Wider ski > more OR less effort?

[Jilly]

But the OP is looking for an out west ski. I have the same dilemma. Therefore a ice coast ski....my Hero's and an out west ski....now the Atomic Vantage 95.

So let's remember the original question....although I do like graphs vs text!!

 

[trailtrimmer]

If I were based in MI, I'd go narrower than 88 for sure... 68-78 would cover everything except bush wacking in the woods with questionable coverage... Then I'd bust out my old Soul Riders!

Michigan, west, east, etc. If there hasn't been decent snow in a couple days, I have much more fun on a 80ish ski than I do a spatula.

For every season you get blower powder will be two or three that go the other way. I guess that's why we buy more than one ski.

 

[SSSdave]

280

my blue RS110's are 302
or 20mm or 8/10 inch longer
not quite a good binding fit

 

[mikel]

WP/MJ has a great rental/demo fleet including some of the skis mentioned. I would give them a look. Christy Sports is in town and has a decent selection. Also I would think about an FX85 or maybe the 95. You will have to go to Summit to rent those. The biggest concern would be making sure there was a good tune.

And yes the Renoun Z90 is a great choice for WP/MJ. Some days the E98 would probably be a better choice for where you ski there.

 

[NESkier_26]

Having just done a trip to Utah after a 20 year break from western ski trips, I'm in a decent position to respond. Day 2 of the trip featured a demo day at Alta in fresh snow - 5" overnight plus another 4" during the day. And we found some runs where the snow was 12" plus deep. I demoed skis in the 95 mm range -- Stoeckli Stormrider 95 (great ski -- very smooth), Atomic Vantage 95 (very solid ski), and a lighter, more new-age construction Dynastar (which I hated). At the end of the day I also took my Kastle FX84s out for a few runs. For me, there wasn't much of a difference between the 84s and the 95s in the powder and cut up powder at Alta that day. Now, if I only skied 8" of powder and chopped up conditions, the 95s would have been a better choice, but most of my time is spent in non-powder conditions in Maine, where the 84s are a better choice.

Where I did see the limits of my 84s was the next day at Solitude, where it was 16" of fresh (and still snowing) when we arrived the next morning. In bottomless snow, something in the 105 - 115 range would be a significant advantage.

So if it were me for a 1SQ where your primary hill isn't the Rockies, I'd go for something in the 85-90 range for conditions up to a foot of snow (FX85 and Stormrider 88 are great choices albeit expensive), and then rent something in the 115 range for deep powder days.

 

[Monique]

So if it were me for a 1SQ where your primary hill isn't the Rockies, I'd go for something in the 85-90 range for conditions up to a foot of snow (FX85 and Stormrider 88 are great choices albeit expensive), and then rent something in the 115 range for deep powder days.

I believe, though, that the request was for someone who already has a non-rockies ski and wants a different ski for the rockies.

 

[Wendy]

I'd go with 95-98 mm. Will do most anything with less knee strain than something wider. Personally, I like a bit narrower ski in bumps, even when they are powdery.

My Western ski is 100mm. (I'm 5'10", 170 lb). Does everything, but after a few days, I can feel a little knee strain ( meniscus repair and arthritis in my left knee).

 

[Philpug]

What about rocker and flex? I take a look at these two aspects as much as width when I am deciding if a ski is more or less effort to ski.

 

[NESkier_26]

I believe, though, that the request was for someone who already has a non-rockies ski and wants a different ski for the rockies.

Understood. I guess my point was that it's very possible to purchase a ski that works very well for the OP's home hill and still be very effective for many conditions in the Rockies. It's also my experience that the most versatile width for big Rockies skiing (95 - 100 range) isn't optimal for bottomless powder, so even if I bought, say, the Head Great Joy at 98 mm, I'd still want and need something wider for deep powder days.

 

[Stephen Witkop]

Priority is ease of turn initiation and speed control in moguls, trees and steeps. High speed is not a concern, but must have some stability for run outs and roughed up groomers at moderate speed. We almost exclusively ski (tight!) trees and moguls, mostly black diamonds at Winter Park, no double blacks. we ski slow and controlled in the bumps and trees, no zipper line charging for us.

What about rocker and flex? I take a look at these two aspects as much as width when I am deciding if a ski is more or less effort to ski.

I picked up a pair of Nordica El Capos (107 underfoot) cheap on whim thinking powder days but I have found that although they have a bigger sidecut and are wider than my 88mm Brahmas the tapered tail on the El Capos make it almost silly easy to ski the conditions you describe. Think most everything at Jay Peak or Windows and the E-Chair at Breckenridge the tails make it possible to pivot at will when the bumps and trees demand it.

Now I love my Brahmas but they don't like to pivot and take it easy in the tight stuff when you need it or are getting tired. They turn quickly enough but like a more aggressive approach while the El Capos are bigger, heavier, wider and full of metal but pivot and make maneuvering easy when you can't or don't want to carve a clean turn. Perhaps that's why the Savorys have worked for her despite the long length - rocker, flex, tip and tail design more so than width.

As far as the width - knee thing goes, I'm 57, missing my ACL, LCL, cartilage and have arthritis in my right knee. I did notice the width and the feeling of leverage on my knee for the first run or two but I don't feel it all now. If she hasn't had a problem with the Savorys at a long length and will probably only go narrower then she shouldn't worry about it.

As Phil said, many factors to consider

 

[Slim]

What about rocker and flex? I take a look at these two aspects as much as width when I am deciding if a ski is more or less effort to ski.

Very true. that's why my original question was for two skis with a similar design, Like the Pinnacle95/105 or the Soul/Sky. Trying to compare apples to apples. But yes, the first thing I did was lok for skis that were reviewed as 'loose' 'smeary' 'easy to turn' etc.

In fact, my wife's original comment had been simply that she wanted something shorter. Then that got me thinking about width as well.

 

[Slim]

Understood. I guess my point was that it's very possible to purchase a ski that works very well for the OP's home hill and still be very effective for many conditions in the Rockies. It's also my experience that the most versatile width for big Rockies skiing (95 - 100 range) isn't optimal for bottomless powder, so even if I bought, say, the Head Great Joy at 98 mm, I'd still want and need something wider for deep powder days.

That's a good point, thanks for clarifying your original statement, makes a lot more sense now!

 

[Monique]

Windows and the E-Chair at Breckenridge

Om nom nom. Also Doors. Minecrotch is my favorite ...

Oops, sorry, got distracted. Is it ski season yet??????

 

[focker]

None of the answers really capture it.
1) as Doug says, "On firm snow a narrower ski will be easier to ski and edge. "
2) in fresh powder, almost anything is easy to ski. More float (wider and longer) is marginally easier.
3) the big difference is in cut-up powder, and what it turns into as it transitions to crud. There is a "stop-go" effect as your skis go through regions of varying resistance. Reacting to that to stay in fore-aft balance is one of the most fatiguing things in skiing. A bigger ski averages out the resistance over more patches, leading to a dramatic reduction in that "stop-go" feeling.

This was something that my wife hated when we skied out west the first time after a big dump. She has a flexible ski and was thrown around a lot. I would have loved to have had her on a beefier ski that day. I skied my K2 Aftershocks and they just eat up crud. I'm also a much larger person than her (and get thrown around less)

 

[CalG]

Wide skis (around 100 mm under foot) really shine in spring conditions.

75 underfoot is more than enough in the winter. Soft and deep? Keep your speed up! ;-)

 

[markojp]

Wide skis (around 100 mm under foot) really shine in spring conditions.

75 underfoot is more than enough in the winter. Soft and deep? Keep your speed up! ;-)

You need to let the op and others know where you ski. One region's general norm is another's odd ball anomaly.

 

[BoofHead]

Fortunately my norm means that my 100ish skis are not only my narrowest but my least used.

 

[CalG]

You need to let the op and others know where you ski. One region's general norm is another's odd ball anomaly.

Experience base is Colorado Rockies and Utah Wasatch, Montana "cold smoke". and "the East"

Eastern skiing is best on narrower skis. As is Europe.

 

[CalG]

Fortunately my norm means that my 100ish skis are not only my narrowest but my least used.

How that relates to the effort required for wide or narrow skis, I'm not certain.

 

[Monique]

How that relates to the effort required for wide or narrow skis, I'm not certain.

One can assume that @BoofHead finds wider skis less effortful for the conditions he is skiing. Quid sum somethingorother.