fat ski lengthes for tele skiers.

I am 6-2 190 and am wondering what people my wt are skiing for fat skiis(tele). I ski the world piste with burly garmonts and am wondering if people ski shorter fats or the same length as mid fats. Maybe it depends on if it is a one ski quiver or pow day only ski. I am thinking I should have bought a ski with 90mm or so under foot which may be the new mid fat??? The 100mm under foot, imho, is too fat for an allround ski,although some people swear by them. Thoughts????<br>T<br>P.S. I favor GS style turns in big pow, but love tight chutes and trees. The recent huge snowpack has me thinking I need too add a bow to my quiver.

Gee Tomcat. I'm your exact size and wt. My go to ski is 185cm Selkirk (both tele and rando rig) same mold as the  first world piste. On powder days I  switch to the Old  Work stinks 180cm tele and rando rigs as well. Here is the kicker -I also have a pr of 190cm  Work stinks rigged with alpine bindings. I wish all my work stinks were 190 and I'm curious about going even bigger. <br>As for ski ability I'm a self taught hacker but favor the trees over anything else.   Just my opinion but big might be better.<br>ps Ive never skied anything fatter widthwise than 88mm <br>

90mm is the new midfat. I currently switch back and forth between a 95mm waist (Explosiv) and 78mm (Worlds). I've skied tele up to 100mm and alpine up to 110mm. I'm 5'10" ~160lb and generally ski 180cm skis regardless of width. My next mid fat ski will probably be the Work with a phatter compliment in the 100mm range. I got a chance to demo the new Work Stinx and they rip on hardpack compliments to a deeper sidecut and two layers of titanal. I'm sure they're better in pow than the Worlds too. I'll probably go with the 174 size, since K2 skis run long for their length designations (I've heard they are one of the few manufacturers to use the running surface length, instead of chord length).<br><br>The only drawbacks I see with really fat skis is in tele turns on packed snow (it's harder for me to apply pressure to that rear edge on widths over the mid 90's) and additional weight in the BC, although I don't see the latter as being too big a deal. There are plenty of wood and foam core fats that weigh in as much as skinnier skis with titanal in them, and personally if I'm gonna ski a narrower ski it is gonna have that for high speed stability. <br><br>Anyway, as far as what length to ski... I tend to try to stay away from really short and fat skis (sub 165cm) because you start to end up with really short tails. On hardpack it isn't a big deal, but in soft snow it can make the ski perform very squirrely. But, for tight trees (tighter than we generally ski around here), that can be an advantage.

Re: the new work stinks. I'm looking at them also and I'm sure they would be better on hardpack than the old models which are whippy. But that whippiness is what I like for powder. In a time far far ago some of the Ancients at Alta would take thier wooden skis in and get them planned down to a unbelieveable thiness. MAybe when all my stinks are gone I'll look for the Women's model(Dawn Patrol?) in 190.

I've skied tele up to 100mm and alpine up to 110mm.

<br><br>Bump that tele figure up to 136mm. Tried Kelvin's Upper Krusts yesterday at Hyak. <br><br> www.skibuilders.com/gallery/upperkrust.shtml

Way cool. Definitely a quiver ski, but probably the most effortless powder turns I have ever had the pleasure to experience, both tele and parallel. On hardpack ... not so much ;)