• Advertisement

Fatness?

A forum for general discussions.

Moderators: flyingcow, Dirk, Williamtele

Fatness?

Postby Go Fish » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:12 pm

I am in the market for a pair of girthy sleds that are suited for New England lift serve use. I've got a pair that measure in at 95 underfoot and they work great in the occasional 6" hacked up pow that I get to ski at my local haunt. They really excel in the spring when it is slushy mixed with glare ice. I'm looking for a dedicated pair of skis that I will pull out when I'm lucky enough to get a foot or more to play in. What I would really love is if these skis could get me through a morning of first tracks, a late morning of soft + hard and an afternoon of dealing with what is left.

I know that I should ditch the lifts and get back into the woods. I will when I can take my daughter with me. It is going to be a few more years.

My front runner right now is the Blizzard Cochise. It is 108 underfoot, has a rocker camber rocker profile and is otherwise built like a full on carving ski. In second place is the Volkl 100Eight. It is fully rockered (no camber) and has no metal in the lay up. It is also 108 underfoot. The Blizzard would be most like what I am riding all the time, the Volkl is lighter and according to the internet, "playful but serious enough to shred the frontside".

What else should I be considering? Armada? Icelantic? Black Crows? Others?

Also, how fat is too fat? I arbitrarily set the limit at 110 mm just because wider seems impractical...not because I have data to support that.
Go Fish
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:15 am
Location: Bolton, MA

Re: Fatness?

Postby RobRox » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:45 am

Demo some Dynastar Legend X 106.

They have retreated from the ridiculous Pintail of the Chams, leaving only a vestige of it. I'm waiting for my Pro-Riders to soften up before I replace, but I would demo these in a herartbeat. The forebody inserts above the edges are dampeners...I like the idea and am curious to see if it works as intended.
Go for adventure, take pix, but make certain to bring'em back alive!
User avatar
RobRox
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:38 am
Location: following the tracks of Diogenes

Re: Fatness?

Postby Go Fish » Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:59 pm

After talking with an alpine skiing buddy I have learned that the Cochise is a beast that is only happy when at full throttle. I'm often not in the mood to be going 40-50 mph to get my skis to work correctly.

The Volkl's have moved to the top spot but I'm intrigued by the Dynastars...

Still looking for opinions on how fat is too fat for eastern skiing.
Go Fish
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:15 am
Location: Bolton, MA

Re: Fatness?

Postby RobRox » Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:52 am

Most of the Cannon snowmaker crew appear to be using skis that are at least 112mm underfoot. Some are much wider! Given their neighborhood having some truly awesome powder playgrounds, it's no surprise.
Go for adventure, take pix, but make certain to bring'em back alive!
User avatar
RobRox
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:38 am
Location: following the tracks of Diogenes

Re: Fatness?

Postby Williamtele » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:52 am

This is just one man's opinion but I think that fat skis are highly overrated. There's an allure that creates a myopia about what is practical, particularly in NE. Every time I buy wide skis I get rid of them after a year or two. On tele gear (on piste), I find them to be exhausting once the snow is tracked out (9:15-9:30) and getting them up on edge becomes a job rather than a reflex. I have some Moment Tahoes that I will start with but then will go back to Volkl Kendos after a few hours. I even have some old Rossi GS race skis for when it's really scratchy. If i ever get to go out west for an extended period, I'll surely come around but my only advice would be to be careful what you wish for. But DO listen to Rob since he's the brain in the room.
Williamtele
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:38 am
Location: NH on weekends

Re: Fatness?

Postby RobRox » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:19 am

I'll second Williamtele's nod to the Kendo, even my son, the "straight ski apostle" admires them.

Special Note: The Cannon snowmaker crew are all fixed-heelers, and I am sure Will is right about the effort to edge increase rapidly as the skis get wider. I find the 100-107 range quite adequate and not much of a tele-chore even later in the day.
Go for adventure, take pix, but make certain to bring'em back alive!
User avatar
RobRox
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:38 am
Location: following the tracks of Diogenes

Re: Fatness?

Postby Biff » Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:38 pm

I have to say... on a big powder day give me big fat rockered skis. I love them. Its a total quiver thing... as soon as the pow is tracked they feel like giant clown shoes and are worthless. Then I switch to "all mountain". But hey, this is coming from someone almost crippled with arthritic knees that wants what gives me the least amount of work for the most amount of fun.
The only "normal" people are the ones you don't know.
User avatar
Biff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:22 am
Location: Maine

Re: Fatness?

Postby edgeworker » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:13 pm

Superchargers. Duh! :roll:
Hit it like you`ve got a pair!
edgeworker
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:48 am
Location: Hudson Valley

Re: Fatness?

Postby Go Fish » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:51 pm

Williamtele - I don't ride Kendos but I do ride Blizzard Brahmas as my primary go-to ski. The Brahma is a couple of mm's skinnier than the Kendo but for all intents and purposes, they are the same ski. I love the versatility of a super carvy ski with a little bit of float but I'm not trying to be practical. I want a fat ski that is a hoot in powder. If I get a run or two on it before I have to go back to the truck to get some practical skis, I'm fine with that. FWIW my "scratchy" ski is the Volkl SL model...and sometimes I choose them when it is softer and groomed because it is really fun to see how hard I can pressure them before my legs blow out.

Biff- I agree, it's quiver thing.
Go Fish
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:15 am
Location: Bolton, MA

Re: Fatness?

Postby Williamtele » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:47 am

Biff used to have some Black Diamonds that were like water skis, probably with G3 bindings.
Williamtele
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:38 am
Location: NH on weekends

Re: Fatness?

Postby Biff » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:22 am

Williamtele wrote:Biff used to have some Black Diamonds that were like water skis, probably with G3 bindings.

They were black diamond Megawatts with hammerheads (only skied rainy bindings since the super loop). Yea.. Like I said, they were a dream in the powder at Jay. You felt like you could ski over any thing... Down trees, fallen snowboarders...you could do no wrong. But as soon as the untracked was gone they became a nightmare on my knees. I went to the Verdict after that but it never had the same feel. Plus it was still too heavy. Ironically the best rockered powder ski I have had was a pair of Blizzard powder X's that I got on eBay for nothing. I put the rocker in them with a vise and a blowtorch. They were amazing until finally one fine pow day in awesome bumps one of the tips cracked where I had heated it and it folded all the way back and I was skiing two thirds of a ski. I did manage to adapt, had to keep my weight back more on left turns, but it was adios Blizzards. I'm still looking for that perfect powder ski. I really think the Voile may be it (my Voile Vectors are the best bc ski I've ever owned) but I can't afford it. The Rossis I had last season were sweet but too short ( check the for sale section) and now I'm hoping the Liberty's fit the bill.
The only "normal" people are the ones you don't know.
User avatar
Biff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:22 am
Location: Maine

Re: Fatness?

Postby Dirk » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:02 am

This is a pretty animated conversation, considering that New England hasn't seen but one or two real powder days in the past two years. It's like we're all desperately trying to convince ourselves that winters, as we know them, aren't a thing of the past.
Dirk
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:50 am
Location: Orange, Vermont

Re: Fatness?

Postby Telemanarcer » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:02 am

Had a great powder year last year Dirk not so good the year before....Tons of powder! TM
Telemanarcer
 
Posts: 2242
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:24 am
Location: Northeast kingdom, Vermont

Re: Fatness?

Postby edgeworker » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:37 am

Dirk wrote:This is a pretty animated conversation, considering that New England hasn't seen but one or two real powder days in the past two years. It's like we're all desperately trying to convince ourselves that winters, as we know them, aren't a thing of the past.


Come to Plattekill. We skied 3ft last Thanksgiving.
Hit it like you`ve got a pair!
edgeworker
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:48 am
Location: Hudson Valley

Re: Fatness?

Postby Dirk » Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:45 pm

edgeworker wrote:
Dirk wrote:This is a pretty animated conversation, considering that New England hasn't seen but one or two real powder days in the past two years. It's like we're all desperately trying to convince ourselves that winters, as we know them, aren't a thing of the past.


Come to Plattekill. We skied 3ft last Thanksgiving.


Well, of course everyone's got an anecdote or an exception. I still think my broader observation is a valid one.

The industry as a whole seems to be walking back from the extremes of portliness. Voile no longer has a Buster in their lineup.
Dirk
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:50 am
Location: Orange, Vermont

Next

Return to General Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron