Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 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!

Fat skis are not getting out of hand

profile picture
garrett.
Posts: 9304 - Karma: 3,670
ok so go get a ruler and put your thumb on 150mm and you will see that 150mm is really not that fat, and the only ski made at 150mm is pollards personal ski. so now move that back 20mm to 130mm and you will still see that its not that fat if you really think about it.

i know i was a fictim of this at first and i was imagining it would be like a foot wide and your stance would have to be like double your shoulder width. but in reality the fattness of skis really isnt that fat

just my 2 cents
Feb 14 2007 11:46PM
0 0
profile picture
BFFset.
Posts: 2210 - Karma: 12
agreed
Feb 14 2007 11:48PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61100 - Karma: 118,256
177 is too much.
Feb 14 2007 11:48PM
0 0
profile picture
steezeninja
Posts: 1271 - Karma: 731
I ski 104 in the park.
Feb 14 2007 11:52PM
0 0
profile picture
tjski
Posts: 5859 - Karma: 44
ya agreed. i mean my stance changes a tad from moving from 84ish underfoot to 94ish.
Feb 14 2007 11:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
word fat is where its at. there is no reason for any ski other than a race ski to be less than 100 at the waist
Feb 14 2007 11:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Swick825
Posts: 1798 - Karma: 11
pretty sure the fatypus alotta is wider than pollards new pro model.
Feb 14 2007 11:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Squirrel_Murphy
Posts: 2195 - Karma: 1,165
no no Pollards actual pro model that only HE rides is 150mm under foot. But it had the Elizabeth topsheet graphic.


Yeah, I agree that they aren't gettin out of hand. They're very functional and very stable. For what they're made for, they work great. MOST suck big time in trees and making any sort of quick turn in any snow condition, but that's why they aren't made for that. That's why most people in the east don't ride a "fat" ski in the park, right?
Feb 14 2007 11:58PM
0 0
profile picture
FUUUCK
Posts: 18426 - Karma: 4,888
no no, pollard has many pro models including a 130mm bacon, and a 150mm elizabeth
Feb 15 2007 12:01AM
0 0
profile picture
Sideways_Shane
Posts: 756 - Karma: 73
170mm are a little wide
Feb 15 2007 12:03AM
0 0
profile picture
4ReeL_
Posts: 3187 - Karma: 1,563
dude its huge if you compare it to 7 years ago when a "fat" ski was 80mm under waste
Feb 15 2007 12:05AM
0 0
profile picture
garrett.
Posts: 9304 - Karma: 3,670
exactly, 7 years ago is not today now is it
Feb 15 2007 12:09AM
0 0
profile picture
Literature
Posts: 13673 - Karma: 3,086

I can shred groomers perfectly well on my P4s, and they have a 108 waist and a 28m turn radius. I don't get why people make such a big deal about fat skis, with construction and technology, you do not compromise anything by buying a fatter ski for out of park ripping in this day and age.

Feb 15 2007 12:18AM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
skiing fat skis in the park is only nice if you have access to tables with a shitload of hangtime. If you're stuck in shitty parks, they suck.
Feb 15 2007 12:28AM
0 0
profile picture
Sir_SkrillALot
Posts: 1732 - Karma: 632
fat skis are good for powdah too guys! and i for sures love float
Feb 15 2007 12:30AM
0 0
profile picture
garrett.
Posts: 9304 - Karma: 3,670
there are no skis axept for one pair that are that fat under foot, and if its in the shovel its not out of hand
Feb 15 2007 12:56AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24704 - Karma: 29,687
thats a goddamn snowboard.. haha.
Feb 15 2007 2:17AM
0 0
profile picture
Skillz
Posts: 945 - Karma: 50
Snowboards are like minimum 220 so no its not a snowboard.
Feb 15 2007 3:01AM
0 0
profile picture
Albino
Posts: 1400 - Karma: 123
once u go fat, u never go back.
if its less than 90, its a carve ski
Feb 15 2007 3:05AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24704 - Karma: 29,687
Lol..

that depends on where you live too...

being in california, the snow is dense enough that having a pair of rossi scratch FS's do the trick in pow without any problem...

whereas if I went to Jackson, I would be in serious shit haha..
Feb 15 2007 3:10AM
0 0
profile picture
Baker
Posts: 1615 - Karma: 18
I like skinnier skis for park. ^and park skis work fine for landing in deep fluffy pow. I spent my youth in jackson on some skogens, but pow skis make it better. I say no fatter than is necessary, just cause it's a weight issue. Would say 100 underfoot is my ideal pow ski, cause then when it gets chopped up you don't have all that surface area to get smacked around and you can plow through it. I'd reall like to try out some rockered skis. Traditional designs seem like they might become obsolete in the next few years, atleast for pow skis.
Feb 15 2007 11:43AM
0 0
profile picture
4ReeL_
Posts: 3187 - Karma: 1,563
ya fat skis are to heavy
Feb 15 2007 11:59AM
0 0
profile picture
nitsua
Posts: 4631 - Karma: 726
mhm
Feb 15 2007 12:07PM
0 0
profile picture
crunkasfuck
Posts: 752 - Karma: 352
no fat skis are not gitting out of hand there gitting better and better!!
Feb 15 2007 4:03PM
0 0
profile picture
SteezeNINE
Posts: 352 - Karma: 12
I have AR6's and I think they are just about as wide as I would go for east coast cause of ice problems but out west I can see the use of fat skis jsut not too much for icy crappy mountains....
Feb 15 2007 5:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Aenigma
Posts: 11256 - Karma: 424
I ride 97mm skis with a 29.4m turn radius on everything and they work really well.  I see no problem with having traditionally shaped skis up to 120mm or so, but going wider than that is kind of pointless because you can't use the shape of the ski.  And that is why reverse sidecut skis exist.
Feb 15 2007 7:28PM
0 0
profile picture
hollygrove
Posts: 7845 - Karma: 93
I've got 110 at the waist.
And they've surpised me on how well I can ride them on when not in deep snow.
Feb 15 2007 7:32PM
0 0
profile picture
thejackal1177
Posts: 3434 - Karma: 2,724
they deffinatly dont need to be any wider than 150
Feb 15 2007 7:40PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
I Lived in Cali my whole life till this year, I would never want to ski anything less than a 95-100 in the waist anywhere ever again... I dunno. I think it's just preference. I would actually rather have fat skis in cali snow and skinny skis in lighter pow if I had to decide
Feb 15 2007 7:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Troop801
Posts: 345 - Karma: 17
100 mm is the new 80.
Feb 15 2007 8:20PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24704 - Karma: 29,687
Iono dude.. I have Rossi FS's as well as a pair of JP v. Juliens.. and I rarely use my Jp. V. J's unless there is some seriously dry cali snow.. something that hasnt happened this season...

they rule whenever I go to Utah though.. oh goodness.
Feb 15 2007 9:53PM
0 0
profile picture
wdbo.
Posts: 4935 - Karma: 173
word left
Feb 15 2007 9:54PM
0 0
profile picture
SwitchMahFuckah
Posts: 783 - Karma: 15
Did someone say skis were getting to fat?
Feb 15 2007 10:00PM
0 0
profile picture
skoganskier101
Posts: 2067 - Karma: 14
agreed, 120 isnt bad, but i personally dont want something so massive that a nice powder day will be no as enjoyable as with skinnier skis, i use 185 scratch bc's and they are sex in any kind of pow becauyse i sink down some and it still feels like powder, not a groomer. that is just my opinion, but fat skis still are awesome
Feb 15 2007 10:02PM
0 0
profile picture
watchmefall15
Posts: 1902 - Karma: 11
if i didnt live on the east i would be all about fat skis but i do
Feb 15 2007 10:05PM
0 0
profile picture
FNJ
Posts: 3026 - Karma: 110
jea me too
Feb 15 2007 10:32PM
0 0
profile picture
LookinBack
Posts: 242 - Karma: 21
I ski a 1O6x78x98 for park/everything on my 4frnts.....i kinda wish i had a wider set but i keep telling myself its not worth it
Feb 15 2007 11:08PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,385
stop telling yourself that! it's soooo worth it. pick up something around 90 underfooot.... you will love it
Feb 15 2007 11:40PM
0 0
profile picture
Black-Bandanna
Posts: 6680 - Karma: 1,602
98 underfoot for me
Feb 15 2007 11:43PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)