivercoil.  He doesn't blame his equipment, but always skis the right equipment for the conditions present.  He's been rocking 78mm Dynastar Legends for years and those have been his skis underfoot I think every time I've skied with him.


You only ski with me on hard pack days for some reason. :???: I ski my 96mm underfoot powder boards far more often. But when its a groomer day with no chance of natural snow, I'm pulling out my 79mm if there is a chance of bumps or my 69mm if its fast hard pack all day. 

Yup, we live in New England all right.  

Does any one else see that everyone is right in this thread? If I was going to have only one ski, it probably would be something in the 90s. But the OP bought a fat ski to improve his groomer performance. THAT is what this thread is about!

:uzi:


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 25, 2012)

atkinson said:


> I haven't skied anything narrower than 100mm in over a decade, so I must not be skiing right.


No one said that...

...well, entire Highway Star did.


> If you've haven't tried a mix of wide/ rockered skis, but still have a strong opinion against them, no amount of talk is going to change your mind. Try before you deny.


No one is saying you can't carve on fat skis... just that they are not as good at hard pack as other models.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 25, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> No one is saying you can't carve on fat skis... just that they are not as good at hard pack as other models.



pretty much. 

I can carve my Axioms fine on packed powder.  With a good edge, I can carve them on hard pack as well, but the amount effort isn't necessarily worth it.  As Highwaystar mentioned, carving hard pack on powder skis is rough on the knees.  It requires far more angulation and downward pressure to accomplish than carving hard pack on a narrower ski.  I'm sure rocker helps with this some, but you still will have to angulate more on a wider ski.  I don't believe this is completely to do with the turning radius of the ski either.  There are many Fat skis with a short turning radius, but because your boot pressure is further away from the edge, it requires more ankle roll and knee angulation to get pressure to the edge on a wide ski than a narrow ski.  Physics

So what do I and pretty much everyone else I see on the hill do when I hit hard pack with powder boards?  I skid my turn until I hit snow that's easier to bite into.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  Being able to execute skidded turns is an important skill to have.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 26, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> Physics



Yes.  

 I dont care what quadruple-plated, titanium reinforced, kevlar tipped, uber-torsion, new rocker, blah, blah, blah nonsense the ski manufacturers come up with each year, they cant alter the physical laws of nature.


Now back to my


----------



## Highway Star (Feb 2, 2012)

Here's some video of Dan "carving" on fat skis. It's not convincing me to ditch my midfats....


----------



## Cheese (Feb 2, 2012)

I think the convincing type of turns are missing from this video.  I'd prefer to see 180* turns, steeper terrain and his hand dragging in the snow proving the edge is holding strong against the forces of gravity.  I'm not saying that he and his equipment can't do it, just that this video didn't show me the indisputable proof that a fat ski can carve.  But that's just me ....


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 2, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> Here's some video of Dan "carving" on fat skis. It's not convincing me to ditch my midfats...



That video should be entitled, "Cruising on cruisers", not "Ripping on cruisers".


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 2, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> Here's some video of Dan "carving" on fat skis. It's not convincing me to ditch my midfats....



yikes

turns in the bumps around the 1:10 mark = not good


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 2, 2012)

No pole planting? Sliding every turn?

Is this some kind of joke? 

$350 to ski with this sack of potatoes? Must be a good lunch.


----------



## Morwax (Feb 2, 2012)

Something I have not heard mentioned is tortional stiffness. Wider skis inherently have more tortional flex PERIOD! Different tools.


----------



## Glenn (Feb 2, 2012)

Cheese said:


> I think the convincing type of turns are missing from this video.  I'd prefer to see 180* turns, steeper terrain and his hand dragging in the snow proving the edge is holding strong against the forces of gravity.  I'm not saying that he and his equipment can't do it, just that this video didn't show me the indisputable proof that a fat ski can carve.  But that's just me ....



I'm in agreement with the above.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 2, 2012)

should i be embarrassed that i didn't know who dan egan was until i googled him?


----------



## Glenn (Feb 2, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> should i be embarrassed that i didn't know who dan egan was until i googled him?



I still don't know who he is. I got a lot of google results that say "top skier".


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 2, 2012)

Glenn said:


> I still don't know who he is. I got a lot of google results that say "top skier".



yes, that's what i know now about him, he's a top skier. he's got a web site and i think he's from NH.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 2, 2012)

He was in a lot of Warren Miller films back in the day.

I'm sure he's a far better skier than I overall, so my comments concerning his bump turns weren't a suggestion I can ski better than Dan.

But, he does look pretty gaperific in that bump segment.  Stance is way too wide, bends over a lot at the waist etc.  The vast majority of AZ members I've skied with can ski bumps better than that.


----------



## atkinson (Feb 2, 2012)

Dan's skis are not even close to fat, nor are those skis rockered. Don't confuse the issue, HS. And don't confuse Dan for his brother John either. John knows fat is where it is at. 

As for the critiques of Dan's skiing, I encourage you to go see it in real life, not a canned shot of groomers and ice bumps. He didn't get in all those Warren Miller movies for nothing. As for his "stance", it's a dance, not a fixed position. Show us your running "stance." If all the AZ bumpers you've skied with are so good, why aren't they getting movie and pro contracts? 

Btw, we plant trees, not poles. Don't plant anything when you are moving fast. Also, it's "torsional", which is only one factor of many involved in how a ski performs. 

I was out today on the groomers, in the woods and skiing natural snow at Castlerock on the ObSethed's. They wiggled the funky natural, and carved the groomed like butter. I was getting the skis way out there and holding just fine. 

But that's not possible, according to the physics experts here.


----------



## jaja111 (Feb 2, 2012)

First off, I didn't know who the heck Dan Egan was either and the vid doesn't exactly sell the idea of $350 for the day with him (is that really true, $350? yikes.) When anyone asks me how I ski I say "proficiently", and now from that vid I can say "as good as Dan Egan". I'll have to do some more research as to who and what this guy really is.

And as far as the OP observations questions and subsequent answers from everyone, did anyone take into consideration that the OP may weigh 150lbs and the guys he saw on fats weigh 250lbs each? Weight has quite a bit to do with edge hold too, aside from design, width, camber, and importantly sharpness of the edges. Weight directly affects the shape of the ski in the snow as it changes the camber. All my friends who ski better than I do and weigh less complain of trouble on the glass. The opposite stands for those heavier (>200lbs) than me.


----------



## Highway Star (Feb 2, 2012)




----------



## riverc0il (Feb 2, 2012)

jaja111 said:


> And as far as the OP observations questions and subsequent answers from everyone, did anyone take into consideration that the OP may weigh 150lbs and the guys he saw on fats weigh 250lbs each? Weight has quite a bit to do with edge hold too, aside from design, width, camber, and importantly sharpness of the edges. Weight directly affects the shape of the ski in the snow as it changes the camber. All my friends who ski better than I do and weigh less complain of trouble on the glass. The opposite stands for those heavier (>200lbs) than me.


Huh? Are you smoking something? That's why skis come in different lengths and constructions. Two skis of the exact same dimensions could be super stiff or a noddle depending on construction. Weight has quite a bit to do with edge hold? EH? There are a lot of light weight skiers that ski rail road tracks.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 2, 2012)

I'm sure the guy's a great skier if he was in "all those Warren Miller" films, but that Okemo bit is clearly not his best work.  Were I on Okemo's marketing team, I'd pull that video from Youtube.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 2, 2012)

atkinson said:


> As for the critiques of Dan's skiing, I encourage you to go see it in real life, not a canned shot on groomers and ice bumps. He didn't get in all those Warren Miller movies for nothing. As for his "stance", it's a dance, not a fixed position. Show us your running "stance." If all the AZ bumpers you've skied with are so good, why aren't they getting movie and pro contracts?
> .



No offense Atkinson, but if you are trying to defend Dan's turns in those bumps, you don't know shit about skiing bumps.  Those turns are terrible, even if the bumps were icy.  Just because bumps are icy and spread out, doesn't mean you assume a stance that wide, jerk your tails around  to find the line and waist bend because you're out of balance.  And looking at those bumps, they really don't look all that icy at all.  He's pushing a lot of snow around with his turns.  Looks like they got top coated real recently.

Like I said, I'm sure Dan's a much better skier than I given his credentials, but he is not skiing well there at all.  Maybe it was just a bad run.  We ALL have bad runs.  I just wouldn't want my bad runs like that captured on Youtube when I'm trying to sell $350 lessons to ski with me.


----------



## steamboat1 (Feb 2, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Were I on Okemo's marketing team, I'd pull that video from Youtube.



Absolutely pull the vid.

It pretty much shows how ridiculously flat that mountain is.

He pretty much could've just pointed the ski's down hill.

Couldn't even generate enough speed to actually have to carve.


----------



## Nick (Feb 2, 2012)

Legendary thread indeed


----------



## Nick (Feb 2, 2012)




----------



## jaja111 (Feb 2, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Huh? Are you smoking something? That's why skis come in different lengths and constructions. Two skis of the exact same dimensions could be super stiff or a noddle depending on construction. Weight has quite a bit to do with edge hold? EH? There are a lot of light weight skiers that ski rail road tracks.



I'm talking about the fact that the weight of the skiers seen ripping across the ice was unknown. Physics is fact and a heavier skier will apply more force down on the edge. True there may be lightweight skiers that hold edge brilliantly, but they deserve extra kudos for their skill to maintain that line is greater than the individual able to utilize brute force - weight - onto the ski. 

Whether the two better skiers were on a stiffer ski or equal stiffness, if they were significantly heavier they would be having a better day on ice than the lighter skier of the same ability. Their edges will bite deeper and if they hold that bite will be able to exert greater centripetal force outward through the turn. Also, the wider the ski the less maximum "noodle" you can get from it, so it wouldn't be a smokey haze to say that in general fat skis are somewhat stiff. 

I don't know, I'm just draggin it out. Everything's on the table. These topics are like motor oil debates on car forums.


----------



## Glenn (Feb 3, 2012)

jaja111 said:


> These topics are like motor oil debates on car forums.




Full synthetic, 8k change interval. Add a little around 4k to keep things happy. :lol:


----------



## Morwax (Feb 3, 2012)

I have to admit this is an amusing thread. Anyone that adamantly believes fat rocker skis carve as well as a pair of GS or DH boards in all conditions is missing something. Try your waterskis on a nice steep run of frozen cat tracks and let me know if they chatter LOL I can see the giant clown skis flopping around in my mind.
 I have to laugh when I see guys with the huge skis and a backpack with a shovel skiing nothing but frozen man made groomers and bare ground in the woods.


----------



## darent (Feb 3, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> You may be skiing "right" on your 110mm or 120mm or whatever, but you're certainly not skiing hard snow and ice conditions as well as you could be.
> 
> And frankly, I really dont understand why you're so adamant and attacking people in this thread, especially about a subject that is accepted as fact.
> 
> Sure, you can take a .50 caliber belt-fed machine gun pheasant hunting, but it doesn't mean it's the best weapon for that application.


screw the ski width, I'll tke that dog, my 20ga O/U, and carve some bird!!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 3, 2012)

darent said:


> screw the ski width,* I'll tke that dog, my 20ga O/U, and carve some bird!*!



Exactly, _because_ a 20 gauge shotgun is a proper tool for bird hunting.  

You dont bring an uzi to kill ruffed grouse, and you dont bring 120mm underfoot skis to ski firm snow and icy conditions.


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 6, 2012)

atkinson said:


> Dan's skis are not even close to fat, nor are those skis rockered. Don't confuse the issue, HS. And don't confuse Dan for his brother John either. John knows fat is where it is at.
> 
> As for the critiques of Dan's skiing, I encourage you to go see it in real life, not a canned shot of groomers and ice bumps. He didn't get in all those Warren Miller movies for nothing. As for his "stance", it's a dance, not a fixed position. Show us your running "stance." If all the AZ bumpers you've skied with are so good, why aren't they getting movie and pro contracts?
> 
> ...



This is pretty funny.:-D

You really should practice your pole plants!


----------



## Morwax (Feb 6, 2012)

Fat skis on hard snow is like tele skiing a super g course or snow boarding moguls...ya you can do it but why


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Feb 6, 2012)

Morwax said:


> Fat skis on hard snow is like tele skiing a super g course or snow boarding moguls...ya you can do it but why



Because you can.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 6, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> Because you can.



well, some can.  but some can't so they declare the idea of doing so idiotic to draw attention away from their own inadequacies


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Feb 8, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> well, some can.  but some can't so they declare the idea of doing so idiotic to draw attention away from their own inadequacies



Good point. Better said by you than me.

Anybody reading this thread should watch this. It's a little off-topic from the OP but shows that some people are spending a lot of time thinking about the way skis work. Not to mention the shots of Eric Pollard skiing, which are rather mind-expanding. The guy is so smooth and creative on skis, what a joy to watch:


----------



## Morwax (Feb 8, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> Good point. Better said by you than me.
> 
> Anybody reading this thread should watch this. It's a little off-topic from the OP but shows that some people are spending a lot of time thinking about the way skis work. Not to mention the shots of Eric Pollard skiing, which are rather mind-expanding. The guy is so smooth and creative on skis, what a joy to watch:


 Powder park powder park park powder.. Never heard him mention hard carving once. Yes id say off topic. Title of thread "Fat skis on hard snow"


----------



## Sick Bird Rider (Feb 8, 2012)

^^ Well, there is the segment of EP buttering groomers starting at 8:40 or so. You and I will never do that but it is pretty cool to contemplate. Or not. Suit yourself. 

I give up, again.


----------



## 2knees (Feb 8, 2012)

Sick Bird Rider said:


> I give up, again.



You have to remember who you are dealing with. Most here don't ski for a living.  Gmcunni already nailed it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Feb 9, 2012)

Morwax said:


> Fat skis on hard snow is like tele skiing a super g course or snow boarding moguls...ya you can do it but why





Sick Bird Rider said:


> Because you can.



because you can is poor reasoning IMO

I can cook a mighty fine steak in a non-stick skillet, but even though I can, I don't.  I've got a 40 year old cast iron pan that is much better suited for the job.  No technology has come along to replace that pan and I doubt there ever will for pan searing a steak.

That's kind of how I view the whole notion of a 100+ mm waisted primary ski for anywhere but Northern Vermont in the East.  

I prefer having a quiver.  I've got 5 sets of skis with waists of 70, 74, 84, 92 and 110.  You should see my pots and pan quiver in my kitchen.  :lol:

I like precision, even though I can make do with non-optimum tools.


----------



## Glenn (Feb 9, 2012)

This thread needs more Egan...


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 9, 2012)

Glenn said:


> This thread needs more Egan...



who?


----------



## Glenn (Feb 9, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> who?



He's in movies! The internet says he's the best skier evAr.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 9, 2012)

Glenn said:


> He's in movies! The internet says he's the best skier evAr.



OH, well if the internet says so then that's good enough for me.


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 9, 2012)

here is some more Egan.  Cardnial Egan that is.







see how i did that, dragged politics AND religion into the thread with a single post


----------



## Glenn (Feb 9, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> OH, well if the internet says so then that's good enough for me.



He has his own sign too:


----------



## Black Phantom (Feb 9, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> who?



I think she skis at Sugarloaf


----------



## gmcunni (Feb 9, 2012)

Black Phantom said:


> I think she skis at Sugarloaf



not when it is windy, too many lifts on hold


----------



## bigbog (Mar 9, 2012)

Black Phantom said:


> I think she skis at Sugarloaf



Really...?  Woo...gotta ski it a little better next time...although she's probably noticed me and has gotten a good laugh...;-)
Video over on Epicski with Mikaela going through outside edge(uphill ski) to inside edge(downhill ski) is pretty good.
Wasn't she on the WC circuit back in early 90s?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 9, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> I prefer having a quiver.  I've got 5 sets of skis with waists of 70, 74, 84, 92 and 110.  You should see my pots and pan quiver in my kitchen.  :lol:
> 
> I like precision, even though I can make do with non-optimum tools.




I get the 70mm boilerplate, moguls, and "groomer master", the 110mm powder ski, and/or the 84 or 92 "jack-of-all-trades" ski,  but what's the 74 for and the "other" of the 84 or 92 for?


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 9, 2012)

The 74s are Rossi B2s, my original midfat.  They maybe retired, though they're pretty sweet in spring slush bumps when I like a little more beef than the 70mm.  We'll see if they get used.  Fischer Motive 84 replaced them this season, jury is still out if I like them in bumps as I've skied about 10 moguls all season.

The 92 or High Society Free Rides, set up with Marker Dukes.  I keep saying I want to get into touring, but thus far have only been touring with them once.  Guess I'm lazy.  They're a great ski in 6 -12 inches of fresh when the the 110s aren't really needed.  They're quicker edge to edge than the 110s as well.  They don't dive like the Motives do in anything over 6 inches.


----------



## Morwax (Mar 9, 2012)

Rode the lift at Gunstock last week after the 3-6 incher we got. Second chair, guy gets on wearing Pontoons.. I LOL


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 9, 2012)

Morwax said:


> Rode the lift at Gunstock last week after the 3-6 incher we got. Second chair, guy gets on wearing Pontoons.. I LOL



He's got to get his money's worth somehow.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 9, 2012)

Morwax said:


> Rode the lift at Gunstock last week after the* 3-6 incher we got. Second chair, guy gets on wearing Pontoons..* I LOL



I think the "ski fat" syndrome has become a disease, to the point where I think many eastern skiers are skiing on skis too fat, on MOST days.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 9, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> I think the "ski fat" syndrome has become a disease, to the point where I think many eastern skiers are skiing on skis too fat, on MOST days.



i kind of agree. i'm shopping for a 90+ and in the back of my head it means i'll have to also purchase something skinnier for hard pack


----------



## Glenn (Mar 10, 2012)

Morwax said:


> Rode the lift at Gunstock last week after the 3-6 incher we got. Second chair, guy gets on wearing Pontoons.. I LOL



2" at Mount Snow today. One guy in the liftline was on 98's....saw a few other guys with 100+mm skis. The guy on the full rockers took the cake though.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 10, 2012)

Glenn said:


> 2" at Mount Snow today. One guy in the liftline was on 98's....saw a few other guys with 100+mm skis. The guy on the full rockers took the cake though.



Pretty much ski my Hell and Back's everyday.  98 underfoot with superb hold on hard pack.  I bring out the Palmer's when the conditions are "go fast". And those are 89's.   90 is the new 70!


----------



## snoseek (Mar 10, 2012)

Glenn said:


> 2" at Mount Snow today. One guy in the liftline was on 98's....saw a few other guys with 100+mm skis. The guy on the full rockers took the cake though.



I ski normal groomer days on 108's, flat camber. I have a pair of rossi phantoms for boiler plates but I hate them. I have no problem railing turns on them, no problems at all.

I know people at Sunday River that ski nothing but Fatypus, I wouldn't want to ride them on groomers but they ski better than most on the mtn. To each their own..

Besides when its a few inches those fatties will surf the top better when everyone else is bitching about dust on crust


----------



## Glenn (Mar 10, 2012)

I really want to take some wide skis out during normal northeast conditions.  I can see them being ok on groomers, but I cant imagine them being that good on anything firm. 

Maybe it's a style thing.  When i get a ski up on edge at a good clip, i expect it to hold.  May some dont mind a little washout? (I was gonna say "skidding"' but a whole host of toilet hunor jokes came to mind)


----------



## snoseek (Mar 10, 2012)

Glenn said:


> I really want to take some wide skis out during normal northeast conditions.  I can see them being ok on groomers, but I cant imagine them being that good on anything firm.
> 
> Maybe it's a style thing.  When i get a ski up on edge at a good clip, i expect it to hold.  May some dont mind a little washout? (I was gonna say "skidding"' but a whole host of toilet hunor jokes came to mind)



It takes some getting used to. I hold an edge, no sliding, no problem. If I were to go on anything under an 80 It would feel wierd for at least half a day. 

There are obvious advantages to skinnier skis on hardpack, I won't argue that. For me making a trnsition from a 110 to a 70 is not really something I feel like doing therefore I will go with the all mountain fatty that skis better in optimal conditions. If I was back east it would be more like 100. If you can't figure out a carve on 95-100 skis then you can adapt. 

Hell just a few years ago people on this very forum were dismissing the idea of skiing 85 on hard packed snow. I hear nothing from them now.


----------



## laxski (Mar 11, 2012)

I ski 108s Volkl Gotmas at Mt Snow this year 18 days not much powder no real woods which I love but the ski was better on groomers and hard pack in fact never brought out my skinny skis this year. Rocker and fat skis make sense and I love it


----------



## bobbutts (Mar 11, 2012)

laxski said:


> I ski 108s Volkl Gotmas at Mt Snow this year 18 days not much powder no real woods which I love but the ski was better on groomers and hard pack in fact never brought out my skinny skis this year. Rocker and fat skis make sense and I love it



It's good that you are happy with the skis, but I think you didn't compare them to other modern skis.  Do they carve better in certain conditions vs. model x?   There's no way to say if you would have been happier with something else.


----------



## bobbutts (Mar 11, 2012)

Highway Star said:


> Which skis should I bring...hint: one is for carving, the other is for *owning trees tighter than you can imagine*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think my HS tolerance has finally run out after many years.

you ride the lifts at Killington and don't get paid for skiing.. there are thousands and thousands of better skiers at better resorts.  I suggest you go to Chamonix and challenge some skiers there to a ski off


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 11, 2012)

bobbutts said:


> *I think my HS tolerance has finally run out after many years.
> 
> you ride the lifts at Killington and don't get paid for skiing.. there are thousands and thousands of better skiers at better resorts.*


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 11, 2012)

:lol:


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 11, 2012)

I'm gonna jump right from the OP to the last page.  Partly because I don't have time to read 17 pages, and partly because I see on this last page some of HighwayStar's gems so I REALLY don't want to read those 17 pgs.

At the start of the season I bought a pair of 185cm 140/115/130 Dynastar Big Troubles.  But I've been snowboarding all year vs skiing due to an injury.  Today wasn't the conditions I bought them for (50F & groomed).  But the injury is recovering and the season seems to have suicidal intentions.  So I busted 'em out.   I seriously could not believe the carve-ability of these things.  They just wanted to be driven.  The harder I pushed them the more they bit. YET, they were surprisingly poppy at the same time.  In the crud and bumps they just wanted to pop up out of everything.  I saw a ton of potential in just a few hours and am fired up to get them back out there in any conditions.


----------



## bigbog (Mar 11, 2012)

skiersleft said:


> This. I don't think it can be seriously claimed that a fat ski is better at carving hardpack than a narrow ski.
> 
> My experience has been the opposite. This year I decided to buy a high end carver ski. 72 underfoot. Game changer. Much better on ice than any other ski I've tried. It's not that a fat ski can't perform well on ice, but saying that it performs better than frontside carvers and race skis on hardpack is just weird.



Think if we keep our ski-penetration weight on par....it all happens.
Some Intermediates do throw in a little banking their turns..using the additional width as a crutch...but lots of nice skis of all widths that can certainly do it all with the right driver.   The longitudinal flexibility in combination with edgehold/torsional stiffness is the really nice aspect to ski design these days...


----------



## Sum1 (Mar 12, 2012)

Fat Skis, Hard Snow ... sidenote along the same lines:

Okemo Saturday March 10, there was a good dozen manufacturers doing demo day at the bottom of Jackson Gore.  Says to self, "Shweet! It's my lucky day to try a Blizzard SuperSonic, a Nordica Fire Arrow EDT, a Kaestle MX-70," and on and on.  My current sticks are 80 mm waist and I've been wondering what a stiffer ski with slim-er waist would do for me (and to me).

I went up and down the aisle to half the manufacturers and could not find a single dealer carrying gear less than 82 mm waist.  The refrain became eerily singular, "Nah man, I'm not carrying anything that narrow" and "the wide skis are engineered so well that they run the groomers as good or better than the skinny stuff; but, drive pow and crud like a (insert name of favorite auto here)."

Right/wrong/better/worse; I'm a newb with too few days on a hill to know.
However, it's interesting to see how the industry is "educating" "training" and "selling" the wide-body to the average buyer. . . . even on hills where there's no more than 2 - 3 inches of fresh on top of 2 inches of re-freeze ice.


----------

