Never really skiied a Mid Fat, what am I missing?

[Fishskisurf]

Despite having a 4-5 ski quiver, I still find value in a mid 100’s as a do it all daily driver and something you can travel w/ as a 1 ski quiver.
I added a 106 and took it out in plenty of conditions I’d otherwise take my 110 or my low/mid 90’s ski. I used to agonize over what ski to throw in truck (I don’t go back to car to ski 2 pairs/swap) so it was nice to solve that riddle for those in between days.

[vonn]

Next year's 106 is fun as shit. Redesigned to have a looser tail (more like the 118 / blank) and it's really quick. I have the maroon 106 and got a chance to ski them back to back; the difference between the two is crazy. If I can find the new one for a reasonable price next year I'll be skiing them a lot of days in the wasatch.

FWIW, I pull the 106 out now if it's a day when I'm pretty sure I'll be skiing some pow, but might be skiing some leftovers while we wait for pow to open, or it's dust on crust. In other words it's a ski that gets a good amount of time. The 118 is significantly better in pow, but is just not fun on groomers or firm chop (soft chop the 118 is a trampoline, which I love, and the new 106 is more like that). The 106 skis pow really well, and the new one skis it even better. Not as loose/surfy as the 118, but way looser than a Sheeva / Rustler 11. I think most of my laps on hike to terrain at Solitude (EGP, Fantasy) this year I was on the 106, so they handle steep techy terrain pretty well

I pretty much skied the 106 exclusively last season and it was great, but then with the way conditions were this year I was either skiing the Bonafides or something way bigger. Good to hear about the new 106 though, I'll keep an eye out. I was looking at the Candide 1.0 to replace the Bonafide since it's a little skinnier and more freestyle oriented, but saw they dropped the weight down by like a pound again - wack.

[TahoeJ]

For any conditions where you're mostly on firm snow (i.e. dust on crust, or just heavily skied off, compacted snow), I don't think midfats offer that much benefit. For conditions where it's soft-ish but not deep, midfats are great. They offer a floatier, smearier feel while still being competent on firmer skied off areas (and groomers).

+1 / end thread.

[plugboots]

My main BC ski is 106, (Praxis BC), and my main inbounds ski is 106, (Ripstick).

[yeahman]

I spent the past couple seasons experimenting with skipping the mid-fat category, skiing either 95 or 116, but this year I decided 95 is just too damn skinny for Western skiing and I want my skinniest ski to be 105-108. I can count on one finger the days I don't find some snow that benefits from some float, and lots of skis in the mid-fat range handle hardpack just fine.

[f=ma]

~108's are an ideal daily drivers for the PNW

[toast2266]

I spent the past couple seasons experimenting with skipping the mid-fat category, skiing either 95 or 116, but this year I decided 95 is just too damn skinny for Western skiing and I want my skinniest ski to be 105-108. I can count on one finger the days I don't find some snow that benefits from some float, and lots of skis in the mid-fat range handle hardpack just fine.

Yup, this.

I'm skiing on the skis that work well in the snow I'm trying to find. I only go with something skinnier when I'm 100% sure I'm not going to find it.

[EWG]

I'm skiing on the skis that work well in the snow I'm trying to find. I only go with something skinnier when I'm 100% sure I'm not going to find it.

These, right here, are words to live by.

[lrn2swim]

I've attempted to alleviate this problem by creating a quiver that consists of skis that are 102 (WrenTi), 108 (woods), 114 (Rustler), 122 (Hellbent), 124 (commander), 125 (Spur), and 131 (protest). All the bases pretty much covered for PNW snow.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Buzzworthy]

Impressive!

[plugboots]

A thing to remember is ski technology has come a long way. I think these mids that are being made today are torsionally way more rigid than earlier, so you can get away with the width.

[iriponsnow]

A thing to remember is ski technology has come a long way. I think these mids that are being made today are torsionally way more rigid than earlier, so you can get away with the width.

88 seems to be that magic width…. Planning on Kendos > race sticks next season.

[toast2266]

A thing to remember is ski technology has come a long way. I think these mids that are being made today are torsionally way more rigid than earlier, so you can get away with the width.

The skis are about the same. It's the snow that's better.

[plugboots]

It ain’t the horse, it’s the cowboy.

[wasatchback]

Everywhere in the world except TGR “mid fat” Is 84mm under foot.

[iriponsnow]

Everywhere in the world except TGR “mid fat” Is 84mm under foot.

Yup.

[TahoeJ]

Everywhere in the world except TGR “mid fat” Is 84mm under foot.

Except in like every ski magazine and at every ski resort in the West. That was maybe true 15 years ago.

[XXX-er]

turquiose is the new black

and lavender is the new turquoise

[BC.]

A mid fat on SkiTalk is like 70 underfoot…lol….those ol’ dudes love the “carving”.

88/98 seems to be the sweet spot for a “mid fat”.

If Moment made a C88 I’d be all in…..I’m on the fence of getting a new C98 or a Kendo 88…(based on Irip’s reviews) to compliment my Deathwish 112.

[Hood26]

I had a 98 and 116 quiver.

I added a 90 and a 108 and both of the other skis sat on the bench all year; with the 108 getting almost all the use. Only skied the 90s twice.

I sold the 116, bought (just) a 118 and put glacier wax on my 98s for summer skiing and rocky conditions.

So I guess, like others I am finding a 108 to be the perfect PNW ski for me.

[SoVT Joey]

My two skis I constantly rotate are a 107 and a 108. I don’t ski narrower unless I get on GS skis, which is rare. The 107 has a bunch of metal, the 108 doesn’t so they are perfect compliments to each other depending on snow conditions. I’ve skied probably 20 skis in the 90-100 range and found 108ish to be more versatile and just more fun. Wider skis can be more demanding on harder snow so they will punish bad technique and make some people tire more quickly, but if you are a powerful skier with aggressive angles that likes to stay on the skinny petal, then 100-110 category is a blast.

my 108 I wouldn’t hesitate to take as my one ski quiver to travel the US. Also both of my touring skis are a 107 and a 110.

[Duffman]

Except in like every ski magazine and at every ski resort in the West. That was maybe true 15 years ago.

Yep, that size was a "mid fat" when my OG 94 mantras were considered a "fat ski". Times definitely change.

[dcpnz]

I’ve gone down this path recently and I do not agree with many/most posters in this thread that espouse the virtues of the “North American MidFat”. Despite having a few options in the 105-108 range I don’t find them all that useful. I find I prefer my 100’s in most real world resort conditions here in CO as they’re more nimble and versatile yet float just fine in several inches. If the conditions warrant more than 100s I’ll take something 110+.
Of my ~120 days this year I think only 5 or 6 were on 105-108 skis and probably 50+ on the 100’s. There were maybe 1 or 2 days that I took 100s and wished for a little more but if my DD had been 107/8 there’d be a lot more days I’d have wished for skinnier.
Really makes me rethink the wisdom of having three pair in that range 105/107/108. Or maybe I just haven’t found the right ones yet and need to try more??

[toast2266]

I’ve gone down this path recently and I do not agree with many/most posters in this thread that espouse the virtues of the “North American MidFat”. Despite having a few options in the 105-108 range I don’t find them all that useful. I find I prefer my 100’s in most real world resort conditions here in CO as they’re more nimble and versatile yet float just fine in several inches. If the conditions warrant more than 100s I’ll take something 110+.
Of my ~120 days this year I think only 5 or 6 were on 105-108 skis and probably 50+ on the 100’s. There were maybe 1 or 2 days that I took 100s and wished for a little more but if my DD had been 107/8 there’d be a lot more days I’d have wished for skinnier.
Really makes me rethink the wisdom of having three pair in that range 105/107/108. Or maybe I just haven’t found the right ones yet and need to try more??

I think a lot of that is just Colorado snow / weather. An inch or two of light, dry snow on top of old compacted stuff skis better on a skinnier ski since the fresh snow isn't dense enough to offer any real float so you want to just cut through it and get an edge in the firm stuff. But in the PNW, an inch or two of high water content snow skis great on a ~108 width ski, even if it's pretty firm underneath.

[plugboots]

^^^Also the way that PNW snow bonds and softens the snow below it.