Wide Skis Bad...

[James]

searched SkiTalk for "wide skis" and other variations and found nothing

There’s the problem right there.
The search engine here is 99% worthless.
For better results go to google, put in whatever, then put @skitalk.com
That works pretty well.

112mm for on piste for first time after 40 years!
That’s a new standard in the “What Happened in the Ski Shop” comedy.

 

[Bad Bob]

What ski width creates the widest grin on a given day? That is the right ski width for that day.
Like many on here, would suggest you try a narrow carving ski before investing. They are often a little tougher drive but can create a very wide grin in the right conditions.

 

[Philpug]

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.

We have talked at extent about this but honesty, who am I to project that they are not enjoyable for on-piste skiing? Some skiers enjoy them immensely, do I agree? Not at the times. Do scold, scoff or ridicule someone on the site or in the lift line that they shouldn't be on the lasted greatest 100mm option from their brand of choice? No. Where I have been critical is of publications that in their "Frontside Ski" comparison, they had more skis over 90mm than under, needless to say, that magazine is ending its print run.

We do talk about narrow options more than most sites on the web.

 

[Après Skier]

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?

Yes, I think you missed the part where you realize you’re not the gatekeeper for the entire Ski Talk online community and you apologize for replying to someone’s earnest and informative post in such a discourteous and condescending manner.

 

[Bad Bob]

4th of July fireworks?

 

[Cheizz]

I ski in Europe, we're much skinnier than you guys in America. Uhm... I mean... our skis are usually a bit narrower. Yeah, that's what I meant.

 

[Andy Mink]

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.

All dead horses need a beating occasionally, if for no other reason to remind those "in the know" that we are still welcoming people back into the sport who may not know what's changed even in the last 10 years.

In my PERSONAL opinion, a 112 can be a DD...if you have fresh snow every day and rarely see groomers. That's not the world in which most of us live. Anything that gets up into the upper 90s and beyond will make my knees ache on firm snow; that doesn't mean they're bad skis or others may not enjoy them. That's just where I'm at. I like to carve and tipping a wider board puts stress on places a narrower one doesn't. Other factors play into the equation, of course, but width is the main player.

As a returning skier I'd suggest an easy riding ski that doesn't punish mistakes. The Head Shape V8, a used pair of Renown Z90s (if you can find them), or other skis with an easy flex and a lot of shape to make it fun. And boots...get good boots first. (That's not a dead horse, that's a herd of dead horses!)

 

[Lauren]

...did I miss anything?

Only the most obvious...snowboarders, ugh.

 

[jcjpdx]

This may be a response that requires a separate thread (I don't know how to do that) but I am very curious as to why you started skiing again after almost forty years away, and what your overall experience was. I started skiing again at age 48, after almost 30 years away, literally after 3 of my colleagues died, one possibly cocaine, one cardiac, one self-inflicted. I realized I was working waaaay too hard and did not wish to be remembered by my kids in that manner. So I rekindled my love of snow and mountains. Overall I found the new equipment made skiing much easier and more accessible, I and I've enjoyed the last 18 years of skiing tremendously.

BTW, when I started skiing again in 2004, 78 mm underfoot was a "mid-fat", 88's were wide and radical was >90.

Ski length, shovel width, camber, early rise, side cut, and materials also have major impact on "skiability", as well as width under foot.

Enjoy your return to this great sport!

 

[fatbob]

As a counterpoint to the wide skis bad I can offer you at least one personal example of skinny skis badder on a groomer last very season. Said groomer in April had been rendered absolutely isothermic rot by sun and altitudinal warming and GS skis were all but impossible to use safely on it. That said they'd been brilliant 30 mins earlier on a higher different aspect refreeze so pick your poison really applies.

As a generality I'm a bigger guy than most so will use a bigger ski. Currently have a not skiing provoked knee issue so don't know if next season it will restrain my choice of width. What concerns me most is not having the tool that will give me the most versatility/fun wherever I end up skiing.

 

[SpeedyKevin]

Everyone already said it best so... I'll say something else. Welcome back to skiing!! Lots of exciting options out there to check out these days!

 

[Cheizz]

The fact that a run has been groomed in the morning doesn't say anything about the softening up during the day. You should match your skis to the conditions you ski, not to the fact that a grooming machine has been on the run during the past 12 hours or that this run is marked as a 'groomer' on the trail map.

 

[fatbob]

The fact that a run has been groomed in the morning doesn't say anything about the softening up during the day. You should match your skis to the conditions you ski, not to the fact that a grooming machine has been on the run during the past 12 hours or that this run is marked as a 'groomer' on the trail map.

Sure <posts that ski caddy cartoon>

<shrugs>
back in the real world.....

 

[Cheizz]

I understand what you're saying. I am hardly ever able to choose one ski for each run. But if I'm going out in April on runs that have been groomed, but will likely be shit after a few hours - then I pick a ski for that day that will handle that shit well. That's mostly a compromise for the early hours in the day, especially if the stuff has refrozen during the night and is rock hard at first. So I pick a ski for not the first two, but the following 5 or 6 hours of the day. A (cheater) GS would not be my choice. If I will be sunk in slush about 4-6 inches for the better part of the day, I pick a ski for that.

 

[locknload]

Yes, I think you missed the part where you realize you’re not the gatekeeper for the entire Ski Talk online community and you apologize for replying to someone’s earnest and informative post in such a discourteous and condescending manner.

Who's being condescending? I think you might be over-personalizing it a bit. Carry on as you will..and have a great day!

 

[fatbob]

I understand what you're saying. I am hardly ever able to choose one ski for each run. But if I'm going out in April on runs that have been groomed, but will likely be shit after a few hours - then I pick a ski for that day that will handle that shit well. That's mostly a compromise for the early hours in the day, especially if the stuff has refrozen during the night and is rock hard at first. So I pick a ski for not the first two, but the following 5 or 6 hours of the day. A (cheater) GS would not be my choice. If I will be sunk in slush about 4-6 inches for the better part of the day, I pick a ski for that.

Yeah I know. I was actually heading in to change but fell into the "one more run" trap as the same run had still been on the firm side of ok at that time the day before. Sometimes you just don't know until you know and at that time of year it can be a matter of minutes. If I'd been on just one pair of skis I wouldn't have been out before 11am.

Anyway I'm sure you get my core point that even for a groomer only skier there is a wide range of possible conditions to address.

 

[Cheizz]

Exactly. That's why in my opinion the fact that a run was originally groomed is irrelevant. But let's continue with other stuff.

How about them snowboarders, right!?

 

[David Chaus]

I've sometimes used a powder-type ski when there's only a few inches of fresh snow, and it's so much fun. Yes I sometimes like to carve and or blast through the same conditions but I don't want to restrict myself to only skiing one way.

Not that long ago I was in a shop getting the brake of a binding replaced, actually replaced the entire binding. The business partner of the guy I'm dealing with was also there and we were talking about upcoming skis for a certain premier brand.

Now these are both experienced skiers, teachers, race coaches; etc, and the business partner was talking about using his SL's for powder (which only moments before the guy I'm talking with had predicted). To these skiers, more experienced and higher level than I, I'm making the point that a ski with some rise/rocker in the tip and tail made it easier to de-edge, release the tail and pivot in soft snow.

This guy looked at me like I was speaking in a foreign language, and his only reply was "I want to be IN the snow, not on top of it." Nothing wrong with wanting that, but it also tells me he hasn't experienced the joy of floating and surfing above the surface. Or maybe it's an ego thing. I've had other coaches, also far more experienced and skilled than I, who use powder skis whenever they can and teach the full range of skills for advanced/expert skiing.

The point is that while carving on firm snow is certainly a desirable skill to master, with rewarding outcomes, it is not the only skill I want nor the only outcome I want to experience. To only have a tool meant for carving and expect it to excel in all conditions makes you work that much harder, and for me it's no longer fun.

Similarly, it is not much fun to carve on a wider ski. I can do it to get back to the lifts, but not my choice on a groomer day. Even a slushy groomer.

 

[SpeedyKevin]

Exactly. That's why in my opinion the fact that a run was originally groomed is irrelevant. But let's continue with other stuff.

How about them snowboarders, right!?

This was a good thread, let's not ruin it
jk I came from snowboarding haha

 

[Dr. Kim]

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.

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.

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.