Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
ok maybe i should have said women's fat tele skis....

this is my question, at what point do you women tele skiers find the ski to be to wide under foot?

I may be making a incorrect assumption but it would seem that your more diminutive size would make it more difficult to get fatter skis on edge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
It seems that some genius involved in ski designing who possesses an almost comparable power of observation to your own managed to notice that women are sometimes more 'diminutive' in size than men, and managed to work around it. As a 'fat woman tele skier' myself, I can attest to the fact that the ease of turn to fatness ratio on my fat women tele skis is agreeable, so somebody has it figured out. Why?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
521 Posts
I am loooong ways from diminutive, but ski the sidestash which is 108 underfoot. Love them. Also I did a couple runs on Icelantic Oracles last weekend, which I believe are 100 underfoot. I want them badly, stable at speed and totally willing to turn. I could put 3 to 4 turns on a bump in the 165s - but am interested in the 175s. There are lots of Demo events going on right now, I recommend anyone in the market check out one of these. It seems to me the "fat" geometry is pretty well worked out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
950 Posts
so somebody has it figured out. Why?

I don't understand why are you questioning why someone has figured this out?...Because someone had a question about this topic at one time so they researched it and found the answer. It's how we as humanity learn stuff...it's called the "scientific process to hypothesis testing".

Or did I missunderstand?
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top