In defence of narrow skis

[mdf]

it is interesting that the researchgate article quoted says nothing about cantilever forces. It talks about the amount of rotation in the various planes, for skiers running the same gated course.
I agree with @Eleeski that width is largely a marker for a whole lot of other ski-design differences, any one of which (sidecut radius?) could be the real causative factor.
When it gets really icy, I use the real slalom skis. But I think the stiffness and smaller radius is what makes the most difference, not the narrow width.

 

[crgildart]

it is interesting that the researchgate article quoted says nothing about cantilever forces. It talks about the amount of rotation in the various planes, for skiers running the same gated course.
I agree with @Eleeski that width is largely a marker for a whole lot of other ski-design differences, any one of which (sidecut radius?) could be the real causative factor.
When it gets really icy, I use the real slalom skis. But I think the stiffness and smaller radius is what makes the most difference, not the narrow width.

So, if that's true then wouldn't all the major players be building frontside carvers and race skis (both recreational and eventually FIS) on a wider platform? They would if they could because that gets rid of the boot out problem. All of the top vendors would have lobbied FIS to allow a wider waist because that would be safer for the angles racers achieve. If an equal or better hard snow and ice ski can be made with a wider waist, we'd be seeing everyone skiing on them in the 2018 Olympics.

 

[Philpug]

Skinny or fat; it doesn't matter, it's what's inside that counts. At least that's what my mother always told me.

Your mom is/was a skier? Thats cool.

 

[Eleeski]

@crgildart My Race Tigers are fairly wide - especially at the tip and tail. I don't know if they are FIS legal but they are aimed at hard snow. Overall, they are wider than some skis I ride. They are not very good in powder despite the area underfoot but are pretty good on the ice.

What do the stick figure models say about tip and tail width?

Many factors are in play.

Eric

 

[Lauren]

Your mom is/was a skier? Thats cool.

Not so sure she meant for her life wisdom to be applied to skis...but I think it works. She dabbles on skis...after taking 12-ish years off, my husband and I got her back onto some skis couple years ago...after one run she asked "why did I ever stop", with a huge smile.

 

[crgildart]

@crgildart My Race Tigers are fairly wide - especially at the tip and tail. I don't know if they are FIS legal but they are aimed at hard snow. Overall, they are wider than some skis I ride. They are not very good in powder despite the area underfoot but are pretty good on the ice.

What do the stick figure models say about tip and tail width?

Many factors are in play.

Eric

It's the part under the boot that matters, the part where your weight is concentrated.. You failed to answer why dedicated carvers and race skis are sub 75 waist. Here's a way to find out. Try detuning the area under your boot but leave the tip and tail razor sharp, go ski some ice, and get back to me... from the hospital!

 

[cantunamunch]

I had the 45mm Elan Stealths on some boiler plate...I will say there is a reason that there aren't skis below 60mm...two words diminishing returns.

Yeh, but there were other things going on there too; for example they were so soft longitudinally that getting edging power out to the tips was a serious problem. Camber was meaningless and there was no way to really move one's pressure forward or back - again because they were so soft.

Then, they had close to zero taper with a truly parabolic sidecut, Even SL skis wound up getting more advanced sidecuts and very much more taper within what, 4-5 years of the Stealths/Predators coming out?

Last but not least - 70mm lift took getting used to - and if one was over or underedged in the boot it got massively amplified. Our boots are better now, pretty much across the market.

It was a good try - good enough for me to keep my pair of Predators in serviceeable condition - but it really needs to be rethought with more than just cap & foam core technology.

 

[trailtrimmer]

Were there riser plates on the super skinny skis?

 

[cantunamunch]

Were there riser plates on the super skinny skis?

Hollow ABS ones, for a total lift of 70 mm above the snow. The problem with the risers was they were a) tiny in surface area so there was simply no room to drill multiple mounts b) hollow so you couldn't plug them with epoxy and metal fiber d) split-level as in -_- so you couldn't really tweak the forward/back mounting position and heaven help you if you wanted to try them tele.

Like I said, plenty of things to do better. And there's great oceans of practical build room between Elan's design and Anton's overbuild.

 

[Eleeski]

It's the part under the boot that matters, the part where your weight is concentrated.. You failed to answer why dedicated carvers and race skis are sub 75 waist. Here's a way to find out. Try detuning the area under your boot but leave the tip and tail razor sharp, go ski some ice, and get back to me... from the hospital!

I tend to detune my edges underfoot quite often. The rocks seem to preferentially grind there (but not always). I'm able to feel where a ski is grippiest and adjust my style to take advantage of that. Sometimes I stomp underfoot, sometimes I follow the front edge and sometimes I ride the tail rail. We have a lot of range of motion to make the ski turn (and keep us out of the hospital?).

Personally, I find lifts exaggerate ski effects I feel. Sometimes that's good but I prefer a flatter mount in most cases. It's hard to imagine that lifts would make it easier on the knees unless the ski was designed for that.

I don't race much so I can't say if the extra area of a wide ski would slow you down - but that sounds plausible. Many of the race ski parameters are mandated so there won't be much variation from that. While there might not be a big disadvantage to wide skis, there might not be an advantage. So why redesign the wheel? I have skied some reasonably wide skis that carve well and behave on firm snow (my Praxis Backcountries).

It would be fun to try a super skinny ski.

Yeh, but there were other things going on there too

It takes quality design to make anything work.

Eric

 

[Brian Finch]

Yet to see anyone go turn<>turn with me while this is the ride

 

[Chris Walker]

Surprised anyone needs to defend skinny skis. The performance on the frontside has been proven.

I'd find it surprising too, but I remember when Seth Masia was practically run out of Epic on a rail for suggesting that the learners he sees, who mostly ski on compacted snow, would have been better served if shops had more offerings in the narrow/carving category.

 

[slowrider]

What waist width do most Intermediates buy?

 

[Jilly]

74-80 in our local shop.

 

[cantunamunch]

74-80 in our local shop.

ours too - and the owners insist unless the person has a specific western skiing plan.

 

[crgildart]

Skied bulletproof refrozen topped with death cookies on an 86 waist full camber yesterday.. Was probably the worst ride I can recall in quite some time.. And I've skied plenty of cookies on narrower (80 and under) skis with little complaint. I think some of my fillings rattled loose yesterday hahahaha! Terrible rattly ride..