Sooo…while surfing the inter-webz both in the past and more recently, I’ve read some chatter about how fat skis might contribute to more avalanches, since they produce less skier compaction of the snow. At first I was skeptical, but after thinking about it more, I guess I can see how it might be true. Many ski resorts and backcountry areas rely actual skiers to make the slopes less dangerous, but ultra-wide fat skis might not be be able to keep up with the epic dumps the west has been receiving lately.
I do think a big part of this theory relies on how fat, “fat” is and how much snow is being compacted. I think skis in the 100mm range still offer a good amount of snow compaction, where as skis 110mm and wider seem to really get the skier up and out of the snow more. And in relation to snow depth, obviously if your skis are into the snow about 6”…and there is only 6” of snow, then there is plenty of compaction going on. And who really cares about avalanches with only 6” of snow anyway. 
So what do you think? Let’s say two 100’ wide, 40° slopes with similar aspects and HIGH avalanche danger, get pounded by 12 inches of snow for 3 straight days, On each day, 10 skiers ski each slope. On one slope, none of the skiers has skis wider than 90mm, on the other…all greater than 110mm. Up walks a jonny-redcoat and throws a charge on each slope. Do you think they will react differently? I do!
Support TetonAT check out what’s hot at Tramdock.com.
The 90mm waisted skiers are more likely to compact, because they are more likely to turn…
but also more likely to ski cut the whole slope and trigger the avi as they re loading the slope more.. i guess
Consider also that a fatter, longer ski might act as a better bridge for the weight of the skier on the snowpack, making a trigger less likely (hypothetical).
and those of us on really fat skis make few turns (if any), putting less stress on the slope. so, perhaps a better consideration is that if you ski on skinny skis, don’t ski slopes that are frequented by fatties…
I see a lot of "200(+)lbs aggressive skier" posts on TGR. With marker bindings and freeride boots many are probably closer to 230+. Should be enough for to build up some force together with high speed turns
On a more serious note I think at 10 skiers per day it’s not so much about compression (as in average weight per cubic unit) but prevention of tension within a layer of snow, to break up big potential slabs.
Another issue is that a skinny ski might trigger a slab that might not have happend using a fatter one. There are just too many variables.
i am no physicist but it seems like deeper cut (i.e. skinnier) might result in greater probability to activate weak layers. i understand the logic behind a fatter ski resulting in more snow compaction but it also seems like a fatter ski might let you just float on by..
i wonder about a deep cutting, tele-turn versus a fluffy alpine turn. that’s where i bet you’d see greater interaction/impact to a ski slope…
my 2c.
j
For inbounds use, I would think once you get beyond getting the initial snowpack stomped down in the early season I can’t imagine skier compression really results in that much solidifying of the snowpack, or at least not enough to the extent that the difference between an 88mm waisted ski and a 125mm waisted is going to save or kill us all. I would think frequency of compression would play a much larger role.
Now for BC use, it would seem that a fatter or longer plank would load the slope less and bridge better than a smaller ski. I’ve been the biggest skier (bigger than you, regardless of who you is) in a group and also riding the skinniest skis in the group (Kilowatts) and triggered a slide where four other guys just skied. I may have been the straw that broke the camels back but why not be as light a straw in terms of psi as possible. At least that’s how I convinced my wife I needed new fat skis (she rolled her eyes knowing it was going to happen anyways). Safer travel on borderline snow (in theory) and more fun (float and speed) on lower angle slopes when things are sketchy.
It’s all an interesting debate that’s probably best done when well lubricated so we can start talking in absolutes and guaranteeing stuff to each other but internet anonymity often seems to have the same effect.
Skier compaction is a myth. Several well-respected avy professionals have told me so. All it does is speed up the rate at which a soft slab becomes a hard slab. Anyone who witnessed the inbounds slides-to-the-ground in Utah this past storm cycle will realize that a highly compacted slope is still unstable if it has a persistent weak layer and is overloaded by new snow.
Therefore, ski width is irrelevant since compaction isn’t a cure for a crappy snowpack structure. As a result I will continue to unapologetically use my fat turkeys.
I think a key lesson here is that we should all try to ski with Ryan… and let him go first.
With respect to the fatties (skis, that is), there may also be another factor: people who get fat skis are more likely to spend more time on untracked snow (in-bounds or out). So it’s not necessarily valid to assume that you have the same number of ski tracks with fat or skinny skis. More fat skis could mean more off-piste laps and more effect on the snow.
I just bought some megawatts online - thanks BD + Steve, your web-site helps me decide!
okay…so maybe skinny skis cause more avalanches because they cut into the snow deeper? or do they stabilize the snow more because they cut into the snow more? hard to say.
I like to bust out my 130s tomorrow…follow a Goymertrac up Maverick (not the wave titled Mavericks which is somewhere in CA, not WY)… do a few laps and ponder the conundrum you’ve put forth above…
sounds like a darn good idea d…except that Goymertrac is so damn low angle.
This topic is a quite a stretch.
lets see some ski reports from the tetons.
The angle doesn’t seem so low 10 hours into the day or 60000 feet into the week..
I’d vote for the fat ski bridging theory. Same goes for snow bridges over crevasses and questionable jackson lake ice - you’re less likely to bust through into the shit, the load is spread.
That, and don’t fall. Doesn’t matter what size skis you’re on if you decide to make a slope testing bomb out of yourself.
Avy center reports a 2 foot slab low on Maverick. I don’t trust the pin placement on their google map. Didn’t see anything when I left at 12:30. I can make a good guess where it was, but did anyone see it?
i hear you tony…i’d rather follow your track than break a new one…that’s for sure.
didn’t see the slide on maverick…looks like one or the gullies. good thing that’s to where the good skiing is.
Brian with an “i”, your comment almost had my morning smoothie coming out my nose.
I’m what I like to describe as an “athletic” 270lbs. (came from football) and everyone in my party were miniature (normal size) on Megawatts and Justices.
Clearly there is no concensus on fat vs. skinny on compaction. We should all go out and ski for further experimentation.
Keith is correct. Skier compaction is to a degree a myth. Also, you need 100s of people to create skier compaction. A slope with 10 people skiing it all day long will prove nothing of how safe it is or isn’t. The reason Patrols get so tweaked in sketchy conditions like last we currently have in UT is that when they have openings, you will release the weight of several hundred people on to a slope. Someone’s bound to find the trigger at that point if it’s out there.
I think the narroweer skis will divide and anchor the snow better and make it more difficult for the avalanche to happen and if so make a smaller avalanche. I think the fat skis will make little difference at if any. If I were trying to prevent avalanches I would cross cut the slopes a lot with the narrow skis, dividing the snow into small sections.
There are so many factors involved with avalanches.Snow compacted by skiers inbetween pistes that is constantly skied by hundreds of skiers daily after minimal snowfalls is realitivly safe but that reduction in risk can be destroyed by a single small layer of wind blown snow followed by a critical depth snowfall.This alone is only one of the factors that can increase risk on an often skied slope. The one simple fact is that when we ski often skied slopes the risk is lower. The question being how often it is skied and how much the risk has been reduced but the risk is always present.
joe…i kind of agree with you. seems like narrow skis would cut up the slope more.
copy that tony. but do you think the size of the persons skis effects the risk level?