Page 2 of 3

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:47 pm
by Go Fish
One of 4 or 5 big storms at Jay last year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ9Zcj8DpMU

Winter is not dead...yet. It may not be like to good ole days, but I intend to enjoy what we have --- with a big fat pair of rockered skis

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:43 am
by rockdaletj
My 185 Jay that I rode almost every day last year is 112 underfoot. I think you'd be happy somewhere 110+. I'll keep my eyes open for some deals for you!

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:08 pm
by Go Fish
If you see a pair of Jays cluttering up the shop...

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:19 pm
by Marteenski
Let me say one word: K2 Pinnacle 95- plenty wide enough for EVERY east coast powder event, narrow enough to clean up the leftovers in the woods and stout enough to handle the inevitable return to a firm base. I agree with Williamtele- "fat skis" are overrated east of Denver.

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:35 pm
by Go Fish
I've got a pair of Atomics with a 95 mm waist that I like just fine. I don't need another pair.

Overrated or not, I want a big, fat, stupid almost-useless-in-the-East pair of skis.

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:53 pm
by rockdaletj
Sent you a PM GoFish

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:49 pm
by benny
Go Fish,

Check your PM.

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:33 am
by oldschool
Ok, my recent trip to VT confirmed a few things - I need to move up to a wider ski for keeping up with my kids in the glades when the powder is calf to knee deep and especially when it's been tracked some but not completely as the transitions in that situation and on piste where it's not been skied out is a female dog on my current way olde-tyme rig. Currently skiing leather Merrell two buckle Comps, R8s and K2 Piste Pipes that are 183s at 110, 75, 98 or so. It's a decent rig that gets me down a lot of stuff. Been looking to pick up a pair of T2 Ecos at some point to drive harder. A lighter ski would be pleasant too now that I'm getting older. I guess my question about this is if, like Go Fish, I'm looking to set up a fat rig for just the very occasional use, I might do that off any wide pair of skis I can find second hand. More to the point - when going wider, do you shorten the ski up, keep it the same or go longer. Skiing 183s I would not like to go longer in the bumps.

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:52 am
by Biff
Its a good question and I'm sure you will get some good answers. I can only say that from personal experience it you go fat standard skis (not rockered) you can go shorter. But if you go rockered be careful not to go too short. Because not as much ski is on the snow they tend to ski shorter. My last pair of rockered were too short and as fat as they were they still tended to dive in deep snow. That said, rockered skis are really nice.

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:32 pm
by oldschool
I guess the real bit of my question deals with the trade off of floatation for maneuverability - although perhaps part of the rough work I was doing with my skis running deep will disappear with a wider ski that floats a lot more. I used to ski narrow 194 Karhu Kondors and could manage them alright but really like the 183s for me in bumps and in the trees, also a little easier to pull around on steeps too.

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:28 pm
by rockdaletj
I'm 5'10 over 200 lbs with gear and my daily driver is a 105 underfoot in 178. I think this combo is great for trees/bumps etc.

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:23 am
by RobRox
Lots of great skis in the 98mmm-107mm range. "Early rise" at tip and tail but with traditional camber underfoot seems the most versatile.

My Converts get tossed a little in the chopped up buff (because I am a little too far back) but mach speed on groomers is very smooth. The Carbon Converts are reported to be less comfy at mach speed

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:42 pm
by lowangle al
I don't have any recomendations on what ski but if I were back East I would still want my 110+ powder boards in my quiver. They would be fun for big days at the resort and when it's deep in the bc. I can also see using them in the bc when there is low snow cover. After breaking my leg on a staub a few years ago I feel a lot more comfortable when my ski tips are riding above the surface where they will ride over obstacles rather than into them. They are also good on low angle terrain where skinnier skis would sink too far in and get bogged down.

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:17 pm
by Go Fish
I've decided on the new Blizzard Rustler 11. By all accounts it is a decently fat ski with reasonable backbone that doesn't take Olympic athlete legs to run. My problem now is picking the right length.

The Rustler 11 is a rocker-camber-rocker ski and the waist width changes with the length. My two choices are 180 and 188. The 180 is 112 mm underfoot and the 188 is 114 mm underfoot. I currently ride a 180 cm Blizzard Brahma (also rocker-camber-rocker) and I love it. It is 88 mm in the middle. Since the idea is flotation, I'm tending to think the 188 is the right choice.

Opinions?

Re: Fatness?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:26 pm
by RobRox
You are getting a lot more float with just the 180. Going up to the 188 will present some issues.

On modest slopes it's no prob, but when it gets steep and tight and I am on my 180cm skis, I'm getting a fair amount of trailling ski tail hitting things I used to never touch on my 176cms. That's only a 4cm difference, 8cm would probably drive me crazy