When did wide become a trend?

[TiffAlt]

As I'm basically brand new to skiing, I've recently been introduced to the controversial "fat" and "skinny" ski debate. As I've said before, I really want to become better at carving and I've been searching for narrower width skis to demo, but with little success, at least here in the west. Background: after a not so great first experience buying sight unseen then a really successful demo with my Volkl Yumis, I've really come to see value in demoing. I actually called up a few places around here in Washington today and inquired into them possibly carrying both narrower and shorter skis in their demo fleet next season. I figured it never hurts to ask so they can see there is interest and I did get one store to reassure me they'd try to carry the Stockli Montero AX in shorter demo sizes next year!

TL;DR: When did wide skis become such a trend? Will the pendulum ever swing the other way in your opinion? Is this cyclical?

 

[MissySki]

Honestly, I don’t really think it’s all that controversial. I started skiing around 15 years ago and there have always been people on very wide skis as their daily drivers and others not.. even in New England. Ski selection is very subjective.

I ski in the Northeast and can find a good selection of widths to demo. After my first few seasons I went to 84-98 width skis and never looked back. For years I stuck to mostly the high 90s just because I liked those skis best. My current daily drivers are 85 for very icy days (Stockli Stormrider 85), and 86 and 92 (Volkl Blaze 86 and Sheeva 9 which is 92 underfoot) for everything else. I can carve all of them very well, and never exclusively worked on carving on skinny skis outside of one season where I did a race clinic with some junior race skis. I get compliments from instructors on my high edge angles often. I do not have knee pain from skiing any of my skis, but I just turned 40 so perhaps that will come! Lol So far my knees have never been unhappy with any of my ski choices though. I do seasonal programs at my home mountain and did a ski week in Taos this year, I enjoy working on technique with high level instructors and do it often. I have never been told by any of them that I should be on a narrower ski. I have seen others have this experience, but that hasn’t been mine yet.

Anyway, I might be an outlier, but I don’t really put a huge emphasis on ski width. It’s more the characteristics of the ski that matter to me. As you can see above, my 85 width Stocklis I use for extreme New England ice, and they hold an edge on everything. Then I skied an 86 width ski this season on everything from a bunch of powder at Taos, to bumps and trees all season, and all spring even an almost 80 degree day last weekend. They are super versatile. I can use the 92 underfoot Sheeva pretty interchangeably with the Blaze as well.

I do 100% advocate for demoing before buying a ski. I have had several instances where I cannot get a pair of skis off of my feet fast enough. It would be horrible to buy skis and find that out after the fact. I just wouldn’t overthink it so much.. get out and demo and then choose what you like best. If your shops don’t have what you want to demo, maybe that’s a good excuse to take a trip elsewhere and play with some demos.

 

[Pequenita]

Not sure what counts as "fat" in this discussion. To me, it's over 100. I think of that width and design as synonymous with Shane McConkey and K2 Pon2oons - so like mid 2000s? For a while, Tahoe-area locals skied kind of crazy-wide skis inbounds, and it's finally dialed back a little, but I still see a lot of 108s on a regular day (like yesterday).

When I am on hardpack, I am on jr SL race skis, with a 67mm waist. In Tahoe. It's really helped with my edging when I get on wider skis. Demo reps never have short, skinnier skis, but if you are at a resort with a dedicated demo fleet, they often do - Palisades has been really good about this in my experience.

 

[MissySki]

Not sure what counts as "fat" in this discussion. To me, it's over 100. I think of that width and design as synonymous with Shane McConkey and K2 Pon2oons - so like mid 2000s? For a while, Tahoe-area locals skied kind of crazy-wide skis inbounds, and it's finally dialed back a little, but I still see a lot of 108s on a regular day (like yesterday).

When I am on hardpack, I am on jr SL race skis, with a 67mm waist. In Tahoe. It's really helped with my edging when I get on wider skis. Demo reps never have short, skinnier skis, but if you are at a resort with a dedicated demo fleet, they often do - Palisades has been really good about this in my experience.

I was making assumptions based on other recent threads that have been discussing skinnier skies as those below 80, that we were defining "fatter" as above that? Though maybe the OP can comment on what she is defining it as in terms of what is available for demo around her. I can't imagine there wouldn't be skis in the 80s and 90s everywhere for demo because those are quite popular size ranges overall in the all mountain categories.. and I've seen them for demo almost anywhere I've skied in the country.

 

[ski diva]

Honestly, I don’t really think it’s all that controversial. I started skiing around 15 years ago and there have always been people on very wide skis as their daily drivers and others not.. even in New England. Ski selection is very subjective.

I ski in the Northeast and can find a good selection of widths to demo. After my first few seasons I went to 84-98 width skis and never looked back. For years I stuck to mostly the high 90s just because I liked those skis best. My current daily drivers are 85 for very icy days (Stockli Stormrider 85), and 86 and 92 (Volkl Blaze 86 and Sheeva 9 which is 92 underfoot) for everything else. I can carve all of them very well, and never exclusively worked on carving on skinny skis outside of one season where I did a race clinic with some junior race skis. I get compliments from instructors on my high edge angles often. I do not have knee pain from skiing any of my skis, but I just turned 40 so perhaps that will come! Lol So far my knees have never been unhappy with any of my ski choices though. I do seasonal programs at my home mountain and did a ski week in Taos this year, I enjoy working on technique with high level instructors and do it often. I have never been told by any of them that I should be on a narrower ski. I have seen others have this experience, but that hasn’t been mine yet.

Anyway, I might be an outlier, but I don’t really put a huge emphasis on ski width. It’s more the characteristics of the ski that matter to me. As you can see above, my 85 width Stocklis I use for extreme New England ice, and they hold an edge on everything. Then I skied an 86 width ski this season on everything from a bunch of powder at Taos, to bumps and trees all season, and all spring even an almost 80 degree day last weekend. They are super versatile. I can use the 92 underfoot Sheeva pretty interchangeably with the Blaze as well.

I do 100% advocate for demoing before buying a ski. I have had several instances where I cannot get a pair of skis off of my feet fast enough. It would be horrible to buy skis and find that out after the fact. I just wouldn’t overthink it so much.. get out and demo and then choose what you like best. If your shops don’t have what you want to demo, maybe that’s a good excuse to take a trip elsewhere and play with some demos.

I agree with everything @Missy said above.

HOWEVER....skis have gotten wider since the late 90's. It used to be that an 84-waist was considered a really wide ski, and that's considered pretty narrow now. Over time, wide skis have improved substantially. The ones you can buy today have much better torsional rigidity than they did in the past, so they can perform well not just in powder, but on groomed and hardpack conditions, as well. My narrowest ski is the Nordica Santa Ana 84, and really, it's a blast on groomers and really nice on ice. But my Sheeva 9's, which are 92 underfoot, do well in those conditions, too. But they are better in powder.

I have heard that some manufacturers are starting to introduce skis in narrower widths, since many of their customers stick to front side skiing, and really don't need a wider ski. I've also heard a wider ski can be harder on the ankles and knees, but I haven't found that to be the case, at least for me. Then again, the widest ski I've ever owned was 93, so maybe I'd have trouble if I went wider.

 

[MissySki]

I agree with everything @Missy said above.

HOWEVER....skis have gotten wider since the late 90's. It used to be that an 84-waist was considered a really wide ski, and now that's considered pretty narrow. Over time, wide skis have improved substantially. The ones you can buy today have much better torsional rigidity than they did in the past, so they can perform well not just in powder, but on groomed and hardpack conditions, as well. My narrowest ski is the Nordica Santa Ana 84, and really, it's a blast on groomers and really nice on ice. But my Sheeva 9's, which are 92 underfoot, do well in those conditions, too. They're better in powder, too.

I have heard that some manufacturers are starting to introduce skis in narrower widths, since many of their customers stick to front side skiing, and really don't need a wider ski. I've heard a wider ski can be harder on the ankles and knees, but I haven't found that to be the case for me. Then again, the widest ski I've ever owned 93, so maybe I'd have trouble if I went wider.

I only started skiing in 2006, so I admittedly know nothing about ski width trends or skis in general before that time. They sure have come a long way with technology even in this short time, it's pretty amazing.

 

[santacruz skier]

Not sure what counts as "fat" in this discussion. To me, it's over 100

Me too.

 

[ski diva]

Me too.

Oh, you westerners.

 

[santacruz skier]

the widest ski I've ever owned was 93, so maybe I'd have trouble if I went wider.

I doubt it! My widest skis are 102 Sheeva 10's and skied most of the winter in Tahoe and had a blast.

 

[ski diva]

I doubt it! My widest skis are 102 Sheeva 10's and skied most of the winter in Tahoe and had a blast.

Oh, of course! I just meant that I've heard it could be the case for some people, and I wouldn't know since I haven't been there.

 

[TiffAlt]

Not sure what counts as "fat" in this discussion. To me, it's over 100.

I was making assumptions based on other recent threads that have been discussing skinnier skies as those below 80, that we were defining "fatter" as above that? Though maybe the OP can comment on what she is defining it as in terms of what is available for demo around her.

Oh, you westerners.

I will admit that I wandered into a skitalk/pugski discussion - ok more than one since the initial thread had links to others in it - where several posters basically railed/raged against the lack of carving and relegated anything over a mid-70s waist as holding people back from being able to carve and how pitiful it was that the rest of us were missing out. Oh and Blister is apparently the evil incarnate misleading folks... That's what I mean by "controversial". Didn't realize people could get so danged fired up (bordering on downright mean from some) over this!

 

[leia1979]

I definitely didn't pay attention enough back when I bought my first skis ten years ago, but I think it's gotten harder to get sub-80mm skis on the west coast now than then. My old skis are 72, my mom's from probably around the same time, maybe a little older, are 73 (we were just talking about this yesterday, and I got her skis out of the closet to look).

Of the two local shops I went to this season, I don't think I saw anything narrower than 78mm other than race skis. Not that fat powder skis weren't around ten years ago, but it seems like the average width you can find in-store has increased. But the style of skis has evolved in general, as there seem to be a lot more rockered skis than a decade ago.

And yet, for all my challenges finding narrower skis to demo, it does seem the basic K2 rental I've seen multiple places is only 70mm!

 

[MissySki]

I will admit that I wandered into a skitalk/pugski discussion - ok more than one since the initial thread had links to others in it - where several posters basically railed/raged against the lack of carving and relegated anything over a mid-70s waist as holding people back from being able to carve and how pitiful it was that the rest of us were missing out. Oh and Blister is apparently the evil incarnate misleading folks... That's what I mean by "controversial". Didn't realize people could get so danged fired up (bordering on downright mean from some) over this!

As with all things, not everyone feels the same way. There are some people on SkiTalk, and here (but not as aggressively), that have very strong opinions about ski width and carving. Some folks seem to think that you are only a good skier if you are always carving or that carving up groomers is the only worthwhile thing to do outside of powder days or that skis over a certain waist width are not good on firm snow conditions etc. It's ALL so subjective and people all have different preferences or abilities or opinions or old injuries or ages or ski style or terrain choices or whatever that you may not know about that form some of these views.

Do your own research on snow and demo skis to see what you like where you ski for where you are with your skiing right now.. loud opinions on ski forums do not equal indisputable facts or everyone's reality. I know it's hard to discern this when you are just starting out, but there are really no real hard rules to follow on any of this and there is plenty of room for error. If everyone liked or needed the same thing, there wouldn't be the ginormous variety of skis you have to choose from.

 

[elemmac]

When did wide skis become such a trend? Will the pendulum ever swing the other way in your opinion? Is this cyclical?

The pendulum is currently swinging the other way, IMO. Manufactures are making better skis in narrower classes than what they used to. I'd say that the 20-year trend was going wider and wider, until 5 years (ish) ago, when it started to come back down. I don't see it ever going back to what it was pre-2000s.

Waist width is not the only thing that defines ski choice. Personally, I think it's one of the least meaningful characteristics of a ski to base a purchase on.

The construction of the ski's core will define how stiff it is (torsionally and/or longitudally). The radius will define the skis preferred turn shape. The camber underfoot will define how much "pop" you can get out of a turn. The camber in the tip (or rocker length) will define how easy it is to initiate turns. The rocker/camber in the tail will define how easy it is to release turns. Then of course, there's width...it will impact how easy a ski gets on edge, or how much it floats, but IMO, it doesn't define anything on its own. Waist width is one of the easiest things to quantify...so manufacturers, retailers, and general consumers group skis by waist width quite often. Plus, there are generalities that you can infer about a ski based on waist width...most "skinny" skis are made for piste skiing, most "fat" skis are made for off-piste or variable terrain.

For demoing...my advice would be to try to get to a "demo day" early next season. A demo day will give you the opportunity to try a multitude of skis from different manufactures. Write down (or take pictures) of each ski you get on...then go home with a little homework: Read up on each ski whether you liked it or not. See if manufacturer's descriptions match your findings...find out what the turn radius is of the skis you liked. What about the construction, did it have Titanal? Carbon? Plain wood core...what type of wood? What were their similarities/differences of the ones you liked? How about the ones you didn't like, did they have similarities/differences? With this type of knowledge, you can start to form opinions about skis without even trying them.

 

[Pequenita]

I will admit that I wandered into a skitalk/pugski discussion - ok more than one since the initial thread had links to others in it - where several posters basically railed/raged against the lack of carving and relegated anything over a mid-70s waist as holding people back from being able to carve and how pitiful it was that the rest of us were missing out. Oh and Blister is apparently the evil incarnate misleading folks... That's what I mean by "controversial". Didn't realize people could get so danged fired up (bordering on downright mean from some) over this!

imho, it's easier to learn how to carve on a skinnier ski. I've known instructors who have told their private students to buy skinnier skis to get back to basics and also several instructors who wind up getting skinnier skis as they train for their exams. Also, a lot of people who think they are carving are not. So there's that.

Carving on a wide ski is possible, but the angles that requires is not comfortable for many people, and again, many people who think they are carving are not.

 

[mustski]

^^^ This. It’s the reason that so many skinny skis (aside from race skis) are rated as beginner- intermediate skis. You rarely see a 70’s waisted ski rated as being advanced. I still love my Kastles LX 73 - defined as an intermediate ski. It carves super easy and I don’t even have to think about what I’m doing. The ski just does it. Even in sticky spring snow, it’s preferable. I can get up on edge and just cut through the gunk.

That said … the rest of my skis are 86, 90, 96, 116. I can ski all of them on groomed and crud and powder, but they don’t all excel in every condition. Different tools for different conditions.

I think the mid fats (all mountain) are preferred because they are so versatile.

 

[TiffAlt]

^^^ This. It’s the reason that so many skinny skis (aside from race skis) are rated as beginner- intermediate skis. You rarely see a 70’s waisted ski rated as being advanced.

Ok, I never made this connection. I dunno why, but I think I just somehow thought it was a symptom of the wide trend and companies were not focusing as much on this segment in favor of producing more of what the audiences preferred to buy. Especially in North America since there seem to be some versions of skis released in other parts of the world that are not available here.

But this makes sense...

 

[tinymoose]

imho, it's easier to learn how to carve on a skinnier ski. I've known instructors who have told their private students to buy skinnier skis to get back to basics and also several instructors who wind up getting skinnier skis as they train for their exams. Also, a lot of people who think they are carving are not. So there's that.

Carving on a wide ski is possible, but the angles that requires is not comfortable for many people, and again, many people who think they are carving are not.

This. I mean, I'm never going to be a great/good skier compared to a lot (ie most) of the women here. I use my gymnastics muscles to non-finesse my way down a lot of crap I otherwise shouldn't be able to get down. But I saw race kids and I said, "I want to ski like them." And you know? I never will. But it's made me a better skier trying to get there. But I lack an innate sense for skiing that many women here have. I know I probably seem like a one trick race pony compared to many here, but it works for me. And I enjoy the zoom of a flat, narrow, cambered ski. I'm sure many much more talented women than I were able to learn how to carve on a wider ski, but it took umpteen suitcase drills on junior race skis to even get an inkling of edge angle for me and it's still sus.

 

[tinymoose]

^^^ This. It’s the reason that so many skinny skis (aside from race skis) are rated as beginner- intermediate skis. You rarely see a 70’s waisted ski rated as being advanced. I still love my Kastles LX 73 - defined as an intermediate ski. It carves super easy and I don’t even have to think about what I’m doing. The ski just does it. Even in sticky spring snow, it’s preferable. I can get up on edge and just cut through the gunk.

That said … the rest of my skis are 86, 90, 96, 116. I can ski all of them on groomed and crud and powder, but they don’t all excel in every condition. Different tools for different conditions.

I think the mid fats (all mountain) are preferred because they are so versatile.

I think this is a shame though. Sure is it easier to get a narrow ski up on edge? Yes. But there's a huge difference between an entry level ski and a stiffer junior race ski functionally. What good is narrow if it lacks any base/rigidity to work those angles? (not that I can work them)

 

[TiffAlt]

This. I mean, I'm never going to be a great/good skier compared to a lot (ie most) of the women here. I use my gymnastics muscles to non-finesse my way down a lot of crap I otherwise shouldn't be able to get down. But I saw race kids and I said, "I want to ski like them." And you know? I never will. But it's made me a better skier trying to get there. But I lack an innate sense for skiing that many women here have. I know I probably seem like a one trick race pony compared to many here, but it works for me. And I enjoy the zoom of a flat, narrow, cambered ski. I'm sure many much more talented women than I were able to learn how to carve on a wider ski, but it took umpteen suitcase drills on junior race skis to even get an inkling of edge angle for me and it's still sus.

I have heard that you ski beautifully! Just saying