Tele fat ski questions

I have always been curious what it would be like to ski on a pair of fat tele skis.
Years ago I bought a pair of T-1's and they have sat around only to be used once or twice a season, mostly in the spring or summer.
Last year I showed up with only my boots at Crystal's Vertfest for the tele demos thinking of trying fat tele skis.
I tried 105mm under foot and that was just to wide to manage, then I tried the BD Kilowatt, I think 94 under foot and just loved the ski in the spring glop. The BD 01 binding also was great so my toes did not get the usual grind on skin of the toes when I really bent down and prayed to the tele Gods.
The cost was a little high on the Kilowatt ski, so I looked around and bought the Fisher T-Stix 96. I really stepped up and got the 01 bindings and skins for the skis.
I was dreaming of those days of pinning in powder with the snow blowing over my chest as I knelt down to pray that I make my next turn.

Mind you, I came from the old school of tele- ripping it up on leather boots and narrow, long skis, gaiters and such...
What I have recognized is that unlike my alpine fat skis that makes it easier to ski the powder, the fatter tele ski takes more energy and makes it more difficult to ski the powder.
That might be my age too. I find that in a telemark stance that the fatter ski floats more and therefore pushes back or adds more resistance to the front leg than it would with a narrower ski that penetrates into the snow offering less resistance to the front leg in the telemark stance. This causes me to rely more on my dropped foot to balance and steer and tires the front leg more.

Now I may be off my rocker, because I see a younger contingent that may have never dawned leather boots for lift skiing ripping it up on fat tele skis and stiff plastic boots.
I have read where they talk of using the rear leg for steering and balance and thought they have it all wrong, the front leg is where it all happens. Like a good boxer front leg forward shoulders square and hands up, but I may have to evolve my thinking or ski width to manage the wider skis.

So I was just wondering if you have weathered all this reading what your take on fat tele skis is?
Do you feel that there is more resistance on the front leg with a fatter ski in powder?
Don't notice a difference? Would not know the difference?
Tele or AT-Is carrying a heavy pair of fat skins in your pack worth the space and weight it occupies for the reward it offers on the ski down?

I think that at the next Vertfest that I will demo skis in the 88 underfoot range and see if that makes a difference.

Overall, I have found fat skis to be particularly advantageous on alpine skis and to an extent AT skis, but on most days, even big powder days, all I need is a ski with 88mm underfoot 120's in the shovel and it skis pretty much all conditions real well. Of course I am old school and like to make lots of turns in powder, trees and GS the crud. The only straight lines and air is to get from the problems to the solutions.

Joe

Hi Joe,

I couldn't disagree more, re: fat tele skis and powder.  I'm on a pair of 173 Tele Daddies (120/99/110) with 7tms and blue 3-buckle T2s.  I love this setup in all conditions except bullet-hard groomers/ice.  For powder, I couldn't be happier and feel like I could ski all day.  Far easier on the legs than skinny tele skis in the same snow, for me.  I learned on leathers and 195 Toute Neiges -- those were a workout.  Of course, I sucked more then

I find that in a telemark stance that the fatter ski floats more and therefore pushes back or adds more resistance to the front leg than it would with a narrower ski that penetrates into the snow offering less resistance to the front leg in the telemark stance. This causes me to rely more on my dropped foot to balance and steer and tires the front leg more.

This is counter to my experience, at least re: resistance.  I find the fatter ski makes for a more stable platform in all directions, allowing me to spend less energy on balance and more energy on shaping the turn.  A solid tele turn, for me, is rooted in a well-weighted rear foot, with the lead foot pulled into a tight stance, with shin pressure on both cuffs. 

In the leather setup, that tight stance would have made balance more difficult, so the spread between lead and trailing foot would be a lot greater.  When I get too spread out on the fat skis, the trailing ski's tip starts to dive and I'm less able to put weight on the rear foot (leading to more weight on the front = more work?).  Maybe that's part of it for you?  The knee on my trailing foot is about even with the heel of my lead foot, if not a little forward of it (at least, that's how it FEELS to me, haven't looked at any photos to bear that out!).

Funny this should be a topic, as I just found this info yesterday.
www.telemarker.org/teletips/thebox.htm
Hope it helps.

How fast are you skiing? Sounds like you may be going too slow and just bulldozering through the cascade cement. I actually AT, so can't relate too much to the tele turn. This would probably be a great post on telemarktips.com . As far as carrying fat skis/skins up hill, I lean towards midfat. I have the Verdicts 100mm underfoot and never tour in them. I did get the Kailas this year and think it is a great all around ski. Try them out at the vertfest. I have attended the Marmot day demo the last couple of years, and really enjoy the chance to find out what skis I like, and more importantly which ones I do not like. Must admit to being a harcore atomic fan. The kailas is on sale at mt. gear for 315 bucks right now. Did you demo the Fishers? Maybe it is not the width you don't like, but the ski itself.

Funny this should be a topic, as I just found this info yesterday.
www.telemarker.org/teletips/thebox.htm
Hope it helps.

Small world, Swooz.  This link is out of the Laurel Highlands right where my sis and I spent the holidays in a PA State Park cabin.  Of course our timing was such that there was no snow yet!
Hope all is well,
John

Like many here I have also evolved from lace-up leather (Merrell Snowflake or something) and double-camber long skinny skis (Karhu XCD-GT, about 210 cm) with simple 3-pins (no cable), circa 1988 state of the art.  Two years ago at a demo session I tried out some fattish skis with my blue 3-buckle T-2's (couple years old).  The winners were 175cm BD Havocs so I got some on sale last year, and they are by far the fattest skis I have ever owned.  I still have the same moderate boots and G3 Ascent binding (the one with the tour mode).  The skis/binding do not seem to require super-heavy boots.  The setup is really sweet for chopped NW "powder", real Utah powder, and summer corn.  I like them the most for heavy, mixed snow like the back side of Stevens 1-2 days after the last snow, in and out of varying snow conditions.  The setup has enough inertia you can power through a lot of stuff rather than attempting to ballet dance around it.  Therefore you can look 2-3 turns ahead, not at what is immediately coming up.  Plenty of flotation for real powder too (165 pounds).  They are not as secure on ice as some of my mid-90's setups of skinnier, but at least single-camber, tele-skis.  For backcountry use, the twin-tipish back end  is not as solid for attaching skins, and the total weight is somewhat more than these same mid-90s setups (60 cm waist, "Riva classic cables", etc.).  

With regards to technique and front/back leg thing, I think that having an active back leg and striving for 50:50 is preferrable and gives better control and transitions. I see people all the time "stiff-arming the slope" with their front leg.  To soften the front leg (hip knee ankle) and allow it to soak up dips and bumps, you have to weight the back leg some.  The wider gear makes it much easier to approach this weight distribution, at least for me.  I wanted to hate wide skis and think of myself as a purist for masochistic old-style skis, but the reality was I found the moderately wide ones I chose to just ski better, for lift-served anyway, in our typical whipped potato snow.