By: randosteve|Posted on: February 2, 2009|Posted in: Gear, Humor | 21 comments
Would you rather ski in the powder…or on it? Me? I’m an “on the powder” kind of guy these days and ultra-fat skis are the key to staying on top. The fatter the better really, and my BD Megawatts shine for this.
In the powder…or on the powder. Which do you prefer?
Pro’s to skiing “on the powder” with fat skis.
- You can ski faster. This not only impresses the snow bunnies, but also keeps you in front of your ski partners so you can score the untracked snow and gives you more time at the transition to eat food and drink hot chocolate while you wait for slower skiers.
- Skiing faster can also keep you out in front of avalanches or sluff. If you have the skills to pull it off of course.
- In deep snow and high avalanche danger, you can have way more fun safely skiing lower angle slopes. Which I seem to be doing a lot this year with the increased avalanche danger.
- You can stay centered on your skis, instead of having to lean back all the time to keep your tips up…and creates way less fatiguing in your legs.
- Safer for your knees. Since your skis aren’t buried deep in the snow, you are less apt to hook a tip and tweak your knee. Also, the higher you are in the snow, the less snow there is pushing against your lower leg…straining your knee join.
- Though often heavier, fat skis will make trail breaking easier, since you don’t have to lift your knee so high to get the ski out of the snow and move it forward.
- You can actually see where you are going, instead of being blinded by snow and those pesky “face shots”.
- Breathing is easier. Again…referring to those “face shots” that can clog up your airways.
- Who needs goggles? Often, instead of busting out your goggles, you can just ski with your sunglasses on. This can mean less fiddle-factor and faster transitions.
- Since your skis are staying on top, you are less apt to loose a ski in the event it pops off.
- Whether it snowed 8” or 24”, it often all feels the same (fast and furious) with fat skis since you’re hovering on top.
You forgot the most important point of all. You can pretend you are nearly as cool as your snowboarder buddies. Surface area it’s all about surface area! See, I told you it was all about the ride down!!!! LOL
I’d rather approach things head on…rather than sideways. 😉
BTW, What do you think has more surface area? That Voile One Ninety One splitboard…or 188cm Megawatts at 153-125-130.
* To leverage the ski’s fatness (it’s about going fast, right?) you will need a beefier binding and boot … overall weight rises.
* More snow accumulating on the ski’s surface when skinning … overall weight rises again.
* You will have trouble in a frozen skinning track established with “regular” width skis, your fatties will just not fit into the track … extra fitness required to deal with the inconvenience.
Conclusion: fit trumps (d’oh :-D), or go engine powered uphill.
I still want to get >100mm waist skis and beef boots for next season 🙂
I think what matters is having the right tool for the job. Sometimes that’s a long, super-fat ski…other times….it’s a short, skinny ski.
That’s hard to dispute, randosteve.
I think my Mojo is wider than the Megawatts?
Why is the guy on the right dragging his pole? 🙂
“Whether it snowed 8” or 24”, it often all feels the same” – To me, this seems a stronger argument against fat skis than for them.
I love fat skis, but I’ve often thought it funny (maybe even ironic) that we hope for big storms, the bigger the better, then we go out and use skis that make it feel as if we’re skiing in less snow.
That said, I rented fat reverse camber skis (Volkl Kuros) when I was in Jackson last month and the snow was plentiful but really heavy, and had a blast.
I like it “on top”.
This is such an amazing blog, I just couldn’t help myself but go out and buy 6 pairs of Megawatts. BD Marketing bonuses are in order!
Thanks Bruce! Sounds like I should up my sponsorship requests…aye?
Don’t Try This Shit While Skiing Roger’s Pass Canada.
Pole Dragger = Closet Knuckle Dragger
Hey! I’ll take those pesky face shots all day long.
Where’s that snorkel?
Tough crowd! And I thought Reed was a GOOD skier??!!!
Fat or skinny don’t matter. I like it in it, on it, and with it – kinda like sex: when it’s good it’s great, and when it’s bad, it’s still pretty good.
PS: Pole dragging happens when you’re in the backseat.
In Reed’s defense, I’d say he’s not quite in the backseat…but maybe the recliner! 😆
Quite the revelation there Steve! You’re only 30 years or so late to the game. 🙂
Pretty much every argument you make points towards the ultimate powder tool, a snowboard! And if you’re into human powered (which we all are) a splitboard. Sure there are times when skis are a better choice but fall-line powder isn’t one of them. I guess if you started splitboarding in powder it would be tough to run a site devoted to AT though. 😉
Skiers = kayakers = kiteboarders = rollerbladers while snowboarders = surfers = skateboarders … it doesn’t really matter though what you do as long as you enjoy yourself, you are not pretentious about your ability, gear, or SUV, and you follow the golden rule of whoever is in front of you has the right of way. I recently saw that alpine skiers barely outnumber snowboarders in North America something like 5.6 million to 5.09 million. Regardless, both are popular and skis like these are allowing skiing to make a resurgence with the Millennial generation. There is a great online resource for anyone looking for the right gear: OnTheSnow.com’s Gear Essentials: http://www.onthesnow.com/news/6/
I’m on the DPS Lotus this year with a 140-120-125 dimension. They weigh eight pounds per pair. There is no sacrifice when touring with this skis.
Steve forgot to mention that, after a really long tour, when your legs are cooked, skiing is safer because it’s easier on fat skis. So not only is it safer, but they also allow for longer tours and more fun tours because you save significant energy on the down.
These big bastards also edge great on the steep and icy terrain.
Again, no compromise. Look forward, not back.
I live and ski in Valdez, AK. While Valdez may be one of the greatest Heli destinations in the world, there are plenty of us willing to skin our way to world class skiing. I am on a pair of Praxis Dean Cummings signature skis (165-133-145) about as fat as you can get. I use Dynatit bindings and Scarpa’s – The combination allows more vertical climbing/day and far less fatigue, combined with superior float of the fat ski creating a safer experience. Over the past decade I have transitioned from 77mm waist skis to 104mm 115mm and now 133mm. Each transition made skiing the more dense Chugach snow easier than the previous. Every winter when I return to Bozeman, Montana to visit home, I ski the light snow that the Bridger and Galatin Ranges bring…it is almost a sin how easy skiing light powder has become. I miss the face shots, cold smoke and snorkel days of yore, but give me the fat ski experience and the ease of skiing nearly any terrain any day.
thanks for that snowtown…but i’m not sure i can agree with you when you say that skis 165-133-145 allow for more climbing in a day? I can see how they may be easier for the way down…and little bit for the way up. however, I’m sure narrower and lighter skis would be much more efficient on the skin track.
I have a pair of Volkl Sumos and I think they are virtually the same measurements as the black diamonnds you are skiing (125 at waist). There is no rocker to the design but I love them. This might not sound like much, but you must understand that my other skis are a pair of wooden skis from about 1925 and some volkl P40 mogul skis measuring 62mm at waist – I swore I would never take part in the revolution.