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

[Duffman]

Eyeballing end of season sales now to replace some older skis, and realize that for the past 10+ years I have been on a bunch of 96-100 mm everyday skis and then a 115 or up for a fresh / soft snow ski. Right now this is a Nordica Hell and Back at 98 and a Praxis Q or GPO ,with the Q being the choice these days. This choice is kind of a good compromise since I'm EC based with frequent trips out west, mostly to Utah. But what am I missing having never really used the classic all mountain mid fat from low 100s up to 108 or 110? Some of the newer ones look pretty tempting.

[pfluffenmeister]

I've also had a gap between 98 & 112 for years.
Maybe mid fats are good for one ski or travel ski?

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I don’t really see a difference between 108 and 112.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[toast2266]

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).

Where I ski (Montana), we have a lot of days with those soft-but-not-deep conditions. ~105mm waist is my daily driver. In the last decade, I've put maybe 10 days on a 9X waist ski. If it's too firm for my mid-fats, I'm on skinny carvers. But when I've gone and skied in Colorado (in fairly average conditions), I definitely wished I was on something in that 9X category.

[rfconroy]

Spent most of my days this season in the PNW on mid-fat skis (100-115): K2 Shreditor 102 (102), Moment Commander 108 (108), Bender 108Ti (108), Moment PB&J (101), 4FRNT Hoji (112), Line Vision 108 (108)


Overall, pretty well balanced of surfiness, carving and float for sub 8" storms. However, this is completely ski dependent. Case and point, the Rossignol Black Ops 118/Gamer can carve harder than other skis in the category when its nice and smooth, however the smaller widths begin to shine a tad more when conditions firm up/mogul up a tad more as its easier to pivot/roll the ski in rutted conditions.

If you're also looking for a do-it-all ski, that width area is perfect - and was pretty stoked on just about everything on that list above in 90% of conditions, with the standouts being the Shreditor and PB&J for resort, and the Hoji for touring.

[XXX-er]

I have a few 100-110 width skis in both touring and hill shredding which are all pretty versatile but I don't know how much difference you would notice unless you ski them back to back

What does Mid fat mean, you need some numbers to make it mean something ?

[Benneke10]

They are perfect in spring when conditions range from rock hard to deep slop.

[nickwm21]

My overly generalized opinion below.

For an inbounds western skier. 108 and 88 class skis are more valuable than a 98… 88 class skis excel on all forms of 2D snow. 108s excel in windbuff, crud, corn, IE the non-powder 3D snow you get at western resorts between storms. 98s can sometimes fall into the master of none category…

1 ski quiver = ~108 class
2 = ~98 class and ~115 (not ideal quiver IMO)
3 = ~88, ~108, superfat
4 = ~88, ~108, ~115, superfat (my current quiver)
5 = all of em….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[skaredshtles]

And here I was thinking a mid-fat was around 86mm in the waist.

Damn, I'm old.

[sierra_cement]

I've also had a gap between 98 & 112 for years.
Maybe mid fats are good for one ski or travel ski?

Same. And then I ended up getting a blemish pair of BC Atris on clearance just to see what I was missing. Conclusion: not much.

Always seems like a compromise width. Not that great for hardpack like the 98 and under, and also not as good float in the pow like 110 and above.

Mainly I use mine now for early season fresh snow days where I won't care if I hit rocks.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[XXX-er]

And here I was thinking a mid-fat was around 86mm in the waist.

Damn, I'm old.

whenever i see " Mid-fat " in my minds eye I see a review of a 70mm sumo in some magazine printed on real mofo'n paper that is no longer in business

which is why I always say you need to use numbers

[auvgeek]

Contrarian opinion: I ski most days on a 110 underfoot ski (ON3P Jeffrey 110). They're fun pretty much anytime the snow is reasonably soft. I have a pair of 96 underfoot skis -- had em for 3-4 years, skied them 0 times.* I also have several pairs of 118+ underfoot skis that come out on deeper days, but mostly I'm very happy at 110 underfoot. I actually sold my skinny spring touring ski for a ZG 105 because I decided I didn't want to ski anything narrower than about 100 underfoot. That could change moving forward, but that's my current thinking anyway.

If I lived on the east coast, I'd probably like a narrow ski for inbounds but I'm very happy at 108-110 underfoot for a daily driver. So I recommend you try a pair and see if they make sense for you or not.

*To be fair, if there's been no new snow in weeks, I'm likely touring.

[Duffman]

I have a few 100-110 width skis in both touring and hill shredding which are all pretty versatile but I don't know how much difference you would notice unless you ski them back to back

What does Mid fat mean, you need some numbers to make it mean something ?

I guess my made up definition of a Mid Fat is that 102-108 width. Just curious as I've always used and traveled with a 2 ski quiver at 94 (old red Mantra back in the day) to 100 , then a 115 or up ski, and really havent had the chance to try this width range, despite its popularity .

[PeachesNCream]

Most days here are usually soft snow with 2-5" and hunting for pockets of deeper. A 108ish ski convers these conditions really well. If it's hard, I usually tour, if its deep, 115+, but for 80% of days 108ish does really well. Then spring comes along and a 108ish ski can be a real fun slush ski.

[Duffman]

Contrarian opinion: I ski most days on a 110 underfoot ski (ON3P Jeffrey 110). They're fun pretty much anytime the snow is reasonably soft. I have a pair of 96 underfoot skis -- had em for 3-4 years, skied them 0 times.* I also have several pairs of 118+ underfoot skis that come out on deeper days, but mostly I'm very happy at 110 underfoot. I actually sold my skinny spring touring ski for a ZG 105 because I decided I didn't want to ski anything narrower than about 100 underfoot. That could change moving forward, but that's my current thinking anyway.

If I lived on the east coast, I'd probably like a narrow ski for inbounds but I'm very happy at 108-110 underfoot for a daily driver. So I recommend you try a pair and see if they make sense for you or not.

*To be fair, if there's been no new snow in weeks, I'm likely touring.

This all makes sense too, and as everyone knows the correct number of skis is always N+1. I have actually taken only the Praxis Q or GPO at 118 and 116 underfoot alone and used it as my only ski in LCC while we were traveling with a 6 month old and had too much other baby gear with us to bring more than one ski bag. It works fine as long as things are remotely soft, just gets tiring in bumps and groomers and such when no soft or fresh or corn is around. This is where I can see the appeal of something a little more manageable in width

[Duffman]

whenever i see " Mid-fat " in my minds eye I see a review of a 70mm sumo in some magazine printed on real mofo'n paper that is no longer in business

which is why I always say you need to use numbers

Ha I had the Rossi Bandit X (foam core noodle that it was) that was considered a "mid fat" at 70mm. Damn Im old

[vonn]

Trying to decide between pitching some QST106s or Bonafides and this thread isn't helping! Maybe 92mm and 112mm isn't such a bad split after all.

[EWG]

My overly generalized opinion below.

For an inbounds western skier. 108 and 88 class skis are more valuable than a 98… 88 class skis excel on all forms of 2D snow. 108s excel in windbuff, crud, corn, IE the non-powder 3D snow you get at western resorts between storms. 98s can sometimes fall into the master of none category…

1 ski quiver = ~108 class
2 = ~98 class and ~115 (not ideal quiver IMO)
3 = ~88, ~108, superfat
4 = ~88, ~108, ~115, superfat (my current quiver)
5 = all of em….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

This is pretty accurate. I'm in the rockies (SLC, CO, some WY) and 108 is the perfect blend of soft/crud/cut up/chop handling while still being able to handle fresh as well as carving just fine. So if I could have only one it would be this, and the 108 is taken out on at least 50% of my days. That said, my current quiver is the same as Nick's #4 above - 92/108/114. Might be looking to add a 102 to fill in the gap, but happy where I am. I only choose the 92 when all that's open is groomers or real hardpack. I actually even prefer the 108s on bumps.

[Duffman]

Trying to decide between pitching some QST106s or Bonafides and this thread isn't helping! Maybe 92mm and 112mm isn't such a bad split after all.

Yeah, total end of season boredom over analysis by me. I've been mostly happy with the 94-100 then 115-120 quiver, but after a few days of pushing the big boys around in a row, the smaller 98 underfoot is a big step down in soft chop and crud performance. That's the main downside

[chicken feathers]

One thing you might be missing is skiing spring conditions on a ski like this. Mid fats are a blast in corn, bumps, and slush. Especially if they are full rocker.

[abraham]

Yeah, total end of season boredom over analysis by me. I've been mostly happy with the 94-100 then 115-120 quiver, but after a few days of pushing the big boys around in a row, the smaller 98 underfoot is a big step down in soft chop and crud performance. That's the main downside

If you like the gpo the mfree 108 felt surprisingly similar. Though based on what I've seen they may take over as your daily driver.

[DigSki]

Trying to decide between pitching some QST106s or Bonafides and this thread isn't helping! Maybe 92mm and 112mm isn't such a bad split after all.

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

[nickinbc]

And here I was thinking a mid-fat was around 86mm in the waist.

Damn, I'm old.

Heck, I remember when 86mm waist was considered a full fat ski.

[XXX-er]

Now days I think of Mid-Fat as an overfed dentist on TGR

[Jason4]

I spent most of my time this year on skis that were 106 underfoot. My other options were Bentchetler 120s and Hagan Boost 94s. The Wunderstick 106s worked well enough for me that I'm going to switch my touring bindings over to those and pick up a couple of new skis for lifts (probably Hemispheres 112s and something closer to 100 underfoot). I have a surprising number of skis for being a snowboarder...

Edit: Forgot to mention that I'm usually skiing at Baker, the ski area or the volcano. Most of my lift laps this season were on skis and most of my touring was on a splitboard.