Print

Print


No way is >100mm midfat by any objective standard. It's actually too 
wide for some uses - wider than the boot - you'll lose leverage on steep 
terrain, dangerous when things get icy

Bro model is around 99mm for that reason - designed to be fat but not 
dangerous for true "extreme skiing" (in the Cham sense, not the Valdez 
sense)

roger Klinger wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Allen Taylor <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
>     "Any ski that has a waist of over 70mm will have very good float
>     in powder"
>     I completely disagree with this. By today's standards 70mm is
>     basically a Nordic ski. There is a huge difference between a 70mm
>     waist and even a 100mm waisted midfat let alone a 130mm+ waisted
>     powder ski when it comes to float.
>
>
> I'm not going to disagree with anything Allen wrote.  I just want to 
> know when 100mm started to be considered midfat?  IIRC, the gear 
> issues this fall were calling 80-90 mm waists mdfats.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
> SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
>
> To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html
>


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html