Wide Skis Bad...

[Matt Merritt]

Last year I started skiing again after almost four decades away. I had no reference to fall back on whatsoever but nonetheless still hated my new skis on my first day at Mt. Bachelor. I'd taken a private lesson for my first turns and asked why my demo Nordicas felt so awful. My instructor suggested I swap my 112mm underfoot skis for a pair with a width in the mid 80s and my next day's Volkl Blazes were a comparative revelation.

I now own a pair of Kastle FX86s but I still crave a pair of narrow carvers. My season ended before I ever found demos to try but have a complete crush on those flourescent yellow Head e-Race Pros that I might just have to own anyway. Ooh, 68mm...

The other day I came upon this lecture from the 2019 PSIA National Academy on some of the negative effects of wide skis on skiers' technique, muscles and joints:


An online search bought up a number of additional videos such as this one from Ron Kipp, whom I admire very much. Mr. Kipp noted in the comments that his video was targeted at race coaches and asked other skiers to please not be offended. But, still...


I aspire to make turns like all those hand-dragging video stars I love to watch so I guess wide skis bad.

 

[Jilly]

My daily driver is 68mm underfoot. The Rossi Hero ST Ti. I also have a pair of Nordica SA 88's. Those hurt my poor old knees if I ski them on hard groomers....which is 95% of the time here in the GWN. So they get to fly with me out west.

 

[Tricia]

. My instructor suggested I swap my 112mm underfoot skis for a pair with a width in the mid 80s and my next day's Volkl Blazes were a comparative revelation.

A Volkl Deacon would have been a better move for someone getting back into skiing after taking 4 decades off.

And yes, 112 for a daily driver is pretty wide. I'd have steered you to someting in the high 70s or low 80s getting back into skiing.

 

[Castle Dave]

112s after almost 40 years away from skiing That's just crazy talk.
I'm glad you sorted it out but the demo shop guy didn't do you any favours.
BTW my wife loves her Blazes

 

[Tony S]

This is heavily trodden ground here. It's a fraught topic. But yeah, 112 is not what you want or need.

Keep the FX for bumps and skied-out off-piste. Get a pair of carvers, but demo first if possible. If you are serious about learning to arc high angle turns, shorter radius (SL) supports that process better.

 

[Wilhelmson]

I would like to see more videos with people talking about the superiority of narrow skis and requisite skill needed to harness their power. Perhaps the videos could be supplemented with a spirited one sided discussion over the subject,

Is there a particular website where this is possible?

 

[locknload]

This is almost the most cliche and polarized that's discussed here...the topic has been beaten like a dead horse and that's left is bleached bones.

Pick the right tool for the job..and you'll have more fun. Wide skis have their place in deep snow and variable conditions off-piste...but I wouldn't want a 112 MM ski for everyday use..some do. I'd pick a 90mm ish ski if only could only ski one ski all the time...glad I don't have to choose.

 

[Philpug]

Wide skis are not bad, but they can be wrong, depending on snow conditions.

 

[fatbob]

Whoever put you on 112mm skis as a first shot after 40 years out is your problem not wide skis per se.

All skis of all widths tip. The speed at which they do so and the grip with which they will hold a firm surface will vary because physics.

 

[Posaune]

After 40 years away (1980s) the ski technology has changed a lot. Whoever gave you the 112s was an idiot. Those skis are great in uncut and lightly cut new snow. They make you want to ski nothing else, but when you hit the firm groomed slopes they perform way behind skis in the upper 70s and 80s width. When you get your skis under you and you feel good about your skiing go back and give the wide ones a try on the right day.

I regularly ski at the ski area with the world's most new snow but I still have a pair of 88s, 94s, and 118s. Each is good for the right conditions, none is best for all.

 

[Tricia]

This is almost the most cliche and polarized that's discussed here...the topic has been beaten like a dead horse and that's left is bleached bones.

Pick the right tool for the job..and you'll have more fun. Wide skis have their place in deep snow and variable conditions off-piste...but I wouldn't want a 112 MM ski for everyday use..some do. I'd pick a 90mm ish ski if only could only ski one ski all the time...glad I don't have to choose.

Wide skis are not bad, but they can be wrong, depending on snow conditions.

But this isn't just a wide vs skinny ski question.
This is someone who came back to the sport after taking a significant time off and was steared in the wrong direction by a demo guy.
Giving a guy who's been off snow for a significant amount of time, (skied straight skis when he skied last) a 112 is kinda nuts.

 

[locknload]

But this isn't just a wide vs skinny ski question.
This is someone who came back to the sport after taking a significant time off and was steared in the wrong direction by a demo guy.
Giving a guy who's been off snow for a significant amount of time, (skied straight skis when he skied last) a 112 is kinda nuts.

Oh..completely agree. He got horrible advice...and @Philpug got the words right..they aren't "bad"..they are just a poor choice for groomers and low snow conditions. They also aren't bad for your joints if you use them in soft snow when you aren't seeking high edge angles. I was just trying to prevent the discussion we've seen so many times where one faction argues that wide skis are the best ever and the other argues that carvers are the best ever...when, in reality, they all have a place based on preference, style and conditions. I mean we could switch and argue about whether everyone should wear a helmet or not....that's always fun conversation isn't it? OR...we could talk about buying used ski boots on-line without the help of a boot fitter...did I miss anything?

 

[Matt Merritt]

This is heavily trodden ground here.

the topic has been beaten like a dead horse and that's left is bleached bones

I was just trying to prevent the discussion we've seen so many times

I haven't been here long but I have been paying attention and I haven't seen anything on this forum, Realskiers, or in commercial media advising against 90+ mm skis for enjoyable on-piste skiing. I looked on Ski Essentials, searched SkiTalk for "wide skis" and other variations and found nothing. I thought this was important advice; otherwise I'd have let this dead horse lie. Mods please feel free to close this thread with my apologies.

 

[KingGrump]

I haven't been here long but I have been paying attention and I haven't seen anything on this forum, Realskiers, or in commercial media advising against 90+ mm skis for enjoyable on-piste skiing. I looked on Ski Essentials, searched SkiTalk for "wide skis" and other variations and found nothing. I thought this was important advice; otherwise I'd have let this dead horse lie. Mods please feel free to close this thread with my apologies.

In today's world of positivity and PC, it's basically if you ain't got nothing good to say, don't say nothing. Just because it wasn't said doesn't mean it is good.

It's up to you to learn how to read between the line. In fact if nothing good has been said about it, you can bet good money that it is bad.

 

[Bill Miles]

Oh..completely agree. He got horrible advice...and @Philpug got the words right..they aren't "bad"..they are just a poor choice for groomers and low snow conditions. They also aren't bad for your joints if you use them in soft snow when you aren't seeking high edge angles. I was just trying to prevent the discussion we've seen so many times where one faction argues that wide skis are the best ever and the other argues that carvers are the best ever...when, in reality, they all have a place based on preference, style and conditions. I mean we could switch and argue about whether everyone should wear a helmet or not....that's always fun conversation isn't it? OR...we could talk about buying used ski boots on-line without the help of a boot fitter...did I miss anything?

You missed red versus grey...

 

[BMC]

Last year I started skiing again after almost four decades away. I had no reference to fall back on whatsoever but nonetheless still hated my new skis on my first day at Mt. Bachelor. I'd taken a private lesson for my first turns and asked why my demo Nordicas felt so awful. My instructor suggested I swap my 112mm underfoot skis for a pair with a width in the mid 80s and my next day's Volkl Blazes were a comparative revelation.

I now own a pair of Kastle FX86s but I still crave a pair of narrow carvers. My season ended before I ever found demos to try but have a complete crush on those flourescent yellow Head e-Race Pros that I might just have to own anyway. Ooh, 68mm...

The other day I came upon this lecture from the 2019 PSIA National Academy on some of the negative effects of wide skis on skiers' technique, muscles and joints:


An online search bought up a number of additional videos such as this one from Ron Kipp, whom I admire very much. Mr. Kipp noted in the comments that his video was targeted at race coaches and asked other skiers to please not be offended. But, still...


I aspire to make turns like all those hand-dragging video stars I love to watch so I guess wide skis bad.

You did start very wide!

112 for new snow, and quite a deal of it. I can deal with 100mm underfoot if the conditions are ok. For Oz (and East) narrower than that is better (88 for me, as a versatile option).

 

[François Pugh]

Horses for courses. I have 68 mm skis that are wonderful here in Ontario Canada on groomers. I have 108 mm skis that work very well in deep untouched soft Pacific coast snow or chop in glades out there. I have found those 108s are too wide for even soft Pacific coast snow ON TRAILS. 68 mm skis work fine out west on trails, but a 76 mm to 85 mm would not be that far off (from the 68 mm) on the trails and would do better in the trees, but not nearly as good in the fresh deep snow as the 108 mm. BTW this is at a weight of 140 to 150 lbs.
Also consider Rocker vs Camber. Camber on the trail rocker off the trail. Soft vs hard flex, torsional rigidity vs forgiveness.... Life is full of compromises.

 

[dbostedo]

I haven't been here long but I have been paying attention and I haven't seen anything on this forum, Realskiers, or in commercial media advising against 90+ mm skis for enjoyable on-piste skiing. I looked on Ski Essentials, searched SkiTalk for "wide skis" and other variations and found nothing. I thought this was important advice; otherwise I'd have let this dead horse lie. Mods please feel free to close this thread with my apologies.

Some references... I haven't reviewed them to see which advise against 90+ for on-piste, but I'd say in my years here and prior on EpicSki, it's a very common sentiment/piece of advice that the wider the ski, the less piste focused it is. Maybe 90 isn't "the line" for some, but it's a common width where there could be a line. I'm a little surprised you haven't seen/noticed it, but maybe it's because it's kind of old-hat now. Other than the threads below, there are certainly lots of little references too, likely buried in wide ski reviews, or people asking about wider skis and conditions.

For me, personally, my widest ski is 95mm as I don't/haven't gotten really deep days on trips out west.

Why so wide?

A dumb question. But I can’t help it. I’m at a loss as to the why? I’m talking about the east coast. We rarely have true powder. What we often have that pass as powder are mostly “chowder”, fresh snow so dense the ski don’t sink down much anyway (at least not for me). So apart from the...

www.skitalk.com

Instructor Said My Skis Were Too Wide

I’m middle aged and just getting back into skiing this year after 2 decades off. I live in the Midwest and plan to split my ski time between Minnesota and Colorado. I bought my first pair of skis hoping for something that would ski all conditions well. Yesterday I took my first private lessons...

www.skitalk.com

Skiing on fat skis. When are they too wide?

We had demo days at our mountain a few weeks ago just before they closed. A small ski maker had their skis there and were good about letting us try everything. Was a mxed bag day with a lot of different types of snow out there. Skied a bunch all the same route. Had a pair of 115 wide skis I...

www.skitalk.com

Wide Skis, Sore Ankles?

Two weekends ago was my first time skiing fat, wide skis (Atomic Bentchetler 120). The conditions didn't really warrant it but with Spring skiing soon arriving, I thought it was about the best conditions to try out my Bents. The skiing went fine (such a playful, smear-able ski), but when I took...

www.skitalk.com

In defense of wide skis

They are fun. They are fun in many conditions: powder, windbuff, crud to name a few.

www.skitalk.com

Could too-big/wide skis be hurting my hips?

I am an advanced skier but lacking in weight and strength (115lbs, 5'4", not super strong). I currently ski the Black Crows (atris birdies) 108 waist, 169 length. It's my only ski. Is it possible they're a bit much for me to keep swinging around? I had hip issues last year that sometimes caused...

www.skitalk.com

The Influence of Ski Waist-Width and Fatigue on Knee-Joint Stability and Skier Balance

This is a great study... Abstract Alpine skiing is a complex sport that demands a high level of motor control and balance. In general, skiers are prone to deterioration in the state of fatigue due to using inappropriate equipment. As a consequence, the risk of injury might increase. This study...

www.skitalk.com

Snow conditions and ski width

This is my first year skiing after a decade off and it is a whole new world with ski's. Got about 15 days and I've been watching to see what others are using at the mountain while reading lots to figure things out. With things being full on spring yesterday it tosses in a curve ball i didn't...

www.skitalk.com

And no need to close a thread... all conversations are good. If we closed every thread that didn't have perfect usefulness, we wouldn't have much forum content.

 

[LiquidFeet]

I haven't been here long but I have been paying attention and I haven't seen anything on this forum, Realskiers, or in commercial media advising against 90+ mm skis for enjoyable on-piste skiing. I looked on Ski Essentials, searched SkiTalk for "wide skis" and other variations and found nothing. I thought this was important advice; otherwise I'd have let this dead horse lie. Mods please feel free to close this thread with my apologies.

Hey don't worry about it. You haven't read for years and years as consistently as some of these summer forum readers have. How were you to know about all those threads in the past that went down this path in depth? The topic of fat vs narrow tends to end with a few folks taking a hard line for very narrow skis and others promoting wider (over 100) skis for all conditions, and such entrenched perspectives can lead to anger. In a forum this is not good and there are references to that tendency in the comments above.

And congratulations on finding the National Academy and Ron Kipp videos. Those are prime references for this issue. I was there for the National Academy talk. It was illuminating.

As to your question, I don't know of any site that is exclusively devoted to downplaying the functionality of 100+ skis as daily drivers. But you will find sites that mention it. Here are some good essays about wide skis from Jackson Hogan at Real Skiers. You'll find him a good reference for how skis function.

Why Wide Skis Aren’t Good for Your Knees - Realskiers

In his introduction to an overview of current research on the effects of wide skis, Prof. John Seifert of Montana State University explains two fundamental ways that wide skis expose the knee to injury. (We’ll get into the mysteries of just how wide is “wide” and other variables in a minute.)...

realskiers.com

Ω

Why Fat Skis Need Fat Knees - Realskiers

How Fat Got Where It’s At & Where It’s Going Next or, Why Fat Skis Need Fat Knees Atomic Backland Bent Chetler – 120mm underfoot The Atomic Magic Powder first touched snow in 1990, a then ludicrously short (180cm) ski that was fat throughout, roughly as wide as two conventional skis of the day...

realskiers.com

 

[slow-line-fast]

Wide skis are good for deep powder snow,
narrow skis are good for groomers.

My skis range 65-105 underfoot. I am rarely on >90 (but those are great days! )