These days everyone seems to want their partner to be skinny and their skis to be† fat. Every year the trend gets fatter and fatter.
I’m doing a season in Rossland BC,† looking around it seems that my 95mm waisted ski are a bit, well….skinny. Now this place is known as a bit of a powder mecca. I’ve certainly been looking for it at every opportunity, either at the hill, the local backcountry or longer tours further afield.
I’ve been here about 50 days now and have had 2 days that I would consider “Epic”. Only once have I actually thirsted for† some fatter skis. Looking back over 20 years of skiing,† including many seasons in Europe and Canada, I’d say the following split would be about right:
|Type of Day
|Ideal Type of Ski
|Epic Powder at ski hill.
|About 110 under foot.
|Good Powder at ski hill.
|Limited powder at hill but can hike to it
|No powder anywhere. Hard conditions.
So the reality is, for 95% of the time a ski that performs well in mixed conditions of about 85-95mm is the best. If you can lug about a 2nd pair then sure, get a fat set too,† but it will be the mid width ones you go to most days.
The majority of days are mixed and you want a good ski that can handle that. For me that means a relatively stiff and responsive ski that can work in bumps, tracked powder, steeps and handle icy pistes. They also need to be light enough to tour on. Any ski that can tackle that lot will still be good in powder.
The problem with fatter skis is that they just don’t ski mixed conditions particularly well and they are a bit heavy† for touring. If your only aim is to ski powder faster than everyone else then fair enough.
Having a set of fat powder skis as your “do it all ski”† is a bit like having a rally car as your daily driver, or a 6inch travel bike for your daily commute. Hmmn,† maybe need to rethink as I want a Subaru and I use a 6” travel bike. Damm. Where are those K2 Obsethed skis.
Would love to hear your comments.