To fat or not to fat? That is the question.

[Brendan]

Hello,

I am 160 pounds, 5'11 and my Atomic C9's, length 170 (105/64/97) float just fine in knee deep pow.  Have the markeing gurus conviced us that we need a mid fat or am I just in the dark ages?  Thinking of moving to Head Monster im72, length 170 (117/72/102) and thought this would be more than enough float for the Rockies but the ski shop sales people look at me like I am from the jurrasic era - what do you think?

Brendan

[Ron]

oh Brendan, do you know what you just started   OK, heres my .02  the wider ski has more float and will be less effort and easier, is it mandatory?  No.  I ski on SuperShapes in boot high with no issues. Its just a preference thing.  The wider skis will be more of a crud buster once the pow gets piled though. OK, here comes the rest.....

72's are great skis but they do have a limit. i found them a bit short on energy and pop but if your not really pushing them, they area a fantastic ski capable of any condition.  See my review on this site

Now, go over to TGR site and then the Epicski site and post if you really want to see the powder fly!   

[Barrettscv]

Hi Brendon,

Ron's advice is right on, any good skier can ski powder on thinner skis. The only exception is trying to use a serious race or race-carver ski in deep snow, these are useless in bottomless conditions and will dive like a u-boat.

Skiing in deep snow on a thinner ski requires good technique and is much more difficult for heavier skiers than for lighter skiers. see the "Can a Head Monster 82 float as well as a Volant Spatula?" thread on this forum for more info.

But it really does come down to preference. If I owned one ski and skied the groomed runs 75% of the time I spend on the slopes, I would stay at or below 69mm wide underfoot. The wider skis are more versatile but are not as responsive to carving technique. A ski like the Fischer RX8 or Head Supershape will carve as well as any "skicross" type ski and still allow good skiing in moderately deep snow if the skier is skilled. It helps if the skier is also lighter than average, too.

Cheers,

Michael

[Gary]

Brendan,
Michael and Ron bring up good points.

Another factor to think about is the sidecut...the ratio of width across the ski.

Consider the COntact 9 122 68 102 , the ELan Speedwave 116 69 98 as possibilities.


The width of the shovel really helps in turn initiation and float. These would be great turning skis with awesome versatility on the mountain.

Either one of these might be considered a one quivver performance ski for you.

Gary

[jim-ratliff]

Hello,

I am 160 pounds, 5'11 and my Atomic C9's, length 170 (105/64/97) float just fine in knee deep pow.?
Thinking of moving to Head Monster im72, length 170 (117/72/102) and thought this would be more than enough float for the Rockies but the ski shop sales people look at me like I am from the jurrasic era - what do you think?

Brendan

I think you may be an intelligent person who is willing to think for himself rather than listening to what the ski-shop/ski manufacturer nannies tell us to think.  However, you didn't tell us what you were wanting the ski to do.  Is this a one ski replacement for the C9, or a trips west ski to replace the C9?  How do you ski and how do you like the C9's?  Ron is right about energy and pop of the iM72, but Ron would want a higher end ski than the C9, so the iM72 may still be a great fit for you.  Where are you in your skills (and where are you wanting to improve).  Peter and Harald Harb and others say that mid-fats (whatever the current definition might be 75+ mm) actually make it harder (maybe much harder) to develop good carving technique.  The narrower the waist on a ski, the easier it is to tip.  The more sidecut a ski has, the more easily it will turn when tipped, but the more twitchy it might feel if you try to ski it flat.

In summary, the iM72 sounds like a reasonable choice given our limited knowledge of you.
PS.  And, as always, given the choice between spending money on skis or boots, spend it on boots.

Jim

[Ron]

such a wise man,,,,,,yup just what he said

[MGardiner]

Now here is another thought:  How deep is too deep? 

The main differences I notice when skiing powder on skis of various widths is speed and recovery time between turns.  A narrower ski sinks deeper into the snow (if you are lucky enough to have true powder - which to my mind is a fluffy layer of 8" to knee deep on top of a soft subsurface)  At some point the ski will rebound off the subsurface and allow you to crank out the next turn.  With a fatter ski, the skis are ready for that next turn much sooner.  They can feel more maneuverable. They don't sink in as deeply so you can experience "bottomless" conditions in relatively shallow pow, depending on slope angle.  In can be fun to ski in four inches of snow and not feel the subsurface on low angle slopes. 

A side effect of the skis not sinking and rising thru as much distance is that there is less "porpoise-ing"  which may be something you will miss.  The skis running closer to the surface also run much faster.  There is less drag against your legs.  So if you want to crank and bounce out the maximum turns per pitch (aka Utah machine track) stick with the narrower models.  If you want to haul ass and skim the surface with longer turns - go big or go home.

Having said all that, I think that skis are currently flirting with excessive width.  IMHO skis that are over 100mm at the waist will be too much except for those days where there is too much of a good thing, around 3 feet of fresh snow and slopes that are long enough and steep enough to give you room to fly while still being safe enough to ski without avalanche.  Rare conditions that often come in conjunction with road closures.  If you are into helicopter skiing and professional level extreme skiing rock on!

There is a reason that those skis are called "Big Mountain" skis.  You just don't take your rocket ship to the corner grocery store.  Sadly, whopping big skis are a way to become bored with your local hill, even if it was formerly challenging.

Powder skis come in two varieties, for finese and power skiing.  The later skis being stiffer and wider.  Some powder skis will feel easier to ski than a hard snow carver others will feel like armored personnel carriers.  There is a lot of room between 74mm and 130mm.

- Mark, SLC   

[jim-ratliff]

There isn't any question that wider skis change/improve the powder experience, but people need to be realistic about how much powder skiing they are doing. There aren't really that many "big mountain skiers" out here!!  Peter has an artical or comments about the number of people showing up at classes aimed at improving hard snow skills wearing "all-mountan" skis.

I think Brendan's original question is extremely valid.  I believe the ski manufacturers are "pushing" wider skis irrespective of where the skier plans to use them, and I believe their only motivation is to sell new skis.  The marketing industry in America is tremendously adept a "creating a need that didn't originally exist" and I believe that's the crux of the wide ski 'craze'.

[Gary]

To consider that the sidecut in the new mid-fat skis make them more adaptable to a variety of terrain is certainly a larger factor for those looking for their one quiver ski.

Big Mountain skis for people who ski front side...I don't get it. Maybe it's just show and tell. Heck, maybe they like the way you can slide them around.

It's the ski? industry that seems to thrive on new gimmicks. We're a people that loves the fresh idea, the latest gizmo. Some I'm sure good and some well...

Fact is, you can match your personality to your boards and your gear...the whole idea is that if it makes you feel good, solid, fast, in control...can't be all bad.

Hopefully, before we spend the money, we try the ski, or ask the right questions and be fortunate enough to be with a salesperson that knows how to ask the right questions and make the right suggestions.

OR...they can just ask us!

G

[Barrettscv]

Mark, Jim & Gary,

Great comments. Many of the skis available are ideal for a certain style of skiing in a certain type of snow.

It's easy enough to find a good carving ski for firm snow. Select a ski with sturdy construction, a wide tip to aid turn initiation, narrow waist for quickness, deep sidecut to tighten the turn radius, enough camber to maintain edgegrip for the entire length of the ski; these features promote carving.

Its also possible (but not as easy) to find a a good crud & powder ski. Wide waist for float, narrow tip to avoid hooking of the tips, minimal camber to avoid tip dive, minimal sidecut to promote stability at speed and reduce deflection in crud. A powder ski depends on flex to determine the turn shape; big, and very fast skiers need a stiff ski, lighter skiers benefit from a less stiff flex.

The all-mountain midfat ski usually has the shape of a carving ski with a wide tip, deep sidecut and is simply wider. This reduces the skis agility and edgegrip on ice due to less edge-to-edge quickness and some loss of torsional rigidity. The ski has its limits in powder & crud also. The all-mountain midfat is less stable with more tip dive in powder and deflection in crud.

I know from experience that the all-mountain midfat models are highly versatile with sufficient carving potential on ice and more float in powder than a pure carving ski. The all-mountain midfat ski only works well because the skilled skier can adjust his technique to the conditions underfoot. On hard snow, the skier can carve well but needs to overcome some inherent sluggishness and less-that-perfect edgegrip. On soft snow the skier overcomes a less stable platform by increasing his effort or moderating the speed.

The real benefit of the all-mountain midfat is to transition from firm to soft to deep; all in the same run. But its a triumph of the skiers skill. It's not a triumph of optimized ski design.

Cheers,

Michael