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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Allen Taylor <[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