When did wide become a trend?

[liquidfeet]

I very much disagree with rating any ski by skill level...it is a specification that I will never take into account when purchasing a ski or when recommending a ski.

Ditto.

 

[liquidfeet]

Also makes a big difference what region and type of terrain a pair of skis will be used for the most.

Another ditto.

 

[ceestan]

One thing I feel is missing the from narrow vs. wide discussion, especially in terms of people learning how to carve their turns, is that wider skis can sometimes provide a more stable, supportive platform.

One of my goals this season was to learn how to carve my turns. (I jokingly refer to my fiance as my Russian figure-skating coach, because he will very bluntly (yet lovingly) tell me when my form/technique is off. Thanks to him I had absolutely 0 illusions about whether or not I was actually carving my turns -- I wasn't!) I started the season out with a 88 waist width ski that was 147 cm (I am 155 cm tall).

Separate from my carving struggles, I decided I had outgrown that ski because it was getting knocked around in variable conditions and I couldn't ski it as hard as I wanted to. I'd hit a rough patch and the ski would completely fall apart, and I'd have to quickly scrub speed to keep my skiing within my ski's abilities (sweet delicate Black Pearl), which was super annoying.

I bought a wider ski -- 93 waist width in 158 cm length. That definitely helped with being able to ski harder in variable conditions, but also! suddenly (well not all that suddenly, because it took a couple ski clinics, a bunch of drills, instructors urging me to pressure my outside ski) I was able to carve my turns.

I do very much believe that the support and stability of the new skis allow me to confidently point the skis down the fall line, stay forward, and commit to my turns. I know those things help with my carving, much more than being hung up on getting my skis to tip onto their edges. On my old skis, I'd tip them over, but then get worried that they were just going to deflect on the slightest inconsistency, so I was never 100% committed to the turn (thus I was skittering the end of the turn).

That's very much my own unique experience, out of a gajillion different experiences people can have when they're progressing. I think we encounter a lot more variable inconsistent conditions on the west coast, with our wetter/heavier snow, so that's the rationale behind wider, more supportive skis. Even on groomers here, by noon the snow is often all pushed around into wet piles. Deb Armstrong talks about ski bias, everyone has one, I'm definitely biased toward stable skis (which I guess might be indirectly a bias toward wider skis).

 

[mustski]

. I think we encounter a lot more variable inconsistent conditions on the west coast, with our wetter/heavier snow, so that's the rationale behind wider, more supportive skis. Even on groomers here, by noon the snow is often all pushed around into wet piles.

This is absolutely true of western skiing. Mornings on hard packed powder turn into soft piles in the afternoon- in spring, heavy &wet piles. A wider ski allows us to “slarve” when necessary and that is particularly helpful in large soft bumps and slush bumps!

 

[TiffAlt]

. I think we encounter a lot more variable inconsistent conditions on the west coast, with our wetter/heavier snow, so that's the rationale behind wider, more supportive skis. Even on groomers here, by noon the snow is often all pushed around into wet piles.

This is absolutely true of western skiing. Mornings on hard packed powder turn into soft piles in the afternoon- in spring, heavy &wet piles. A wider ski allows us to “slarve” when necessary and that is particularly helpful in large soft bumps and slush bumps!

This is something I've been thinking about too, especially when it seems like the places I call about demos are confused as to why I might want narrower skis. Maybe the reality of conditions here - our groomers are no longer groomed after the first couple of hours (at least at Crystal Mountain) - they feel we'd be better served with a more all-mountain ski? And probably that's what gets taken out more - I'm sure they try to get what their clientele want.

Well I have decided to make closing weekend at Snoqualmie even though it's supposed to be 70F (21C!) degrees. EVO Snoqualmie is having their annual demo sale and I want to get a look at what they have. The snow might be decent for at least a couple hours right? Fingers crossed!

 

[echo_VT]

that's incredibly insightful @ceestan and makes sense. on the east, when it's warm and we know we're going to push snow around I know a few people who will switch out their carvers for 85 underfoot skis. I typically just stay with my skis but know I can't push them as hard, but I will do my darnedest to stay afloat, smear my turns, and ride the banks of bumps if needed. so going all in on tactics for the changing conditions. optimal conditions for a park setup! The wider ski does help promote feeling stable and skidding/pivot as opposed to carving which isn't the ideal tactic in those conditions anyhow. Makes sense to me to choose skis and tactics for the conditions one has.

 

[liquidfeet]

Story...

Some time back in the past I bought my first (and only) pair of 100+ wide skis. They were 106 underfoot, twin-tips, with camber and a side-cut that would allow one to lay pencil-thin tracks on firm snow on the way back to the lift.

Those skis sat mostly unused most of the time after I bought them. New England has a lot of hard snow, and narrower skis were much easier to control on hard-pack. But one night a storm put down 8-12 inches of somewhat dense snow which did not get groomed by opening. I decided to finally figure out why people liked fat skis so much for fresh snow. So I took the fatties and my daily drivers - 78 waisted, stiff, 14-16 turn radius carvers.

I skied the fat skis all day with the carvers left behind in the back of the car. As the day progressed, the snow got cut up. The bumps never fully formed since not enough people showed up to shape them into real bumps. So basically I skied somewhat dense chop all day.

I kept wondering why this snow was so hard to ski on these supposedly perfect skis for these conditions du jour. I did fine, skied every run at this small NE ski hill, but figured there must be something wrong with my technique. I did not suspect the skis as the problem.

For my last run, I switched skis and took a run on the narrower ones. OMG. So easy! So fun! So fast! So nimble!

They slipped right through the snow on edge. They displayed amazing nimbleness in all that cut up snow. I regretted wasting such a potentially fun day on the fatties.

So that experience decided it for me. I've used narrow skis for dense chop from that day on.

This story is not meant to offer a generalization about which skis work best for which snow. YMMV. There are just too many independent variables at work to make reliable generalizations about skis and the snow they perform best on.

 

[marzNC]

I did an experiment at Alta during my last trip when it was really warm, meaning 40s by mid-morning and 50's by lunch time for a couple days. The first day I started with my 85 underfoot all-mountain skis and switched to 106mm powder skis after a couple hours. Since off-piste was either firm or mashed potatoes, the snow on the groomers were being pushed around by advanced skiers pretty quickly. The second day I used the wide skis all day. Or at least until 2:00 or so when it wasn't worth skiing any more. In that situation, I was much happier with wide skis. Both skis were treated with Phantom Glide.

Keep in mind that I'm petite and pretty lightweight. I've become a solid advanced skier in recent years with the help of assorted lessons so I can carve my powder skis and ski my all-mountain skis in deep powder. I can ski either off-piste on bumps and in trees, which I only do when the snow is at least reasonably fun.

 

[santacruz skier]

I'm also petite and lightweight and have been skiing many years. I skied almost exclusively the Sheeva 10's (102) in Tahoe this season with all that snow that kept falling. They were also great on groomers and decent carvers. Sheeva 9's were fun too but Sheeva 10's were clearly the winner for the snow this season.

 

[ski diva]

I found myself thinking of this thread while reading the following article. It's from the October '22 issue of SKI:

Can Today’s Wide All-Mountain Skis Hack It Back East? Our Gear Experts Weigh In​

The short answer is yes. The long answer is a little more nuanced.​

Jenny Wiegand October 21, 2022

When SKI publishes ski reviews and the annual Gear Guide, we often get a flurry of letters to the editor and social media comments from Eastern skiers who argue that our reviews are only helpful to skiers west of the Rockies. Their claim: The skis we classify as all-mountain or all-mountain wide (skis with 90mm-plus underfoot) may perform well out West, where the snow is soft and plentiful, but they would never hack it on Eastern slopes.

Is this true? SKI’s gear test director, Jenny Wiegand, put that question to veteran SKI testers Kristi Brown Lovell and Mark Wallace. Brown, a former University of Vermont ski racer, calls Stowe, Vt. home; Wallace, also a former racer and founder of Parlor Skis in Boston, Mass., builds custom skis primarily for East Coast skiers. If anyone knows what skis get the job done on Eastern snow conditions, it’s these two.

Key Takeaways​

• how a wide ski performs on hard snow is dependent on the ski’s sidecut and core materials as much as its waist width
• a skilled skier who knows how to carve and edge will be able to get a wide all-mountain ski to bite on hard snow
• less skilled skiers who have not yet perfected edging will have a hard time getting a wide all-mountain ski to grip on ice
• wide skis promote skidding instead of carving, which requires less skill and can also be more energy-efficient
• turning wider skis can be harder on the knees since more torque is involved; this is especially true when skiing on hard snow surfaces
• while many of today’s wide all-mountain skis feature solid sidewall constructions and metal in the core to promote better performance on hard snow, they still may not be the best tools for Eastern skiers who primarily stick to groomers

What the Gear Experts Say About Wide All-Mountain Skis​

JW: I know I live and ski in the Rockies now, but in college I raced all over the East Coast, so I know what the conditions and terrain look like. Knowing that, and having tested hundreds of all-mountain and all-mountain wide skis, I think that some of these wider skis can totally hack it on Eastern snow. Am I wrong?

MW: I have lots of opinions. First of all, let me just come right out and say that I’m a wide ski fan. But there are a couple of different ways to answer this question. I oppose this view that ice requires narrow skis. That is not totally accurate. I also oppose the view that conditions in New England are ######.

I know that the East Coast Facebook commenters say that, we hear it [at Parlor]—it’s the narrative. But that’s such a narrow view of both the terrain and the snow conditions here. There are so many amazing pieces of skiing out here: chutes, trees, gullies, woods, high alpine in the backcountry. There’s a huge variety. So this idea that it’s all icy, manmade snow and narrow trails is partially true, but it doesn’t paint the whole picture.

JW: Wider skis typically have more rocker and less effective edge, and that’s not going to be great for ice. But a lot of wider skis now have less rocker and more traditional camber underfoot. So why wouldn’t these skis handle East Coast conditions? Is it because they’re just wider and you’re not skiing them on edge like you would a narrower ski, and that’s why you’re not gripping on ice?

KBL: I think that’s definitely part of it. When the pendulum swung back to wider skis in recent years, it did people who were trying to improve their skiing ability a disservice. We’re seeing a lot more skidding now—or buttering, shall we say. But that seems perfectly acceptable now, especially with a younger audience. I even try to do that a little more just to play or not have to be on edge all the time anymore, because it’s actually much easier and less combative on your knee, and just generally energy-wise. Now we’re seeing the pendulum swing back to narrower skis.

MW: I strongly believe that waist width is much more determined by skier style than by snow conditions. We have a lot of clients who ski 105mm-115mm underfoot as their New England daily drivers because of the terrain they are on; or because they ski with a more upright stance; they have a wider stance; they like the leverage; they don’t care about the lack of stability. At the same time, we have clients who ski the West Coast, who just cruise all day, who won’t go over the low-80mm waist width.

KBL: Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely skis out there that are wider—still under 110mm I would say, more like a 106mm—that are totally bomber. The Fischer Ranger 102 FR, for example. That thing rips.

JW: Right, I disagree with the blanket statement that wide all-mountain skis can’t handle East Coast conditions. I understand that wider skis are clunkier and not necessarily the best tool for the job back East. But it’s a fallacy that wider all-mountain skis can’t cope on hardpack and groomers. I mean, take the Völk Secret 102, Elan Ripstick 106, or Rossignol Rallybird 104 Ti…

KBL: I love the Rallybird! Those skis are fun!

JW: And that’s a ski I could ski on the white ribbon of death during the early season and still have a great time. It charges. And if you know how to carve, you can definitely use that kind of ski on the East Coast. Am I wrong?

KBL: No, I agree.

JW: So is it fair to say that people who think they can’t ski wider skis back East either A) haven’t tried the new wider skis with bomber constructions, or B) don’t keep their edges tuned, or C) don’t know how to carve to get those skis to grip on ice?

MW: You used to race, I used to race—we know how to build high edge angles. If you can build high edge angles and good early pressure in your turns, the wider ski gives you more leverage in your turns and you have to do less work to make the same turn.

But if you don’t control the top of the turn well, and you come into the turn wanting that ski to come across the hill for you, then the width works against you, because you’re getting more edge angle all at once to bring you across the hill. Then the wider ski or lever may feel less stable, kick out on you, or chatter in the turn.

I can carve a 110mm reverse camber ski on hardpack, but does that mean everyone can? No. But I like it because I don’t have to do as much work. The ski does all the work. But that’s not true for every skier out there.

JW: So what’s the perfect width all-mountain ski for Eastern skiers?

KBL: I’d say around 88mm underfoot for the intermediate skier. For advanced, I’d say maybe the mid 90s, or low 100s if it’s a one-ski quiver.

MW: I don’t think waist width is the end-all-be-all. Mid-80s to mid- or high 90s is a very serviceable New England frontside ski. I would argue that construction is more relevant than width. There are wide skis that are not stable, and there are wide skis that are stable.

I think what makes a good, traditional New England ski is a ski that’s engineered to carve. It should have stability built into the philosophy and design of the ski. Whether it’s using metal, or using a narrower overall width, or adding camber to a ski that might not otherwise have it—if you’re not engineering a ski in a way to deal with more mixed snow conditions, it’s probably not going to perform as well. For example, we have the Parlor Cardinal Pro 102, which is a Titanal ski with camber underfoot, early rise, and a little bit of tail rocker. That thing—you can carve it anywhere. It’s built like a race ski, it’s just wider. But that ski will hold up out there.

That said, if you never go off the trail, which a lot of skiers don’t, and you feel like you’re not skiing powder or only ski powder for such a small percentage of your days that it’s not going to influence your purchasing decision, then for many skiers there are diminishing returns for going wider.

JW: What’s your daily driver back East?

KBL: It’s in the 90s. I played around with different skis this season. I was loving the Völkl Kenja 88 earlier this season, just because they have a more playful personality. They’ve got a lot of energy. The Völkl Aura is great, but I feel like I can do just as much on the Kenjas. Then the Völkl Blaze 94 and 106 came out, and I actually love the Blaze 106 more for me—and for skiing back East, wildly enough. Once it starts snowing, so like from February on, I’m on the Blaze 106 more often than not.

MW: If I don’t know what kind of conditions I’m going to get out here, I’m skiing the Parlor Cardinal Pro 102. For all the reasons we talked about: it’s got a lot of metal, it’s got camber, it’s still playful-ish, but if it is boilerplate, it carves turns and is super stable.

JW: These days, so many skis in the frontside and all-mountain categories are so versatile in terms of the terrain and snow conditions they can tackle, that waist width really comes down to personal preference. The narrower skis can hold their own off the groomers, and the wider ones blow my mind with how well they can carve on hardpack.

KBL: Exactly. It’s like, some of us have our favorite pair of jeans. But others have a couple of favorite pairs. It’s so personality-driven. Skiers just need to ask themselves: What do they really like to ski? One ski doesn’t fit all.

 

[MissySki]

I found myself thinking of this thread while reading the following article. It's from the October '22 issue of SKI:

Can Today’s Wide All-Mountain Skis Hack It Back East? Our Gear Experts Weigh In​

The short answer is yes. The long answer is a little more nuanced.​

Jenny Wiegand October 21, 2022

When SKI publishes ski reviews and the annual Gear Guide, we often get a flurry of letters to the editor and social media comments from Eastern skiers who argue that our reviews are only helpful to skiers west of the Rockies. Their claim: The skis we classify as all-mountain or all-mountain wide (skis with 90mm-plus underfoot) may perform well out West, where the snow is soft and plentiful, but they would never hack it on Eastern slopes.

Is this true? SKI’s gear test director, Jenny Wiegand, put that question to veteran SKI testers Kristi Brown Lovell and Mark Wallace. Brown, a former University of Vermont ski racer, calls Stowe, Vt. home; Wallace, also a former racer and founder of Parlor Skis in Boston, Mass., builds custom skis primarily for East Coast skiers. If anyone knows what skis get the job done on Eastern snow conditions, it’s these two.

Key Takeaways​

• how a wide ski performs on hard snow is dependent on the ski’s sidecut and core materials as much as its waist width
• a skilled skier who knows how to carve and edge will be able to get a wide all-mountain ski to bite on hard snow
• less skilled skiers who have not yet perfected edging will have a hard time getting a wide all-mountain ski to grip on ice
• wide skis promote skidding instead of carving, which requires less skill and can also be more energy-efficient
• turning wider skis can be harder on the knees since more torque is involved; this is especially true when skiing on hard snow surfaces
• while many of today’s wide all-mountain skis feature solid sidewall constructions and metal in the core to promote better performance on hard snow, they still may not be the best tools for Eastern skiers who primarily stick to groomers

What the Gear Experts Say About Wide All-Mountain Skis​

JW: I know I live and ski in the Rockies now, but in college I raced all over the East Coast, so I know what the conditions and terrain look like. Knowing that, and having tested hundreds of all-mountain and all-mountain wide skis, I think that some of these wider skis can totally hack it on Eastern snow. Am I wrong?

MW: I have lots of opinions. First of all, let me just come right out and say that I’m a wide ski fan. But there are a couple of different ways to answer this question. I oppose this view that ice requires narrow skis. That is not totally accurate. I also oppose the view that conditions in New England are ######.

I know that the East Coast Facebook commenters say that, we hear it [at Parlor]—it’s the narrative. But that’s such a narrow view of both the terrain and the snow conditions here. There are so many amazing pieces of skiing out here: chutes, trees, gullies, woods, high alpine in the backcountry. There’s a huge variety. So this idea that it’s all icy, manmade snow and narrow trails is partially true, but it doesn’t paint the whole picture.

JW: Wider skis typically have more rocker and less effective edge, and that’s not going to be great for ice. But a lot of wider skis now have less rocker and more traditional camber underfoot. So why wouldn’t these skis handle East Coast conditions? Is it because they’re just wider and you’re not skiing them on edge like you would a narrower ski, and that’s why you’re not gripping on ice?

KBL: I think that’s definitely part of it. When the pendulum swung back to wider skis in recent years, it did people who were trying to improve their skiing ability a disservice. We’re seeing a lot more skidding now—or buttering, shall we say. But that seems perfectly acceptable now, especially with a younger audience. I even try to do that a little more just to play or not have to be on edge all the time anymore, because it’s actually much easier and less combative on your knee, and just generally energy-wise. Now we’re seeing the pendulum swing back to narrower skis.

MW: I strongly believe that waist width is much more determined by skier style than by snow conditions. We have a lot of clients who ski 105mm-115mm underfoot as their New England daily drivers because of the terrain they are on; or because they ski with a more upright stance; they have a wider stance; they like the leverage; they don’t care about the lack of stability. At the same time, we have clients who ski the West Coast, who just cruise all day, who won’t go over the low-80mm waist width.

KBL: Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely skis out there that are wider—still under 110mm I would say, more like a 106mm—that are totally bomber. The Fischer Ranger 102 FR, for example. That thing rips.

JW: Right, I disagree with the blanket statement that wide all-mountain skis can’t handle East Coast conditions. I understand that wider skis are clunkier and not necessarily the best tool for the job back East. But it’s a fallacy that wider all-mountain skis can’t cope on hardpack and groomers. I mean, take the Völk Secret 102, Elan Ripstick 106, or Rossignol Rallybird 104 Ti…

KBL: I love the Rallybird! Those skis are fun!

JW: And that’s a ski I could ski on the white ribbon of death during the early season and still have a great time. It charges. And if you know how to carve, you can definitely use that kind of ski on the East Coast. Am I wrong?

KBL: No, I agree.

JW: So is it fair to say that people who think they can’t ski wider skis back East either A) haven’t tried the new wider skis with bomber constructions, or B) don’t keep their edges tuned, or C) don’t know how to carve to get those skis to grip on ice?

MW: You used to race, I used to race—we know how to build high edge angles. If you can build high edge angles and good early pressure in your turns, the wider ski gives you more leverage in your turns and you have to do less work to make the same turn.

But if you don’t control the top of the turn well, and you come into the turn wanting that ski to come across the hill for you, then the width works against you, because you’re getting more edge angle all at once to bring you across the hill. Then the wider ski or lever may feel less stable, kick out on you, or chatter in the turn.

I can carve a 110mm reverse camber ski on hardpack, but does that mean everyone can? No. But I like it because I don’t have to do as much work. The ski does all the work. But that’s not true for every skier out there.

JW: So what’s the perfect width all-mountain ski for Eastern skiers?

KBL: I’d say around 88mm underfoot for the intermediate skier. For advanced, I’d say maybe the mid 90s, or low 100s if it’s a one-ski quiver.

MW: I don’t think waist width is the end-all-be-all. Mid-80s to mid- or high 90s is a very serviceable New England frontside ski. I would argue that construction is more relevant than width. There are wide skis that are not stable, and there are wide skis that are stable.

I think what makes a good, traditional New England ski is a ski that’s engineered to carve. It should have stability built into the philosophy and design of the ski. Whether it’s using metal, or using a narrower overall width, or adding camber to a ski that might not otherwise have it—if you’re not engineering a ski in a way to deal with more mixed snow conditions, it’s probably not going to perform as well. For example, we have the Parlor Cardinal Pro 102, which is a Titanal ski with camber underfoot, early rise, and a little bit of tail rocker. That thing—you can carve it anywhere. It’s built like a race ski, it’s just wider. But that ski will hold up out there.

That said, if you never go off the trail, which a lot of skiers don’t, and you feel like you’re not skiing powder or only ski powder for such a small percentage of your days that it’s not going to influence your purchasing decision, then for many skiers there are diminishing returns for going wider.

JW: What’s your daily driver back East?

KBL: It’s in the 90s. I played around with different skis this season. I was loving the Völkl Kenja 88 earlier this season, just because they have a more playful personality. They’ve got a lot of energy. The Völkl Aura is great, but I feel like I can do just as much on the Kenjas. Then the Völkl Blaze 94 and 106 came out, and I actually love the Blaze 106 more for me—and for skiing back East, wildly enough. Once it starts snowing, so like from February on, I’m on the Blaze 106 more often than not.

MW: If I don’t know what kind of conditions I’m going to get out here, I’m skiing the Parlor Cardinal Pro 102. For all the reasons we talked about: it’s got a lot of metal, it’s got camber, it’s still playful-ish, but if it is boilerplate, it carves turns and is super stable.

JW: These days, so many skis in the frontside and all-mountain categories are so versatile in terms of the terrain and snow conditions they can tackle, that waist width really comes down to personal preference. The narrower skis can hold their own off the groomers, and the wider ones blow my mind with how well they can carve on hardpack.

KBL: Exactly. It’s like, some of us have our favorite pair of jeans. But others have a couple of favorite pairs. It’s so personality-driven. Skiers just need to ask themselves: What do they really like to ski? One ski doesn’t fit all.

Definitely jives with most of my thoughts and feelings on the topic. There’s no one right answer on width, and like most things in skiing it’s all about how you ski and what terrain you enjoy. Overarching message, it comes down to personal preferences.

 

[Rainbow Jenny]

I’m surprised no one has brought up John Seifert’s frequently quoted study out of Montana State University on how there’s an association between the width of skis to the torsional force/ risks of knee and ankle injuries. I first heard him speak in the spring of 2018 at the then Squaw Valley. He works closely with Ron Kipp locally on a number of biomechanics studies.

https://www.montana.edu/ehhd/ord/Seifert Ski Width seminar draft manuscript.pdf

I have only skimmed through the original study above but find the evidence compelling. With my own improved techniques over the past 5 years and skiing close to 100 days per season, I now much favor narrower skis for my own skiing also to minimize chance of joint injury.

Blizzard Phoenix R14 Pro (at 69 mm underfoot) kicked my ass 2 years ago and skied me the first few days. They are probably my favorite pair of skis now, especially with low tide in Tahoe, similar to what @Pequenita is doing on her SL skis recently.

An older pair of Blizzard Samba (98) just feels too wide for me now. A pair of Fischer Ranger 84 will arrive soon, am looking forward to the new toy!

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[contesstant]

I’m surprised no one has brought up John Seifert’s frequently quoted study out of Montana State University on how there’s an association between the width of skis to the torsional force/ risks of knee and ankle injuries. I first heard him speak in the spring of 2018 at the then Squaw Valley. He works closely with Ron Kipp locally on a number of biomechanics studies.

https://www.montana.edu/ehhd/ord/Seifert Ski Width seminar draft manuscript.pdf

I have only skimmed through the original study above but find the evidence compelling. With my own improved techniques over the past 5 years and skiing close to 100 days per season, I now much favor narrower skis for my own skiing also to minimize chance of joint injury.

Blizzard Phoenix R14 Pro (at 69 mm underfoot) kicked my ass 2 years ago and skied me the first few days. They are probably my favorite pair of skis now, especially with low tide in Tahoe, similar to what @Pequenita is doing on her SL skis recently.

An older pair of Blizzard Samba (98) just feels too wide for me now. A pair of Fischer Ranger 84 will arrive soon, am looking forward to the new toy!

Different strokes for different folks.

I was just looking at the Phoenix R14 for our low-tide winter this year! My 82s have too much rocker so the tails don't lock in how I want on harder snow.

That being said, very very few skiers are truly carving, ie. laying down railroad track turns throughout the entire turn. Are a lot of us able to get good edge angles? Yes. I can get great edge angles but still am not skiing a beautifully carved turn, which involves clean railroad tracks throughout the turn. This is where wider skis are a hindrance. The nuance of movement for a true carved turn is miniscule on the correct skis (ie. a narrower ski.) The wider the ski, the more you have to engage bigger muscle groups and more joints to tip the ski onto a clean edge from start to finish. Once you know how to do it, it can be done on a wider ski, but learning the movements is a ton easier on a sub-80mm under foot ski. Once you know how to do it, all the other terrain you ski becomes easier and more effortless. I am channeling my DH here, who can carve some of the most beautiful railroad track turns on any ski and make it look completely effortless. He's that guy who leaves trenches down the hill with not one break in the track (unless it's a steeper pitch, where a brushed turn enters the picture.)

As a goal-oriented person, I have railroad track turns as a big one. Now that I am (finally!) in a boot setup that has me feeling fantastic, and we are having a very low snow year, I have railroad tracks on my mind to finally conquer. Some may not have that goal (which is fine, of course) but watching my husband and the other instructors truly carve a beautiful, effortless turn--yes, I want to do that. It's truly like a work of art. I'm finding it to be elusive on my 82s and 88s, although I get closer on my 88s which are shorter and have a miniscule amount of rocker in the tails.

With that, I'm still seeing a plethora of skiers who are on skis that are not only too wide, but are also too "advanced" and I feel bad for them. Last week, I watched a gal on a pair of Black Pearl 98s (the new version, which are a handful of a ski) just struggle mightily on a green runout to a blue pitch. She got on the blue pitch and her upper body was twisting and contorting and I really felt for her. It's hard to know if a shop staff person sold her those, or she read reviews and bought them on her own or what, but she was sold a bill of goods either way and is really going to struggle to progress on that ski. A Black Pearl 82 would be a much better tool for someone like her.

 

[Jilly]

I do agree with the article. Wide skis can go in the East. But as an eastern skier I've always tried to have 2 pairs of skis. Narrower for daily in the east and a wider "all mountain" ski for a west trip. I took my Experience 88's to WB in 2017 (Epic/Pugski) gathering. I noticed an issue with the binding while I was there. So I rented some skis to try. Decided on an Atomic with 93. They lasted all of 2 days. Too wide for my knees. In 2019 I got to demo a pair of Brahma 82's in Lake Louise. I'd found my west ski. Then the world shut down and we were only skiing locally (or not at all). I bought the SA 88's from the rep thinking they would be similar - NOT.

And this is where the article and I agree. Too many of the wide skis have rocker tip and tail. The SA's were just that. I did a review here . I couldn't wait to get off them. I sold them this fall.

I'm in the market for something about 82 underfoot. But a more traditional camber. Which I think the Brahma's were/are.

But right now I need to replace my Hero's. And it looks like a new suit...So no money for a 2nd pair of skis right now.

And @contesstant I love making RR tracks. During our Pro day clinic, I was the only participant who did them. The course conductor was shocked. And add in I was the only girl after the break. The other gal left as she and her DH needed to head home with a 7 hour drive.

 

[elemmac]

https://www.montana.edu/ehhd/ord/Seifert Ski Width seminar draft manuscript.pdf

I have only skimmed through the original study above but find the evidence compelling. With my own improved techniques over the past 5 years and skiing close to 100 days per season, I now much favor narrower skis for my own skiing also to minimize chance of joint injury.

Thanks for posting this additional study. I just read through it, cause well...it's the week between Christmas and New Years and nobody expects any work to actually get done.

I think the overall conclusion is not surprising at all, especially given the parameters of the study:

In conclusion, skiing WS on a groomed run generally led to greater muscle activity and knee extension, slower turn times, and lower ski edge angle than when on SL.

I would be very interested in reading a follow-up study including the following:
- More skiers. The study had a single skier that is an Olympic medalist in GS, a ski instructor, and a member of a national demonstration team. Needless to say, this is a skier that thrives on hardpack, and technical skiing (from a skills perspective). Would the results be the same if the skier was an Olympic mogul skier? How about a Freeride World Tour skier? Maybe even an intermediate skier?
- Varying distance of gates. They utilized a distance between gates halfway between the two skis reported radii. This is an assumption, but I'm guessing the narrow ski had the smaller radius, and the wide ski, the larger one. So, the wide ski is trying to make turns that are smaller than its radius, and the narrow ski is making turns a bit larger than its. Making shorter turns than the ski wants is more taxing than making larger turns, in my opinion. I think it would be interesting to test on two courses...one with the gates separated by the longer radius, and one separated by the shorter.
- How firm was the snow? A nice soft groomer that was groomed after 12" of snow fell is very different than an average racecourse. What is the breakeven point of snow softness where a wider ski becomes helpful? While this last question isn't the purpose of the study...I think it would be an interesting finding.

 

[MissySki]

Thanks for posting this additional study. I just read through it, cause well...it's the week between Christmas and New Years and nobody expects any work to actually get done.

I think the overall conclusion is not surprising at all, especially given the parameters of the study:

In conclusion, skiing WS on a groomed run generally led to greater muscle activity and knee extension, slower turn times, and lower ski edge angle than when on SL.

I would be very interested in reading a follow-up study including the following:
- More skiers. The study had a single skier that is an Olympic medalist in GS, a ski instructor, and a member of a national demonstration team. Needless to say, this is a skier that thrives on hardpack, and technical skiing (from a skills perspective). Would the results be the same if the skier was an Olympic mogul skier? How about a Freeride World Tour skier? Maybe even an intermediate skier?
- Varying distance of gates. They utilized a distance between gates halfway between the two skis reported radii. This is an assumption, but I'm guessing the narrow ski had the smaller radius, and the wide ski, the larger one. So, the wide ski is trying to make turns that are smaller than its radius, and the narrow ski is making turns a bit larger than its. Making shorter turns than the ski wants is more taxing than making larger turns, in my opinion. I think it would be interesting to test on two courses...one with the gates separated by the longer radius, and one separated by the shorter.
- How firm was the snow? A nice soft groomer that was groomed after 12" of snow fell is very different than an average racecourse. What is the breakeven point of snow softness where a wider ski becomes helpful? While this last question isn't the purpose of the study...I think it would be an interesting finding.

Very interesting add ons indeed. The study design and endpoints really do make the study.

 

[Pequenita]

Blizzard Phoenix R14 Pro (at 69 mm underfoot) kicked my ass 2 years ago and skied me the first few days. They are probably my favorite pair of skis now, especially with low tide in Tahoe, similar to what @Pequenita is doing on her SL skis recently.

I am probably one of the few adult skiers actually having fun skiing north lake tahoe resorts the last few days.