b-5 wrote:fat skis are a waste of money for any East coast skier, here me out..I am down at flatton at the EWRSA on snow demo.
The conversation/ hot topic is "Why do East Coast skiers need a ski with a waist over 75mm"?
If you are skiing fresh snow that is boot top or over, every day or every time you visit your Fav New England resort then, yeah they are a good buy.
But if you are not then you have fallen for the latest marketing trend ever sold to unsupecting East Coast skiers.
If you go longer and stick with a mid fat then you will have a better time than a skier that has to have the latest "trend" ski.
Face it if you have made the switch from a ski with less than a 70 mm under foot to a ski with a 80+mm under foot one of the first things you will find is that the skis are slower to get up on edge and might feel sluggish to Crank out turns.
i have noticed that you have to really jump on them to crank out carved turns on trails that are typicaly found on the east coast.
(but that is the way I ski).
So i you Must Have the latest Trend ski, then you better start praying real hard for powder!
good mid fats Atomic nomads
head monster 78
and GO Longer that what you have been skiing on!
I am talking 15-20+ Cm.
I don't really ski anything under a 85mm waist, and my two primary ICE skis are 85 and 91 mm at the waist. I've been skiing 80+mm skis on hardpack for about 5 years now, wway before it was popular.
You must suck....
"I'M YELLING BECAUSE YOU DID SOMETHING COOL!" - Humpty Dumpty
"Kzone should bill you for the bandwidth you waste writing novels to try and prove a point, but end up just looking like a deranged narcissistic fool." - Deadheadskier at madhatter
"The key is to not be lame, and know it, and not give a rat's @$$ what anybody thinks......that's real cool." - Highway Star http://goo.gl/xJxo34" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"I am one of the coolest people on the internet..." - Highway Star
"I have a tiny penis...." - C-Rex
XtremeJibber2001 - THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA HAS YOU COMPLETELY HYPNOTIZED. PLEASE WAKE UP AND LEARN HOW TO FILTER REALITY FROM BS NARRATIVES.
"Your life is only interesting when you capture the best, fakest, most curated split second version." - Team Robot regarding Instagram posters
b-5 wrote:fat skis are a waste of money for any East coast skier, here me out..I am down at flatton at the EWRSA on snow demo.
The conversation/ hot topic is "Why do East Coast skiers need a ski with a waist over 75mm"?
If you are skiing fresh snow that is boot top or over, every day or every time you visit your Fav New England resort then, yeah they are a good buy.
But if you are not then you have fallen for the latest marketing trend ever sold to unsupecting East Coast skiers.
If you go longer and stick with a mid fat then you will have a better time than a skier that has to have the latest "trend" ski.
Face it if you have made the switch from a ski with less than a 70 mm under foot to a ski with a 80+mm under foot one of the first things you will find is that the skis are slower to get up on edge and might feel sluggish to Crank out turns.
i have noticed that you have to really jump on them to crank out carved turns on trails that are typicaly found on the east coast.
(but that is the way I ski).
So i you Must Have the latest Trend ski, then you better start praying real hard for powder!
good mid fats Atomic nomads
head monster 78
and GO Longer that what you have been skiing on!
I am talking 15-20+ Cm.
Some of us get plenty of non-Eastern days every year. I like being able to toss one pair of boards in the ski bag and hop on an airplane knowing they'll be fine on anything I see that doesn't require a snorkel. I lug some super-wide heli-ski boards for that condition when I'm on long trips. Most trips, they never come out of the ski bag.
The way I look at it, if the conditions are crappy enough that my 84mm waist everyday skis don't have enough grip, I probably will be drinking in the bar. For me, losing another 50 lbs beyond the 50 I have lost since August 1st will have much more impact on edge-to-edge quickness than going narrower. If you aren't a fat bastard, YMMV.
b-5 wrote:fat skis are a waste of money for any East coast skier, here me out..I am down at flatton at the EWRSA on snow demo.
The conversation/ hot topic is "Why do East Coast skiers need a ski with a waist over 75mm"?
If you are skiing fresh snow that is boot top or over, every day or every time you visit your Fav New England resort then, yeah they are a good buy.
But if you are not then you have fallen for the latest marketing trend ever sold to unsupecting East Coast skiers.
If you go longer and stick with a mid fat then you will have a better time than a skier that has to have the latest "trend" ski.
Face it if you have made the switch from a ski with less than a 70 mm under foot to a ski with a 80+mm under foot one of the first things you will find is that the skis are slower to get up on edge and might feel sluggish to Crank out turns.
i have noticed that you have to really jump on them to crank out carved turns on trails that are typicaly found on the east coast.
(but that is the way I ski).
So i you Must Have the latest Trend ski, then you better start praying real hard for powder!
good mid fats Atomic nomads
head monster 78
and GO Longer that what you have been skiing on!
I am talking 15-20+ Cm.
I don't really ski anything under a 85mm waist, and my two primary ICE skis are 85 and 91 mm at the waist. I've been skiing 80+mm skis on hardpack for about 5 years now, wway before it was popular.
You must suck....
I must suck...?
If so then you are a retard go back and read what is in my quiver and get back to me on under foot sizing.
The conversation that was had was between ski reps and some hard core skiers.
Some better than me some not.
I do respect your opinion when it comes to ski area layouts.
and I have even defended your skiing style.
but there is no way that I suck.
Hyway i am going to say that you better read the whole thread b4 you call someone something that they are not.
I find that the Salomon X Wing Tornado 2006 works well for East Coast Hard pack and East Cost Powder. I believe they are 75 under foot. I will be using them in Tahoe in March.
Nikoli wrote:I find that the Salomon X Wing Tornado 2006 works well for East Coast Hard pack and East Cost Powder. I believe they are 75 under foot. I will be using them in Tahoe in March.
...and demoing the second day cuz you cant stay on top of the sierra cement...
Nikoli wrote:I find that the Salomon X Wing Tornado 2006 works well for East Coast Hard pack and East Cost Powder. I believe they are 75 under foot. I will be using them in Tahoe in March.
...and demoing the second day cuz you cant stay on top of the sierra cement...
b-5 wrote:fat skis are a waste of money for any East coast skier, here me out..I am down at flatton at the EWRSA on snow demo.
The conversation/ hot topic is "Why do East Coast skiers need a ski with a waist over 75mm"?
If you are skiing fresh snow that is boot top or over, every day or every time you visit your Fav New England resort then, yeah they are a good buy.
But if you are not then you have fallen for the latest marketing trend ever sold to unsupecting East Coast skiers.
If you go longer and stick with a mid fat then you will have a better time than a skier that has to have the latest "trend" ski.
Face it if you have made the switch from a ski with less than a 70 mm under foot to a ski with a 80+mm under foot one of the first things you will find is that the skis are slower to get up on edge and might feel sluggish to Crank out turns.
i have noticed that you have to really jump on them to crank out carved turns on trails that are typicaly found on the east coast.
(but that is the way I ski).
So i you Must Have the latest Trend ski, then you better start praying real hard for powder!
good mid fats Atomic nomads
head monster 78
and GO Longer that what you have been skiing on!
I am talking 15-20+ Cm.
Powder is always out there to be found. Ripping on groomers gets old too fast. Since I made the switch from a 70mm waist to a 90mm waist, I've fallen in love with fat skis. But I'm a tree rat, not a racer.
Like the ladies all tell me, it aint about the length, its about the girth...
pish-posh!
so b4 the advent of fat skis what did you do, stay at home watching porno and fireing off a knuckle baby on powder days?
or are you saying that racers only ski on the groomers....come on stormy that is pure bull dinky!
and whats with this lame statement"like the ladies all tell me, it aint about the length, its about the girth..."
if you knew any thing about what rings a womans bell(g-spot)
you would know that it's all about friction!
hey now...
hey you been using that belt sander on your bases?
Hey man, my quiver runs from 60mm waists to 110mm. What makes me smile, 90+. Keep coming back, no matter how hard i try everything else. Suits my style, what can I tell you.
Anyone for MRG tomorrow? Heading up to K tonight with a small posse.
it is the skier not the ski.
am I right here?
on the other hand the right tool does the job right...demo and have fun.
fat skis are use full in spring mush when the snowboarders are laughing at us skiers.
I go with a mm a lb. Step it up 5-10mm for experience. Softs will be easier to handle in the trees, bumps, pow. Stiffs better in crud, groomed, mach looniness. For your weight, you could probably handle something longer, but if you are more comfortable with the 174 length, stiffs are probably more appropriate. All kind of a guess, I don't know your style or ability. Softs more forgiving, stiffs require some agressiveness.
Do you know your boot sole length? Ur welcome to try mine out... U won't find a shop to demo them.
I go with a mm a lb. Step it up 5-10mm for experience. Softs will be easier to handle in the trees, bumps, pow. Stiffs better in crud, groomed, mach looniness. For your weight, you could probably handle something longer, but if you are more comfortable with the 174 length, stiffs are probably more appropriate. All kind of a guess, I don't know your style or ability. Softs more forgiving, stiffs require some agressiveness.
Do you know your boot sole length? Ur welcome to try mine out... U won't find a shop to demo them.
27.5
I would love to try them out. One question I have is are the light weight? Maybe I will be able to demo a pair in Tahoe?
b-5 wrote:fat skis are a waste of money for any East coast skier, here me out..I am down at flatton at the EWRSA on snow demo.
The conversation/ hot topic is "Why do East Coast skiers need a ski with a waist over 75mm"?
If you are skiing fresh snow that is boot top or over, every day or every time you visit your Fav New England resort then, yeah they are a good buy.
But if you are not then you have fallen for the latest marketing trend ever sold to unsupecting East Coast skiers.
If you go longer and stick with a mid fat then you will have a better time than a skier that has to have the latest "trend" ski.
Face it if you have made the switch from a ski with less than a 70 mm under foot to a ski with a 80+mm under foot one of the first things you will find is that the skis are slower to get up on edge and might feel sluggish to Crank out turns.
i have noticed that you have to really jump on them to crank out carved turns on trails that are typicaly found on the east coast.
(but that is the way I ski).
So i you Must Have the latest Trend ski, then you better start praying real hard for powder!
good mid fats Atomic nomads
head monster 78
and GO Longer that what you have been skiing on!
I am talking 15-20+ Cm.
I don't really ski anything under a 85mm waist, and my two primary ICE skis are 85 and 91 mm at the waist. I've been skiing 80+mm skis on hardpack for about 5 years now, wway before it was popular.
You must suck....
I must suck...?
If so then you are a retard go back and read what is in my quiver and get back to me on under foot sizing.
The conversation that was had was between ski reps and some hard core skiers.
Some better than me some not.
I do respect your opinion when it comes to ski area layouts.
and I have even defended your skiing style.
but there is no way that I suck.
Hyway i am going to say that you better read the whole thread b4 you call someone something that they are not.
I'm not impressed by your quiver, but that's another discussion.
Anyway, those guys don't know what the heck they are talking about. Granted, skiing ice on 90mm waist skis isn't for everyone, but 85-90mm is quite certainly the optimal width for all around skiing on softER snow. IE. when it isn't pure hardpack or boilerplate. Crud, mank, and packed trees, it doesn't have to be pow. If someont purely skis groomers, then by all means they should be on a groomer ski....keeps them from screwing up the good lines....!
"I'M YELLING BECAUSE YOU DID SOMETHING COOL!" - Humpty Dumpty
"Kzone should bill you for the bandwidth you waste writing novels to try and prove a point, but end up just looking like a deranged narcissistic fool." - Deadheadskier at madhatter
"The key is to not be lame, and know it, and not give a rat's @$$ what anybody thinks......that's real cool." - Highway Star http://goo.gl/xJxo34" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"I am one of the coolest people on the internet..." - Highway Star
"I have a tiny penis...." - C-Rex
XtremeJibber2001 - THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA HAS YOU COMPLETELY HYPNOTIZED. PLEASE WAKE UP AND LEARN HOW TO FILTER REALITY FROM BS NARRATIVES.
"Your life is only interesting when you capture the best, fakest, most curated split second version." - Team Robot regarding Instagram posters
I go with a mm a lb. Step it up 5-10mm for experience. Softs will be easier to handle in the trees, bumps, pow. Stiffs better in crud, groomed, mach looniness. For your weight, you could probably handle something longer, but if you are more comfortable with the 174 length, stiffs are probably more appropriate. All kind of a guess, I don't know your style or ability. Softs more forgiving, stiffs require some agressiveness.
Do you know your boot sole length? Ur welcome to try mine out... U won't find a shop to demo them.
27.5
I would love to try them out. One question I have is are the light weight? Maybe I will be able to demo a pair in Tahoe?
Silly, that is the boot size. The SOLE length is imprinted on the boot and is Milli Meters. Look at your boot , side or bottom and you will find a number like 285 (small) or 370 (big).
I go with a mm a lb. Step it up 5-10mm for experience. Softs will be easier to handle in the trees, bumps, pow. Stiffs better in crud, groomed, mach looniness. For your weight, you could probably handle something longer, but if you are more comfortable with the 174 length, stiffs are probably more appropriate. All kind of a guess, I don't know your style or ability. Softs more forgiving, stiffs require some agressiveness.
Do you know your boot sole length? Ur welcome to try mine out... U won't find a shop to demo them.
27.5
I would love to try them out. One question I have is are the light weight? Maybe I will be able to demo a pair in Tahoe?
You might find a pair in Tahoe. If you're really interested, join the tgr board and pm splat. he is an owner at pm gear. he could tell you were to demo, or how to borrow a pair.
There's probably enough adjustment in my bindings for you to test em out. for their lenght, theyre incredibly light. lighter than my 169 public enemies... Holler next time you are at K.
b-5 wrote:fat skis are a waste of money for any East coast skier, here me out..I am down at flatton at the EWRSA on snow demo.
The conversation/ hot topic is "Why do East Coast skiers need a ski with a waist over 75mm"?
If you are skiing fresh snow that is boot top or over, every day or every time you visit your Fav New England resort then, yeah they are a good buy.
But if you are not then you have fallen for the latest marketing trend ever sold to unsupecting East Coast skiers.
If you go longer and stick with a mid fat then you will have a better time than a skier that has to have the latest "trend" ski.
Face it if you have made the switch from a ski with less than a 70 mm under foot to a ski with a 80+mm under foot one of the first things you will find is that the skis are slower to get up on edge and might feel sluggish to Crank out turns.
i have noticed that you have to really jump on them to crank out carved turns on trails that are typicaly found on the east coast.
(but that is the way I ski).
So i you Must Have the latest Trend ski, then you better start praying real hard for powder!
good mid fats Atomic nomads
head monster 78
and GO Longer that what you have been skiing on!
I am talking 15-20+ Cm.
I don't really ski anything under a 85mm waist, and my two primary ICE skis are 85 and 91 mm at the waist. I've been skiing 80+mm skis on hardpack for about 5 years now, wway before it was popular.
You must suck....
I must suck...?
If so then you are a retard go back and read what is in my quiver and get back to me on under foot sizing.
Some better than me some not.
I do respect your opinion when it comes to ski area layouts.
and I have even defended your skiing style.
but there is no way that I suck.
Hyway i am going to say that you better read the whole thread b4 you call someone something that they are not.
Oh yeah, suck on this too while you're at it....
"I'M YELLING BECAUSE YOU DID SOMETHING COOL!" - Humpty Dumpty
"Kzone should bill you for the bandwidth you waste writing novels to try and prove a point, but end up just looking like a deranged narcissistic fool." - Deadheadskier at madhatter
"The key is to not be lame, and know it, and not give a rat's @$$ what anybody thinks......that's real cool." - Highway Star http://goo.gl/xJxo34" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"I am one of the coolest people on the internet..." - Highway Star
"I have a tiny penis...." - C-Rex
XtremeJibber2001 - THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA HAS YOU COMPLETELY HYPNOTIZED. PLEASE WAKE UP AND LEARN HOW TO FILTER REALITY FROM BS NARRATIVES.
"Your life is only interesting when you capture the best, fakest, most curated split second version." - Team Robot regarding Instagram posters
