I am done with super fats unless I am cat skiing.

[colospgmike]

I am done with Super Fats unless I am cat skiing

For several years I have skied on ultra wide skis in deep powder when out west. First the Volkl Shiro and then the Rossi Super 7. I have enjoyed both skis in deep powder, as one would expect ; both skis, at one time or another, were Ski magazine powder ski of the year. Here is my problem; I have not enjoyed skiing on either ski in the “chowder” that inevitably arrives at the end of an inbounds powder day.
I do enjoy skiing in chowder and crud on my Brahmas and even on my Rallys. So, last year, on one occasion I used my Brahma’s in deep powder (13”-16”) and was surprised how well they performed in the pow, and of course they were great in the chop when the powder was gone.
Ok, so here is the question;. I now want a little wider (around 100 mm) ski to replace the Brahamas for my western powder adventures. Something that will give me the same after powder performance as the Brahmas with a little more surface area for the powder, a ski that will not deflect like the super fats. I am thinking Bonafide, Rustler 10 or Enforcer 100. Any thoughts?
Also, why do the reviews always rate big fats’ performance on the groomers and hard pack (where I don’t ski them) and not report their performance in chopped up snow? Should there be a deflection/chowder rating?

I ski the Enforcer 100 in a 185 as one of my main skis up to about 6-8 in. After that for me I find I get bounced around a bit in the crud. I know you said 100 or below but... My go to for resort powder/chowder is the Bibby Pro(118) in a 190. Application- Zuma @ A Basin, Horseshoe bowl Breck, backside of Vail Never owned a ski that kills deep chop like that one. Frame of reference when I first arrived in Colorado in 96 I was still on my Rossi 4SM's in a 193. Back bowls of Vail were an adventure and I am real glad I was a much younger man. Seems like a bunch of versatile skis around the 108 mark this past few years. Hope you find your ride.

 

[TPJ]

I came to the conclusion several years ago that I no longer really like fat skis. The fact is that powder changes to crud in under 2 hours at the resort and what I need for the skiing I do is a crud ski. I spend most of my time on skis in the 85-95mm range. My current favorite is the Fischer Pro Mountain 86. Before that it was the Fischer Motive 95 and before that I had the original Rossignol Experience 88. I'm still using the Rossis as a tele ski and still using the Motives as an early season rock ski. I've also realized that I no longer like rocketed skis. I did at first, but now I find that they are to easy to pivot. There has never been a ski made that I can't schmear and I like a ski that will carve a bit more powerfully with less work. On the big days I like a ski no wider than 110, with 106 seeming to be a pretty good sweet spot for in bounds powder. My current "powder" ski is the Fischer Ranger 108 which is actually a 110 in the 188 length that I am skiing. It floats more than well enough and can be made to carve on hard pack. I know this because I took them on a training day one time when we had gotten 6" or so overnight and the off trail was pretty soft. The clinic wound up being about dynamic short turns on groomed slopes. I got a lot of respect for making good carved turns within the parameters set by the trainer on a huge fat ski. Everyone else was on something much skinnier and shorter. It was enlightening for me, but way more work than I was looking for and I switched to the 86mm skis at lunch. For me the thinner waisted skis perform really well in all conditions at the resort and are a lot less work until the new snow depth gets north of 8-10". I spend most of my time teaching lessons in steep off trail bumps and trees.

 

[JayT]

TPJ - your post fooled me a bit at first. I consider 108 to be a fat ski... there are only certain days where my 116mm skis feel necessary - and even that is a subjective / relative term. I think that 105 - 110 is the ultimate sweet spot in terms of versatility.

 

[Tom K.]

My quiver went from 0 to Embarrassed to Say......

I will be using this. Let me know where to send royalties!

My go to for resort powder/chowder is the Bibby Pro(118) in a 190.

I've never skied it, but this ski seems to love by many, and for quite some time.

I'm thinking about buying a pair of Liberty Genomes (141 waist), and going to a two ski quiver of them and a pair of Head slaloms

Just to annoy the pi$$ out of people!

 

[jmeb]

Choosing a ski in the morning is not just conditions. It's a more complex algorithm of: conditions/terrain, who I'm skiing with (putzing, taking it easy, raging), how I'm feeling, what I want to ski, how long I'm gonna ski. Usually I have two choices picked out the night before and bring whatever feels right as I'm getting in the van.

Some days it drops 8" and all you want to do is rage on big open terrain up high. Some days it drops 8" and you want to ski pow bumps all day.

 

[Tom K.]

Choosing a ski is ... a more complex algorithm of ... who I'm skiing with....

Truth! I've got one ski buddy whose prime directive is speed. And his secondary directive is going fast. The only hope I have is to break out the old Atomic Nomad Savages....a ski that otherwise never leaves the garage.

But that ski has a top end that may even exceed the Monster 88s I demoed last season!

 

[JWMN]

I am done with Super Fats unless I am cat skiing

I was in the same place as you a few years ago. My Soul 7's were wonderful in the fresh snow but were killing my knees in the crud. I bought Rossi E98's for the crud, and they were the cure. But not good in the fresh. I traded them for Rossi E100's they are great in fresh up to my knees and even better as that turns into crud and push piles. They will trench groomers if you have a mind to, and no speed limit that I have found. And, after getting used to them they will turn shorter radius turns very easily. A truly amazing ski. The downside is that they take a bigger skier to get them to work. If you get a chance, demo them!

 

[HDSkiing]

Don’t get me wrong, I love modern ski technology, but I’m old enough to remember skiing powder (and chowder) in the back bowls of Vail as a high school student in the late 1970’s, and later Taos on the “wide ski” of the era, Hexcel Hexcelerator’s. I honestly don’t remember the waist width, (only slightly wider than a race ski) but they were considered a powder and bump ski and were just tons of fun.

It’s only been relatively (or so it seems to me) recently when width became a thing, not that it’s not important or meaningful but I thought nothing (and of course didn’t really know better at the time) of dropping into deep powder on those or my slalom skis. Perhaps memory fails me, but I don’t ever remember ever having a discussion about it. There may have been fat skis then, I don’t recall but I was a poor HS student and aside from club race skis that I rented for the season, I owned one pair of skis for most of those years.

Now I own two, the Head iRally (76 x170) and the K2 Pinicle 95 @ 177. The iRally is new this season and I’ve only skied it a few days, a truly sweet ski that loves to turn fast and carve! I’ll ski them in trees and bumps when it’s packed powder (at least to see how they perform) and bring the K2’s out for the deep stuff.

The Pinicle 95 is the widest ski I have ever been on and I have taken them into deep powder out of bounds, and cranked high speed turns with high edge angle on the groomed (packed powder out here). On the groomed they will hold An edge and love to carve, in the deep powder with a bit of speed I get all the float I need (or at least have ever experienced) and the ski turns with ease.

I think you should ski whatever floats your boat (pun intended). I wouldn’t get hung up on numbers, ski what you like and adjust your technique to the ski and terrain, just like always

 

[Slim]

So this thread got a bit derailled into wide vs narrow skis.
The OP wasn’t asking that. He was asking which ~100mm ski would be best in powder and crud and ‘pushed-powder’. He also already stated the fact that resort powder gets skied up quickly, and will be keeping his super wide skis for cat skiing.

One thing to remember, is that waist width is only one, small, part of the performance in both powder and crud.
Stiffness, damping, tip shape, rocker probably play at least as much of a role as a few mm of waist width.
So what I am saying is that rather the fact that your Super 7’s are bad in crud and your Brahmas are good in crud, it doesn’t mean all narrower skis will do better in crud, maybe it’s other factors that matter as much. Maybe there are super wide skis that blast crud?

Not to say you should get super wide skis, rather, I would look for skis reviewed as great in crud, good in powder, and see what waist width they end up having.

 

[JayT]

So there are two ways to go with this... IMO.

98 - 100mm ski that is soft enough to not suck in soft snow, and the narrow width of the ski makes it good on groomers.

105 - 110mm ski that is stiff enough to be good on groomers and wide enough to have enough float in softer snow to make up for its stiffness.

I've been on a ton of skis in this general range and that's really what it comes down to and so much of the trade-off is personal preference. I have one of each, so not sure what my preference is!

 

[Brian Finch]

Lmao....

2004 - Me “IDK, there are a lot of limitations on 85mm+ Skis & they kinda hurt my knees...”

2018 - everyone “wow, my knees are sore...... & I still can’t turn em 15 years later....”

 

[CalG]

LMAO!

Was a time when.........
Volant Chubbs were "cheater skis" for those with enough $$ , but still couldn't buy a turn.

Today, skis are cheap relative to income.
Chubbs were a bit soft for crud busting.
The Volkl Explosiv came along to fix that.
Volkl still produces useful crud skis.

IMHO

;-)

 

[François Pugh]

My crud ski, and deep snow ski providing I don't intend to ski faster than say about 50 mph are 2002 Volant Machette G in a 190 cm length; skiing crud with them is like hitting the EASY Button (does anybody remember those advertisements?).
Description from RealSkiers review: "Serious deep snow ski, not too tough in fall line and otherwise acceptable on groomed. Very lively for a big ski. Great Volant float. Requires strong skier." They are 68 mm wide at the waist! They are TOO LIVELY for higher speeds.

When I used to ski deep snow (long long ago), my preference was a GS ski with a length of about 215 to 220, depending.

Skis I would like to demo when I go skiing on Vancouver Island this winter:
V-Werks Katana
Blizzard Cochise
Stockli Stormrider 105
Skis I have been able to find for rent near where I'll be skiing:
Blizzard Bonafide
Volkl 90Eight
Salomon QST 99
Elan Ripstick 96
AND from the on-mountain shop, Rossignol - unspecified as to which ones.

Note I did not consider wider skis because I will be skiing deep wet heavy snow, some of it perhaps untouched, but none of it powder.

I think you can find a crud buster that works in fresh snow, but powder is different.

 

[John O]

Note I did not consider wider skis because I will be skiing deep wet heavy snow, some of it perhaps untouched, but none of it powder.

My own $.02, but a wider ski can definitely be beneficial when skiing deep heavy snow. I say this as a PNW-erner with plenty of time skiing in heavy mank. Do what makes you happy, but consider demo'ing 1 ski that is wider than you thought you wanted, just to see. Maybe it won't be for you, there's a *ton* of personal preference involved here.

 

[François Pugh]

My own $.02, but a wider ski can definitely be beneficial when skiing deep heavy snow. I say this as a PNW-erner with plenty of time skiing in heavy mank. Do what makes you happy, but consider demo'ing 1 ski that is wider than you thought you wanted, just to see. Maybe it won't be for you, there's a *ton* of personal preference involved here.

Good Idea!
Any particular recommendations for a wider ski?
Best tree ski?
Best Chute straight-line Charger?
Best all mountain?

 

[PTskier]

Geez, you guys...We were all having FUN! skiing deep powder at Jackson Hole and everywhere else on the "powder skis" that were broken down GS or slalom rec skis. People tried Miller Softs (82 mm waist) and complained on how overly damped...dead...they were. A great ski if you could find them were the original Head Standards in the soft flex. The original Volkl Explosiv were a big breakthrough.

Ski whatever gives you the biggest smile. I have 110s and prefer my 95s in everything fluffy or soggy. Yep, Cascade concrete, Sierra cement, or Garibaldi glop. How do we teach people what powder actually is? If you can form it into a snowball, it ain't powder. If you pick up a handful and water drains out, it certainly isn't powder. If the snow reports every day of the season report "powder and packed powder," you know nothing about the snow. If you pick up a handful and the flakes sift out between your fingers...that's powder! I had a weird experience at Fernie last winter. We had fun powder, then graupel started falling heavy. Soft hail or snow pellets. OK to ski, but this built up to about 4" deep. No problem to ski, but the weight of the graupel on top of the powder compressed it and really changed the feeling. Still fun.

 

[Dwight]

I am done with Super Fats unless I am cat skiing

For several years I have skied on ultra wide skis in deep powder when out west. First the Volkl Shiro and then the Rossi Super 7. I have enjoyed both skis in deep powder, as one would expect ; both skis, at one time or another, were Ski magazine powder ski of the year. Here is my problem; I have not enjoyed skiing on either ski in the “chowder” that inevitably arrives at the end of an inbounds powder day.
I do enjoy skiing in chowder and crud on my Brahmas and even on my Rallys. So, last year, on one occasion I used my Brahma’s in deep powder (13”-16”) and was surprised how well they performed in the pow, and of course they were great in the chop when the powder was gone.
Ok, so here is the question;. I now want a little wider (around 100 mm) ski to replace the Brahamas for my western powder adventures. Something that will give me the same after powder performance as the Brahmas with a little more surface area for the powder, a ski that will not deflect like the super fats. I am thinking Bonafide, Rustler 10 or Enforcer 100. Any thoughts?
Also, why do the reviews always rate big fats’ performance on the groomers and hard pack (where I don’t ski them) and not report their performance in chopped up snow? Should there be a deflection/chowder rating?

So did you get some useful answers for yourself? Personally I never liked the Souls, neither did the kid and he is a much better skier than me.

So many choices now days that demoing really is important. Especially since we all like different skis and flexes.

 

[John O]

Any particular recommendations for a wider ski?

Man, there are so many good options out there. I'm going to stay away from "best" because one person's best is another person's... well... not best. You could very easily take your existing list and just go one or two steps up from each one, so things like:
Blizzard Bodacious or Rustler 11
Volkl 100eight
Salomon QST 106 or 118
Elan Ripstick 106 or 116
etc.

Edit: I originally missed that you have the v-werks katana on your wish list, so you're already considering some wider stuff I realize.

 

[Wade]

TPJ - your post fooled me a bit at first. I consider 108 to be a fat ski... there are only certain days where my 116mm skis feel necessary - and even that is a subjective / relative term. I think that 105 - 110 is the ultimate sweet spot in terms of versatility.

That’s where I landed for a travel ski.

When I fly somewhere to ski, it’s going to be somewhere that usually has good snow conditions. There’ll be some days where I luck into a powder day and there’ll be days where the snow is firmer than I’d like. The vast majority of days though, I’m skiing soft, tracked out or cruddy off-piste snow.

For the above use case, and for the way I ski, I wanted something that would be pretty good in powder, something that would be “fine” on groomers, and something that would kill it on all the other days. I wanted something stiff and damp with camber and a little tip and tail rocker. I wanted something that would give me options to ski with a little more finesse, or to ski fast, direct lines through chop and soft bumps without getting deflected all over the place.

I wound up on Line Supernatural 108s. Love those skis! If it’s terrible conditions, something narrower would work better, but since I got them, I’m yet to have a ski vacation day when I wish I was on something else.

 

[BMC]

I absolutely love my Salomon QLabs which are 103mm underfoot for an all around resort ski with a soft snow emphasis. They’re that good I’m at a loss to understand why Salomon discontinued them.

I’ll be spending 3 weeks in Niseko in January taking Coomba 114’s with me as well as the Qlabs. I also have two days CAT skiing locked away. I’m going to be super curious as to which skis I prefer (haven’t skied the Coombas yet) but I’ve got a real feeling I’ll prefer the QLabs.

I’m firmly moving to a 3 ski Quiver;

1. 88mm for Australian every day resort skiing.
2. 1 oh something for Australian powder and for OS travel as an everyday ski
3. Backcountry ski 98-100mm.

This next trip will seal whether I really need a wider ski or not.