92-95mm width seems pointless?

[Hankj]

Caveat to start: I've skied only ~20 days, nearly every one on different ski. I snowboarded from 1983 until 2019, 30-60 days a winter.

Having skied a variety of skis now in typical PNW snow conditions, I'm wondering if the low 90's width is an ancillary market segment? I've skied Rustler 94's and Enforcer 93's, and found that they carve on hardpack worse than skis I've tried in the 85-88mm range. The narrower skis seem to noodle around on packed off-piste about the same.

To my inexperienced legs, Enforcer 100's and Line Influence 106's carve hardpack as well as the above 94's and 93's (the Line's might rip groomers better than all of them), and are far better in powder, cut up soft snow, and crud.

Is the 92-95mm category spanning and gap that doesn't need to be spanned? If I could only have one ski for every condition on and off piste, I'd far prefer a 100-106mm ski that holds up on groomers. If I could have a two ski quiver, I'd them certainly step down to 85-88mm made to rail around on the corduroy.

So why would one want a 93-ish mm ski?

Hope this doesn't come across as slinging mud at a ski width you might prefer; as I said I'm in a weird place as a "beginner' who can ski the whole mountain because of the life-long snowboard background. Maybe one gets good enough to ski the 93mm in nastier off-piste conditions and then appreciates the extra width over a narrower ski?

 

[Philpug]

Caveat to start: I've skied only ~20 days, nearly every one on different ski. I snowboarded from 1983 until 2019, 30-60 days a winter.

Having skied a variety of skis now in typical PNW snow conditions, I'm wondering if the low 90's width is an ancillary market segment? I've skied Rustler 94's and Enforcer 93's, and found that they carve on hardpack worse than skis I've tried in the 85-88mm range. The narrower skis seem to noodle around on packed off-piste about the same.

To my inexperienced legs, Enforcer 100's and Line Influence 106's carve hardpack as well as the above 94's and 93's (the Line's might rip groomers better than all of them), and are far better in powder, cut up soft snow, and crud.

Is the 92-95mm category spanning and gap that doesn't need to be spanned? If I could only have one ski for every condition on and off piste, I'd far prefer a 100-106mm ski that holds up on groomers. If I could have a two ski quiver, I'd them certainly step down to 85-88mm made to rail around on the corduroy.

So why would one want a 93-ish mm ski?

Hope this doesn't come across as slinging mud at a ski width you might prefer; as I said I'm in a weird place as a "beginner' who can ski the whole mountain because of the life-long snowboard background. Maybe one gets good enough to ski the 93mm in nastier off-piste conditions and then appreciates the extra width over a narrower ski?

You are learning that you don't know what you don't know.

For a while the 92-95mm catagory was ignored by almost every brand, it was a segment that fell between the cracks....very much in marketing. Are is this segment as good as an 88-90 or as 97-100? In some cases no, and in some cases yes. To say that a 100-106 is going to carve on hardpack as well an a 92-95, I think your self acknowledged inexperience is coming through...just as saying that a ski in this segment will be as good on the groomers as an 75-80mm ski. Sure, maybe the best 90-some might be close to the worst 70 -some but not as blanket statement.

I would suggest you revisit these thoughts in a couple of years after you a couple of hundred days on skis under your belt.

 

[Hankj]

For sure I'm inexperienced on skis!

What I'm talking about carving on groomers, I mean actually laying down clean railroad tracks, not high angle power-smearing. The Enforcer 93's I've skied a couple times are very good at the latter, for me anyway. Stable and stiffer than the 100's.

The 100s feel like they have a little more rocker in the tips and tails, and like they want to roll up on the true edge easier. The Line 106s even more so, and then once those very heavy very damp skis get there they're happy to plow over whatever they're pointed at.

So yeah I'm sure my experience is showing, probably I'm just not good enough to ski the 93s the way that I want to ski them. I do for sure though have more fun on a wider or narrower ski.

I'm lucky to have the same boot sole length as several friends who have quivers. It's remarkable how different different skis are, bigger range than snowboards for sure

 

[KevinF]

My take as being a New Englander who skis locally and flies to ski.

In my experience, powder gets tracked out so quickly (I.e., minutes) that having 100+ underfoot is just a waste of time. To me, 95 works better than wider skis in choppy conditions.

I have a pair of “real” powder skis, but I honestly don’t like skiing them unless it’s going to be deep all day... and New England mountains are too small to stay deep all day, and I don’t know the layout of bigger mountains to find deep all day.

 

[ScottB]

I am not sure why 92-95 mm skis exist either, and I'm an expert. I basically look at below 95 is basically a 88mm ski category, all mtn ski, with a pinch more float than a 88. So maybe a more off piste oriented 88. I own a 96 mm ski and I look at it like a 100mm category ski. Very off piste oriented all mtn ski. Each ski is its own creature, and you have to look at the combo of tip, waiste, and tail width along with rocker and side cut. Its really all things put together that defines a ski. I kind of look at waist width as pretty loose and just consider what the ski is supposed to do well. The enforcer series is a bit unique as they have a 88, 93 or 94, and a 100. That's going a little overboard in my book, but I suspect the 93 will be going away. And my guess on why is because the 93 causes confusion in the marketplace competing against the 88mm skis. Now I have only skied the 93, so maybe each ski is different and its just that each ski is aimed at a different performance window? And BTW, I liked my 88 Brahma much more than the 93 Enforcer. Josh Matta who used to be on this site felt just the opposite. So there is just general guidelines and then personal preference when it comes to skis.

 

[Philpug]

I am not sure why 92-95 mm skis exist either, and I'm an expert.

Spoiler

Marketing

 

[lisamamot]

I ski the Blizzard Sheeva 172 (women’s version of Blizzard Rustler 9) - 92mm as my east coast daily driver. It does most things very well - I ski it on everything from firm groomers to a moderate new dumping of new snow, to bumps and trees - it is 100% fun. Super firm/icy days I prefer something narrower with less rocker, but I haven’t been on anything under 81mm in many, many years. Bigger east dumpings and optimistic trips west, I still have the Santa Ana 100 177. My new AT setup is also a mid 90s ski - the Elan Ripstick 94W.

 

[David Chaus]

Having skied a variety of skis now in typical PNW snow conditions, I'm wondering if the low 90's width is an ancillary market segment? I've skied Rustler 94's and Enforcer 93's, and found that they carve on hardpack worse than skis I've tried in the 85-88mm range. The narrower skis seem to noodle around on packed off-piste about the same.

This is true enough.

To my inexperienced legs, Enforcer 100's and Line Influence 106's carve hardpack as well as the above 94's and 93's (the Line's might rip groomers better than all of them), and are far better in powder, cut up soft snow, and crud.

This, not so much. It depends on the ski, and it depends on the tune of the skis.

If I could only have one ski for every condition on and off piste, I'd far prefer a 100-106mm ski that holds up on groomers. If I could have a two ski quiver, I'd them certainly step down to 85-88mm made to rail around on the corduroy.

I agree with this.

As a PNW skier, yes we see a lot of people who ski on 100+ skis as their everyday ski, even when it’s hardpack conditions. But remember that there is a lot of off-piste skiing here, and frequent enough snowfall to make it a reasonable expection to have a ski that can handle off-piste well. 88-98 seems to be pretty popular sizes here as well.

That said, a lot of people are on wider skis that never go off the main trails. They would be just fine on a low- to mid-80’s ski, even if they ventured off-piste once in a while.

FWIW, I typically ski a 90. (Renoun Z 90, which is more versatile that it looks, carves well for a 90 and capable of moguls and off-piste). When there’s fresh snow I have a 102 that is more “slarvy and pivoty.” When there’s more fresh snow, I have powder skis.

I wouldn’t call the 92-95 pointless, it depends on the 92-95. If I had to pick a quiver of one, this is the size I’ve be looking for.

However, if you are mostly on groomers, or even cut up PNW groomers after the first hour, yes a 80-90 ski is definitely a better choice. I’d even go mid 70’s.

 

[Hankj]

However, if you are mostly on groomers, or even cut up PNW groomers after the first hour, yes a 80-90 ski is definitely a better choice. I’d even go mid 70’s.

This is really interesting to me David. You see almost no one who can ski with competence on skis narrower than 90mm in the PNW. It seems like people aren't so interested in buying a dedicated ski for carving groomers and wiggling through stiff moguls. The narrower skis I've been on recently though, being kind of a beginner and all, have been really fun on that kind of stuff. If I built a quiver I feel like I'd want to have something like a slightly stiffer version of the K2 Pinnacle 88 in it. I think it would look skinny and more low end in the lift line, but be more fun on days when it hasn't snowed in a while ....

 

[David Chaus]

Ah, well we may have a difference in how we interpret the word “competence.”

I did feel a little conspicuous one day when I brought out my old (like from early 2000’s) Stockli Spirit SC’s that are 65mm wide.
But they were fun for the conditions.

I will say this, you can get away with a wider ski on firm snow these days, due to material and construction that allow for greater torsional stiffness in a wider ski. So 90’s can do pretty well on firm snow much better than the 90 width skis of a decade ago.

 

[neonorchid]

-
Is the 92-95mm category spanning and gap that doesn't need to be spanned?
-
So why would one want a 93-ish mm ski?
-

You are learning that you don't know what you don't know.

For a while the 92-95mm catagory was ignored by almost every brand,
-

I am not sure why 92-95 mm skis exist either,
-

Spoiler

Marketing

Exactly. why do think @Philpug is giving away his brand new Salomon QST 92 skis? LOL

...and there go my chances of winning the skis.

 

[KingGrump]

This is really interesting to me David. You see almost no one who can ski with competence on skis narrower than 90mm in the PNW.

Planned 3 weeks for Crystal starting the first week past March. Only got 2 weeks in before they shut everything down.
Last 5 days there was on a pair of Atomic FIS SL 158. Day 2, on the way back to the car at the end of the day. I was passed by several skiers/boarders. One yelled out "Thank you for skiing the slalom ski."
After changing out, I pulled my car over to their. Opened my truck and pulled out a pair of Volkl One (116 mm) and held it next to one of the snow boards. Quietly I said "This one is for the size queens. I have seven pair of skis in my car. I skied on a slalom because I can rather then have to. All one needed is some semblance of skill." Silence.
Put my skis back in the car and droved off.
It is nice to call BS.

As @David Chaus said, much depends on your definition of "competence." Are you even qualified to recognize competence when you see it?

20 days.
Ignorance is bliss.

 

[graham418]

You see almost no one who can ski with competence on skis narrower than 90mm in the PNW.

Wha???

 

[Philpug]

What no love for 91mm skis? A sticker pack for the first person who can post a current ski that is advertised at 91mm underfoot.

 

[Ron]

this is funny.... Carry on!

 

[Viking9]

I’m not a one ski quiver guy so a mid 90 skis hard pak performance doesn’t matter.
I’m getting the Rossi Escaper 95 waist as my powder ski,Mammoth.
I want my powder ski to perform its best on the second day of a storm cycle.
I believe that if you are an advanced skier fresh powder is easy to ski no matter what your on ,,,it’s fresh powder.
For me once you get into triple digits there’s going to be some clumsyness there that you might not have to deal with.
Enter the 95 waisted Escaper.
Wish me luck.

 

[Ron]

What no love for 91mm skis? A sticker pack for the first person who can post a current ski that is advertised at 91mm underfoot.

none current but the 2019 Black Crow Orb was.

 

[Guy in Shorts]

92-95 widths are reserved for the expert female skis like the Volkl Secrets at 92mm.

 

[cantunamunch]

I basically look at below 95 is basically a 88mm ski category, all mtn ski, with a pinch more float than a 88.

Skier size bias.

Someone 5'7" and under, 170lbs and under will group 92mm+ true* size closer to 95mm+ than to 88.


*Fischer Ranger 90 I'm looking at you

 

[François Pugh]

As a skier who has enjoyed true narrow (68 mm) carving skis on hard snow and wider skis for a 150 lb skier (108 mm) it does depend on ability and weight. Yes, low 90s just don't cut it on groomers, but 80 mm skis don't do it well enough either. Low 90s don't have enough fun factor compared to rockered 108s (at 150 lbs) in deep snow, 80s certainly don't do it for me in the deep stuff. Hence the quiver. But if I had to pick the best compromise ( I don't) it would be around 90mm to 96 mm.