How skinny is too skinny? Ski waist that is . . .

[NewEnglandSkier]

So, I was looking over my list of skis I want to try and demo and was noticing that there is quite a range of waist sizes in my list. It ranges from 67 up to 74. These skis would generally be used on groomed eastern runs (probably hard pack at times, but no ice-- ice scares me and I won't ski on those kinds of days). I know that typically skinnier skis tend to do better on hard packed surfaces, but would you say that 67 is too thin? Would 74 be too fat for my purposes? I know the answer is to try them all and find out for myself, but I just don't want to focus on the wrong skis. I want to focus on widths generally thought of to do well on groomed runs and runs with a 1-2" fresh snow. What do people think about optimum waist width for eastern conditions? Thanks!

 

[abc]

I don't think you should focus so much on the waist width. Yes, all thing being equal, a narrow ski is easier to ski on hardpack. But everything is NEVER equal.

Try one of 74mm width and one of 67mm, you may like one or the other, or don't care.

There's no reason a ski is "too skinny" for hardpack. "Float" is only an issue for soft powder.

 

[Jilly]

In any demo's that I've done with different waist width, is the transition from edge to edge. My normal skis (Rossi Z5) are very quick edge to edge. Last week I retried the Victory's. I would say to myself, where's the edge?, where's the edge? Oh there it is. Just not as quick as I'm used to. I didn't notice it so much in the Salomon Aero X. Side cut was similar to my Z's. Back on the Breeze, same thing - where's that edge? Quicker edge to edge also doesn't necessarily make quicker turns (slalom type). So you need to demo.

 

[liquidfeet]

So, I was looking over my list of skis I want to try and demo and was noticing that there is quite a range of waist sizes in my list. It ranges from 67 up to 74. These skis would generally be used on groomed eastern runs (probably hard pack at times, but no ice-- ice scares me and I won't ski on those kinds of days). I know that typically skinnier skis tend to do better on hard packed surfaces, but would you say that 67 is too thin? Would 74 be too fat for my purposes? I know the answer is to try them all and find out for myself, but I just don't want to focus on the wrong skis. I want to focus on widths generally thought of to do well on groomed runs and runs with a 1-2" fresh snow. What do people think about optimum waist width for eastern conditions? Thanks!

If you live in New England and avoid skiing icy days, you need to focus on narrow waist width. 70mm or less is what you want. That gives you immediate ski response to your body's tipping actions, located in your ankles and knees. On hard New England snow, you need control, control, control. When you tip your ankles/knees, you want the skis to tip up. So get skis that are easy to tip up, and that means narrow waists. 67 is GREAT. With a little ankle movement, the skis will tip up so they will turn. If you have wide skis (80-90, or even 74), then you have to tip more with your ankles and knees to get the skis up, and if you are not confident on ice, you don't want to be struggling to get those strong angles in your body. The more you stand up straight, instead of being bent into the angles of an expert, the narrower you want that ski ... if you are skiing on hard home-made snow. You want to get the skis to respond with as little body english as possible. That's the whole point of narrow waists.

 

[MaineSkiLady]

As a fellow New England skier , I have found that narrow still serves my purposes best. I'm not sure, but I think my Dynastars are 67 (Exclusive 10) at the waist. Whatever they are, they are phenomenal in our typical conditions, including ice, which is simply unavoidable here. (not wall-to-wall but have to be prepared for the patches) I also have a pair of skis with a 74 waist, and I find those are great "crud-busters." They will suffice on the rare untracked day up here in Maine, but as we know, that condition lasts about 20 minutes, then it's all tracked up crud. That's when the extra waist width is useful.

Should you take a trip west, there is always the option of renting. I have seen the occasional skier out here with 90+ waist skis and I just don't get it or understand the need??

Another tip: on hard snow, edges dull after 2 days. Razor-sharp edges are a joy in our often lamentable conditions. But hey, it's still skiing!!

 

[RachelV]

I have seen the occasional skier out here with 90+ waist skis and I just don't get it or understand the need??

Heh, need? No need, but they're fun! I got some park/powder skis this year (94 underfoot?), thinking I'd use them occasionally here when I knew I was going to be fooling around in the park to save the edges on my carving skis, and then take them out west when we go. But I tried them out the first day of the season, just to try them, and you know what? They're really fun to ski on. Very forgiving, and not at all as unmanageable on hardpack as I thought they'd be. I guess I really can't think of a better word to describe them than "fun".

My other skis are 77 underfoot, and I really don't notice them being slower edge-to-edge than my previous skis, which were something like 68 underfoot. They also give me a little extra oomph in crud and can handle some soft snow pretty well.

So I guess I'm the one dissenting voice in this thread so far -- I'd try something a little fatter, and if you're still happy with the carving performance, go with that.

 

[liquidfeet]

I want to focus on widths generally thought of to do well on groomed runs and runs with a 1-2" fresh snow. What do people think about optimum waist width for eastern conditions? Thanks!

NES,
How often do you ski in New England? You say you avoid icy days. If you only go out when there's some sky snow on the slopes, then 74mm at the waist might be your best bet. But if you spend your days on groomed stuff that was skied on yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that, as most of us here do, then nice and narrow (67) is probably your best bet to get the turns to work with the least effort on your part. But sure, demoing will tell you the right answer, because everyone skis differently. Your body movements may work better on groomed runs here with the slightly wider 74s.

What skis are you looking at?

 

[NewEnglandSkier]

Great, thanks for the replys! It sounds like I really will have to try everything and just see what I like best. I forgot to mention I really enjoy spring skiing which gets pretty soft (more narrow not as good?), so really depending on what kind of day it sounds like any of the widths may suffice. Darn, I was hoping to get more focus to my list-- basically what I've done is go on each manufacturers website and try to determine which are the low/mid intermediate skis-- so my list to try is pretty long.

 

[NewEnglandSkier]

I guess I should explain what I mean by no ice-- I don't mind hard pack- regroomed snow. But what I mean is if we get an ice storm or freezing rain and the entire slope is glistening in a coat of ice--I won't ski that day.

 

[Jilly]

You define ice the same way I do. It blue and you can see the grass through it. I belongs in my drink and not on the slopes!

 

[MaineSkiLady]

See thread re different names for snow -- the eastern contingent has done an amusing and probably totally accurate breakdown of all the different types of "ice"

 

[abc]

Been skiing for years on 68mm straight skis. Slush is fine.

However, the real deal with width is. If the snow is chopped up, you feel more of it on narrow skis while a midfat will simply ride over the small chopped up stuff.

Personally, I'm not one for wide skis except for really soft snow. I mean, snow soft enough the ski disappears underfoot. That's when the fat plank helps for lateral stability.

 

[volklgirl]

But of course you need a quiver!!!!

67mm waist and turny for 75-90% of your eastern days

80-90mm and 18-22ish sidecut for those rare soft days, freshies, crud, and vacations to soft-snow land.

 

[Quiver Queen]

When I was looking for high-speed carvers, this is the long list I started with, then narrowed it down to Volkl and the Nordica. But you can see the waist ranged from 65 - 76 mm, and I'd challenge the edging of the fatter ones against any of the skinnier ones, as radius didn't correlate with waist (radius given for length appx 160 cm), nor does ability to clean carve correlate with dimensions.

Volkl Attiva Fuego 121-73-105, 12.9 m
Nordica Olympia Firefox 120-70-103, 13 m
Head Thang Power 111-66-97, 14.2 m
Salomon Rush 112-65-95, 13.3 m
Blizzard Passion Vega 119-70-98, 14.5 m
DynastarExclusive Fluid Ltd120-68-102, 12 m
Elan Magic Speed 116-70-105, 16 m
Roxy Joyrider 126-74-105, 13 m
Fischer Vision 73 118-73-105, 13 m
Fischer Vision 76 120-76-106, 14 m
Fischer Vision Vapor 118-76-102, 15 m

 

[Elangirl]

Last year, I skied the Elan Speed Magic for everything---hardpack, powder, bowls, crud--and really loved that ski--the waist is 68mm.

This year I have the Mag Spice which has a waist of 75mm. I think that the extra width gives me a little more float in powder---less work for yours truly---and I like the way the turns are going too.

I don't find a big difference in the Mag Spice or the Speed Magic in terms of turn initiation---but each ski has a different "feel"----the Mag Spice is more snappy and fun, the Speed Magic is stable and dependable.

I worked at a demo day yesterday and just laughed--one person would take out a ski and love the snappy turns, then another person would take out the same ski and feel that it was sluggish. So much depends on your style of skiing---I love the Speed Magics because I can lay down arcs on it all day---my hip is about two inches from the snow sometimes---it is fun to rip on it.

But, if I did not like to carve and wanted to skid some of my turns, I would probably not like the ski. After skiing with lots of women who were demoing the skis, I can see that you have to try them out and see what works best with your style and preferences.