underfooty limitations

**digitaldeath** · 07-16-2010, 07:25 AM

I am curious as to how a 112 underfoot will limit me, i have never skied a ski that fat and wonder how it wil perform on steeps, GS turns and ilk?

Please help me out, what are your experiences when stepping up from an average underfoot size to a fatty?

**Captain Anal** · 07-16-2010, 07:44 AM

about 4 or so years ago i went from 78 underfoot being the widest i'd ever skied... to skiing 106 underfoot. the transition was pretty much effortless. granted you're not gonna be as quick from edge to edge with 112 underfoot... but fast steep gs turns are quite doable. i think it depends more on the ski itself than the fact that its wide underfoot.

**digitaldeath** · 07-16-2010, 07:49 AM

ya good point i just wanted to know the generalities of it- thanks Captain Anal(never will type or say that again)

**Captain Anal** · 07-16-2010, 07:57 AM

yeah i suppose the biggies (also kind of obvious) are:

turn initiation = a bigger move

due to the wideness of the ski, there can be a lack in torsional rigidity which i suppose can cause some issues if you're really layin it down on hardpack

**fez** · 07-16-2010, 08:30 AM

i think it almost has more to do with stiffness than width. I have two pairs of skis over 120 mm waist that rail gs turns on groomy. they're both pretty to very stiff though. probably helps mitigate the torsional rigidity thing cpt anal mentioned. never had any issues on steeps either.

like cpt anal says, they are a bit slow edge to edge, but who cares if you're just hauling ass back to the lift.

**digitaldeath** · 07-16-2010, 08:39 AM

good intel fez! i am gonna buy the fat-ypus d-senders and i believe they are very stiff

**pfluffenmeister** · 07-16-2010, 04:29 PM

i've been on a 108mm waist (Movement Goliath 191; by far the fattest ski to date that i've skied, but i have some Praxis RX 189 @ 115mm waist waiting in the wings for next season (i hope these two skis don't directly overlap in the quiver, but what the heck)) for the past two seasons and have been pleasantly surprised with performance on steeps and big turns on groomed.

granted the turns are bigger, and slower to initiate/transistion edges, but there isn't any "flat spot" between turns where the base slaps down and then you're on the other edge.

edge to edge transistion is definitely slower than on a narrower waisted ski, but it's still smooth.

**Beyond** · 07-19-2010, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by fez

i think it almost has more to do with stiffness than width.

^^^^What he said. Lhasa Pows are roughly that, give or take, and surprised me with how well they rail on groomers at speed. All about flex pattern, I think, and especially lateral rigidity. On the steeps I want a fat that can bite in if I need it to, forget smearing. YMMV.

That said, if you're used to 70-90 mm, takes a while to get used to the slower edge to edge, and as several have said, bigger moves to initiate. Also puts more torque on your knees.

So fats can be weirdly versatile. But no one will ever mistake a 115 for a 78. If you actually want a groomer zoomer that can handle sidebounds soft snow, IMO lot of great skis in the middle/high 90's, like the MX98, Atlas or One, Mantra, Enforcer that will make you happier. Or if you live to do trees and glades, you may want something fatter but with a nontraditional shape that can handle groomed decently when you're getting back to the lift. Choices, choices...

**XXX-er** · 07-19-2010, 04:10 PM

slower edge to edge ,the only time I have problems with that is on must make turns on steeps at slow speed

**jerr** · 07-19-2010, 04:57 PM

Been on dynastar XXl at 110 underfoot as my everyday ski for the past 3 years. It's pretty stiff but not nuts. I guess it'll be kind of like the d-sender. If you want a ski like this then you obviously like big GS 'shaped' turns and these sorts of skis love that, on any surface (except sheet ice).

The only thing I found I had do differently, moving to a wide stiff ski, was really get over the ski and drive it if I wanted do smaller turns on a hard surface. Aim to ski it hard and it'll be a pussy cat - that destroys like a bulldozer - in all conditions - except ice, on ice your fucked.

A few friends are using Kingswood SMB's (?) as their everyday ski at 126 underfoot, or something like that. As has been said before the flex pattern (and cut) is the important bit, rather than the width. Albeit with a slower transition but that sort of gets absorbed by the way you turn a ski like this, more like an old straight ski.

**skibum93** · 07-19-2010, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by digitaldeath

I am curious as to how a 112 underfoot will limit me, i have never skied a ski that fat and wonder how it wil perform on steeps, GS turns and ilk?

Please help me out, what are your experiences when stepping up from an average underfoot size to a fatty?

I upgraded from a 70mm ski to 105, and it was quite a shift.
My advice is just widen your stance, and look down and watch your skis the first few runs.

And those D-Senders look awesome. Those are going to be my daily driver for next year as well. With early rise those are going to be so much fun!

**Dexter Rutecki** · 07-19-2010, 07:06 PM

Anyone who tells you a 100mm+ ski is great for GS turns on hard snow doesn't know what they're talking about or else doesn't know what a real turn on hard snow feels like. Basically the same as claiming a 66mm ski can charge in powder. It just won't ever be anything close to a ski that's actually made for doing what you're using it for (but skiing everything on a 100mm waisted ski seems to add gnar points, for some reason).

That said, you'll get used to the width and figure out how to ski within its limitations--and it will obviously be a hell of a lot better in deep snow and chop and that sort of stuff.

Personally, if I knew conditions were hard and/or I was planning on skiing groomers all day I would never choose a fat ski--but I'd never use GS skis on a deep day, either.

**jerr** · 07-19-2010, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Anyone who tells you a 100mm+ ski is great for GS turns on hard snow doesn't know what they're talking about or else doesn't know what a real turn on hard snow feels like. Basically the same as claiming a 66mm ski can charge in powder. It just won't ever be anything close to a ski that's actually made for doing what you're using it for (but skiing everything on a 100mm waisted ski seems to add gnar points, for some reason).

That said, you'll get used to the width and figure out how to ski within its limitations--and it will obviously be a hell of a lot better in deep snow and chop and that sort of stuff.

Personally, if I knew conditions were hard and/or I was planning on skiing groomers all day I would never choose a fat ski--but I'd never use GS skis on a deep day, either.

I like the way XXL's ski, that's why I've found I use them so much. Some days it's not the best ski to take, I admit, but I'm really familiar with them, I like their flex, and I also like skiing them when conditions aren't ideal. In my humble opinion I think it's important to be able to ski your favorite ski in conditions that aren't ideal, you get to know the ski better and it makes you a stronger skier. So, for usual conditions, I'm happy being on this ski.

You are right about the GS turns though. It should have read GS 'shaped'.

**Dexter Rutecki** · 07-19-2010, 08:33 PM

^^^^^
Agree with basically all that, just saying it's kind of silly to claim fat skis can rail GS turns. It's always good to know how your skis will handle conditions they weren't really made for, but I'm not enough of a glutton to decide on fat skis when race skis would be much better--of course, any given day of in bounds skiing you'll likely ski some snow that is less than ideal, so it's going to happen.

**XXX-er** · 07-19-2010, 08:45 PM

SO if a ski has a big turning radius would you call it "a ski with a big turning radius but not a GS ski cuz its too wide " ... or "a GS inspired ski" ?

sure a wide GS inspired ski and a real GS ski are not going to be exactly the same but ...

**I've seen black diamonds!** · 07-19-2010, 08:46 PM

Could you ski a frozen GS course faster on K2 Fours than on Fatypus Whatevers? Probably.

Will you have more fun hauling ass on groomers with K2 Fours than on Fatypus Whatevers? Hell no.

I loved my 7XK's as much as the next guy, but unless you're trying to slice nanoseconds off you Nastar time, and what you are really looking for is a "locked-in, carved turn" you will not be disappointed.

Also, of all the people I saw ripping on skinny skis in soft snow last year, Dexter Rutecki was easily the best.

**iscariot** · 07-19-2010, 09:09 PM

wide stance (a la Larry Craig) and more angulation = no problem with extra width underfoot.

gunit130 · 07-19-2010, 09:29 PM

well dude, if you live in MN, you really shouldn't give this too much thought.

**Dexter Rutecki** · 07-19-2010, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!

Could you ski a frozen GS course faster on K2 Fours than on Fatypus Whatevers? Probably.

Will you have more fun hauling ass on groomers with K2 Fours than on Fatypus Whatevers? Hell no.

I loved my 7XK's as much as the next guy, but unless you're trying to slice nanoseconds off you Nastar time, and what you are really looking for is a "locked-in, carved turn" you will not be disappointed.

Also, of all the people I saw ripping on skinny skis in soft snow last year, Dexter Rutecki was easily the best.

I skied with I've seen black diamonds!?

I disagree, though, about the fun part (maybe not with K2 Fours or 7XK's (which I did love, years ago), but comparing to current GS skis). If you're stuck with frozen groomers then you can't do better (or have more fun) than race skis--my current favorites are a woman's 210 SG ski, but those require more open space than I often get. In any case, I'd always choose the GS boards for a groomer day over trying to beat Fatypusses into submission.

Just re-read, and I guess I am looking for a 'locked-in, carved turn' on groomer days, so maybe I don't count. But to me that's a fun turn.

**I've seen black diamonds!** · 07-19-2010, 09:42 PM

We didn't quite ski together, but met briefly at Magic, unless I have you confused with someone else.

**Dexter Rutecki** · 07-19-2010, 09:51 PM

You're right--can't remember which day that was. And I'm terrible with all these online names.

**whyturn** · 07-20-2010, 03:37 PM

I skiied the race course at Brighton on toons, who cares.
Around 120 skis get planky IMO.
Plake can ski 4 feet of freshies or frozen moguls on 213 skinny sticks. It is the user not the equipment.............Its all relative
112 is all mountain, not a fatty - Lhasas do rail at mach riduculous on hardpark (112 waist)
And what is the point of this thread............Back to the grind.....
Pocket rockets are noodles and suck on groomed at 90 waist, so it it is the equipment (could have been me as the user......)

**Jarle** · 07-20-2010, 04:16 PM

What was that about GS-turns?

**DHogg** · 07-21-2010, 05:25 AM

I'm skiing on 113mm underfoot pretty much everyday. The main things I notice are that they are slower edge to edge, and require more powerful turn initiation. The one place where fatties really suck are the moguls. Here in NZ we often get snow droughts and it gets moguled out to fuck. When its like this I much prefer a skinny ski (and shorter)

I think stiff skis are the ones you will notice more in the transition rather than fat ones. Stiff skis definitely take more power.

After doing my knee, I definitely noticed how much more stress stiff, long, fat skis put through your knees.

**bennettc14** · 07-21-2010, 08:54 AM

I ski a 187 XXLs out East regardless of conditions. I don't think width plays as much as a role as stiffness and radius. Anything 105-112 will manage hard pack just fine if it is stiff, especially torsionally. A well tuned XXL will bite hardpack and won't skid out if you're skiing the radius right. I think XXLs would be an awesome groomer ski if the radius was ~30m instead of 37m+. Sometimes when its really icy you want to link shorter turns and thats way more of a chore then riding the SG sidecut they were designed with. That being said, I don't ski after a rain/freeze cycle either. Two years ago I went from 95 to a 112 Lhasa as an everyday ski and found the learning curve pretty minimal, even being the first rockered ski I was ever on. The D-Senders will be just fine if you commit and learn to ski them in all conditions. Just add some bomber bindings and stiff boots.

login area

Featured Resorts

Thread: underfooty limitations

underfooty limitations

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

Most Recent Video

Most Recent Blog

Most Recent Photo

Home

Ski

Snowboard

Bike

Surf

Travel

Gear

Shop

Company