Is it better to size up or down with fat skis?

[skiHOG]

If you're stuck in between sizes what do you do? I'm a little worried about ordering the wrong size because these will be my first pair of skis wider than 85cm under the foot. I'm a pretty small guy to begin with, 5'9", 150lbs.

[Z]

If you're stuck in between sizes what do you do? I'm a little worried about ordering the wrong size because these will be my first pair of skis wider than 85cm under the foot. I'm a pretty small guy to begin with, 5'9", 150lbs.

Step 1: Take the bigger size.
Step 2: Ski faster.

[iskibc]

Bigger is better.

[skiHOG]

i just don't want bigger to be too big and it hinder my ability to control the skis. I'm even doubting getting skis this wide(100mm) b/c I'm such a small person that I don't need a lot of surface area to provide good float. But, everyone always talks shit about how you don't know what you're missing by not using super fat skis.

[Yossarian]

what ski? And for what use? Backcountry? Go shorter. Big open terrain and alpine binders? Go long.

[skiHOG]

what ski? And for what use? Backcountry? Go shorter. Big open terrain and alpine binders? Go long.

Ideally, use them both for backcountry and lift served terrain. Looking back the last couple seasons I am right at 60/40 with the number of days I do each.

[Yossarian]

what ski are you talking about, in particular? And where are you? CO?

[skiHOG]

what ski are you talking about, in particular? And where are you? CO?

right in your neck of the woods, I believe. Right now it's looking like I will try out the Prophets. The Seth Vicious is still an option though. I am waiting until I see all the '07 skis before I order.

[Z]

Well, my response was not very informative, per usual....

I would say if you have any desire to ski faster and bring your game to the next level (er something) then go bigger. Yeah, your skis may ski you for a few days, but once you get on top of em you won't regret it. Shorter will be more user friendly right off the bat, but if you are trying to push it then you will outgrow em....

[skiHOG]

Well, my response was not very informative, per usual....

I would say if you have any desire to ski faster and bring your game to the next level (er something) then go bigger. Yeah, your skis may ski you for a few days, but once you get on top of em you won't regret it. Shorter will be more user friendly right off the bat, but if you are trying to push it then you will outgrow em....

thank you, that's probably what i needed. i definately feel that my skiing needs and can progress to the next level. Just a little unsure about the combination of the longer ski as well as significantly wider ski all at once. Still doubting myself about getting such a wide ski(at least to me).

[Yossarian]

Despite the Marshals, Lemon Boys, Zs, and others who reside in the Enternal Sunshine of their Badass Minds , I'd generally recommend going "shorter" for CO + some backcountry. As you know, here in CO, we have trees, and the best snow is often in them, so I'm in favor of a very wide, medium length ski.

That said...it also depends what you're thinking about specifically. All skis are not created equal.

You're thinking Prophet 100s? 172cm vs. 179cm? I'd vote 179cm. They're not stiff, and ~180cm should be short enough for a 5'9" CO guy with a backpack on.

Seth Vicious - 179cm should be about right. 189cm too long for you for CO backcountry use, in my feeble opinion.

Another option or two:

Sugar Daddy at 183cm 99mm. You could probably just get away with the 173cm, as this is somewhat stiff underfoot (but soft in the tip), but you might want longer inbounds on open slopes with pow. The 183cms are extremely manageable though, and very light (foam core, but a solid one), and as Z points out, will give you something to grow into. I love this ski.

BroModel 179cm 99mm. Light, fun, perfect backcountry CO ski. And not too spendy, relatively speaking. Similar to the Sugar Daddy, but will ski a little shorter and has a more even rounder flex.

[skiHOG]

Despite the Marshals, Lemon Boys, Zs, and others who reside in the Enternal Sunshine of their Badass Minds , I'd generally recommend going "shorter" for CO + some backcountry. As you know, here in CO, we have trees, and the best snow is often in them, so I'm in favor of a very wide, medium length ski.

That said...it also depends what you're thinking about specifically. All skis are not created equal.

You're thinking Prophet 100s? 172cm vs. 179cm? I'd vote 179cm. They're not stiff, and ~180cm should be short enough for a 5'9" CO guy with a backpack on.

Seth Vicious - 179cm should be about right. 189cm too long for you for CO backcountry use, in my feeble opinion.

Another option or two:

Sugar Daddy at 183cm 99mm. You could probably just get away with the 173cm, as this is somewhat stiff underfoot (but soft in the tip), but you might want longer inbounds on open slopes with pow. The 183cms are extremely manageable though, and very light (foam core, but a solid one), and as Z points out, will give you something to grow into. I love this ski.

BroModel 179cm 99mm. Light, fun, perfect backcountry CO ski. And not too spendy, relatively speaking. Similar to the Sugar Daddy, but will ski a little shorter and has a more even rounder flex.

Yea, I need my tree skiing time so that's why I have liked my shorter skis in the past. The Bro Model is still in the mix, I just wonder if I am worthy of such a ski. Everyone talks so highly of it, and they all seem to be pretty badass on the snow. It might all just be bullshit, who knows.

[Yossarian]

Yea, I need my tree skiing time so that's why I have liked my shorter skis in the past. The Bro Model is still in the mix, I just wonder if I am worthy of such a ski. Everyone talks so highly of it, and they all seem to be pretty badass on the snow. It might all just be bullshit, who knows.

Nah, the 179 is a great choice for you. 5'9" 150 lbs for CO conditions (not super deep, lots of trees) and backcountry? Perfect. I would strongly consider it, assuming I've got the general range right.

Unless you were thinking of the 170cmish stuff as the short option, and the 180cmish stuff as the long option, in which case I vote with the rest - go long.

Without having seen ya ski, I'm (obviously) saying 179cm +/- long and 99mm +/- wide. Seth, Bro, Prophet at 179 all good choices. Of the three, the Bro will be the lightest, and will have the least twin tip, I think, which is better for skinning...

And hey, how do you know they're not badass because of the ski, and not the other way around?

[skiHOG]

Nah, the 179 is a great choice for you. 5'9" 150 lbs for CO conditions (not super deep, lots of trees) and backcountry? Perfect. I would strongly consider it, assuming I've got the general range right.

Unless you were thinking of the 170cmish stuff as the short option, and the 180cmish stuff as the long option, in which case I vote with the rest - go long.

Without having seen ya ski, I'm (obviously) saying 179cm +/- long and 99mm +/- wide. Seth, Bro, Prophet at 179 all good choices. Of the three, the Bro will be the lightest, and will have the least twin tip, I think, which is better for skinning...

that would definately make it a lot easier without having to wait to see what the '07 lineup will bring.

And hey, how do you know they're not badass because of the ski, and not the other way around?

you make a good point.

on a side note, what's the deal with the soft vs. stiff? i mean, i read the descriptions and those both sound pretty good to me.

[mountain_man]

I ski the 179 Seth which is extremly manoverable at any speed excluding fast speeds however on varable snow it can get hairy but with time you get used to it. I highly recomend this ski as i found the flex (5'8'', 170lbs) really noce, althought dont be put off as the ski seems to be 'too' soft as it skis stiffer due to the flex curve. I skied it for 30days straight in CO the past winter (what a winter it was) in bounds most of the time and a few BC outings (but nothing too serious, as i dont have any avvy equip as its not needed in Aus). Just like countless others have said the Bro is a great option and @ the Stiff flex it would proform better almountain than the soft. That all being said im looking into trading up my Seths to a bigger ski or possibly a 189 Seth Vicious as i really love the ski that much. Those are just my thoughts but in the end all the skis you have suggested sound great and YES FAT IS THE MUCH BETTER. Nick

[marshalolson]

Despite the Marshals, Lemon Boys, Zs, and others who reside in the Enternal Sunshine of their Badass Minds ,

sounds like someone is a little jealous.

[Yossarian]

sounds like someone is a little jealous.

A *little* jealous? More like a LOT jealous.

[real9999]

that would definately make it a lot easier without having to wait to see what the '07 lineup will bring.

What are you waiting for? Specs on almost all '07 skis are already available.

[cmsummit]

go BIG
or go home.

[Dexter Rutecki]

If you don't have 200 cm of ski under you, you might as well give it up and buy the snowlerblades.

[strawjack]

short skis still suck!

[skiHOG]

What are you waiting for? Specs on almost all '07 skis are already available.

i have specs for line, K2, and salomon. where are some more?

[bossass]

I can't believe nobody threw out the 183 Gotama yet.

Probably the most desired production fat of the last few years, skis shorter than the length (so, more like a 177), kills pow and crud alike, best resale value, 105 underfoot (yet very lively and carvable).

I recommend mounting ahead of the freeride line a cm or two, for even more manueverablity and the fact that the FR line is waaay far back on these.

[Below Zero]

Do not be afraid to buy some fatter and longer skis. You need to go faster!

I can let you try my 183 sugar daddies if you like.

[Edit: forgot the most important word.]

[skiHOG]

Do be afraid to buy some fatter and longer skis. You need to go faster!

I can let you try my 183 sugar daddies if you like

hmmmm....where? i've heard good things about the sugar daddies, would love to try them out, but using them on sun baked leftovers in july is probably not the best conditions to really see what they're truly like.