Fat skis? Overrated... sometimes

[mariusshobo]

I woun't trade my fat ones on a powder day

I quote myself and take it back
It seams that my knees are sufering from to much torque with big boards.
So... I will replace my Atomic Automatic 193 with Rossi Soul7 188, which are not that fat. Maybe in a few years I will ski powder on 80 mm waist skis
Oh yes, this is the reason for downsize; I wanna still ski in a few more years!

[lowangle al]

I find that you don't need fat skis for soft deep powder, but to me they are more fun. Where I need fat skis is on stiffer snow that won't support a skinnier ski that won't turn once it sinks. The fatter the ski the more likely it will stay on top of crusty snow. For me fat skis are for any crappy snow that isn't hardpacked.

[Oldschooln8]

OK
I was in here a few months ago looking for helpful advice on my quest to upgrade my old lace up Asolo Extremes. Many of you had great tips thanks! I did get to put some of the current BC gear on my feet. Not enough boot for me. Eventually I scored a nearly new pair of Asolo Extreme Racer boots with 4 strap buckles from Ebay...SWEET! I'm nostalgic for the laces and the comfort walking but the control on the ski combined with the foot feel to the ski is the best I've ever rode on.
So now Im throwing my old Rottefella 3 pin bindings on different sticks to check out the ride. I don't have the mm now ... It will be helpful to know that. I have some mid wide Atomic Arcs that at 180 seem pretty short. Tried out some big fat Bandit DH and they were not maneuverable enough.
Oh I forgot to mention, Im in the midwest on the little groomers. so Nice mountain pow is not in the picture.
I just tried a day out with some mid wide 193 cm Rosignol slalom boards. Damn fine ride. I really will get the side cut measured to tweak in the optimum shape for me.
I agree at this time, the wide ride is a bit over rated, especially if you are not running downhill plastic type telegear.
Longer is better... 200 plus minus a bit. I started on little vasque leather boots just over the ankle and super skinny boards that were 210, 215.
Some things evolve and some things don't, back when everything was skinny (early 80's) the pow sticks were super soft and the groomer were stiff. that was the deal. Plus the faster you wanted to ski the stiffer ski you looked for.
I'll try to get some pics together.
peace!

[lilcliffy]

I come from a xcountry background; with a wide range of alpine skiing experiences over the last 25 years.

IMO/IME- fat skis have a variety of applications in xcountry, alpine, telemark, and XCD touring.

IME- a "fat" ski has at least three primary applications:
1) flotation in deep soft snow
2) stability on extreme slopes (both turning and climbing)
3) dramatic sidecut profiles for downhill turn initiation/completion in a wide variety of snow/terrain conditions

As already mentioned by others above, extra width coupled with the myriad of potential camber, flex and sidecut combinations lead to an almost limitless variety of skis designed for every imaginable skiing context: snow, terrain, boot/binding tech, skier ability/style, etc.

I most certainly agree that I have seen an incredible number of people with insanely expensive extra-fat, reverse-cambered, powder skis on groomed resort slopes.

That being said; I do have a pair of fairly fat- but very stiff, traditional single-cambered- "all mountain" alpine skis with dramatic sidecut. These skis would be useless in deep, soft powder- but I can literally burn a strip off an extreme slope on dense, hard, and/or icy snow. IME- the stability offered by a fat ski on extreme slope cannot be underestimated.

However- IME- I need some pretty rigid boots in order to effectively control a fat ski on a hardpack slope.

There is no question that skis with parabolic sidecut are easier to turn than those without. If you read the history on the development of Nordic (xcountry, telemark) and alpine skis; apparently it was Norwegian xcountry-mountain (i.e. telemark) skis that first had sidecut. Alpine skis did not have significant sidecut until very recently.

Extra width- IME- definitely offers better climbing efficiency- with more width/traction under foot.

Nordic skis. IME- in North America we have this impression that alpine skis have the greatest range of variability and design. I do not believe this to be true. Nordic skis (i.e. free-heel) cover everything from high-performance groomed-track racing, to 300cm Finnish forest skis, to big mountain telemark- and everything in between. The range of ski designs in the world of Nordic skiing is almost mind-boggling.

XCD (i.e. telemark) touring. IME- fat skis have their place- for the same reasons as previously mentioned. Whether your skiing preferences are towards maximum turning efficiency; or maximum touring efficiency- there is thankfully a wide range of designs to choose from.

Xcountry skiing. I used to be somewhat of a "traditionalist"- long, skinny and double-cambered all the way. I say "traditionalist" because there are few people outside of Scandinavia and Finland that fully understand the incredible range of xcountry ski designs for specific snow/terrain conditions (I do not count myself as one of these experts). What I do know is that "classic" "long" (i.e. to 215cm), double-cambered skis do not perform in very deep, soft powder snow. For example, xcountry skiing in deep soft snow; my Madshus Annums (109-78-95mm; single-cambered), at 195cm, outperform every traditional, 210cm, double-cambered ski I have ever tried. The Finns apparently use extremely long (up to 300+cm), narrow, single-cambered skis ("forest skis") for skiing on very deep snow, on gentle terrain. I understand the length. As a xcountry ski-the only I thing I could ask for more from my Annums is an even longer length!

So- I do think that the use of ultra-fat, reverse-cambered powder skis is grossly overrated- especially by consumers who simply buy expensive equipment regardless of whether the technology is suitable for the intended use.

However- I would hate to go without my stable, fat, traditional single cambered, xcountry and XCD/telemark skis- when I need them!

In particular- I hate to see people being scared off fat xcountry skis- when they really need them to truly enjoy xcountry skiing in deep, soft snow.

[Oldschooln8]

Soft skinnys in the powder is just a different experince. There is a lot more body contact with the snow. More head shots and longer head shots. Steering and speed are affected by your shoulders. Turns are longer. The ski's reverse camber and wiggle around. People loved thier old Epoke Torsion Box yellow and black. I still hve my old 215 Fisher Europa 99s with aluminum edges. Soft as butter.
That was 35 years ago, not saying I could still dive off the high traverse at Alta with the same stuff on today. Next time I get the chance to go steep and deep I might even have to go back to downhill? ...nah it isn't worth it!

[Oldschooln8]

We used to get edge lift on the steep wind blown and morning corn. I recall thinking my boots outa have edges too. there is a lot of wear on the old Vasques from draging through the crunchy stuff. Wider skis would have been nice, but then again it was called Skinny Skiing and we were a bit cocky about not riding "fat boards" Ha those are concidered skinny today!
It's been said here a lot... there really is a need for different skis for different conditions and preference of skiing experience.
I dont know that the fatties are so much over rated as the skinnies and middies are under rated.

[lilcliffy]

Totally agree- across the board. Narrow to mid-width skis are underrated. In fact, although I love my fat skis when I need them- they are the least versatile skis in my "quiver".

I also feel that parabolic sidecut is so conventional now that it is added to almost every ski design- no matter if it is necessary. This is especially true of classic double-cambered backcountry-xcountry skis. Why would you need parabolic sidecut in a ski that is designed primarily for touring?

[Oldschooln8]

never been in pow on fatties, i can imagine the ride wtchin t-ragers videos.
wide vs skinny? im more long over feelin the long over short.
but thats a different talk
peace

[MikeK]

I think n8 brings up the one of the most obvious points of skiing skinnies dh in deep snow - body interaction. I don't have ANY experience on those big boards but I surely see in videos those guys can carry a ton of speed and 'get up on' the snow. It just like hydroplaning a water ski... in fact that's where the idea of those types of snow skis came from.

For me, skiing in some powder with a long, skinny noodly ski is an enjoyable experience. Compared to trying to ski a ski like that on hard pack, everything happens slow and the snow gives you some support seen as how you're sunk down in. If you are a beginning xcd skier it's easy to make big arcs on steeper slopes and control your speed and maintain balance. I don't even get enough speed up on the mid fat xcd skis to plane them up like a modern powder ski - not even sure you could.

It's been beat to death but anything less than ideal, soft snow - the difficulty goes up exponentially. It becomes faster or harder to turn. Sometimes I feel like doing cartwheels end over end down a hill would be easier. I usually just stem like hell and traverse if I can. I'm sure fat skis and plastic boots make things easier, but you have to trade off what you are doing - for short vert dh runs and long mileage tours in rolling terrain, that's just overkill. The fatter, generous sidecut xcd skis help a lot - they forgive a lot of sins.