Are our skis too fat?

[ski diva]

This article was in the October issue of SKI Magazine. In it, the writer, who's an instructor at Vail and the Technical Editor of SKI magazine, talks about how many people are skiing on skis that are way too wide for conditions, and that our technique may suffer for it. I know the trend over the past five years or so has been toward wider skis, so I was wondering; What do you think about this?

 

[sibhusky]

I'm thinking this discussion will go differently here than it did on Epic.

 

[ski diva]

I'm thinking this discussion will go differently here than it did on Epic.

Huh, didn't even see it there.

 

[sibhusky]

195 posts. Some violent reactions.

 

[surfsnowgirl]

Interesting folks over there on epic. I actually had some guy on epic tell me that instead of shooting for a narrower carver that I should spend my money on lessons and work on getting better so that a wider ski is my preference. I disagree but I don't want to elaborate here because the topic of this tread is fatter skis not narrower ones. I just meant there's a lot of testosterone on epic is all. I am sure we will be much more civilized and just nicer here.

 

[ski diva]

195 posts. Some violent reactions.

Let's see if we can avoid that here. Spirited is fine, but violent, well, why.

Years ago -- and I'm going back years -- all we had was narrow skis. And people managed quite well, thank you.

That said, I've skied mid-80's (Hell's Belles) to mid-90's (Elysians and Auras) on hard pack with no problem. I don't think any of those are considered wide by today's standards, but that's wide enough for me. My Tierras, though, which hold onto ice like they're riding on rails, have a 78 waist. And NOTHING grips like those babies.

I know some people have told me that in powder, they want to get down IN the snow instead of riding on top, as they'd do on super-wides. I can see their point, too. What do you think?

 

[bounceswoosh]

I'm thinking this discussion will go differently here than it did on Epic.

Multiple threads, I believe.

Years ago -- and I'm going back years -- all we had was narrow skis. And people managed quite well, thank you.

I wonder about that. People say that, but I also saw a feature in a recent The Ski Journal about some resort - details completely escape me at the moment - and how only boarders were there in the - 80s? - because the snow was so deep that skiers avoided it. They had some pictures of skiers at the time skiing there, but the framing was very much that it was unusual because most people couldn't deal with that much snow on skis. So yes, people managed, but I wonder if they also largely selected different terrain/snow.

 

[sibhusky]

Well, apparently for some guys on Epic my 98's are narrow, but then I'm old, possibly grumpy, and from the East Coast. Clearly without any cred.

 

[ski diva]

I wonder about that. People say that, but I also saw a feature in a recent The Ski Journal about some resort - details completely escape me at the moment - and how only boarders were there in the - 80s? - because the snow was so deep that skiers avoided it. They had some pictures of skiers at the time skiing there, but the framing was very much that it was unusual because most people couldn't deal with that much snow on skis. So yes, people managed, but I wonder if they also largely selected different terrain/snow.

Could be, indeed. I'd love to hear if anyone has any first-hand experience or information about that.

 

[ski diva]

Well, apparently for some guys on Epic my 98's are narrow, but then I'm old, possibly grumpy, and from the East Coast. Clearly without any cred.

 

[bounceswoosh]

Well, apparently for some guys on Epic my 98's are narrow, but then I'm old, possibly grumpy, and from the East Coast. Clearly without any cred.

I get just as annoyed at the guys who say I'm destroying my knees by skiing a 100 or heaven forfend a 110. Or 115.

 

[Christy]

I've resisted wider skis. My BPs are what, 88? I live in a place where wider is certainly warranted, but every time I've demoed I've just not enjoyed them.

 

[elemmac]

Years ago -- and I'm going back years -- all we had was narrow skis. And people managed quite well, thank you.

I feel like people managed in powder in the 80's with narrow skis the same way people now manage with fat skis on groomers. It's not ideal, but they manage just fine.

With that being said, I love my chubby skis and won't be trading them for skinny ladies any time soon. Even being an east coaster, my quiver ranges from 88 and 110, with the 100 underfoot getting the most use. I just like the way they ski. I can get them to be playful in most snow conditions, but still man-up when the harder pack comes along. I've just never had a strong bond with any skinny skis, who knows maybe there's one out there I haven't tried yet that I'd love.

 

[Skier31]

Who cares? Ski what you like and what works for you. I have 2 pairs of skis. My 82 width Kastles for most days and my 98 Nemesis for powder days. I don't want more than 2 pairs of skis and both of them work fine. I honestly don't understand the allure of >100 width skis unless it is a powder day. My preference is a quick edge to edge, full cambered ski for my everyday skiing but I can appreciate that others feel differently.

 

[bounceswoosh]

I think the point that this instructor is making is fair up to a point. I will bet you that the majority of people who take Ski Magazine as a source of reliable info either 1) Don't typically ski out west (just based on the articles and topics and reviews) or 2) aren't very high level skiers.

Wider skis take more time and skill to get up on edge. If a skier is on a wider ski before they have the skills, it can lead to a lot of tail pushing and inability to edge. If a skier is on a wide ski when they're skiing hardpack most of the time, you kind of have to wonder why, because it is more effort to tip. Maybe they only want to deal with one ski and they really prioritize having the fatter ski on rare powder days. Or like @elemmac they just like the feel of the fatter ski (I'll note that the snow in your profile pic looks pretty good for a fatter ski). Maybe they like smeary skiing more than carvy skiing.

NOTE that I'm not claiming the opposite - I'm not claiming that advanced skiers (like @Skier31 ) can't love skinn(ier) skis. I'm talking about the demographic that might be on skis so fat it does them a disservice.

That being said, I feel no need to have something under 100mm underfoot. I did - I bought The Ski - and now I'm selling it because I don't need it or have a great place for it in my quiver. I sold my 125mm underfoot Icelantic Gypsies because I never loved them quite as much while skiing them as I wanted to. But I think that has a lot to do with shape and construction, too - they are total planks - awesome for crud but difficult unless you really charge. I ski with a number of fellow students at Breck whose daily drivers are Fatypus I-Rocks and V-Rocks - 126 underfoot. They swear these skis do everything well, and who am I to disagree? Some of them are much better skiers than I am.

I think this instructor is talking about daily drivers, not powder skis - but for powder skis, weight matters. I am not going to float on the same dimensions that e.g. @Skier31 will.

 

[pinto]

Actually, the trend has kind of been going back away from fat (superfat, anyway) in the past few years. Partly because a lot of the big snow regions haven't had big snow, and partly because ski technology and shapes are improving, and you can get more float out of a, say, 95 ski than you could previously. Any article that claims everyone is on a big wide ski is a couple years out of date, imo.

 

[bounceswoosh]

partly because ski technology and shapes are improving, and you can get more float out of a, say, 95 ski than you could previously.

This is relevant to my interests. How *does* that work?

(I have been agonizing about getting the Volkl One in a 166 because on paper it looks like it's just shy in dimensions of my Sick Day 110s @ 172 that don't float me quite as much as I'd like.)

 

[pinto]

Tip shape and materials, for one thing ... all the carbon and lightness being added there, and adding rocker to a skinnier ski but not a ton.

 

[elemmac]

This is relevant to my interests. How *does* that work?

(I have been agonizing about getting the Volkl One in a 166 because on paper it looks like it's just shy in dimensions of my Sick Day 110s @ 172 that don't float me quite as much as I'd like.)

One of the shapes that I see a lot more of in the past couple of years is a very wide tip and tail, yet very reasonable underfoot. Giving the ski a shorter turn radius, so a lot more maneuverable, but more float with the wide tip. Then there's the whole early-rise technology that lets you ski a much larger ski than you would normally be on, giving you more surface area to float on.

Then there's reverse camber, which is where the Volkl One comes in. I've never tried the Sick Day, but I believe they are regular camber underfoot (?). The One is a full rocker...and I must say it has A LOT of it...like grandma's rocking chair style rocker. Standing on hardpack I found only about 2-3 feet was touching the ground. The full rocker works similar to the shape of a water ski, keeps it afloat and helps you keep edges from catching in deep snow.

 

[bounceswoosh]

Then there's reverse camber, which is where the Volkl One comes in. I've never tried the Sick Day, but I believe they are regular camber underfoot (?). The One is a full rocker...and I must say it has A LOT of it...like grandma's rocking chair style rocker. Standing on hardpack I found only about 2-3 feet was touching the ground. The full rocker works similar to the shape of a water ski, keeps it afloat and helps you keep edges from catching in deep snow.

I hope that's how it works! My old powder skis were Icelantic Gypsies, also full rocker (and lots of it) but 125mm underfoot and 170cm. So I've been antsy about whether the Ones will be long enough to float me. But I think the Gypsies were overkill in terms of surface area. I fought them too much pretty much everywhere but Silverton.