Fat Skis; Question #2

Will fat skis be better, worse, the same in bumps? Groomed runs? Or more
generally, what am I trading off when I switch to fatties from my East Coast
Rossis (which I am quite happy with in everything but powder)? And if I
already have my own skis with me, is it worth bothering to rent fatties only
when there is a lot of powder? Also, with fat skis should I rent shorter
skis?

"DZN" wrote in message
...
Will fat skis be better, worse, the same in bumps? Groomed runs? Or more
generally, what am I trading off when I switch to fatties from my East
Coast Rossis (which I am quite happy with in everything but powder)?

Fat skis are not as quick edge to edge as narrow skis. So - bumps - I skied
fatties on a bump run once and hated them. Groomed, if it is soft groomed
you might find them OK, but certainly no better, if it is fairly hard
groomed you would probably not like them much. Genuinely fat skis are
wonderful in powder, but not a lot of use anywhere else. Remember also, a
skim of powder on packed snow is nicer than hard pack alone but it still
skis more like packed than powder.
You said your skis were "Oversize". what does that mean?

And if I already have my own skis with me, is it worth bothering to rent
fatties only when there is a lot of powder?

If there was a good chance I was going to be skiing powder all day, I might.
If, as in most resorts, it would be skied out by 11AM I wouldn't bother. The
best stuff might be gone by the time you got out of the rental shop anyway.


Also, with fat skis should I rent shorter skis?

A little shorter, yes.

Norm wrote:
"DZN" wrote

Will fat skis be better, worse, the same in bumps? Groomed runs? Or more
generally, what am I trading off when I switch to fatties from my East
Coast Rossis (which I am quite happy with in everything but powder)?

Fat skis are not as quick edge to edge as narrow skis. So - bumps - I skied
fatties on a bump run once and hated them.

Fat skis are going to be slightly slower edge to edge and will have more
float in powder than narrow skis. Other than that, it's hard to make
generalizations - it depends greatly on parameters other than the waist
width. If it was just about waist and sidecut geometry we could make
our own skis out of plywood for $20.

That said, a wider ski usually means it's meant for off piste, so those
"other parameters" would be optimized for better stability in crud and
slop. I look at the width more as an indicator of what the designer had
in mind than as some hard-and-fast rule about how it's going to perform.


Groomed, if it is soft groomed
you might find them OK, but certainly no better, if it is fairly hard
groomed you would probably not like them much. Genuinely fat skis are
wonderful in powder, but not a lot of use anywhere else. Remember also, a
skim of powder on packed snow is nicer than hard pack alone but it still
skis more like packed than powder.

A few years ago one was forced to choose between a grippy, turny ski and
an off-piste ski; you couldn't get edge hold on ice, a short-radius
sidecut, and stable off-piste platform in one ski. That has changed -
Volkl and allegedly Atomic have the one-ski quiver thing going in the
AC4 and the Metron. (I say allegedly because I haven't had a chance to
try the Metron) So there are now some wide skis that are very good on
the hard stuff. It depends on the ski, of course.

Note that I'm talking about the ~75mm waist widths here, not the really
wide guys. I imagine that the 95mm waisted skis are still fairly
useless on the firm.

You said your skis were "Oversize". what does that mean?

And if I already have my own skis with me, is it worth bothering to rent
fatties only when there is a lot of powder?

If there was a good chance I was going to be skiing powder all day, I might.
If, as in most resorts, it would be skied out by 11AM I wouldn't bother. The
best stuff might be gone by the time you got out of the rental shop anyway.

The rub here is that even a dedicated on-piste ski will work pretty well
in untracked powder up to a foot or so of depth. It's later in the day
when it's all tracked up that the off-piste implements show their
superiority. Do you want to retreat to the groomed after an hour because
the soft stuff is too lumpy? If not, get a ski that handles crud well.


Will fat skis be better, worse, the same in bumps?

Oh right. To get back to your original question. Hard to say. Depends on
the ski and your technique. But I suck at teh bumps, so what do I know?

//Walt

In article ,
DZN wrote:
Will fat skis be better, worse, the same in bumps? Groomed runs? Or more
generally, what am I trading off when I switch to fatties from my East Coast
Rossis (which I am quite happy with in everything but powder)? And if I
already have my own skis with me, is it worth bothering to rent fatties only
when there is a lot of powder? Also, with fat skis should I rent shorter
skis?

Why don't you just buy a pair of Head Monsters for powder and keep your
French knock off's for the ****ty runs?
--
According to John Perry Barlow, "Jeff Davis is a truly gifted trouble-maker."

On Mar 3, 8:46 am, "DZN" wrote:
Will fat skis be better, worse, the same in bumps? Groomed runs? Or more
generally, what am I trading off when I switch to fatties from my East Coast
Rossis (which I am quite happy with in everything but powder)? And if I
already have my own skis with me, is it worth bothering to rent fatties only
when there is a lot of powder? Also, with fat skis should I rent shorter
skis?

My advice: Set aside $30..... oops, Vail....$50 and demo some nice
fat skis. Ride them all over the mountain in as many different
conditions as you can find and see what you think. Personally I
prefer fat fat skis for every condition except Eastern Firm (tm) and
groomed. Neither of which I seek out.

Chris

On Mar 5, 11:13 pm, (Jeff Davis) wrote:

Why don't you just buy a pair of Head Monsters for powder and keep your
French knock off's for the ****ty runs?

I'll second the Head Monsters, the i.M88 (88mm under the boot) are
just brilliant in ungroomed conditions.