# Why fat skis?



## Cheese (Mar 5, 2013)

The purpose of the fat ski is to allow a shorter ski to perform like it's longer counterpart.  In the longer ski quiver I would consider two types. 

1. A soft powder ski that uses the extra length for surface area to float and the extra length of the tip and tail to flex easier in deep snow.  

2. A stiff GS ski that uses the length to smooth imperfections on hard pack and therefore remain stable at higher speeds.

Obviously these two skis are very different so the fat ski replacement would also be very different.  The fat powder ski would likely be soft with rockered tip and tail whereas the GS ski would be stiff and traditionally cambered.

Not only do I see the need for two types of fat skis, if I return to the original benefit which was a shorter length, I still find issue in believing the fat theory holds true.

1. Shortening the tip and tail of a powder ski compromises the front to back stability.  Why is front to back stability required in powder?  Mostly because the resistance of powder is very inconsistent.  As the depth, wind loading and temperature of the powder changes (I mean during a single run) the balance of the skier is typically forced forward or backward.  The front to back stability of the ski allows the skier to compensate for these balance shifts before falling forward or backward.  Although surface area does some, the majority can only be done by counteracting the large lever arm of the skier with a longer platform underneath.  As an example, a 300mm wide snow blade that is 61cm long probably isn't going to stop a skier from going over the handlebars nearly as well as a 100mm wide ski that is 183cm long even though it has the same surface area.

2. Shortening the tip and tail of a high speed GS ski allows the ski to twist or turn back and forth instead of remaining straight under the skier.  Again, if given the 300mm wide snow blade in a downhill course vs a 100mm wide 183cm long ski I don't believe the surface area is going to overcome the stability lost due to length.

So, those of you that made the jump to fat skis, was it to replace a type 1 or type 2 ski?

How much shorter did you go?

How are you overcoming the concerns I addressed above?


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 5, 2013)

One factor that I never see addressed is ski width/size in respect to skier weight.  The focus is on height, but it only stands to reason that someone who is 6' 230lbs will need a bigger platform to achieve the same floatation as someone who is 6' 160lbs.  Yet, the only time I see skier weight addressed is when talking about the flex or stiffness of a ski.


----------



## Cheese (Mar 5, 2013)

St. Bear said:


> One factor that I never see addressed is ski width/size in respect to skier weight.  The focus is on height, but it only stands to reason that someone who is 6' 230lbs will need a bigger platform to achieve the same floatation as someone who is 6' 160lbs.  Yet, the only time I see skier weight addressed is when talking about the flex or stiffness of a ski.



I sort of felt that this would apply to longer narrow skis and shorter fatter skis so maybe canceled out in the differences between the two.  Perhaps not though so good point.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 5, 2013)

I actually have stayed in the same length with the fatter skis.  I am in the 175cm to 178cm range on all of my fatter skis and carvers are 177cm which have sat there for 4 years now.   The one thing that I would recommend is if going full rocker go longer like 10cm more than you think.


----------



## Cheese (Mar 5, 2013)

Puck it said:


> I actually have stayed in the same length with the fatter skis.  I am in the 175cm to 178cm range on all of my fatter skis and carvers are 177cm which have sat there for 4 years now.



This is actually the trend I've seen more frequently.  Fat technology allows for a shorter ski but instead skiers stay at the same length so essentially increase the length from the narrow ski it's replacing.  Perhaps many bought GS shape skis too short and now that is being corrected by a fatter ski of the same length.  Interesting ...


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 5, 2013)

Cheese said:


> This is actually the trend I've seen more frequently. Fat technology allows for a shorter ski but instead skiers stay at the same length so essentially increase the length from the narrow ski it's replacing. Perhaps many bought GS shape skis too short and now that is being corrected by a fatter ski of the same length. Interesting ...



But isn't this due to the fatter skis typically having a more pronounced rocker and/or twin tips, which reduces the actual length of ski touching the snow?


----------



## Puck it (Mar 5, 2013)

Cheese said:


> This is actually the trend I've seen more frequently. Fat technology allows for a shorter ski but instead skiers stay at the same length so essentially increase the length from the narrow ski it's replacing. Perhaps many bought GS shape skis too short and now that is being corrected by a fatter ski of the same length. Interesting ...



I am 5'10' and I think the 177cm's are about right.  I do have a pair of Nomads at 168cm.  They are great in the powder but they are squirrelly at speed just like the 178cm full rockers that I have.  I should have gone with the 188cm full rockers.


----------



## Cheese (Mar 5, 2013)

St. Bear said:


> But isn't this due to the fatter skis typically having a more pronounced rocker and/or twin tips, which reduces the actual length of ski touching the snow?



This is where I think it matters whether the fat ski is for type 1 (powder) or type 2 (GS carver) assuming both types are under an expert skier.  It's doubtful an expert skier wants rocker or twin tips on a ski that's supposed to hold on hard pack at speed.  That's why camber was designed into skis.



Puck it said:


> I am 5'10' and I think the 177cm's are about  right.  I do have a pair of Nomads at 168cm.  They are great in the  powder but they are squirrelly at speed just like the 178cm full rockers  that I have.  I should have gone with the 188cm full rockers.



My full rockered powder skis are 178cm and I'm mounted 1" back so they  probably ski more like 188cm skis.  I'm a short lil' $hit at 5'7 though.


----------



## billski (Mar 5, 2013)

Well Cheese, being a recreational skier, I don't analyze it as much as I feel it.

There has to be more than two choices postulated here.  For starters, this is an east coast forum and the likelihood of replacing a fat pow ski with something shorter/other ain't happening, at least for me.  I bought a fatter ski (96 under foot, but rethinking that now), for east coast chop and the rare powder day once a year or two.  For me, the length has not factored into it.  Since my 96 under foot are also longer, I use them for GS speeds, for the stability.  Is it the width or the length, I don't know. 

 I did some demoing last month when there was a lot of chop mixed with hardpack. My Superspeeds are way too narrow, I just got thrown around.  I didn't have my mid-fats with me.  We started with 82 underfoot and 170 length.  No control.   I went to 88 underfoot and 178 length.  Much better, I skied the remainder of the day on these,  but not my dream machine.  

I know I changed two variables at once, a no-no.  Not sure which variable to change next.

My front-sides are a very stiff, very narrow (70 under foot) average  length, short turning radius ski.  Great for aggressive carving on  groomers.  Holds to the ground like a magnet.  I would definitely go  longer for more speed. 

Yeah, I've not answered your question.  My point is that for east coast skiing there are more variable that need to be mixed in.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 5, 2013)

Cheese said:


> My full rockered powder skis are 178cm and I'm mounted 1" back so they probably ski more like 188cm skis. I'm a short lil' $hit at 5'7 though.



I should have mounted back but went on center.

BTW, I have to take a pic of this Folsoms that one of the lifties are rocking on the Cannonball Quad.  They look to be over 190cm and at least 120cm under foot and mounted way back.


----------



## Nick (Mar 5, 2013)

The question becomes: when will skis become wider than they are long? :lol:


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 5, 2013)

Puck it said:


> I should have mounted back but went on center.
> 
> BTW, I have to take a pic of this Folsoms that one of the lifties are rocking on the Cannonball Quad. They look to be over 190cm and at least 120cm under foot and mounted way back.



I saw those on Sat.  Bright green, right?  It looked like two snowboards with ski bindings on them.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 5, 2013)

Cheese said:


> * Fat technology allows for a shorter ski but instead skiers stay at the same length so essentially increase the length from the narrow ski it's replacing.*



IMO, most* skiers today are skiing on skis that are longer than _necessary_ for their individual skier profile.

*For purposes of the conversation, I'm defining most as some number >= 50.1%.



Puck it said:


> I am 5'10' and I think the 177cm's are about right.*  I do have a pair of Nomads at 168cm.  They are great in the powder but they are squirrelly at speed just like the 178cm full rockers that I have.  I should have gone with the 188cm* full rockers.



Why not just sell them online?  Icelantic has fairly limited production, and from monitoring sales for a long time I noticed they do resell pretty brisky.  I dont think you'd have any trouble moving them (assuming you havent destroyed them!).


----------



## Puck it (Mar 5, 2013)

St. Bear said:


> I saw those on Sat. Bright green, right? It looked like two snowboards with ski bindings on them.



Yes.  They make my Rock Stars look like GS skis!!!!!


----------



## Puck it (Mar 5, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> Why not just sell them online? Icelantic has fairly limited production, and from monitoring sales for a long time I noticed they do resell pretty brisky. I dont think you'd have any trouble moving them (assuming you havent destroyed them!).



They are pretty beat up.  They are about 5 years old or may be more.  They are fun for the trees and can be used at Mitty when the snow is low.  Also, my son has the same BSL as I do.


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 5, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> IMO, most* skiers today are skiing on skis that are longer than _necessary_ for their individual skier profile.
> 
> *For purposes of the conversation, I'm defining most as some number >= 50.1%.



I think you could also say that most* skiers are skiing on skis that are fatter than necessary.

*particularly on the EC


----------



## Puck it (Mar 5, 2013)

St. Bear said:


> I think you could also say that most* skiers are skiing on skis that are fatter than necessary.
> 
> *particularly on the EC




Hey, who are you calling fat!!!!!!!!:beer:


----------



## ScottySkis (Mar 5, 2013)

For SLc. Light snow that dumps feet.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 5, 2013)

St. Bear said:


> *I think you could also say that most* skiers are skiing on skis that are fatter than necessary.*
> 
> *particularly on the EC



I wouldn't go as far as saying "most" east coast skiers, since that's a pretty high mathematical bar to clear, but I'd certainly agree with you that many do.


----------



## jrmagic (Mar 5, 2013)

St. Bear said:


> I think you could also say that most* skiers are skiing on skis that are fatter than necessary.
> 
> *particularly on the EC



I don't think necessity plays a role here. We could all get by with skinny waisted skis if we had to. Its really about what people enjoy and how they want to use the various tools out there. For example I picked up a pair of used moment rubies which are  wood core twin tips with a HUGE shovel, 110 underfoot and are fully cambered as a powder ski. Sometime in January I broke a brake on my carvers and forced the rubies into daily use and was very impressed with their versatility. They were fun in just about everything other than ice. Certainly the only place I needed that width was to float my 235 pounds in powder which they do admirably well. I will repair/replace my carvers as I prefer them when it gets hard out there but going forward, will use the rubies on all bit the very firm days cause they were more fun for me.


----------



## Cheese (Mar 5, 2013)

billski said:


> I bought a fatter ski (96 under foot, but rethinking that now), for east coast chop and the rare powder day once a year or two.  For me, the length has not factored into it.  Since my 96 under foot are also longer, I use them for GS speeds, for the stability.



It's this _"rare powder day"_ and _"stable GS speed"_ mid-fat combination that confuses me.  Don't take it personally as many mid-fat skiers make the same claims.  Are your mid-fats soft and rockered?  I would assume for the _"rare powder day" _you'd want that but at GS speeds a soft rocker ski is going to flap like a noodle.  Additionally the soft rockered ski will skid turn quite easily so as the powder day turns into bumps and crud or you chase the powder into tight trees, you're still on the correct board.  Conversely the stiff GS ski (_"stable GS speed")_ which is traditionally cambered will be tough to turn quickly in the morning powder.  Nobody would want a GS ski in the trees and once the powder turns to bumps and crud the day gets even more challenging on the GS ski since the stiff ski will store and release energy which in turn will launch the skier from the moguls.  Clearly the stable GS board should stay in the car on a powder day.  That's why I mentioned type 1 (powder) and type 2 (GS carver) as I didn't think they could ever be swapped but your post indicates you have a 96 underfoot designed for both.



Puck it said:


> I should have mounted back but went on center.



Finding the sweet spot is fairly easy on a demo ski.  Normally both the toe and heel binding slide so rather than adjusting them to where the boot center line and ski center line meet up, shift the boot forward or backward and take a run.  If you're doing this yourself, just be mindful of the forward pressure when adjusting.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 5, 2013)

Cheese said:


> Finding the sweet spot is fairly easy on a demo ski. Normally both the toe and heel binding slide so rather than adjusting them to where the boot center line and ski center line meet up, shift the boot forward or backward and take a run. If you're doing this yourself, just be mindful of the forward pressure when adjusting.




No demo done on them.


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 5, 2013)

Maybe this has something to do with it......


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 5, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Maybe this has something to do with it......
> 
> View attachment 8071



We covered this in a health thread before, but I know for a fact that that graph is based on BMI = horsepoop, because it drastically overstates the overweight and obese in America.  For instance, I'm in pretty darn good shape, yet I'm extremely close to being "overweight" in the metrics the government keeps.  Many (if not most depending on which league we're talking about) pro athletes are counted as "obese" in BMI metricing. Worse, even on a good day, some of the ranges are just totally unrealistic to the point where what they call "healthy" would be IMO, a sickly-thin human being.   It's just dumb. [/pet peeve health issue rant]


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 5, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> We covered this in a health thread before, but I know for a fact that that graph is based on BMI = horsepoop, because it drastically overstates the overweight and obese in America. For instance, I'm in pretty darn good shape, yet I'm extremely close to being "overweight" in the metrics the government keeps. Many (if not most depending on which league we're talking about) pro athletes are counted as "obese" in BMI metricing. Worse, even on a good day, some of the ranges are just totally unrealistic to the point where what they call "healthy" would be IMO, a sickly-thin human being. It's just dumb. [/pet peeve health issue rant]



I'll second this, and throw in the fact that that graph distorts the slope to make it look like obesity is rising faster than it really is.  I'm not saying American's aren't getting fat, we certainly are.  But the x-variable increments go from 9 years, to 5, to 4, to 21, to 8, to 11.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 5, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Maybe this has something to do with it......
> 
> View attachment 8071



Hmm, the personal computer and home video game revolution really started taking off in the early/mid 80's..... Coincidence??

Then it leveled out a bit about the time that AZ really started taking off (and we all wanted to get outside a bit more and get some cool snow, biking, and hiking TR's  ) 

And my guess is that the projected increase in the next decade or so will be because quite soon we'll be virtual skiing


----------



## bigbog (Mar 5, 2013)

Cheese said:


> ....Fat technology allows for a shorter ski but instead skiers stay at the same length so essentially increase the length from the narrow ski it's replacing..........



For myself...a fatter ski isn't for correction of anything...but I do understand how limited skilled skiers are taking more chances than ever before.  With a little added rocker and not taken beyond its functional envelope, a wider ski just allows me to ski through deeper, and potentially cruddier(word?) snow...  I go a _little_ longer for anything I'll (hopefully) use in deeper pow & mixed snow....better float.  A little rocker helps in heavier stuff, and early rise helps with smaller blowdowns that I might miss.


----------



## Cheese (Mar 5, 2013)

bigbog said:


> For myself...a fatter ski isn't for correction of anything.   With a little added rocker and not taken beyond its functional envelope, a wider ski just allows me to ski through deeper, and potentially cruddier(word?) snow...  Length remains about the same....as I like to be able to pseudo-carve in heavy stuff 12"+ ...however being able to throw in a pivot, if needed, really adds a veil of security when off-resort....with the amount of tight tree lines here in NewEngland.



This is essentially what I use my fat rockered skis for.  They're shorter than my GS skis but longer than my slalom skis.  It's a ski with a pretty specific day in mind though.  It's too soft and cambered the wrong way for hard pack and it's too long and fat for moguls.  It can't turn as quick as my slalom skis and it won't smooth out hard pack like my GS skis.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 5, 2013)

wider is better


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 5, 2013)

St. Bear said:


> I'll second this, and throw in the fact that* that graph distorts the slope to make it look like obesity is rising faster than it really is.*  I'm not saying American's aren't getting fat, we certainly are.  But* the x-variable increments go from 9 years, to 5, to 4, to 21, to 8, to 11*.



Great catch, I didnt even notice that (which is exactly what whoever built that graph intended).


----------



## Cannonball (Mar 5, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> We covered this in a health thread before, but I know for a fact that that graph is based on BMI = horsepoop, because it drastically overstates the overweight and obese in America.  For instance, I'm in pretty darn good shape, yet I'm extremely close to being "overweight" in the metrics the government keeps.  Many (if not most depending on which league we're talking about) pro athletes are counted as "obese" in BMI metricing. Worse, even on a good day, some of the ranges are just totally unrealistic to the point where what they call "healthy" would be IMO, a sickly-thin human being.   It's just dumb. [/pet peeve health issue rant]



There's your answer Cheese. New skis aren't fat, it just that the old ones were sickly-thin.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 5, 2013)

Cheese said:


> This is essentially what I use my fat rockered skis for.  They're shorter than my GS skis but longer than my slalom skis.  It's a ski with a pretty specific day in mind though.  It's too soft and cambered the wrong way for hard pack and it's too long and fat for moguls.  It can't turn as quick as my slalom skis and it won't smooth out hard pack like my GS skis.



I'd venture to say that you are one of very few recreational skiers that still has GS skis and slalom skis.  That really hasn't been common since the 90s.  I always had both kinds back in the day but now it really no longer makes sense to me when "carving" skis exist that are more than adequate for all turn shapes.  I'm 5'8" and 190#.  I feel 175cm is the ideal size carving ski for my build.  A 100mm width ski with today's rocker?  185 seems about right.  I demoed 107mm gotamas in a 178 cm length and while fun, I think the 186 would be better for my size and performance preferences.


----------



## ScottySkis (Mar 6, 2013)

To car my fat as$


----------



## Cheese (Mar 6, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd venture to say that you are one of very few recreational skiers that still has GS skis and slalom skis.  That really hasn't been common since the 90s.  I always had both kinds back in the day but now it really no longer makes sense to me when "carving" skis exist that are more than adequate for all turn shapes.  I'm 5'8" and 190#.  I feel 175cm is the ideal size carving ski for my build.  A 100mm width ski with today's rocker?  185 seems about right.  I demoed 107mm gotamas in a 178 cm length and while fun, I think the 186 would be better for my size and performance preferences.



Absolutely I could be old fashioned but I'd argue that this is the age  of the "cheater ski" so why not choose weapons accordingly? Most tend to go for a ski somewhere between GS and slalom but when the radius of these two types of skis ranges from 27m to 12m there's an awful lot of turn shape difference between the two.  The slalom ski is designed to make more than twice the turns as the GS ski and the GS ski is designed to hold on ice and be stable at speed.  These are fundamental differences in the design stiffness and side cut and compromise is obviously up to the skiers priority.

I'm 30# lighter at your height so basically choose men's skis at women's lengths.  A men's slalom ski would be 165cm but I ski a 162cm.  A men's GS ski would be 185cm but I ski a 181cm.  A carving ski which sacrifices both short turns and hold on ice would probably land in the middle at ~175cm.  If I fatten this carving ski up to all mountain I should get the same result from a 165cm ski with the added advantage of float should I find some unplanned fresh.  I guess I'll have to take the Rossi 98 out for a rip and see if I can decrease it's large 20m radius substantially.  I'll also have to see how much work it is to keep the oscillating tips of a 165cm ski under control at speed.  Maybe it's time mothball the GS skis outside of the race course and start riding a traditionally cambered mid-fat.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 6, 2013)

Cheese said:


> Absolutely I could be old fashioned but I'd argue that this is the age  of the "cheater ski" so why not choose weapons accordingly? Most tend to go for a ski somewhere between GS and slalom but when the radius of these two types of skis ranges from 27m to 12m there's an awful lot of turn shape difference between the two.  The slalom ski is designed to make more than twice the turns as the GS ski and the GS ski is designed to hold on ice and be stable at speed.  These are fundamental differences in the design stiffness and side cut and compromise is obviously up to the skiers priority.



You're definitely right on the differences in design.  I guess I just find that a good "mid-fat" carving ski can be a decent compromise and for most people, the better way to go for recreational skiing where you want to greatly vary turn shapes throughout not just the day, but the given run.  My Fischer Motive 84s have a 17m turn radius.  Do they make quick turns like a 12m slalom ski?  Not as good, but close enough. I can most certainly ski them like I would a 27m GS ski and to tell you the truth, I haven't found a speed limit on them with Super G sized turns.  They have great edge hold and no chatter.  Just a great super fun carving ski, but that's really all they are.  

Before buying them I read a review on epicski and the user thought they were good in the bumps.  I think they suck personally.  It's a system ski with a progressive flex control and I personally don't think you want to be on a high mounted system binding for good bump performance to begin with. Regarding the flex, even on the softest setting, I find the tails way too stiff for swift tail compression and release on the backside of a bump. I may have higher expectations on bump performance than most though.  The thing is, all the characteristics that make them suck in the bumps are the qualities that make them great carving.

I know this isn't the "one-ski quiver" thread, but personally I think I'm too picky to go with anything less than 3.  80ish flat mount 175cm  softer ski for bumps and spring days; something to carve with like my Fischers and then something over 100mm and 180cm for powder days.  I'm compromising with some older skis to fit the "need" of the skis described other than my Fischers......looks like it's time to buy again.  :lol:


----------



## Cheese (Mar 7, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> I know this isn't the "one-ski quiver" thread, but personally I think I'm too picky to go with anything less than 3.  80ish flat mount 175cm  softer ski for bumps and spring days; something to carve with like my Fischers and then something over 100mm and 180cm for powder days.  I'm compromising with some older skis to fit the "need" of the skis described other than my Fischers......looks like it's time to buy again.  :lol:



I'm a 3 ski quiver guy as well (Slalom, GS and powder).  As I look into a 4th (mid-fat) it seems that it's most likely going to overlap my GS ski so perhaps I'll just mothball that one except in the gates.  It's use is limited to mornings or bullet proof days anyway.  I really like my slalom skis for crud as those days typically progress into the bumps where I want a short narrow ski.  The powder ski is fine in the trees but if I'm late and it's already tracked out, I'll likely put the slalom skis back on to treat the trees like it's a mogul day.  Hopefully the mid-fat will better fit the gap between slalom and powder than the GS ski has in the past.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 7, 2013)

Cheese said:


> *A men's slalom ski would be 165cm but I ski a 162cm*.



A men's slalom ski would be 150cm to 160cm, but FIS put the brakes on that and said "enough", which is why 165cm is now the minimum allowed.   They'd go way shorter if you let them.


----------



## Cheese (Mar 7, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> A men's slalom ski would be 150cm to 160cm, but FIS put the brakes on that and said "enough", which is why 165cm is now the minimum allowed.   They'd go way shorter if you let them.



Yeah, I've strapped on a 150 slalom ski.  Although it does offer an unfair advantage in the gates, outside of the gates on a wide open slope when someone in the group wants to set a new Alpine Replay speed record it's borderline dangerous.  The ski absolutely wants to be making short turns so gets really squirrely when pointing it straight down the hill.  A little extra length helps a bit.


----------



## jrmagic (Mar 7, 2013)

Cheese said:


> Yeah, I've strapped on a 150 slalom ski.  Although it does offer an unfair advantage in the gates, outside of the gates on a wide open slope when someone in the group wants to set a new Alpine Replay speed record it's borderline dangerous.  The ski absolutely wants to be making short turns so gets really squirrely when pointing it straight down the hill.  A little extra length helps a bit.



Agree 100%. Back in the early 2000s I picked up a pair of Atomic SL 11 in a 171 as a compromise between GS and SL and even at that length I had tobstaybon top of them and keep the edge engaged at all times. If I tried to let them run, the slightest shift would engage and the ski would just go in that direction fast.


----------



## Cheese (Mar 7, 2013)

jrmagic said:


> Agree 100%. Back in the early 2000s I picked up a pair of Atomic SL 11 in a 171 as a compromise between GS and SL and even at that length I had to stay on top of them and keep the edge engaged at all times. If I tried to let them run, the slightest shift would engage and the ski would just go in that direction fast.



Probably would help if I didn't always succumb to peer pressure.  Dad always said, "He skis like he doesn't know how old he is."


----------



## snoseek (Mar 12, 2013)

my soft snow skis are fat, long (194 cm) and pretty stiff for the most part. 

I'm not sure exactly why they work so well but man do they eat up soft snow. Length is as important as width for float and both together are a dream.


----------



## drjeff (Mar 19, 2013)

snoseek said:


> my soft snow skis are fat, long (194 cm) and pretty stiff for the most part.
> 
> I'm not sure exactly why they work so well but man do they eat up soft snow. Length is as important as width for float and both together are a dream.



There are so many people nowadays on so many different models of skis that can make essentially that same statement.  Just a testament to the fact the across the board these days, ski manufacturers are building some kick butt skis! And with so many good offerings now, its much easier to find the right combination of width, length and flex to suit the turn type and snow conditions you're looking for, and have the generally also be quite good at a bunch of other stuff too!


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 3, 2013)

Fatties are great for pond skimming


----------



## marcski (Apr 3, 2013)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Fatties are great for pond skimming



Yep.


----------



## Nick (Apr 3, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> Maybe this has something to do with it......
> 
> View attachment 8071



It's true that was a stupid way to use the X-axis. 

Should have used a Scatter chart instead of a  Line chart. See here for the same info with the time representation being more accurate.


----------



## St. Bear (Apr 3, 2013)

Nick said:


> It's true that was a stupid way to use the X-axis.
> 
> Should have used a Scatter chart instead of a Line chart. See here for the same info with the time representation being more accurate.
> 
> View attachment 8588



I wonder what their logic is to assume that obesity is going to jump another 10% in the next 10 years, when the previous decade it had leveled off?


----------



## Nick (Apr 3, 2013)

St. Bear said:


> I wonder what their logic is to assume that obesity is going to jump another 10% in the next 10 years, when the previous decade it had leveled off?



Probably cynicism or negativity. 

Who knows. "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". 

Ironically, often the actual numbers are meaningless.


----------



## ScottySkis (Apr 3, 2013)

Because their fun for spring and powder, and SLC.


----------



## bigbog (Apr 17, 2013)

One Hundred-somethings are the ticket during a snowstorm....if one is lucky enough to be at where one wants to be at that moment in time....


----------

