Reasons to consider narrower skis (<=80cm)

[marzNC]

A few years ago there was a thread about ski width and knees. Deb Armstrong did a few videos in 2020 after the paper that involved Heidi Nunnikhoven came out from the Movement Science Laboratory of Montana State Univ. in Bozeman. @VickiK posted them in the other thread. Thought it would be worth looking at her comments directed at recreational skiers again. In the comments for some video when someone asked about what width Deb recommended, her answer was 75 to 80-ish for that particular situation. For the video below, she's mostly thinking about people who mainly ski groomers and/or are interested in working on understanding the nuances of technique in order to improve in the long run.

Does Ski Width Influence Muscle Action in an Elite Skier? A Case Study

 

[snoWYmonkey]

While I have not yet looked at the video, I am a big proponent of narrower skis for most daily use unless a skier is like my husband who will only go out if it snowed 6 inches or more.

I have discovered a love for carving, which I did not appreciate with wider boards, and when I saw wide, I think of anything over 90 as wider. I go up to 115 underfoot, but my daily drivers are getting narrower and narrower. Narrow, often equals shorter, though sometimes stiffer. For big bumps the shorter lengths are also a major bonus. With the stiffness, I actually find that I feel safer on my narrower stiff skis, than on my wider longer softer powder and soft snow focused skis.

For me narrow is now in the low 70 underfoot range. I have an old pair of dynastar speed masters that are an absolute blast and do everything well. My brand new this week Stockli slalom race skis are very challenging for me to carve with on steeper terrain, but they inspire confidence on firm and icy snow even in a skidded turn. I hope they teach me a thing or two and soften up a touch in the tips as they are little beasts to ski well.

I am so thankful that the trend is going back to a variety of widths. I have been gripped by the threat of unskilled high speed skiers on wide powder boards much more so than any snowboarders the past five years. At least those wide planks usually make enough noise on groomers that I know they are incoming and can practice avoidance in time.

Thank you for posting and starting a conversation that is close to my heart in the days of incessant and sometimes inappropriate marketing (just my opinion) with the goal of selling more skis.

 

[liquidfeet]

@snoWYmonkey, do you now enjoy skis in the mid-80s at the waist? If so, what conditions do you like them for? What skis do you have at that width that you like?

 

[snoWYmonkey]

@snoWYmonkey, do you now enjoy skis in the mid-80s at the waist? If so, what conditions do you like them for? What skis do you have at that width that you like?

Great question! My mid 80s ski is the Volkl deacon 84 from 2 years ago. I never quite fell in love with it. I actually prefer the volkl mantra I also picked up a few years ago generally speaking. I will ski the deacon, with beginners and low level intermediates on any firm to soft groomer and intro to off piste types of days.

I did demo a handful of mid 80 range skis this season in the hope of having that "I love you" experience, and if anything it helped my really appreciate the deacons. They are not super demanding (like the race skis) and they tolerate a little of piste just fine. They hold on ice quite well. I just wish they were more fun to carve with.

On powder days I love my Stella QST 106, on days I have not clue if I am carving groomers or skiing full on powder I use the Mantras. My daily driver was the deacon, but is now the old dynastar 72 underfoot that I am hoping to replace with the stockli laser SL also 72 but such a different beast. All the instructors I know that skied the dynastar loved it. They all found it to be fun and not demanding. Dynastar never got back to me with their new replacement for that ski so I took a chance with Stockli...

 

[marzNC]

I did demo a handful of mid 80 range skis this season in the hope of having that "I love you" experience, and if anything it helped my really appreciate the deacons.

Did you ever try the Stöckli Stormrider 85? Or the replacement model, the Nela 88?

I originally demo'd the Stöckli Laser SC, 72mm, at a demo day in Pennsylvania because the Level 3 instructor I've worked with the most at Massanutten (northern VA) has them. Didn't think I'd be able to handle them. Surprisingly they were a lot of fun. But I was more in the market for all-mountain skis at the time. Plus wasn't interested in spending big bucks for small hills in the mid-Atlantic and southeast. The rep asked me to try to the Stormrider 85. They turned out to be more fun after he moved the binding setting a bit. I didn't buy them until the second day renting them at Taos. They've been working out very well for trips out west.

 

[snoWYmonkey]

@marzNC
Was the binding moved forward or aft?

You are so lucky to be able to demo. Narrower skis are not even sold much here. Wish I could have tried the ones you mention.

I just find the laser harder to engage in a pure carve on steeps at slower speed than my other carver. It does great at unsafe speeds!

 

[marzNC]

@marzNC
Was the binding moved forward or aft?

You are so lucky to be able to demo. Narrower skis are not even sold much here. Wish I could have tried the ones you mention.

I just find the laser harder to engage in a pure carve on steeps at slower speed than my other carver. It does great at unsafe speeds!

Unfortunately, I didn't make a note of which way he moved the binding. What I remember was being surprised how much difference it made. When I brought the skis back the first time, he suggested moving the binding based on whatever I said.

If you could get to the Alta Demo Day in April (assuming it happens), there are usually some mid-80s skis there. One year Head even brought the Super Joy, 74 underfoot. More than half time I've been around for that demo day, snow conditions are much better for testing skis under 80mm than powder skis. I have a note for when I had the Soul7 that I was able to make 5 powder turns, out of an entire run from the top of Collins. Really had to find the thick trees and there isn't that much terrain like that without taking the time to ride Wildcat.

 

[ski diva]

I have a pair of Renoun's that are 77 underfoot, and I have to say that for firm snow, they are da bomb! I get a lot of use for them here in Vermont.

 

[fgor]

Yess, I'm a big fan of narrow skis! We get plenty of hardpack groomers where I ski and a narrower (I seem to like ~70mm) ski is definitely the right tool for the job! Maybe a mid-high 70s ski with some tip rocker would also handle offpiste a little more as well. I love my 88mm width skis but they are an allround/offpiste ski for me

 

[Jilly]

I think everyone knows I love my narrow skis. Yes I have wider skis, but my daily driver is 68mm underfoot. The largest daily driver I've had is 75 - the Rossi Z5's.

@snoWYmonkey - Which Dynastar.? I might have some luck with our local rep here for you.

 

[MissySki]

What are some narrower skis (less than say 80mm) that Divas are loving? I’d like to hear especially from those who tend to ski more in bumps and trees than on groomers. Even when we have low snow there are usually bumped trail edges or lips that I am playing on. And not just fluffy soft stuff, but going into that terrain on hard pack days in New England as well. My go to ski width is in the low 90s underfoot, I tend to find the most skis I like in that size range and that’s my everyday comfort zone. Though I do have skis in the mid 80s for especially icy days.

I also don’t tend to like an overly stiff and damp ski, so that might be part of my struggle when I’ve demoed narrower skis under 80mm. They often seem one dimensional to me and like they’d be fun on groomers but not so much off piste. Would love some recommendations for a future demo day that might change my mind.

I might also tend to go too long in narrower skis. Would I want to size down as well? I’m 5’4 125lbs and most of my skis fall in the mid to high 160s length. My Stockli Stormriders being the exception at 161, they are super stable and I didn’t feel the need for more length. Would an even narrower ski be something I would want to size down to the low 160s as well or even high 150s?

 

[Amie H]

I switched to a 78(-ish?) waist ski and it made a huge difference for me since I ski mostly hardpack and love carving. I don't think my ski is made anymore (K2 True Luv) but they are so much easier for me to ski than the Rossi Temptation I originally bought when I finally switched to shaped skis. I feel like i can ski more aggressively yet comforably/naturally for my style. From what I understand, the binding is set slightly forward, as well. I did a bunch of demos, but did not demo what I bought.

 

[marzNC]

I might also tend to go too long in narrower skis. Would I want to size down as well? I’m 5’4 125lbs and most of my skis fall in the mid to high 160s length. My Stockli Stormriders being the exception at 161, they are super stable and I didn’t feel the need for more length. Would an even narrower ski be something I would want to size down to the low 160s as well or even high 150s?

No specific recommendations since I'm in a different size category and not planning on skiing much in the northeast in the future. However, for general info here's my story.

The difference in length between my narrower skis and my all-mountain skis is 10cm. I wasn't planning to take the 78mm skis out west. I demo'd them @154cm and deliberately bought one size shorter because of where I intended to use them. Ended up skiing them at Bachelor and Mammoth during a late season trip in May 2018 because I was testing out DPS Phantom. As expected for soft spring snow, they weren't the right design or length but they were still okay off-piste. My old Black Pearls (2011 version), 88mm, that are 10cm longer were much more fun the next season at Alta in April. By then I'd treated the BPs with Phantom but hadn't done the all-mountain skis yet. The BPs and the all-mountain skis are the same length but quite different designs so the effective length of the BPs is shorter.

When I started demo'ing fat skis at Alta in late season ten years ago, I often ended up on powder skis that were 10cm longer than my all-mountain skis. I was more of an adventurous intermediate than low advanced at the time and was skiing 75% on groomers. It was hard find demo skis that were short enough for a petite skier, especially at the Alta Demo Day in early April. Since then, I've become a solid advanced skier who likes bump and tree skiing out west. Thanks to a Diva, I now own powder skis and they are the same length as my all-mountain skis. Makes them quite fun skiing fresh powder in the trees, which I've been lucky enough to do in Colorado, and at Taos and Alta since I bought them.

I started to demo a ski model at two different lengths at demo days a while ago. Often that meant a length that I thought would be good and a length that I expected to be too long. Was surprised once when the shorter length was no fun, but I liked the longer length quite a bit. I definitely expected a shorter length for the BP88 wouldn't be as fun as my usual length, but it turned out to be very fun in bumps.

 

[diymom]

No recs on skis to try, but my SA 88 are 165, my Vantage 80xcti are 159, and my Kastle LX72 are 154. So I do go down in length as they get skinnier.

 

[NewEnglandSkier]

When skiing mid-winter in New England, I ski only groomers (don't like icy bumps). My carvers are 75 underfoot and 158 length. My 2 pairs of all mountain skis which get used out west as well as in New England in the spring time, are 92 and 94 underfoot and 163 in length.
So yeah, my carvers are a bit shorter.

 

[MissySki]

Thanks @marzNC, @diymom, and @NewEnglandSkier! I think I will try a size down from my usual when I demo narrower skis next.

Anyone with recommendations on narrower skis that folks like in bumps and trees (if not trees then at least very firm bumps) too? When I search online, I really don't get recommendations that are narrower than 80 for this. So quite annoying..

Hoping some divas might have something they like that works well for this as well so I have some demo ideas. Often when I've demoed and asked the reps about narrower skis going off piste they respond that those skis are much happier staying on groomers etc., and I haven't found them to be wrong in what I have tried so far. Though again maybe the length piece will help where that is concerned too..

 

[NewEnglandSkier]

No recommendations to offer, but for me when I've tried my narrower skis in bumps (hard or softer ones) I think I don't like them because they are a bit stiffer (and fully cambered) than my all mountain skis.
I'm sure this is purely a technique issue and if I was better it wouldn't matter, but for me, the construction matters for my enjoyment in bumps and most of the narrower skis I've tried have been a little stiffer--so I tend to just use them on groomers where they shine.

 

[Jilly]

My Rossi Hero's are 159 with a tip rocker. My SA's are 165.

 

[MissySki]

No recommendations to offer, but for me when I've tried my narrower skis in bumps (hard or softer ones) I think I don't like them because they are a bit stiffer (and fully cambered) than my all mountain skis.
I'm sure this is purely a technique issue and if I was better it wouldn't matter, but for me, the construction matters for my enjoyment in bumps and most of the narrower skis I've tried have been a little stiffer--so I tend to just use them on groomers where they shine.

That's what I find as well. Your point is definitely valid, I'm not a very good bump skier even though I aspire to be and try to practice there (with and without instruction) as much as possible. Someday I'll break through the place I find myself with it, I hope! I've definitely made strides with it in the past few years, but it feels like the improvements I want are taking FOREVER to accomplish and so far off still.

 

[kmb5662]

Thanks @marzNC, @diymom, and @NewEnglandSkier! I think I will try a size down from my usual when I demo narrower skis next.

Anyone with recommendations on narrower skis that folks like in bumps and trees (if not trees then at least very firm bumps) too? When I search online, I really don't get recommendations that are narrower than 80 for this. So quite annoying..

Hoping some divas might have something they like that works well for this as well so I have some demo ideas. Often when I've demoed and asked the reps about narrower skis going off piste they respond that those skis are much happier staying on groomers etc., and I haven't found them to be wrong in what I have tried so far. Though again maybe the length piece will help where that is concerned too..

I actually really like my Atomic Redster X9 WB in the bumps! I haven't taken them in the trees but I'd imagine they'd be fun when conditions are firm. For deeper conditions I would rather take my Sheevas. They are 75mm underfoot and pure camber. They turn on a dime and grip the icy bumps incredibly well.