Member of the Month

je_t.aime_canard
January, 2025

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!

"Fat" Skis? = Slow?

profile picture
Kogu
Posts: 377 - Karma: 64
So hey all, I just got a pair of 2010 K2 Extremes with Schizos laying in the corner of a shop with my name on the plastic and I was actually just curious about something for future reference if I decide for another ski.. I've been on a 62 waist then a 69 and now I'm jumping to 85 so I can play in the pow a bit and have the whole 1-ski-quiver thing, I'm just wondering though how does a fatter ski act? I know 85 is definitely not FAT but if I went fatter, for more back country/line ducking, what is there to expect? My mind says slower edge to edge. But idk, opinions? Thanks!
May 4 2010 2:12AM
0 0
profile picture
rudager
Posts: 11336 - Karma: 4,641
you'll have more surface area. so that will create more friction slowing you down in the long run. keep them waxed and you'll be fine
May 4 2010 2:17AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61734 - Karma: 124,627
LOL 85 to play around in the pow, get 100 at least man.


And no, it wont effect the speed, if anything you'll go faster but be less agile but at 85 you wont notice.
May 4 2010 2:22AM
0 0
profile picture
COskier
Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131
^What he said. 85 is pretty standard width for a park ski. That's about what most are. Mid fat is int he 90s and pow skis are over 100 in my estimation
May 4 2010 2:24AM
0 0
profile picture
ectreeskier11
Posts: 697 - Karma: 366
from the sounds of it you probably shouldn't be in the bc and you definitely shouldn't be ducking ropes. that said 85 waisted skis arent gonna get you to far in pow these days.
May 4 2010 2:25AM
0 0
profile picture
gr4
Posts: 1499 - Karma: 945
nah friction isnt dependent on surface area, but snow does "pre-melt" under pressure, which cause skis to glide. so a skinnier ski will allow for a little more pressure, and a little more glide.
May 4 2010 2:27AM
0 0
profile picture
COskier
Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131
Also, this isn't neccessarily true. More surface area but less weight per square meter of ski. F= mu*normal dawg. The whole speed thing is complicated with skiing though as having more weight per unit of surface area can lower the coefficient of friction between your skis and the snow.

Anyways, racers rock like 250 cm skis sometime so I'm sure a little bit of extra surface area wont affect you either way.
May 4 2010 2:30AM
0 0
profile picture
rickroller
Posts: 2468 - Karma: 483
this
May 4 2010 2:33AM
0 0
profile picture
Kogu
Posts: 377 - Karma: 64
Alright, well I knew for sure they weren't the best pow-oriented ski but I certainly felt a lot better on them than my 69s! Ha. And I've been into 2 feet of fluff with those lol ^^´. Alright,yeah I just wasn't sure if maybe I should think about some fatter pow skis which I guess I should for any trips on the snowmobile this season. My priority was to look at something more balanced at everything I do firstly. I thought 85 was in the ballpark of well-rounded. Apparently I was a little off. Will these suffice for some off-groom trees then? Maybe think about something fatter for our trips? thanks all for your responses too! Ps what would you say is a..."depth limit" for something like the Extremes?
May 4 2010 2:37AM
0 0
profile picture
bob_dole
Posts: 4081 - Karma: 1,640
since powder has changed so much over the last few years right?
May 4 2010 2:44AM
0 0
profile picture
griz_lee
Posts: 483 - Karma: 647
85 is pretty standard width for an all mountain ski. I would say you could ski everyday on that ski if you didnt have any other options. For the "depth limit" that ski could ski any depth, but it would just be easier and maybe more fun on something fatter. If you dedcide that you need another ski for the pow look for something around 110 under foot and reverse camber. between those two skis you could charge in any condition.
May 4 2010 2:49AM
0 0
profile picture
Kogu
Posts: 377 - Karma: 64
Hey that sounds good to me! I'm hoping to get into a lot of the company trips this coming season and I'm at least glad to hear a qualified argument. "Easier if available" seems like solid logic to me and I'll look around for what's available. Maybe look for something to pro-deal.. anyway thanks all for responses so far!
May 4 2010 3:04AM
0 0
profile picture
TheBeardedOne
Posts: 2286 - Karma: 58
Honestly you're gonna be fine if you can ski well, people used to shred pow on something like 65 waisted skis! I rode at Breck a few years ago on some 85 waist skis up on Imperial and Lift 6 and it was fun as shit. You would definitely be a little more agile and poppy on a fatter ski, but whatever it's still a sick time.
May 4 2010 3:20AM
0 0
profile picture
Literature
Posts: 13673 - Karma: 3,086
There's no reason to sacrifice pow performance with a narrow waist. Plenty of 100 mm waisted skis can rail on groomers and ice. I wouldn't look much lower than that for an all-mtn ski if you like to ski powder.

Believe me, if you find 85mm incredible, try something large (120ish waist) and rockered on your next trip to full on powder. It will blow your mind wide open.
May 4 2010 5:46AM
0 0
profile picture
Silence
Posts: 16030 - Karma: 150
Time taken to get from edge to edge is an area you will notice..in saying that, some skis work really well in all aspects due to sidecut e.g. bentchetlers
May 4 2010 5:53AM
0 0
profile picture
nickyp
Posts: 5673 - Karma: 215
Jesus, I didn't know anyone still rode such skinny skis. I always assumed the average touring ski was at least in the mid-70s.

And 85, I would consider a skinny park ski. 86-90 is regular width, 90-95 mid fat, and 95-100 fat.

>100 is into BC/powder territory.

May 4 2010 6:09AM
0 0
profile picture
yojimbo
Posts: 3631 - Karma: 27
lolz. my regular day to day skis are 100 underfoot. 85 ain't nothin. and obviously fatter skis will have more friction, but thats why they invented wax. and usually your not gonna be skiing super fat skis on much else other than powder so you dont neccessarily need to be breaking the sound barrier or anything unless your trying to outrun avalanches or something.
May 4 2010 7:33AM
0 0
profile picture
SkierX
Posts: 16253 - Karma: 538
As Silence said,

Quickness from edge to edge decreases as the ski width gets larger.

Also, any ski can ski powder if the person using them knows how to ski. The biggest difference is that with a narrow ski, you will be in the powder as opposed to being more on the powder. But hey, all that means is more faceshots.
May 4 2010 8:04AM
0 0
profile picture
ugsey
Posts: 95 - Karma: 14
ive skied niseko's backcountry in japan on rental mid-70 underfoot skis and that was waist deep pow, so you should be fine, though though the powder youll probably find that the fatter they are the faster theyll go, the mid-70's i was on sank like lead in the pow.
May 4 2010 8:15AM
0 0
profile picture
Lemuel
Posts: 14528 - Karma: 10,983
What he is really asking is edge to edge quickness, not just bombing straight quickness. I have lizzies (110 underfoot) and they have like a 15.5 meter turn radius. The width takes some getting used to, as I was coming off my chronics. You will definitely notice edge to edge immediately, but after a day you won't notice it at all. I can rip on my lizzies.
May 4 2010 8:43AM
0 0
profile picture
IRockLizzys
Posts: 391 - Karma: 11
Truth. But once you get some speed built up you can really lay into them.
May 4 2010 11:24AM
0 0
profile picture
andrew.
Posts: 2349 - Karma: 165
friction is independent of surface area.
May 4 2010 11:39AM
0 0
profile picture
iRise
Posts: 62 - Karma: 11
The other thing you might consider in a ski, is rocker. If you're worried about not getting the floatation that you want out of a sub 100mm waisted ski, try something with rocker. They'll want to sit on top the snow more so than anything with a traditional camber. If you're looking for a "one stick quiver" look at something like the Rossi s3 or the Armada Alphas, both sub 100 and will be better in deep snow.
May 4 2010 12:33PM
0 0
profile picture
NWPA
Posts: 2309 - Karma: 165
i havent rode something that skinny since i raced...if your looking for a fatter ski look at some elizabeths or some hellbents they float in the pow and shred the park. if you keep them waxed theyll go fast. im on some bacons right now and they cruise
May 4 2010 3:03PM
0 0
profile picture
remove
Posts: 2566 - Karma: 1,026
I outrun people on my sir francie bacons on a regular basis..... they're pretty fast
May 4 2010 3:07PM
0 0
profile picture
snomaster
Posts: 3346 - Karma: 5,776
Come on people, get with the newschool of FAT
May 4 2010 3:10PM
0 0
profile picture
Reed.
Posts: 4489 - Karma: 272
this is why ski blades are the fastest things on the mountain
May 4 2010 4:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Kogu
Posts: 377 - Karma: 64
Yeah I was actually referring to QUICKNESS I guess haha. Not like bomber GS cruising I mean like, maneuverability. As in edge-to-edge or quick turns lol.
Also I'm settling on these because they seemed like a best ALL AROUND ski, meaning I could do everything I wanted well enough to where I could enjoy it (pow/park) moreso than on my old 62's :P.
Thanks for all the replies though xP I was meaning slow throwing around and stuff. I know they're not "pow" skis like the Pontoons or whatever but I meant like it's a good one-ski-quiver so I could take them anywhere, do anything with only 1 ski :). (I'ma poor little instructor ROFL)
May 6 2010 3:03PM
0 0
profile picture
remove
Posts: 2566 - Karma: 1,026
if you really want to be amazed look into the line elizabeths.... they'd be actually good for you
May 6 2010 9:53PM
0 0
profile picture
jca
Posts: 4172 - Karma: 6,310
Personally, if I wanted an allround ski, I would get something 110-105 underfoot maybe with a little bit of tip rocker.  I have found that the benefits from fatter skis greatly outweight the downfalls(pretty much non).  If you know how to turn properly and keep your edges in semi-ok condition, you will be fine with a fat ski on hardpack. unless you're a slalom skier or something.
May 6 2010 10:04PM
0 0
profile picture
Chompo.
Posts: 4952 - Karma: 88
that isnt fat at all. You will be fine. I barely noticed a speed issue switching from 85 to 115. its not that bad
May 6 2010 10:14PM
0 0
profile picture
49566738265
Posts: 0 - Karma: 7,704
No, since powder skis (aka, a ski designed to ski hard and float properly) are almost always over 100mm under foot these days.  85 is becoming standard for park skis and groomer skis, therefore 85 generally won't get you too far in the pow these days.
May 7 2010 12:41PM
0 0
profile picture
casual
Posts: 6712 - Karma: 6,751
You seem like a sweet kid. I must say however that you're use of emoticons, various iterations of "lol", and the nature of this thread itself make me wanna punch you in the face.

:)

I feel like you're making an impulse buy of the Extremes simply because your shop has them and you want instant gratification. Sounds like you're just looking for some reassurance that you're buying the right ski and ignoring any legitimate suggestions,

Sooooo.....good call man! Great boards!! :P : X ROFL!

P.S. Instructors are gapers.
May 7 2010 1:36PM
0 0
profile picture
decebrah
Posts: 8 - Karma: 10
dece brah.
May 7 2010 2:14PM
0 0
profile picture
pow_pow2
Posts: 161 - Karma: 19
Dude, just go with some Prophet 130's!  You'll be guaranteed to float!   130 waist!  Ha, shred da POW!!
May 7 2010 3:59PM
0 0
profile picture
fouldsys
Posts: 7404 - Karma: 39
haha 85 is your pow ski? my park skis are 98...
May 8 2010 10:33AM
0 0
profile picture
dynodonkey
Posts: 75 - Karma: 10
you belong in this forum www.epicski.com
May 8 2010 3:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Barefootin_Fiend
Posts: 7618 - Karma: 4,727
i'd personally recommend the 09-10 obsetheds. 105 underfoot & a little bit of rocker. imo one of the greatest one ski quivers out there. they charge super hard. I wouldn't waste my money on the extremes if i were you. i have a feeling that you'd regret it the second you had the opportunity to ski something a little fatter.
May 8 2010 5:17PM
0 0
profile picture
Kogu
Posts: 377 - Karma: 64
I'm :P sorry :) that :O this :X annoys XP you ROFL :D.

1) It's true. I try to be decent to other people.
2) Shop had a pair of skis I'd considered ahead of time, it was convenient, the skis I'm buying are from Aspen, nowhere close to me.
3) Already calling Mt. Hood to see if I can get on some fatter skis when we make a trip down this summer. Contacting... can't remember resort name... for the same purpose for my summer clinic in July. Looked heavily at Lizzies, 'Bents, and Jmos. (Arvs but not seriously).
4) I'm glad you think every instructor everywhere is a gaper. I'll let Jeff know the next time he throws 9!

P.S. Trolls be trollin'. Bro.
May 10 2010 1:45AM
0 0
profile picture
Kogu
Posts: 377 - Karma: 64
So, back on track,

My demo options (as I wasn't going to be able to get my Extremes for awhile, probably end of summer) that I've been considering riding over the summer are now;
Line Lizzies (if I can find them, guess they're being discontinued?)
K2 Hellbents,
ON3P Jmos (Look like a SICK ski),
Line SFB,
Line Blend,
K2 Obsethed.

Figure I'd rather keep my list open rather than limiting myself. I guess that the guys I'm riding with are going to have some ins with the shops and can set me up with a bunch of demos.

CONCERNS:
How would they hold on the hardpack? I like to play with a nice deep carve on the days where everything else is skied out and park is overpopulated.

Unfortunately I don't think there'll be any pow to speak of but any opinions would be great.

Park performance, I'm gonna be pushing for a much more progressive season in the park next season than my... 15 days? I think? In the park this season. Got the 3 down but def wanting to get a ski that can handle park better than my old skis.

Flex, I'm 130ish so something stiff as a board won't flex with me like I'm sure it will some others.

Thanks a lot all! Keeping an open mind just want some opinions before I choose which ones to ride.
May 10 2010 2:07AM
0 0
profile picture
Jules.
Posts: 768 - Karma: 9
Pretty much only reverse sidecut skis are slow. I ski 132mm underfoot and 140mm underfoot and I haul.
May 10 2010 11:38AM
0 0
profile picture
remove
Posts: 2566 - Karma: 1,026

Lizzies are pretty flexible and the Sir Francis Bacon is a little bit stiffer than the Lizzy but still super buttery. Blends are pretty stiff, Obsethed is more of an all mountain charger and will get by in the park, hellbents are straight up powder skis.

Now for that deep side cut Line Elizabeths have a super deep side cut and carves wonderfully as do the Sir Francis bacons. If it were me i'd take the lizzies or sir francis bacons but i've already got both so....

May 10 2010 3:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Kogu
Posts: 377 - Karma: 64
So you'd say that the Lizzie might be a bit more fun to play with but SFB is a bit more serious? Wtf is that G-cut sidecut they list for SFB? Sounds pretty but idk if it means anything. Also the Obsethed is most park-oriented of the 3? As well as stiffest? It's got a rocker whereas Lizzie's don't right? Guess I could ask a few more questions! Thanks a lot
May 11 2010 1:46AM
0 0
profile picture
Rachy
Posts: 4355 - Karma: 2,761
Kids today.....

I was going to comment on the OP till I realized what was going on in here.

67 - 80 = carving +- 5
80 - 90 = all mountain +- 5

90+ can be considered powder or big mountain.

Some of my shops favorite powder skis this year fell in the mid 90's range. Many of them featured the rocker wide tip and were closer to 90 under foot.

The K2 WayBack is 88 under foot. My favorite, the PayBack is 90 under foot.

85 in powder can do fine as long as the skier is a strong skier and doesnt set the binding forward at all.

Given I like the shoguns as much as anyone else, but I have had just as fun days when I mistakenly brought out a pair of park skis. A strong skier can ski on slalom skis if one needs to.

Since when did making skiing easy become the most important part?
May 11 2010 2:47AM
0 0
profile picture
SkiTheYeast
Posts: 2310 - Karma: 391
the true has been spoken^^^^^^^
May 11 2010 6:34AM
0 0
profile picture
Abc567def
Posts: 8756 - Karma: 801
Fat=more float but more surface friction therefore does not necessarily= slow unless you dont wax them
May 11 2010 6:42AM
0 0
profile picture
remove
Posts: 2566 - Karma: 1,026

g side cut is just deep side cut. The new SFB's for the 10/11 model are rokcered. no the obsethed is not park orientated. yes it has a rocker.

The lizzies are a park oriented fat ski.

May 11 2010 11:39AM
0 0
profile picture
Kogu
Posts: 377 - Karma: 64
Would your shop agree that mounting an 85 width ski further back than its traditional mount would aid its viability in the pow? Also I guess I say I'm looking for a ski that will work with me to do what I love, a craftsman and his tool. They don't make hammers out of paper right? I just want a ski to perform in situations where I want/need it to. ( some Carving, pow,with a slip of park in there)
May 12 2010 12:52AM
0 0
profile picture
Mr_pretzel
Posts: 4616 - Karma: 1,290
would you look at your thread! their are lots of suggestions!
May 12 2010 8:06AM
0 0
profile picture
Kogu
Posts: 377 - Karma: 64
Skis suggested: Lizzie's, SFB, Obsetheds, Prophet 130 in that order :). My list earlier in the thread has way more than that. I even eliminated prophet 130 and obsetheds after looking online because they're not what I'm looking for. Obsetheds mainly just sound a little too stiff for what I want.
May 12 2010 1:50PM
0 0
profile picture
remove
Posts: 2566 - Karma: 1,026

IF you want to ride park a lot on them then get the lizzies. if you go in there on occasion the get the SFB's

May 12 2010 3:19PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)