105 - 110 cm for a Clydesdale?

[martyg]

That all sounds great. But the reality is that yes, you can ski pow on very narrow skis no doubt, I have done it, you need to be going pretty fast though, specially if the snow is heavy-ish, slow down in a transition area (flattish zone) and you are done. Better like post-holing...

The beauty of most of todays wide skis is that they can ski hardpack quite well, obviously they are not ideal, but they work well for the occasional firmer snow areas between powder runs. If used daily on hardpack they will kill your knees though.

I agree on the utility of a wider ski in some places. Two for my are 1. As you mentioned - flat areas. 2. Is mitigating avy danger through terrain selection. On high avy danger days I can have a blast in a 15 degree slope with a wider ski.

If you are skiing CO you are skiing more than occasionally firmer snow if you are in bounds most of the time. Go to coastal ranges were 800 plus inches is just a good year, and you have an argument.

Look up Tim Petrick's editorial on ski width.

 

[Ken_R]

I agree on the utility of a wider ski in some places. Two for my are 1. As you mentioned - flat areas. 2. Is mitigating avy danger through terrain selection. On high avy danger days I can have a blast in a 15 degree slope with a wider ski.

If you are skiing CO you are skiing more than occasionally firmer snow if you are in bounds most of the time. Go to coastal ranges were 800 plus inches is just a good year, and you have an argument.

Look up Tim Petrick's editorial on ski width.

In-bounds I use my Monsters 88 most of the time even if a few inches of new snow has fallen. Out of bounds my 102mm wide Black Crows. The Moments only come out when there are > 6" of pow.

I could even use something narrower than the 88's as a daily driver but I like the versatility and feel of those skis.

 

[Jtlange]

Im 6'2" 220 and think the Blizzard Rustler 10's in a 188 do pretty well. Ive done some some tricky stuff with them and can move pretty quick. Its my most days ski in CO.

 

[martyg]

In-bounds I use my Monsters 88 most of the time even if a few inches of new snow has fallen. Out of bounds my 102mm wide Black Crows. The Moments only come out when there are > 6" of pow.

I could even use something narrower than the 88's as a daily driver but I like the versatility and feel of those skis.

Check out the Stockli Lazer AX. It is my everyday, day-in, day-out work ski. I can be down in the beginner area and don't have to work that ski hard to turn it, I can be up o the mtn skiing pow or bumps with an advanced guest - it does everything well.

I think it is 79 underfoot but skis inconsistent snow so much more efficiently than its width would indicate. I actually have two pair and rotate in between them.

Enjoy.

 

[cantunamunch]

Check out the Stockli Lazer AX. It is my everyday, day-in, day-out work ski. I can be down in the beginner area and don't have to work that ski hard to turn it, I can be up o the mtn skiing pow or bumps with an advanced guest - it does everything well.

I think it is 79 underfoot but skis inconsistent snow so much more efficiently than its width would indicate. I actually have two pair and rotate in between them.

Enjoy.

Stockli has been doing skis like this for 15 years or more, since the first Stormrider XL/AT series. Seriously good value.

IMO the best reason to choose a wider ski for crud over something like this: a less agile, less responsive ski can be less tiring to unaccustomed muscles.

 

[Scrundy]

Check out the Stockli Lazer AX. It is my everyday, day-in, day-out work ski. I can be down in the beginner area and don't have to work that ski hard to turn it, I can be up o the mtn skiing pow or bumps with an advanced guest - it does everything well.

I think it is 79 underfoot but skis inconsistent snow so much more efficiently than its width would indicate. I actually have two pair and rotate in between them.

Enjoy.

I also have the AX and to tell you the truth, on days when there is snow dump I’d much rather ski my 95s. As a matter of fact ,on days here on the east coast we do occasionally get a powder day , I wish I had wider and longer. I go 195 lbs and the 183 length just don’t do it for me. I do not like the feel of my ski tips under the snow.

 

[Monique]

Seems to me that the OP asked for 105-110, and the never-ending argument about skinny vs fat skis will not be solved in this thread. Just suggest some skis for the man! Suggest skinnier skis and 'splain why you think they'd be a good fit. Suggest fatter skis and 'splain why you think they'd be a good fit. Suggest skis with the specs he requested. Don't get sucked into the debate.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

I sort of feel like the bulk of advocacy in this thread for narrow skis in soft snow is that it teaches good technique (whatever that means). A skeptical reader might take the same basic observation and note that it only teaches good technique if it is harder and then further extrapolate that it is harder to use the wrong tool for the job than the right one.

Perhaps we should also be skiing soft snow with only one ski?

I completely acknowledge I have seen several much better skiers than I am on slalom skis in everything, but it doesn't follow that (1) those skiers would not be better yet with more purpose specific skis, (2) I would be better using narrow skis everywhere or (3) that narrow skis are better than wide skis in soft snow in some abstract sense.

 

[Mike Thomas]

I sort of feel like the bulk of advocacy in this thread for narrow skis in soft snow is that it teaches good technique (whatever that means). A skeptical reader might take the same basic observation and note that it only teaches good technique if it is harder and then further extrapolate that it is harder to use the wrong tool for the job than the right one.

Perhaps we should also be skiing soft snow with only one ski?

I completely acknowledge I have seen several much better skiers than I am on slalom skis in everything, but it doesn't follow that (1) those skiers would not be better yet with more purpose specific skis, (2) I would be better using narrow skis everywhere or (3) that narrow skis are better than wide skis in soft snow in some abstract sense.

well reasoned... you must be new.

 

[David]

I love my 88's in almost everything until it's 6" or more of skied out snow. Being in MI I don't get much chance to ski it so my thought is a 105-ish would be helpful and more fun on those deeper powder days. Yes I've skied powder on my old straight 67's and loved it but if I can ski better and have more fun on a bit wider ski why not.

 

[DoryBreaux]

Sorry it took me a minute to get @Philpug page. Vantage 107 or BMX 105HP but would lean toward the Vantage just because of how much you'll use it vs its cost.
Just do it.

 

[martyg]

I sort of feel like the bulk of advocacy in this thread for narrow skis in soft snow is that it teaches good technique (whatever that means). A skeptical reader might take the same basic observation and note that it only teaches good technique if it is harder and then further extrapolate that it is harder to use the wrong tool for the job than the right one.

Perhaps we should also be skiing soft snow with only one ski?

I completely acknowledge I have seen several much better skiers than I am on slalom skis in everything, but it doesn't follow that (1) those skiers would not be better yet with more purpose specific skis, (2) I would be better using narrow skis everywhere or (3) that narrow skis are better than wide skis in soft snow in some abstract sense.

Good technique = a technically accomplished skier (coaching, video analysis, purposeful perfect practice) = efficiency = less energy expended = more time on the hill per day = being able to ski more of the mountain and style it under control instead of surviving it = being that person who moves like silk in the wind instead of working their ass off for each turn = being fresh for the next day = being able to ski 100 days per year into your 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's.

The problem that I have with wide skis is that skiers buy them, thinking that they are going to be a powder-slaying bad-ass, when in reality 95% of their time is spent on hardpacked. If you come to the west for a week or two and think that you need a wider ski you are mistaken - unless we get a freakish storm - then rent. If you book a month of heli / cat skiing - different story. To edge that ski on hard snow takes large body motions originating from the hips. Then another large body motion to counteract that move. The skis load early, and all at once, when they should load progressively throughout the turn. The skier typically does three or four things to turn the ski - instead of one. Now let's take that couloir that your bad-ass self wants to ski. Do you think the terrain will be favorable to the skier who needs to do a multitude of things to turn the ski?

As an instructor I have private guests who want to carve - and they show up with something 95 or 100 underfoot. You can do it, but it won't be efficient or pretty. That's when we go to the rental shop and I snag a pair of 110 (length - not width) skis with a 9m turn radius so they can feel edge engagement.

There's another thread about Ron LeMaster's lecture series. Go sit in on that.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-good-skier-marty-grabijas/

 

[Ken_R]

Seems to me that the OP asked for 105-110, and the never-ending argument about skinny vs fat skis will not be solved in this thread. Just suggest some skis for the man! Suggest skinnier skis and 'splain why you think they'd be a good fit. Suggest fatter skis and 'splain why you think they'd be a good fit. Suggest skis with the specs he requested. Don't get sucked into the debate.

 

[Ken_R]

I'm looking for something in a 105 - 110 cm ski for the occasional soft snow in MI but more for the 2 weeks I spend in the Rockies every year. While we all want powder the reality is it will be used in crud 90% of the time. I'm looking for decent float, stable at speed, crud and quick enough if I'm in trees.

I currently ski Head SS Rally in a 177 for those hard pack carving days. Stockli SR88 for my daily driver in a 186. I am north of 50, 250 during the coming ski season and I've shrunk down to 5' 11.5". I used to live in CO in my mid 30's and in my head I'm still that guy!

A few I've looked are the Ripstick 106, Enforcer 110, 100Eight, Kore 105, Shaggy's Ahmeek. As far as I can tell most reviewers are 1/2 my size so I'm not finding good reviews for me.

Any thoughts or personal experiences are welcome.

I have demoed the Enforcer 110 (185cm), the 100Eight (181cm?) and the Kore 105 (189cm) and of those three I would recommend the Enforcer. It is not a light ski but its fun and sturdy enough for you.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

Good technique = a technically accomplished skier (coaching, video analysis, purposeful perfect practice) = efficiency = less energy expended = more time on the hill per day = being able to ski more of the mountain and style it under control instead of surviving it = being that person who moves like silk in the wind instead of working their ass off for each turn = being fresh for the next day = being able to ski 100 days per year into your 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's.

The problem that I have with wide skis is that skiers buy them, thinking that they are going to be a powder-slaying bad-ass, when in reality 95% of their time is spent on hardpacked. If you come to the west for a week or two and think that you need a wider ski you are mistaken - unless we get a freakish storm - then rent. If you book a month of heli / cat skiing - different story. To edge that ski on hard snow takes large body motions originating from the hips. Then another large body motion to counteract that move. The skis load early, and all at once, when they should load progressively throughout the turn. The skier typically does three or four things to turn the ski - instead of one. Now let's take that couloir that your bad-ass self wants to ski. Do you think the terrain will be favorable to the skier who needs to do a multitude of things to turn the ski?

As an instructor I have private guests who want to carve - and they show up with something 95 or 100 underfoot. You can do it, but it won't be efficient or pretty. That's when we go to the rental shop and I snag a pair of 110 (length - not width) skis with a 9m turn radius so they can feel edge engagement.

There's another thread about Ron LeMaster's lecture series. Go sit in on that.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-good-skier-marty-grabijas/

Because I feel bad about the thread hijack I'm going to drop this for now and send you a pm.

 

[Rod9301]

I think that you would be limiting yourself with anything wider than 100. Maybe even 95. Skiing crud is about more angulation, less turn. A wider ski doesn't allow you to easily create more pronounced angles. As per John Siefert's body of research once you get wider than 80 on hard snow you are compromising ability to edge that ski due to vector forces.

Not true at all. I ski katanas every day, 112, and they are great.

 

[Rod9301]

Good technique = a technically accomplished skier (coaching, video analysis, purposeful perfect practice) = efficiency = less energy expended = more time on the hill per day = being able to ski more of the mountain and style it under control instead of surviving it = being that person who moves like silk in the wind instead of working their ass off for each turn = being fresh for the next day = being able to ski 100 days per year into your 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's.

The problem that I have with wide skis is that skiers buy them, thinking that they are going to be a powder-slaying bad-ass, when in reality 95% of their time is spent on hardpacked. If you come to the west for a week or two and think that you need a wider ski you are mistaken - unless we get a freakish storm - then rent. If you book a month of heli / cat skiing - different story. To edge that ski on hard snow takes large body motions originating from the hips. Then another large body motion to counteract that move. The skis load early, and all at once, when they should load progressively throughout the turn. The skier typically does three or four things to turn the ski - instead of one. Now let's take that couloir that your bad-ass self wants to ski. Do you think the terrain will be favorable to the skier who needs to do a multitude of things to turn the ski?

As an instructor I have private guests who want to carve - and they show up with something 95 or 100 underfoot. You can do it, but it won't be efficient or pretty. That's when we go to the rental shop and I snag a pair of 110 (length - not width) skis with a 9m turn radius so they can feel edge engagement.

There's another thread about Ron LeMaster's lecture series. Go sit in on that.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-good-skier-marty-grabijas/

Give it a rest.

 

[GregK]

This thread is insane to me as the OP already has carving skis, 88 underfoot skis for daily driving and simply wants wider ones for powder days to add to the quiver. It’s not like he’s wanting to have a one ski quiver of a 120mm ski in MI.
Do these posters who are worrying about carving a powder ski go on sports car forums and tell people with cars and SUV’s as daily drivers that “there have been studies that have shown there is not as much room for kids and groceries in that 2 seat convertible so don’t buy one”.

I ski in similar conditions to MI and still use a wider ski for late afternoon crud busting, when we get a decent snowfall or for trips out West. Take 2 pairs of skis out West in case there is no new snow but am constantly off trail as who goes out West to constantly ski on groomers?

Skis are just tools of the trade and if you have the space and money, getting specific tools for a specific task just makes sense.

Think the Enforcer 110 in 185cm would be my favorite of the ones that were originally listed as it is good in crud and is just a good all around ski in a variety of conditions . The other ski that offers “best in class” in the heavy crud we get in our region would be the Moment Bibby/Wildcat in the 184cm. The 190cm length is even more of a charger but is less playful so I’d go 184cm if you want a more “fun and playful” powder ski. Bibby is the king of playful chargers in a powder ski and still has plenty of backbone in the 184cm. Easy to pick them up a few years old for deals too. I’ve been wanting a pair myself for years and finally got a pair this month.

Now, I’m off to another thread to tell people asking about slalom skis that “those skis don’t have enough float in waist deep powder”!

 

[Guy in Shorts]

Not true at all. I ski katanas every day, 112, and they are great.

Tried this with mine first season that they were new. Lasted about 60 days before they started to fail. Volkl replaced the boards and I have been much more selective when the Kantanas get pulled into action. Being a clydesdale makes it is easy to love your equipment to death.

 

[DoryBreaux]

Now, I’m off to another thread to tell people asking about slalom skis that “those skis don’t have enough float in waist deep powder”!

Tried this with mine first season that they were new. Lasted about 60 days before they started to fail. Volkl replaced the boards and I have been much more selective when the Kantanas get pulled into action. Being a clydesdale makes it is easy to love your equipment to death.

What year Kats? I had a pair from 2010 to 2012 that held up to everything I could throw at them. Then they got retired when I discovered the idea of a multi-ski quiver.