# How fat is fat?



## gmcunni (Mar 4, 2012)

i used to think 100mm or more was a fat ski but as i contemplate a new 1 ski quiver i'm thinking ~95.   

What do you consider a fat ski these days?


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 4, 2012)

You can either call Dan

or read this thread

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=106511&highlight=Egan


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 4, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> You can either call Dan



Dan Egan doesn't take calls from gapers like me


----------



## Nick (Mar 5, 2012)

Stop whining about 5mm you look fine the way you are


----------



## billski (Mar 5, 2012)

Depends what you're skiing.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Mar 5, 2012)

i think the boots make your skis look fat


----------



## drjeff (Mar 5, 2012)

After seeing what was under people's feet and leaning on the ski racks last week during a big powder week in Utah, my definition of how fat is fat went up by a good 20mm or so!   One had to be seriously bow legged to ski on some of the sticks that folks had out there!


----------



## snowmonster (Mar 5, 2012)

I used to think that anything over 90 was fat. Then, I got a 100 waisted ski. Thought it would be unwieldly and that it would be my powder ski. It became my daily driver. Now, I see anything over 105 as fat. It's all relative, I guess.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 5, 2012)

drjeff said:


> After seeing what was under people's feet and leaning on the ski racks last week during a big powder week in Utah, my definition of how fat is fat went up by a good 20mm or so!   One had to be seriously bow legged to ski on some of the sticks that folks had out there!



this pic from Magic over the weekend is what got me thinking that my definition of FAT was old.


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 5, 2012)

I called Dan for you.  He said 110mm and up is fat and if you kill it, you can still carve them on hardpack


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 6, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> this pic from Magic over the weekend is what got me thinking that my definition of FAT was old.



Wow.   I think that there are many people that ski in the east 95% of the time that are skiing on skis way too fat (like several in that picture) for what our conditions are 95% of the time.


----------



## o3jeff (Mar 6, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> this pic from Magic over the weekend is what got me thinking that my definition of FAT was old.



They had a couple pairs of those demo skis(the all yellow ones) in the little ski shop in the lodge that they were selling for $650 iirc.


----------



## 2knees (Mar 6, 2012)

she's so fat, she irons her pants on the driveway.


she's so fat, the back of her neck looks like a pack of hot dogs.

she's so fat, it takes a train, a bus and a plane just to get to her good side.


----------



## hammer (Mar 6, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> this pic from Magic over the weekend is what got me thinking that my definition of FAT was old.


Would not have minded having one of those instead of the all-mountain skis I was on...couldn't get any float out of them and I couldn't chop through the tracked out stuff either...

Sure that technique had something to do with it but it did look easier for people on the fat skis.


----------



## Bene288 (Mar 6, 2012)

My new Theorys are 95. When I saw them in person I thought they would turn like a toaster. Not true.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 6, 2012)

Bene288 said:


> My new Theorys are 95. When I saw them in person I thought they would turn like a toaster. Not true.



what binding did you go with?


----------



## snoseek (Mar 6, 2012)

My everyday goto ski is 108. If its really icy I have a 95. The 108 skis better in the bumps most of the time


----------



## Abubob (Mar 8, 2012)

Its amazing how quickly things have changed. Only a couple years ago I have a tech at the demo shop at Waterville tell me that the Watea 85s were a powder only ski and wouldn't let me try them. Idiot - I thought but not wanting to get into an argument tried something he approved of. Now that's a front side groomer width. I wonder what he is thinking now?


----------



## mondeo (Mar 9, 2012)

I have 66, 84, and 94 in my quiver.

The Watea 94 is in no way an every day ski in the East. Maybe if you don't like changing directions very quickly, I might see it, but advances in ski tech don't change physics. Wider is slower, no way to get around it.


----------



## SkiFanE (Mar 9, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> what binding did you go with?



Not that you asked me, but I just bought my first midfats (91 - fat to me lol) and got Look Pivots..they're back.  Have some on my SL skis and love them, so got some for these.  So far so good, no early releases - but have when needed to - I cranked the din up a bit, but seems to be just right.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 9, 2012)

I ski on nothing less then 90mm underfoot now unless I need a Cannon grind then I break out the Monster 88's. 

Actually probably selling off my old iRaces (2 pairs) and Supershapes. Running out of space.

Any interest from anyone? I will post in the grear forum.


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 9, 2012)

Puck it said:


> I ski on nothing less then 90mm underfoot now unless I need a Cannon grind then I break out the Monster 88's.



FYI, the Palmer's at 179cm are 89mm.

Nit picking, I know.


----------



## Puck it (Mar 9, 2012)

St. Bear said:


> FYI, the Palmer's at 179cm are 89mm.
> 
> Nit picking, I know.



Mine are 90mm .  Measured with calipers.  Special order.  Ha!


----------



## St. Bear (Mar 9, 2012)

Puck it said:


> Mine are 90mm .  Measured with calipers.  Special order.  Ha!



Dammit, I'm going to sink in soft snow.

At least I'll be carving circles around you.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Mar 9, 2012)

mondeo said:


> I have 66, 84, and 94 in my quiver.
> 
> The Watea 94 is in no way an every day ski in the East. Maybe if you don't like changing directions very quickly, I might see it, but advances in ski tech don't change physics. Wider is slower, no way to get around it.



I see people, and have friends that only ski on fat skis.  They say how they handle just as good as the skinny stuff and there is no need to go skinnier.  I have skied on the same skis they say are "great" in hard pack, and disagree.  Yes they can be skied, but no, they are not nearly as good as my skinnier skis.  

For me personally I have a 70, 82, 88, and a 108 option for waist widths.  My main everyday ski in 88mm.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 9, 2012)

There are some really sweet skis around the 100mm range these days. Two I skied today I would be happy to have as an everyday drive except on really hard days. I could see going down to two skis.

Atomic Alibi is 98mm and rips, has a lot of rocker but a 18m turn radius. This was a blast today in the crud and bumps and with a sheet of metal has a nice GS feel but still light and fun. Similar in size the Scott Dozer 100mm was just as fun but pretty different. It's got a 13m radius and has a carbon beam construction similar to the Watea's. It took me 1/2 a run to dial into the tight turn radius and then I was having a great time with them. Tracks pretty good in GS turns, but it's more a short to medium turn ski. It made them really easy to swing around in the bumps.

I'd probably lean toward the Alibi since I like the larger turn radius in most conditions.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 9, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> I'd probably lean toward the Alibi since I like the larger turn radius in most conditions.



theory and alibi have similar dimensions, did you happen to ask the differences between them?


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 9, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> theory and alibi have similar dimensions, did you happen to ask the differences between them?



Yes, last years theory was just a wood core and it's 95 at the waist. The rep said they added carbon to the construction for next year that he claimed would make it livelier and have better torsional stiffness. I thought it was pretty lively last year, but I imagine this would improve edge grip too. 

The Alibi is 98 at the waist and has a sheet of titanium in it making it a stiffer ski. So it's wider and stiffer than the Theory.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 9, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> Yes, last years theory was just a wood core and it's 95 at the waist. The rep said they added carbon to the construction for next year that he claimed would make it livelier and have better torsional stiffness. I thought it was pretty lively last year, but I imagine this would improve edge grip too.
> 
> The Alibi is 98 at the waist and has a sheet of titanium in it making it a stiffer ski. So it's wider and stiffer than the Theory.



you suck, now i don't want the 2012 theory anymore but will be to cheap to by the 2013 theory or alibi.


----------



## gmcunni (Mar 9, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> Yes, last years theory was just a wood core and it's 95 at the waist. The rep said they added carbon to the construction for next year that he claimed would make it livelier and have better torsional stiffness. I thought it was pretty lively last year, but I imagine this would improve edge grip too.
> 
> The Alibi is 98 at the waist and has a sheet of titanium in it making it a stiffer ski. So it's wider and stiffer than the Theory.



i take it you didn't ski the new theory today?


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 9, 2012)

gmcunni said:


> i take it you didn't ski the new theory today?



nope


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Mar 9, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> Atomic Alibi is 98mm and rips, has a lot of rocker but a 18m turn radius. This was a blast today in the crud and bumps and with a sheet of metal has a nice GS feel but still light and fun.



This statement right there shows just how important demoing is.  I skied the Alibi on Monday at a Demo, and could not get them off my feet any faster.  I thought they skied ok at slow speeds with short turns, but as soon as I tried to open it up and GS the turns they scared me horribly.  The first big turn I made they did not hold and came completely around on me.  The person I was skiing with wanted to know why in the middle of a high speed turn I would swing them around switch....


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 9, 2012)

Hawkshot99 said:


> This statement right there shows just how important demoing is.  I skied the Alibi on Monday at a Demo, and could not get them off my feet any faster.  I thought they skied ok at slow speeds with short turns, but as soon as I tried to open it up and GS the turns they scared me horribly.  The first big turn I made they did not hold and came completely around on me.  The person I was skiing with wanted to know why in the middle of a high speed turn I would swing them around switch....



What were conditions like? It was all soft corn when I skied these.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Mar 9, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> What were conditions like? It was all soft corn when I skied these.



Firm, but edge-able.  Im not saying that you are wrong in your thoughts of the ski at all.  I am just saying that what you may feel is good, may not be for the person reading it.  It sounds like you truly liked the ski, while I personally really did not like the ski.  Maybe we are just used to different styles of skis, or ski way differently and have different requirements of the skis performance.


----------



## wa-loaf (Mar 9, 2012)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Firm, but edge-able.  Im not saying that you are wrong in your thoughts of the ski at all.  I am just saying that what you may feel is good, may not be for the person reading it.  It sounds like you truly liked the ski, while I personally really did not like the ski.  Maybe we are just used to different styles of skis, or ski way differently and have different requirements of the skis performance.



Just curious if the conditions were similar. Definitely a fun soft snow ski. Firm but edgeable I'd want something else anyway.


----------



## bigbog (Mar 12, 2012)

wa-loaf said:


> Yes, last years theory was just a wood core and it's 95 at the waist. The rep said they added carbon to the construction for next year that he claimed would make it livelier and have better torsional stiffness. I thought it was pretty lively last year, but I imagine this would improve edge grip too.
> 
> The Alibi is 98 at the waist and has a sheet of titanium in it making it a stiffer ski. So it's wider and stiffer than the Theory.



Hmmm, now I'm beginning to think seriously about the theory...  
1)  Isn't Atomic's bevel angle rather bland on wider skis?  

Was thinking about how a 3deg bevel for edge but tips & tails might give a little more/_"enough"_ edgegrip..y/n?  Any guesses...  Certainly nice weight to skin up with......although LINE...as well has a lightweight version of one of their skis with some width...


----------

