I skied the last two days at my local hill (Berkshire East)...I saw no one on truly fat skis. My friend's college age son was skiing a legend 94...and that was about the widest ski on the hill (and he skied it very well).
In the shop I work in, I'd say a good 85% of all our Adult ski sales are 75-85 carving oriented mid fat skis. The Avenger 82ti, and it's narrower sibling the Avenger 76ti typify the sort of skis we move the most. Most of our customers buy one ski and that is the only ski they own. We have a small clientele of expert skiers who come in and get special order, or pre-order Fat skis, AT skis, Tele skis. We stock a smaller number of wider skis, which don't move that easily--we have had good success with the Rossi S3...much less success with the S7.
I think in spite of ski forum buzz, most people buy one ski, and that ski is frontside worthy and runs 75-85mm in the waist...and for most of these buyers, these are the right ski.
Now, here's the question, is buying an even narrower of a ski (less than 72mm) for hard snow skiing periods any less of a marketing hype decision than buying a wide ski for soft snow? Most skiers will be happier, even on groomers with a ski btw 75-80mm. Getting a skinnier ski for hard snow days might be a good decision, but no different than buying a fat ski for deeper days.
I skied my Dynastar Contact 4x4's both days this week, they were sot on the right ski for me, I didn't want anything skinnier...or fatter.
Home
Login
Register