Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Are fat skis getting out of hand?

profile picture
Lickmy9
Posts: 366 - Karma: 26
I think that fat skis are getting a little out of hand. Such a s the profets, pontoons the new ARG. I can see them being super sweet in really deep powder but how often do the majority of people ski super deep powder...rarley. you may as well buy two snowboards and throw some bindings on them and your good to go.
Nov 16 2006 4:07PM
0 0
profile picture
HoodNative
Posts: 1237 - Karma: 16
not all pro's do comps, but didn't eric pollard win a hole on the back nine using elizabeths?
Nov 16 2006 11:07PM
0 0
profile picture
hollygrove
Posts: 7845 - Karma: 93
Meh.
I'm riding 110 waist this year.
i dont think they're out of hand, but they're definatly not meant for all types of skiing. Just like how park skis are not intended for riding powder. There are many different disciplens in skiing, and to get the most out of evry condition, there's a ski built for it. I'm not at all saying that everyone should have like 10 pairs of skis. Just accept it.
Nov 16 2006 11:15PM
0 0
profile picture
Sholte
Posts: 2929 - Karma: 12
i dont think so, like if you are sking i 6 feet of pow every day, and thats what you like to ski. i think if your doing that it probly helps to have a redickusly wide skis.(i think i spelled that last long word wrong)
Nov 16 2006 11:33PM
0 0
profile picture
Casey
Posts: 7849 - Karma: 24,320
I think its cool that people finally started innovating ski design again. Like since when do we all need to drive grey toyota camry's anyway.
Nov 16 2006 11:43PM
0 0
profile picture
T.Fern
Posts: 501 - Karma: 11
ya me to. im riding the elizabeths and there a 110 waist. what are u riding?
Nov 16 2006 11:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Desjardins
Posts: 1772 - Karma: 11
hahhahahaha, burn


I was talking to Jeff Schmuck(sp) the line rep at comor a few days ago about fat skis, and we both agreed they are extremely use full, because not only can you use most of the models all over the mountain, but it has more running surface and more stability so its easier for you to keep your balance


Nov 17 2006 12:05AM
0 0
profile picture
tjski
Posts: 5859 - Karma: 44
no way man.. well some.. but if i lived in alta for example i would go out and buy some fat skis, i mean they have like 3 pow days a week at least, i love that place.
Nov 17 2006 12:08AM
0 0
profile picture
Sharko
Posts: 2274 - Karma: 4,101
I agree, fat skis are out of hand. You can't even ski park on them anymore. I can see them being super sweet on powder, but how often do the majority of people ski deep powder?

And for that matter, park skis are out of hand. They are too soft for groomers and the centered stance is no good for all-mountain. I can see them being super sweet for park, but how often do the majority of people only ski park?

And race skis are out of hand too. They are way too fast and I can't even butter them well. I can see them being super sweet for racing, but how often do the majority of people race?

Also distance jumping skis are out of hand. They are soo fat and have no sidecut. I can see them being sweet for jumping, but how often do the majority of people jump?

...am I making myself clear?
Nov 17 2006 12:09AM
0 0
profile picture
Ace3+4
Posts: 1493 - Karma: 50
wasnt it like 3 holes?
Nov 17 2006 12:11AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,093
130s should be like the biggest, pontoons and args aren't even that fat. Im stoked for my 103 jps tho.
Nov 17 2006 12:15AM
0 0
profile picture
srwinnsuco
Posts: 2943 - Karma: 1,472
big skis are sweet accept it

Nov 17 2006 12:19AM
0 0
profile picture
Sharko
Posts: 2274 - Karma: 4,101
actually, the Pontoon ALSO has a 130mm waist and the ARG waist is 133mm. The front tip of the Pontoon is wider than the 130 Prophet by 5mm while the back is smaller. The ARG's tips are smaller.
Nov 17 2006 12:26AM
0 0
profile picture
Ryanvdonk
Posts: 12811 - Karma: 1,971
favre rides P4s for some comps. and the arguement about people not skiing powder more than a couple times a year isn't really valid unless your on the east oast. people who are willing to hike can get powder any day of the week, and if you live in places like utah, oregon, washington and wyoming you can deffinintely say you get more than your shae of pow over the season.
Nov 17 2006 12:51AM
0 0
profile picture
dorikin
Posts: 1914 - Karma: 16
Yea why do you have those? You have short park skis and BAM 186 prophet 130s! Couldn't sell em? Anyways you should center mount them and rock the park.
Nov 17 2006 12:56AM
0 0
profile picture
EClay46
Posts: 2499 - Karma: 69
re u kidding me, do some math, a ski that is over 200 cm long and still a 70mm waist if u kept the same area and chopped it down to say a 176 ski, that would still be quite wide. a 170 with the same area as a 200+ ski would be over 100mm in the waist
Nov 17 2006 1:37AM
0 0
profile picture
dorikin
Posts: 1914 - Karma: 16
^yup yup. Ex: the Elizabeth. Is it fat, yes. Is it long? No, it is midget sized for park. Actually I think skis these days aren't fat enough. I went into this shop yesterday that has tons of old ass skis on the wall. They had seriously the biggest pair of skis I have ever seen. They were Rossignols that were probably 250 length and probably 125 in width, and they were completely straight, no sidecut whatsoever.
Nov 17 2006 1:44AM
0 0
profile picture
Craigskis
Posts: 6650 - Karma: 1,645
Nordic long jump skis?^

Rossi used to make a badass 120mm call axioms i had a pair 185. it's a heliski.
Nov 17 2006 1:51AM
0 0
profile picture
dorikin
Posts: 1914 - Karma: 16
Yea, I think you are right now that I think about it. I'm dumb...
Nov 17 2006 2:15AM
0 0
profile picture
skimasterflex
Posts: 2064 - Karma: 16
I've skied Prophet 130's in everyting from nipple deep blower to crusty mank trenches of doom and they kill anything even remotely soft. If you like skiing fast it doesn't matter how big the dump is the wider the better on the soft.

Thinl about it this way, my Kingswood Megafat at 146mm under foot will only punch through 12 inches of snow even when I drop fatty cliffs so I don't need nearly as big of a dump to feel like it's an epic day. While you are all hitting the bottom crust under 8-10 dry inches of fresh all I'm feeling all day id that powpow you see but can't really ski in.

Huge skis= Huge days

My quiver this year has a 104mm waist everyday charger, a 116mm waist straightline big mountain charger, and a 146mm waste goofy switch pow ski. I ski weekdays in tahoe and that is a perfect quiver for me.
Nov 17 2006 2:32AM
0 0
profile picture
skimasterflex
Posts: 2064 - Karma: 16
[URL=http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=4010173]Click for larger image[/URL]
Nov 17 2006 3:10AM
0 0
profile picture
Astomp
Posts: 10090 - Karma: 344
the bacon...its meausured at 144 tip 115 waist and 142 tail. it has a 19 m turning radius. g.s. skis have an average of 21 m turning radius. so thats a ski thats useful out side pow and on pow. you just have to get it to an edge which is easy. having a turnign radius like that makes it where if you want to make more turns you can. but the ski can run too. so i think fat is good.
Nov 17 2006 11:24AM
0 0
profile picture
bany0pp
Posts: 140 - Karma: 10
Unless you are in the backcountry i think skiing on anything wider than a 90mm underfoot is just plain retarted. 90 is a lil too wide for that matter, anyways...If you are in marked terrain at a resort there is no need for super fat skiis. Unless the ski gods dump 2 feet, then by all means break out whatever you like.
Nov 17 2006 11:58AM
0 0
profile picture
*DrewT*
Posts: 7768 - Karma: 481
ok I didn't read the whole thread I read the first 15-20 posts or so and couldn't stand to read anymore it's fucking stupid. Quit fucking saying they should stop making skis since most people won't use them. YOU"RE FUCKING RETARTED!!!! Not trying to spread hate or anything but it's 100% true. Who gives a shit if you can't handle a fat ski? You that's it so don't get them. If a company wants to make a ski like that then they can do whatever they damnwell feel like. And the guy at the begining of the thread that said they where getting out of hand because you don't see people using them in competitions......... my fucking god you're dumb, I'm not even gonna elaborate on why because you're obviously a park rat and just do whatever the pros do so you look cool. There's a shit load of people out there who only ski powder infact a hell of a lot more than skiiers who only ski park, you're just too caught up in you're perfect jumps to get your ass onto some real runs and realise it's more fun than sliding a rail.

My god I don't think a single thread on NS has ever gotten me this mad I don't even know why this made me so mad I was in a great mood up until now, mainly because I'm getting my sir francis bacons soon and then some faggot park rats start saying skis are too fat.
Nov 17 2006 12:17PM
0 0
profile picture
Lickmy9
Posts: 366 - Karma: 26
Very well put.
The skis are getting far too area specific, in a few years you'll need to bring several different skis with you ti enjoy the day hahaha
Nov 17 2006 12:33PM
0 0
profile picture
*DrewT*
Posts: 7768 - Karma: 481
skis in genneral are getting out of hand. we just need one ski that's perfectly ballanced to do everything. That way we'll all ski the same and think the same and look the same and turn into the same person
Nov 17 2006 12:39PM
0 0
profile picture
eric@jerzy
Posts: 285 - Karma: 9
well i bet it is alot better for landing switch in pow
some ppl mihgt need fat skis prob not to use all the time
and evevn park skis are geting fatter and fatter it is not wierd to see park ski with 86+ underfoot which is wide to me
Nov 17 2006 1:13PM
0 0
profile picture
A@ron
Posts: 1320 - Karma: 86
where do you live? here in duluth mn. we get about 867 inches a year. you will die if your ski is anything less than 100 at the waist
Nov 17 2006 1:20PM
0 0
profile picture
manabadman
Posts: 615 - Karma: 255
i ski at a really small resort in europe next to val and tignes thats great for powder so i think fat skis would be excellent there
Nov 17 2006 1:22PM
0 0
profile picture
MLB
Posts: 4462 - Karma: 298
hahaha fujis in pow would be interesting.........untill the sink in the pow and snap in half on a rock.
Nov 17 2006 1:27PM
0 0
profile picture
skifiend
Posts: 2063 - Karma: 13
I do ski in the east and my every day ski is a 179 Seth Pistol. I'm picking up my new 189 Seths tonight. So a ski that like, which is fairly fat, but yet still very much an all mtn ski is the best of both worlds. I can rip them on the groomers, but on our pow days, they excel when most people are sinking with their 75mm underfoot.
Nov 17 2006 1:28PM
0 0
profile picture
g-man
Posts: 1955 - Karma: 301
once you a ski on a big ski for a while you get usd to it and it becomes difficulut to ski on something smaller. My freeride skis are 120mm under foot and 192cm long. At first I thought they were ridiculous and wondered why I had bought them. Now, though I can't imagine skiing on anything under 90mm under foot. Even on icy days a big ski is fun. You can go way faster than everyone else and charge harder because of increased stability. I think that narrow park skis are getting out of hand. I can't believe they make anything less than 90mm under foot.
Nov 17 2006 1:32PM
0 0
profile picture
dan4060
Posts: 1458 - Karma: 847
Glad they are available. They give us options, and show us where the sport can go. I probably will not ever by a ski over 110, and most of my days are spent on 189 vicious', but it's nice to know we have other options. I really want to try the toons the year.
Nov 17 2006 2:10PM
0 0
profile picture
freeski1620
Posts: 5670 - Karma: 1,718
you know what big skis means right?



big brakes!!!


hahahahahaah!
Nov 17 2006 2:27PM
0 0
profile picture
KeegLove
Posts: 10166 - Karma: 55
absolutely not your crazy they just need to be longer!
Nov 17 2006 3:01PM
0 0
profile picture
chrismoJBEATS
Posts: 5898 - Karma: 44
nah they ar tottaly legit
they are more of a specialyized tool
like a pipe cleaner, a pipe specific tool
the pontoon/arg, a powder specific tool

haha wow 3 of my sentances ended with tool/.///
Nov 17 2006 3:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424

Don't knock it until you've tried it.  My three pairs of skis are 89, 95, and 97mm underfoot, and I kind of wish each pair was about 2mm wider.  Fat skis are way more stable than skinny ones, the only real drawback is slower turning.

Nov 17 2006 3:56PM
0 0
profile picture
Sharko
Posts: 2274 - Karma: 4,101
you jerk, I was making fun of you, not agreeing with you.
Nov 17 2006 4:06PM
0 0
profile picture
plorr
Posts: 3131 - Karma: 528
i use motherships on the east coast, and i love them in the park.
Nov 17 2006 4:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Mogsbury
Posts: 197 - Karma: 18
i saw the new K2 pontoons the other day....WOW, just WOW
Nov 17 2006 4:59PM
0 0
profile picture
hollygrove
Posts: 7845 - Karma: 93
Nordica Blowers
Nov 17 2006 7:01PM
0 0
profile picture
shralpingthegnar
Posts: 379 - Karma: 17
Once you've skied pow on reverse camber skis with waists over 120 you will never want anything else. Just don't come to tahoe we don't get any snow here
Nov 18 2006 4:14AM
0 0
profile picture
skisquaw@420
Posts: 1802 - Karma: 13
pretty much exactly
Jan 7 2007 9:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Charles^stevens
Posts: 859 - Karma: 341
they are for people who have like 1000 bucks and are like what the hell should i buy today ooooo i know some skis that are a foot wide what would be cool to hang on my wall and us once a year becasue there is no snow
Jan 7 2007 9:24PM
0 0
profile picture
DaysToCome
Posts: 1601 - Karma: 86
well how often do you see pontoons, ARG, fatypus, prophets, etc. not often to never (jackson hole doesnt count) yes they are a little ridiculous but thats why the people who ski purely these conditions end up with them and why you never see them
Jan 7 2007 9:30PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
That was retarded.  Please don't comment if you've never skied powder before.
Jan 7 2007 9:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Charles^stevens
Posts: 859 - Karma: 341
how deep dose it have to be before it is considered powder ? like there is fluffy snow that could be called powder but its not that deep ? just a thoguth so dont get all worked up haha
Jan 7 2007 9:36PM
0 0
profile picture
invader98
Posts: 404 - Karma: 11
arent the fat ypus skis almost like a snowboard
Jan 7 2007 9:52PM
0 0
profile picture
snowXrider540
Posts: 1182 - Karma: 12
it depends where you ski

im on the east coast and i see a few people with like probably 115 waist?? i mean that is just retarded and they have no concept of what theyre doing

but if you live out west then get the fat skis if you wanna ski powder you can hike and get it all day

its all in the region where you ski...
Jan 7 2007 9:58PM
0 0
profile picture
Literature
Posts: 13673 - Karma: 3,085
I have skiied my new P4s (Waist: 104)for the past two days in amazing pow. They are such a step up from my Guns (Waist: 90), and way more fun to charge through everything on. They rip on ice and groomers as well, and I cannot imagine going back to skiing pow on my park skis.

A great deal of the days I ski I use both my Guns and P4s. I will ski the P4s for ripping all around the montain during the morning and a bit of afternoon, and then go back to the car and get my Guns to play in the park. Ideally, I would have a skinnyer ski for the park, but that is what I have right now.
Jan 7 2007 10:10PM
0 0
profile picture
DaysToCome
Posts: 1601 - Karma: 86
i skied (or tried to) powder that not even skis with 96 waist would float in (rossi sickbird (scratch bc)) thats when you need huge fuckin skiis
Jan 8 2007 12:00AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)