KillingtonZone.com

We are looking at demoing some fats if the conditions warrent this weekend...both my wife and i got fitted at Northern Ski Works on the Access Road...any suggestions?

Guns

You could try snowshed. This way you don't have to drive and take off your boots.

or Bear.

If the shops on mountain have good skis you can demo more than one pair throughout the day. Pick up a pair early, ski a cople hours and then try another pair. As stated, Bear or Snowshed have the shops.

I thought he was asking for ski recommedations... Oops

Stormchaser wrote:I thought he was asking for ski recommedations... Oops

No, but I am...
I've been demoing a lot and would appreciate recs for both frontside and pow/trees.

Keithus wrote:

Stormchaser wrote:I thought he was asking for ski recommedations... Oops

No, but I am...
I've been demoing a lot and would appreciate recs for both frontside and pow/trees.

I know you've already got Guns... What do you weigh? Guns are good for a pound a mm. They get squirrelly beyond that.

Any heavier than 185lbs, and Sollies just aint gonna cut it. Maybe try a Stockli Stormrider, Bro Model, Scott P4, Dynastar Legend XXL, Atomic Heli Daddy/Sugar Daddy, Rossi Bsquad104, Blizzard Titan 9... All good powder/crud busters.

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.

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.

ever hear of having more than one ski in your quiver?

SkiDork wrote:

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.

ever hear of having more than one ski in your quiver?

like...
170 volant chubb
185 scott aztec pro
175 scott aztec pro
193 head mojo 90
185 ogasaka GS
178 scott mission
162 atomic B-5
180 telistinx?
no never heard of a quiver.
please splain...

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!

Maybe if you are going to ski a 1 ski quiver, but I'm pretty sure Kiethus has joined the multi-ski team. WIde skis do have their place in the East. (And yes I learned to ski powder out west on 66mm 205's so I know narrow works too.)

Case in point.

A month ago I went skiing and caught a day with 6-8 inches on top of a thin breakable crust, with another 6 inches of unpacked below the crust. I had on 80mm underfoot and in the compression of the turn would break into the crust, and lock into RR tracks. Very bad, go boom. Tried it again, but it was very hard to feather the turn to avoid breaking into the crust. Also, of course the crust varied and surprised you. It was a fight.

Luckily I had a 2nd pair with me. I stepped onto the same length ski, only this time 98mm underfoot. Huge difference. Now I could turn with abandon, and put the hammer down. Huge fun. Skied the powder all day.

Case #2. Last week end at Killington, Sunday. I found an untracked fairly steep stash, and started out slow as it had a crust on it, a sort of wind driven sleet combo crust. I was on 85mm public enemys, and was cautious at first. It didn't take long to see I was getting enough float, and the skiis were punching/planing the crust. I was feeling the crust under the ski, and I wasn't sinking in deep enough to trip me up. Whole slabs slid down with me. Hard to say how a narrower ski would have done there, but when it works, you're glad you're on what you're on, knowwhatImean?

On groomed runs in the east I agree with you, the width is unnecessary, and the kawump kawump effect when going from edge to edge is a real price you pay to ski these. However there is no kawump in unpacked, and if you can do the quiver, its a nice tool to have. I'm sure the woods rats apreciate the extra float in the thin powder we usually get as well. Just get a parking spot close to the trail to swap em out when its all tracked out.

(K2 Apache Chiefs)

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...

Stormchaser wrote:

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?

b-5 wrote:

Stormchaser wrote:

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?

Sorry Bling, gotta go with Stormy on this, once you go fat, you never go back.
Peeps just don't spend all day snapping turns on the open trails anymore,
it's all about going all over, through everything, anywhere.
I agree with you, they're sluggish, but for all around versitility and over
all fun, love 'dem fats.