Bored, its Summer, Lets Talk About Big Skis and Where Ski Technology is Headed

[leroy jenkins]

It seems that there were two major revolutions in ski design and construction that have brought us from the Glen Plake era of long straight skinny skis, to now.

The first is the shaped ski revolution. Skis got shorter, skis got curvier.

The second, and far more important, although less talked about by the instructor types, is the fat ski revolution.

There’s the rockered/reverse cambered thing too, but that’s just beginning, so I’ll hold off on that for a bit.

Both of these were not just new designs, but new technology. There were fat skis around long before they really started to become popular. The biggest single advancement (IMVHO, as all of this rant is) was the ability to make fatter skis torsionally stiff.

These two revolutions sort of blended together, but one of the biggest things they had in common, was the idea that with the new advances in technology, skis just did not need to be as long as they used to be. NOT TRUE.

I have been in the market for a really long, really fat ski. I like wide open terrain, and skiing fast, and I have been looking for something for the deepest days, and the fastest lines.


In my research, I have reached a pretty amazing conclusion. Ski companies are beginning to make longer skis again, especially fat ones.

There are:

196 Moment Comi Kazis (136 underfoot)

200 Igneous FFFs (118 underfoot)

204 Unity Hiat Pros (120)

200 DP Lotus 120 and 138s

207 Fischer Dukes (121)

Salomon X wing labs, 198cm, and 107mm

Salmon Rocker 192cm and 127mm.

Every single one of these is either completely new for the 07-08 season, or at least a new size. That’s a pretty big deal if you think about it. 8 big skis, seven of which are 196cm of bigger, and seven of which are also 118mm underfoot or bigger, when at the beginning of this past year, there were none that fit this description.

I think the whole movement to shorter skis is just a hiccup in the advancement of ski technology. Sure, they work for some people, and some terrain, I’m not arguing everyone should be on 200cm boards. However, I predict that within the next couple of years, there will be several production fat skis over 210 or 215, and more than a few over 200.

Especially with the new funny shaped skis, that inherently ski short, a longer length would be a huge advantage.

I think ski companies are beginning to realize this. While 200cm fat boards aren’t going to sell near as well as some more intermediate friendly models, there is definitely a desire and place for both. If nothing else, they will help companies build credibility among real skiers.




Ok, yea, I admit I’m a ski gear dork, and I like to talk about skis WAY too much. Pretty much everyone I know tells me that, and also tells me that they’re sick of it, but this IS a ski site isn’t it? And its summer, so what the fuck.

[endlesswntr]

The comi-kazi seems like it would ski way shorter, due to the turned up tail plus swallow.

[bossass]

Leroy, you've been hitting them greens again. I'll buy some of what you're saying, but the part i think you're dead wrong on is 210 or 215 mega fats. It's absolutely unnecessary. With straight or slightly reverse sidecut to handle speed, and width to handle float, there's no need for length like that. Have fun with those in the trees, i don't care how light they are. And this "longer fat" revolution you point out is in large part due to loss of stablizing length (ie. from boot toe to tip) from progressive mounting points AND twin tips. Boot mid marks on skis are getting more forward and twin tips are making 190cm skis ski like 182cm skis. So all these models you've pointed out, essentially chop 7-10 cm off that measurement to compare these to traditional "fats" of old.

And those 192cm Rockers ski uber easy, a 189 B-Squad is way more substantial stick.

If anything, rocker will let skis get slightly longer. It allows a ski to pivot and be more manueverable. I think those Fischer's are gonna go over like a lead zepplin. Maybe in deep they are really fun, but remember when McConkey talked about the Spatula excelling most in wind effect snow and heavy untracked mush, where all other skiers are hating life on their skis with traditional sidecut and camber? Yeah, try that on a 207 fat with trad side and camber. (I'm going off the assumption the Dukes have trad side and camber, correct me if I'm wrong).

Well there you go buddy, some fuel for the fire. Summer is boring.

[concretejungle]

I want a skinnier Praxis in a 185 or so.

[adam]

I want a 230, 150-145-147, stiff as a 2x4 beast.

[GBB]

I want a skinnier Praxis in a 185 or so.

i want a pair of praxis...

[jonski]

Unfortunately, one thing you aren't looking at in this is who is making these skis - of those you've listed 5 are from btq manufacturers.

I agree that in the top end of fat skis you will get more heading up towards the 200 mark, but these will mostly be put out by the btq guys rather serious 'production' models. In reality do you expect to see the Fischer this year anywhere? I personally feel it is a loss leader intended to get people to look at their product cos they have not so much market penetration in the fat ski/freeski market compared to say K2 or Salomon. I would be (pleasantly) surprised to see it repeat next season.

The short ski thing will for the most part stay as it is - the largest market. The average intermediate ski is now more along the line of 75mm underfoot up from the 65mm-ish maybe 5 years ago, but don't expect to see too many jump up above the 180-185cm length in their longest incarnation.

Unfortunately, fat skis are still the realm of more experienced skiers. Most one-week-a-year-ers still come up out of shape, do a few lessons, and stay on the trails. This is continually re-inforced by the likes of SKI magazine and PSIA, as well as the manufacturers themselves due to how easy it is to make lots of stuff the same rather than have a diverse range which costs them more money (tooling, presses, etc) and is harder for them to sell (familiarity is good for sales).

However, it is good to see so many Btq guys springing up because they do release shapes that are unconventional and thus the trickle down effect leads to acceptance and mass availability (Spats-praxis/capital/armada-Salomon)

Where is production and such heading though? Same direction as always - one ski quiver!!!!

[Melee]

The comi-kazi seems like it would ski way shorter, due to the turned up tail plus swallow.

The tail on the Comi-Kazi is turned up very very little.

[bossass]

I want a skinnier Praxis in a 185 or so.

They are making a skinnier praxis.

[Arno]

If anything, rocker will let skis get slightly longer. It allows a ski to pivot and be more manueverable. I think those Fischer's are gonna go over like a lead zepplin. Maybe in deep they are really fun, but remember when McConkey talked about the Spatula excelling most in wind effect snow and heavy untracked mush, where all other skiers are hating life on their skis with traditional sidecut and camber? Yeah, try that on a 207 fat with trad side and camber. (I'm going off the assumption the Dukes have trad side and camber, correct me if I'm wrong).

Well there you go buddy, some fuel for the fire. Summer is boring.

I think this is right. I was having one of the best days skiing of the winter in late Feb in La Grave but some guy who turned up with Fischer Dukes did one run while the visibility was good but then had to go back down because the visibility crapped out and he was no longer able to go at mach looney - the only speed at which they worked

[StroupSkier]

Unfortunately, one thing you aren't looking at in this is who is making these skis - of those you've listed 5 are from btq manufacturers.

I was going to mention somethign about how the skis mentioned comprised a very small market share, but jonski's point does the same thing.

Will there be really fat skis made in the 220 range?

Probably, but they will more than likely be manufactured by small companies hoping to fill a nitch that is too difficult for companies that mass produce skis to fill.

I really feel that the next ski inovation will come in teh way of a new core material. Cutting and planing wood is much more difficult than filling a mold with a manufactured material. The fact that we really don't have a material that is better than wood for a core given all the material advancements of the past 30 years blows my mind.

[Phill]

Is it possible to carve a real turn on a super stiff ski with a 70m sidecut with out going so fast that you severely limit the terrain that you can ski.

[leroy jenkins]

And this "longer fat" revolution you point out is in large part due to loss of stablizing length (ie. from boot toe to tip) from progressive mounting points AND twin tips. Boot mid marks on skis are getting more forward and twin tips are making 190cm skis ski like 182cm skis. So all these models you've pointed out, essentially chop 7-10 cm off that measurement to compare these to traditional "fats" of old.

And those 192cm Rockers ski uber easy, a 189 B-Squad is way more substantial stick.

If anything, rocker will let skis get slightly longer. It allows a ski to pivot and be more manueverable.

Ok, yea, a lot of these skis have features that will make them ski shorter. However, even with skis that ski much shorter, ski companies have usually been unwilling to make something in the 200cm range, just because. The fact that so many are deciding to all at the same time is significant.

Unfortunately, one thing you aren't looking at in this is who is making these skis - of those you've listed 5 are from btq manufacturers.

However, it is good to see so many Btq guys springing up because they do release shapes that are unconventional and thus the trickle down effect leads to acceptance and mass availability (Spats-praxis/capital/armada-Salomon)

Very true. I actually almost including something talking about this in my original post, but in the interest of keeping it short, left it out.

For a while, I have heard comments like "But that ski will never enter production" referring to some mythical burly team only type ski. This wasn't because these skis were so burly that only a handful of people on the planet could ski them. It was more because the big companies wouldn't make any money off of them.

Thats where the little guys come it. The past couple years have seen a bunch of new ski makers. These companies can afford to cater to such a small market share because they aren't using any resources on making or marketing intermediate skis. Also, their customers are willing to pay more for these skis than they would for normal production skis, because they're getting something special, something they can't get anywhere else.

I think this is right. I was having one of the best days skiing of the winter in late Feb in La Grave but some guy who turned up with Fischer Dukes did one run while the visibility was good but then had to go back down because the visibility crapped out and he was no longer able to go at mach looney - the only speed at which they worked

Thats why they're quiver skis.

Is it possible to carve a real turn on a super stiff ski with a 70m sidecut with out going so fast that you severely limit the terrain that you can ski.

Jesus man, where'd you think that up? I don't think any of these huge skis are (or will be) super stiff, except maybe a small part of the length right underfoot. Thats what I think part of the need for this length is. Squads are plenty long given how stiff they are and the snow I ski them in. However, something that stiff sucks in pow, so you get a longer length to make up for the loss of stability a softer flex will bring.

One other thought,

I think in the next couple years we are going to see a few skis that are much more of a blend between traditional and funny shaped skis. One thing I'm kind of expecting (and would be curious about) is something that is basically a big stiff plank in a traditional length, but then with long, barely rockered softer tips and tails, which would make it ridiculously long.

[mc_roon]

The tail on the Comi-Kazi is turned up very very little.

exactly what I thought, it would make no sense to have a swallowtail twintip.


As for the so called 'big ski revolution' im just happy its here and i get to be a part of it

[cj001f]

exactly what I thought, it would make no sense to have a swallowtail twintip.

sense or not people do like the Sanouk

perhaps when the next aerospace bust happens and carbon and carbon workers get cheap again you'll see your next 'revolution'

[Stikki]

What I’ve been thinking about for the past season is the boot/binding footprint. Skis are much wider now but the binding footprint is the same as it was for 60mm wide skis.

[_______] boot 100~mm
[---] din piece/binding 50~mm
---------- ski 100~mm


[_______] boot 100~mm
[------] din piece/binding 85~mm
---------- ski 100~mm

Would a wider footprint equal better leverage? I guess I could always take some old boots and shave off the din piece and directly bolt them to some old skis and see how it feels.

Hmm, looks like the formatting is screwy, the binding should be centered under the boot but I think you get the gist.

[endlesswntr]

Well seeing as the swallowtail is so narrow, the twin may accentuate the effect...i mean it's not flat for a reason. Either way, the running length and effective edge are nowhere near what you would expect for a 196.

[The Dad]

What I’ve been thinking about for the past season is the boot/binding footprint. Skis are much wider now but the binding footprint is the same as it was for 60mm wide skis.

That's part of Marker's selling point on the Duke/Jester. Even so, I think they're only claiming to be in the 70s.

[Sitzmark]

Elaborating on Stikki's post, aside from tooling costs, why have bindings not been produced specifically for fatter skis? the market share is there, and you would definately get better power transmission, and have less torsional flex underfoot, but i really can't see that many drawbacks other than the increase in torque placed on the binding screws. it seems like it would be a logical progression in the binding market to produce a high end binding that would cater to newer and fatter skis by creating a wider mounting profile. and by wider, i mean for skis with a 95+ waist.

[lax]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh praxis pracis praxis praxis,
how i love you my lovely praxis,
you are so purdy,
i will often twirl thee,
i love you praxis poraxis praAAAAAAAAAAAXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSS.


my stoke level just got so high it spontaneously erupted into a terrible inner musical that i recorded here for you guys. wierd.

[cj001f]

why have bindings not been produced specifically for fatter skis? the market share is there

if the market share were there wouldn't there be more companies producing brakes for fat skis and their existing bindings to start off with? Making fat brakes would be cheap, cheaper than specific bindings that shops would carry and never make a profit on.

[leroy jenkins]

Elaborating on Stikki's post, aside from tooling costs, why have bindings not been produced specifically for fatter skis? the market share is there, and you would definately get better power transmission, and have less torsional flex underfoot, but i really can't see that many drawbacks other than the increase in torque placed on the binding screws. it seems like it would be a logical progression in the binding market to produce a high end binding that would cater to newer and fatter skis by creating a wider mounting profile. and by wider, i mean for skis with a 95+ waist.

I would LOVE to see this, but I doubt it will happen. There aren't any boutique binding manufacturers, and if there were, well I don't know if they'd succeed. the two big companies (ok three, but I mean look/rossi, and salomon) haven't even released their top end bindings with wide brakes. A whole new footprint is a lot more complex than that.

True, there is a signifigant market for it, but it wouldn't be just one binding to fill that market. You would need each binding that you already make, the 12 din, 14 din, and 16 or 18 din to each have their own new counterpart because not everyone that skis fat skis uses the same bindings or din setting.




BTW, its just semantics, but the "long fat ski revolution" phrase was not my term. I don't really see it that way. I more see it as being the evolution of the initial shaped and fat ski revolutions. At first everything went shorter, and now, at least in some ways, its starting to come back around.


EDIT: CJ pretty much beat me to it, much more succinctly too.

[geo039]

Two things. There is already a 210 on the market by Spoilt which is pretty cool. Know nothing really about them but just ran into them. On the point below it would be interesting if someone like VIST would be into developing a wide binding platform? There is a market, but to other points above the capital cost would make this a challenge. VIST could have the sunken cost covered.

if the market share were there wouldn't there be more companies producing brakes for fat skis and their existing bindings to start off with? Making fat brakes would be cheap, cheaper than specific bindings that shops would carry and never make a profit on.

[skier666]

sense or not people do like the Sanouk

Agreed, I'm a big guy and have always searched for the biggest badass stiff skis out there....and guess what? The Sanouks are really fun. Yes, they are a noodle, and they are fun. To me its all about having fun.

Comis, they aren't very fun in frozen chunder due to their massive width...but are very surprisingly versatile everywhere else.

I haven't tried any teardrop/spatula shapes with rocker as of yet, but I like the progression. The future to me seems like its going to be on the materials side of things, to make them stronger and lighter, and make boots that always perform and feel good.

[Voltron]

What is the "technology" that now allows skis to be torsionally stiff? My skis are made out of wood, plastic, and metal with plain old straight sidewalls. Not really all that different construction from my pair of skis from a decade ago. What exactly has changed?