Whats the Skinny on the Fatties?

[Andy_ROC]

I've been skiing Brahma 88 for about 8 years. Seems like that's just about right for me. Tried my sons 73s one day and they just felt unstable to me.

I've got some Bonafide 97s that I bought used on a lark last year. I found they were just too much effort to turn properly and didn't feel anymore stable than my 88.

I'm gonna try Nordica Enforcer 93 when I'm in Taos in January and compare them to the Enforcer 88. Tried those last year and the enforcer 88 were the best ski of 5 I demod. Was like having power steering

BTW if you know anyone that wants to buy my Bonafide 97 x177 with Tyrolia Attack demo bindings I'll let them go for a little under $500. They have been gently used.

 

[TheGreatAbyss]

I also wonder how rigidity plays into it. The Enforcer is

Tried my sons 73s one day and they just felt unstable to me.

Not that I'm getting a lot of air, but I do find having something over 90 inches under foot makes it easier to "land" whenever your skis do leave the snow.

The Enforcers (and I think the Bones) are heavy "unforgiving" skis. My Head Kores at 91 underfoot are much lighter, I do wonder how that plays into knee stress.

 

[raisingarizona]

True fat skis above 100mm under foot are silly for most conditions that most skiers ski in. This is true even in the west, now out on the east coast? Fuhgettaboutit. It’s like handicapping yourself on hard pack or icy conditions. 98% of skiers unfortunately never learn how to properly load a ski and bend the shit out of their downhill one. If you do then you know. Use the proper tool for the job is my rule for trail building and it should be said for skiing too.