Nused Sticks
20 posts
4 users
5k+ views
tromano
August 27, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Ok so I picked up a new pair of fat sticks for this week off of ebay. Check 'em out.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...N:IT&ih=020

I was looking for a wider ski for a few western trips planned this year. I thought these would be pretty solid for those. They might be a tad short for my 200lb self but I have never skied anythign longer than 181cm anyway. Plus they will be better in steeps and trees if I ski em short.

I will post a full review as soon as I get a chance.
JohnL
August 28, 2006
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,514 posts
I just read Peter Keelty's review of the '05 K2 Apache Chief (174 cm.) Big mountain monster plank, not sure what length was demo'ed. I don't think you want to ski these planks any longer. I'd also take your mid-fats with you on trips out West; I doubt you'll enjoy those skis in the bumps or in all but the most widely-spaced trees. Edge control on the groomers will require a different touch than the skis you used that one weekend in Timberline.

Actually skiing the skis will be worth more than any advice you get over the Net ...
JohnL
August 28, 2006
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,514 posts
(Gratuitous post pad to make up some ground on Mr. Z. )

From Peter K's reviews, you'll need a lot of speed before the skis want to turn. I think you've just become a straight-lining maggot.
KevR
August 28, 2006
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
Ok what's the deal with these fat skis, are they really useful? When would you use them? I seem ok with my regular all-mountain skis out west, and this is off trail (although not in truly advanced terrain...)

Sure, I can see you might float a bit more but ... who cares? So you have snow up to your neck... isn't that the point?
DCSki Sponsor: Canaan Valley Resort
tromano
August 28, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Quote:

I just read Peter Keelty's review of the '05 K2 Apache Chief (174 cm.) Big mountain monster plank, not sure what length was demo'ed. I don't think you want to ski these planks any longer. I'd also take your mid-fats with you on trips out West; I doubt you'll enjoy those skis in the bumps or in all but the most widely-spaced trees. Edge control on the groomers will require a different touch than the skis you used that one weekend in Timberline.

Actually skiing the skis will be worth more than any advice you get over the Net ...




Quote:

(Gratuitous post pad to make up some ground on Mr. Z. )

From Peter K's reviews, you'll need a lot of speed before the skis want to turn. I think you've just become a straight-lining maggot.




John,

My post count is suffering man. Even KevR is ahead of me. Thats what I get for taking the summers off and not posting on global warming and such.

John my coments about 174 being to short were probably colored by the fact that I read too many other forums where the average skier is a 18 year old on 190cm+ ski who makes 3 turns per 1000ft vertical.

I am going to have alot of fun on these fat boys in Oootah. These are 98mm underfoot quite a step up form 76. They also have a progessive sidecut (20m or so) which should make them manageable on piste. I think it is a cap ski with the k2 braiding construction. I am not sure how much metal is in there, I get a feeling its not much. People on epic descriped it as a medium flexing ski that likes to turn. Looking forward to trying these out asap. MAy even strap them on for a few runs at 7S this year.
tromano
August 28, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Quote:

Ok what's the deal with these fat skis, are they really useful? When would you use them? I seem ok with my regular all-mountain skis out west, and this is off trail (although not in truly advanced terrain...)

Sure, I can see you might float a bit more but ... who cares? So you have snow up to your neck... isn't that the point?




I wont be able to answer that for at least a couple of months. Wider skis are supposed to have superior performance in soft snow relative to narrow skis. Newer models of fat skis are designed to have strong on and off piste performance charachteristics. This is why tou see many even in the midatlantic area switching to a 76mm MetronB5 as their everyday all mountian and carving ski. Here is aninteresting thread whihc discusses the trend toward wider skis.

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=43106
JohnL
August 28, 2006
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,514 posts
Quote:

People on epic descriped it as a medium flexing ski that likes to turn.




Link?
tromano
August 28, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
John,

Here is one review that influenced me. http://forums.epicski.com/printthread.php?t=20675

Look at Utah49's posts.
JohnL
August 28, 2006
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,514 posts
Quote:

Ok what's the deal with these fat skis, are they really useful? When would you use them? I seem ok with my regular all-mountain skis out west, and this is off trail (although not in truly advanced terrain...)

Sure, I can see you might float a bit more but ... who cares? So you have snow up to your neck... isn't that the point?




Even if you're skiing in Utah, 99 times out of 100 if you have snow up to your neck it's because you've fallen.

Powder skis (90mm+), or wider skis for that matter, have a larger "balance spot" in deeper snow, so you don't have to be as precise with your foreward/aft and left foot/right foot balance. As a result, you fall less, can ski deep snow more agressively and can more reliably ski steeper and tougher lines.

Skiing pow on skiercross skis versus mid-fats versus powder boards is a different experience. Everyone has their own preferences. I've skied through plenty of waist to chest deep snow out West on 95mm skis, so it's not like you are riding on top of the snow skiing a groomed run. Plus, on these skis I can ski most powder runs very agressively. During pow turns, I probably sink into the snow as much as I do when skiing mid-fats; the lessened float is compensated by the added speed I'm carrying during the turns. A car at 30 mph plows deeper into a snowbank than a car at 15 mph.

In consistent, light, un-cut powder, any ski is a blast to ski. As the conditions get tougher and the snow gets more cut-up, wider skis become more fun.
JohnL
August 28, 2006
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,514 posts
Quote:

John,

Here is one review that influenced me. http://forums.epicski.com/printthread.php?t=20675

Look at Utah49's posts.





Completely different review on RealSkiers. This may be a ski for which they've had only a few testers... Have you ever skied with Utah49? Sounds like he/she is a Utah local and is a veteran/advanced powder skier...
KevR
August 28, 2006
Member since 01/27/2004 🔗
786 posts
I think that answers my question -- an optmization for the local or perhaps the traveler that has mucho deep powder experience and wishes to (hike to &?) ski truly advanced terrain...

the deepest powder i've been in was up to my waist (about 3ft) for brief periods but this was hardly what most would call true "powder" skiing... i was off of millicent ... just cruising thru it. my all-rounders were fine, even for the steeper trees i got a bit into last year.

unless i was TRULY motivated to drag out multiple pairs of skis, perhaps another option is just to rent -- i know brighton for example rents them...

anyway ... whatever, enjoy!
comprex
August 28, 2006
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Hmm.

We do not know anymore which length RS tested.
JohnL
August 28, 2006
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,514 posts
Quote:

Hmm.

We do not know anymore which length RS tested.




I noticed that also; the length tested was one of their more useful features. I also noticed that they had the same (or virtually the same) review for the K2 for two consecutive years.
comprex
August 28, 2006
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
Quote:

I think that answers my question -- an optmization for the local or perhaps the traveler that has mucho deep powder experience and wishes to (hike to &?) ski truly advanced terrain...





Or perhaps just a different flavor of fun for the reasonably skilled, who may wish to expend less energy than on SX skis.
comprex
August 28, 2006
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
I think it may very well be time for a massive grassroots review posting frenzy.
tromano
August 28, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Quote:

Quote:

Hmm.

We do not know anymore which length RS tested.




I noticed that also; the length tested was one of their more useful features. I also noticed that they had the same (or virtually the same) review for the K2 for two consecutive years.




I just signed up for the Techsupport for skiers today. Their review for 04-05 was like 1 line. The review for 05-06 was more indepth but I believe they changed the ski dimentions. Tip was 128 in 05, expanded to 133 in 06. Many other reviews on epic basicly said its userfriendly and turnable for a ski its size, not plank like. Here is one more

http://forums.epicski.com/archive/index.php?t-23632.html
comprex
August 28, 2006
Member since 04/11/2003 🔗
1,326 posts
I'm actually fascinated by the Speedpoint 1400s with wide brakes.

So when ya going to UT?
tromano
August 28, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Utah in March, but I am trying to get madeline to go in January as well. Mammoth in May.
tromano
August 28, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
Quote:

I think it may very well be time for a massive grassroots review posting frenzy.




I will definately throw up a review for the Chiefs when I get a chance to skiem.
tromano
September 8, 2006
Member since 12/19/2002 🔗
998 posts
So the Fat boys arrived. I got them in and played with them on the living room rug like a kid on Christmas Morning. The actual dimensions are: 118-98-108 with a 24m turn radius. The pair is only 2 lb heavier than my Big Stix 7.6 which is not alot considering the width difference. Just from flexing them it is obvious that they ey mean buisness. It is stout ski with the damp smooth feel that I have come to associate with K2.

The ski is constructed like a leaf spring with the stiffness increasing as you move from tip to binging. The ski tip is very soft flexing and has not metal. However once past the first 15" the mid section of the ski steadily increases in thickness and stiffness. The mid section of the ski is truly stout. Likewise the tail is much stiffer than tip, flat (no twin here) and powerful. The feel is reminds me of the Axis XP. The tip should provide easy float in soft conditions and easy turn initiation. However the stiffness in the certer and tail of the ski indicated that the should offer stability at speed and energetic rebound. Given the soft tip and stiff tail, Cranking turns on these babies should be quite fun. I look forward to testing them on snow as soon as possible.
DCSki Sponsor: Canaan Valley Resort

Ski and Tell

Snowcat got your tongue?

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.14 seconds