Snow Drought and Fat Skis

[LivingProof]

For the past several years, ski forums have been abuzz with discussions of fat skis and powder conditions. I grow weary of reading threads about selecting new skis and someone with a zip code from Jackson or Telluride or backcountry Stowe, responding that a fat pow ski is just what you need. Not much buzz is in circulation this winter, from the Northeast to Tahoe, about all the powder being slayed! Have the past 2 winters, with generally great conditions, skewed how we should be selecting skis? Do people just forget that sometimes it does not snow for considerable periods, or, here in the northeast, get warm to prevent snowmaking? Fat skis may be great for manufacturers as it brings revenue -- why buy another carver, but, why ski anything wider than, say 80, when the snow gets hard and old? (Not trying to quibble about the break point). My 88's sit still with the summer wax coat on the bases.

Granted that I ski on the southern threshold of eastern skiing, but, the great preponderance of skis I see in liftlines are carvers. That's what I would expect, but, we (almost) never see reviews of eastern carvers. Are there that few easterners who are exposed to internet ski sites to be unaware of missing fat ski benefits (I'm being a bit sarcastic), or, too few willing to stand up write that fat skis are not the great end product...when mother nature has it's dry periods. Man plans, the weather laughs. Can't tell you how many times I've been north or in the west and skied snow just like Pa. (on a better day).

Really, in your personal experience, is ski-type discussion attuned to conditions you dream of or actually ski?

I would argue that skiers just want good snow conditions to have fun in - that's what the real hype is about, the actual skis are secondary.

[midwif]

LP

I hear you!
The trip to Colorado with Jim was very different than the previous 2 years.
Packed powder was the best the areas had to offer.
My only fall of the week, was hitting a snow snake (aka  downed,small tree) in a patch of trees on a groomed slope that looked so inviting.

It was almost laughable at times, watching the majority of young skiers on fat skis ,straight lining, wedging and sloppily skiing.

I brought 2 pairs of skis, but stuck with the Progessor 8's. ( great ski for me, BTW!).

Fresh snow is great, powder is fun, but the conditions were for working on basic carving skills.
It felt great to edge and feel the ski turn!

L.

[jim-ratliff]

Clarification.  Midwif's fall was NOT on a groomed slope, it was in between two groomed slopes while desperately seeking a bit of the "tree skiing" experience.  12" of snow wasn't enough to cover all of the "ground clutter".   

At this point, my goal from last year seems very prescient (how's that for word use Lynn?).  I wanted both of us to have interchangeable bindings so that we could take 2 pair of skis with one pair of bindings.  For my 80 year old back, two pair with bindings seems overbearing but minus one pair of bindings makes a huge difference (and makes it much easier to load the sport tube).  Somebody needs to introduce carbon fiber bindings and cut some weight.

Needless to say, I was very happy to have my Supershape Magnum's along in December.  But very much to your point about the ski mindset, the Frisco ski shop guy that was mounting the PowerRail's looked at my 72 mm SuperShapes and said, "what are these, your racing skis?"

Overall, I agree that most ski discussion has been following the hype -- but the hype has also been usable due to the early and large snowfall.
In my case, I think ski discussion selection has been about filling in a gap.  I've been very satisfied with my SuperShapes for several years -- and my focus has been on complimenting that with something wide that I loved as much.  I haven't been paying as much attention to narrow skis because I wasn't in that market.

Lynn was certainly faced with a paucity of information and options last spring when she was looking to replace her Every Thangs with an East Coast versatile ski with a waist less than 70. She compromised on the Progessor's at 72mm waist, and bought last year's because this years model was growing to 74mm.

[Liam]

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.

[Gary]

If you're going into the trees in low cover....fat skis will keep the snow snakes at bay....just cause the float better..

Having said that, most skis in that 75-85 width underfoot, can float most boats in boot high snow without a problem.

But as terrain flattens in any pow or snow deepens....oh those fatties 98 and up can be just so much more fun in my book.

It's a tool and ya pick the tool that keeps you safe and smiln'....g

[LivingProof]

I skied the last two days at my local hill (Berkshire East)...I saw no one on truly fat skis.

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.

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.

I believe Liam's observations are reflective of what is going on in eastern skiing. Bottom line is we all need a ski that serves as a daily driver. In the east, that has to be a ski with hard snow competency.

My generalization behind the love for skis between 75 and 85 is the perception is that there is some percieved "all-mountain" value (I can hear Helluvaskier puking), plus, some non-love for very narrow waist as they are out of vogue. Perhaps some thinking that a wider ski is more stable at speed, coupled with the wider radius turns as observed from viewing on the lifts. As Liam observed, one ski quivers rule. What I've not heard, generally, is that a SL-type narrow ski provides value on the hardest surfaces.
Certainly, and leaving the generalization, knowledgeable skiers know the performance window they want. Observe Gary ripping GS turns on his 78's at Bristol.

Just an opinion, but, narrow sub 70 skis appeal to those who value short radius turns, akin to form following function. Observe LP raising his hand.

None of the above is new, sure is not rocket science in the east. Pardon the rehash. I just get frustrated seeing ga-ga reviews of how fat skis rock and carve, then, all is quiet when the snow does not fall . The sounds of silence...

[bushwacka]

I have spent the Majority of time skiing off the lifts this year on 65mm Fisher WC SL skis and my 87 Blizzard Mag 8.7 mm ski. We simply do not have the terrain open for the fatter rockered skis yet. Last year I used my 98mm "the one" nearly everyday. part of my reason for not using them is their edges are just shot and can not be sharpened anymore.

With that said I have skinned up and skied some sweet powder runs that are still un open to the public/ sadly solo missions so no pictures trying to convince people to get up at 5 am to go ski a run or 2 in brutally cold air is tough to do.

I tell people fat skis carve well enough that I can still outski 99 percent of the population in a nastar course on 100mm skis. At least with edges.

[jim-ratliff]

I tell people fat skis carve well enough that I can still outski 99 percent of the population in a nastar course on 100mm skis. At least with edges.

I think that's quite a mis-statement, the cause and effect aren't even close to matching.     You might equally say that "water skis" carve well enough that you could outski 99 percent of the population.
And oviously the same was true of straight skis -- some guys could ski well enough to outski 99% of the current skier population.

[bushwacka]

the thing is I can tip a ski so width doesnt affect all that much but comparing a 100mm ski that engages the whole sidecut to a water ski is kinda of ridiculous.

also just to point out that if I was not working a 3 week long streach and stuck skiing stowe that I could be skiing powder at MRG. I am someone that when given the chance will always work to ski powder and once we have a 40-50 inch natural base here it is possible to find it nearly everyday.

[jim-ratliff]

I know, but it sounded like you were attributing the ability to the skis.
The ability is the skier and his ability to "overcome" the skis characteristics.  :-)  and that was my water ski parallel.  Maybe you could overcome the characteristics of those "skis" as well.
Not a particularly serious comment.
And if Iweren't working, I would be skiing somewhere as well.

[Liam]

Yeah, Lp that's where I was going.   Most people, wisely, get one ski that handles most of what they ski, and here in the east...even at Stowe  , is either groomed, are 50-90% of the time, pretty damn firm.  The 75-85mm low to mid-radius ski, that's not too stiff in the tip or tail, serves the masses very well.  And skis like the MX78 or the old Head im 78, though they won't carve quite as well as slalom style skis, still carve pretty dang well and won't leave you crying into your beer at 4:00pm that you wished you had narrower skis after a firm snow day.

Any other ski one buys, is a specialty ski.  You've gone into quiver mode.  The skinnier ski with a race pedigree (if not an actual race ski) becomes very condition specific, and is certainly not 'necessary' to enjoy firm conditions.    Just as the Fat/ Rockered ski is also condition specific and, assuming the skill of the user is high intermediate or better, not necessary for enjoying soft snow.  Though both make each situation better under a skilled skier.

I like Gary's quest for the Two ski quiver...it appeals to my basic minimalist instincts...and I hate overlap.   For a true all mountain skier, the two ski divide won't be a supershape and an S7.   I think, they'dbe what Gary has done...a very, very hard snow capable mid fat (the MX78) and a very, very soft snow, crud and tree capable wider ski (The DPS 112).  I think a quiver like that is driven by experience derived good sense and not marketing hype.

Last two days of skiing at my local bump were very good by the way.  Skied both days with my littlest guy (9 year old)...his skiing has really come along!  And he seems to be able to enjoy the whole mountain on a pair of shortish Junior race skis.

[jim-ratliff]

The skinnier ski with a race pedigree (if not an actual race ski) becomes very condition specific, and is certainly not 'necessary' to enjoy firm conditions.   

Liam:
I agree with everything you said EXCEPT for the part that assumes that the "skinnier ski" would have a race pedigree. Both Lynn and I have 72mm waisted skis, neither has a race pedigree, and both were bought for their versatility. And I have skied mine in 8-12 inches of powder without complaints. In fact, my 72mm waisted ski is easier and more versatile (for me) than the iM78's that I had several years back.
But I now agree with the two ski quiver concept as long as the extra weight of hauling two pair on the airplane can be dealt with (or you are fortunate enough to live slopeside and have your entire quiver at hand).
And while its been said many times, I can't help but remember buying a K2 Axis X some years back as a "mid-fat" at 70mm to replace my iC160 at 66mm.  Now my 72mm skis are the skinny skis.

[Gary]

I'm sure that all of you like I have found that when skiing in the east on many resorts with little to no side country skiing..a carving ski is ideal...no doubt.

I think an important factor that makes a carving ski is it's turn radius. I went from a Fisher 13m tr to a Kastle 16m tr. AND yes when the snow is hard and or perfect...that 13m tr is just definetly easier to spit out rapid fire turns.

BUT...that snow DON'T last. Where I live, it's gone in the 1st hour and really chopped to smithereens in 21/2 hours. What I've found is that something with a little more stability underfoot made crushing those piles of crud and creepy marbles a better "tool". Keeps my quivver under 2 indeed. But in reality...I like the crud and the busted up snow..the pushed pow along the edges...but that's just me. I'd rather ski that then rip groomers all day long, hence my choice in skis.

What does amaze me is the "carving hard snow" skis on the market today....they've got some really decent turning radius.

What does that mean...well what I see is that if you want to rip off pure carves, short, quick edge to edge....that 11-13m tr ski is the right tool. When you get into to 16 plus, you ain't making those pure short turn carves like the shorter TR skis do...to turn that tight, we're making brush carves and heck....that's just fine...cause that's the tool I got on my foot.

Working within the Turning Radius of the ski...making pure carves is still a dream. We do however sacrifice some performance benefit and gain others as we move between skis.

For each of us, it's  what that ski brings to your pleasure...it's what floats your bubble....find it and life is grand!
G

[Svend]

I'm sure that all of you like I have found that when skiing in the east on many resorts with little to no side country skiing..a carving ski is ideal...no doubt.

I think an important factor that makes a carving ski is it's turn radius. I went from a Fisher 13m tr to a Kastle 16m tr. AND yes when the snow is hard and or perfect...that 13m tr is just definetly easier to spit out rapid fire turns.

Not trying to be overly technical here, but don't forget that many of the modern carving skis, and even some wider ones, have the dual radius sidecut that makes both short and long turns a breeze.  Progressors, Spitfires, past Elan Waveflex, AND your beloved MX78, all have this design.  Makes the stated turn radius specs kind of meaningless.  And makes those skis so very versatile for skiers who like to mix it up and have a single ski that can do any turn shape they desire.

Gary, I would bet some real coin that if you hadn't discovered the MX78, and found that it is a phenomenally versatile ski (short turns, long turns, hard snow, soft snow, ice.....short of knee deep powder, that ski can do it all with aplomb), you would have a ski in the 72 to 74 mm range as your hard snow carver.  The fact that the MX78 exists, and is so good, allows you to have a ski in that width and still rip it up on the hard snow and ice here in the east.  Let's face it, I can't think of another ski in that size that compares.  To get that kind of hard snow and crud performance, you probably have to go narrower (although the new Progressor 1000 at 78mm might answer nicely).  Granted, there are some stiff frontside oriented mid-fats out there in the 80 - 88 mm range (Blizzard, etc.) but I know how you like a playful ski, and I can't see those doing it for you. 

Looks like you've finally found the ideal 2-ski quiver that works best for you, in the Kastle and DPS.  Knowing you, your evolution is never complete, and the quest for another ski will be renewed in time, but perhaps you'll find inner peace with these for a few years     Ahhhh.....finally some P&Q 

As for Mike's first post -- Hey, I agree.  Seems to me that the punting of ever-wider skis isn't restricted to the forums.  It's in all the ski media as well, at least in the American magazines.  A 98mm all-mountain ski for an easterner? Seriously? Do all these writers live in Colorado? Have they ever traveled east of the Mississipi? The Canadian and European media are more balanced.  Up here, they realize that the greatest number of skiers lives in the east.  This means the greatest number of ski buying customers.  Most of them only ski at thier local hill, and never venture west, and therefore don't need more than one ski.  So the ski media review and report accordingly.  Browsing the racks of our local shops, even the big ones with walls full of skis, including race and high performance models, you would be hard pressed to find a single ski wider than 88 mm.  No one wants them, so the stores don't stock them.  About 60% - 70% of thier general consumer stock (excluding race skis) are in the 70 to 80 mm range, 20% - 30% twin tips up to 85mm, with a smattering of mid-fats up to 88mm.

Regarding all the forum hype about wide skis, I think Dawgcatching from Epic said it best in this opening paragraph of sub-80mm ski reviews:
http://www.epicski.com/t/99620/2011-sub-80mm-skis-from-fischer-dynastar-kastle-blizzard-head-nordica-stockli-elan

Couldn't say it any better myself, and totally spot-on.

Cheers, and enjoy all the new snow.....we FINALLY got some on the ground up here, and first day out is happening, like, NOW!

[Liam]

Jim, I wasn't saying every ski under 75mm is race oriented or race derived, I was saying seeking out narrower, high performance hard snow skis is as much a niche purchase as buying a wider ski for soft snow.  I acknowledge that there are thinner skis that still work under the 'mid fat' banner. 

Secondly, though...why are short carved turns the most desirable turn for hard snow and groomers??  Even on a hard snow day, one of my favorite things to do is link together the longest possible large radius turns I can, using every bit of available slope.   I love skis that excel at this sort of turn, In fact last season, I made a decision to pretty much eschew short turns except when absolutely necessary and explore the world of big, space-eating carved turns (and huge drifted turns as well) whenever skiing open slopes, groomers, and even on powder days (The big sweeping, terrain-gobbling powder turn is one of the most commanding feelings you can generate on skis IMHO).

My friend who taught me to ski pointed this out to me a few years ago, and if you look around you'll see it's very true, but on most slopes, especially eastern one, most people lock into a single relatively narrow corridor and ski it the same way the whole way down a mountain.  This is true even of very good as well as very not good skiers.  I notice it even skiing midweek on wide open cruising trails, folks tend to tunnel vision and short turn (with varying level of ability) down the same relatively narrow slot missing out on the ample amounts of delightfully open area to fill with your turns. Of course there are also those who most ski  straight down the hill due to lack of skill or concern.

For years I skied this way as well and owned a number of SL type skis to serve that purpose---but I've really changed that now, and now even for my mid range ski, I want a tool that excels at medium to bigger turns, even on hard snow and groomers.

I think the prevalence for the all purpose, mid fat with the shortish TR is part of this phenomenon.