How fat is a fat ski?

In an idle moment, I noted the side-cut/profiles of Salomon's Scream range...

The X-Scream Series measures 106/68/96 and is sometimes described as a "mid fat" ski...

The Scream Hot measures 110/75/100...

And the Scream Extra Hot fills out to a gut-busting 116/82/108...

So, is the Scream Hot a "3/4 fat" ski, or is the Scream Extra Hot an "extra fat bloke"?

Not that it really matters TBH but I was interested to discover what made up the "Extra" in the name! B)

Er, so there... Dave

Yes it's sometimes quite hard to work out what all the bits of the name actually mean. I've been going through a similar exercise with my new skis.
They're Salomon Crossmax, but what model exactly? They're not a 7, not an 8, but ... wait for it ... a 7.9!
I never realised skis had version numbers like software. Unfortunately they didn't come with a set of release notes so I've been unable to work out what the difference actually is between the different numbers (the Salomon website is quite cool, but of course only has the latest and greatest - same old problem, older versions are no longer supported).
Can anyone throw any light on this?

I think the extra is supposed to be the extra width. In my eyes, under 70 would be considered normal, and not mid-fat, under 80 is mid-fat, over 80 is offpiste, and over 100 is just plain crazy

Wear The Fox Hat wrote:I think the extra is supposed to be the extra width. In my eyes, under 70 would be considered normal, and not mid-fat, under 80 is mid-fat, over 80 is offpiste, and over 100 is just plain crazy

Those sound like good rules-of-thumb... so howabout the 125mm width of the almost bonkers Volant Spatula?

Definitely not an easy carver!

Um, there is a technical name for them.
That sir, is a "Snowboard"

:)

Wear The Fox Hat wrote:That sir, is a "Snowboard"

Try getting one on each foot though... mind you, buoyancy in powder would be great... so long as you could swivel the bindings round...