Wide or Narrow Skis and the American Skier

[ski diva]

What width skis do you ski and why?

Deb Armstrong (once again) has a great video where she explores ski width and what we should ski on -- and why we sometimes don't. I think she makes some good points.

Take a look:

Me, I ski a Santa Ana 84, which I think is great for groomers and firm conditions, and a Blizzard Sheeva 9, which at 92 underfoot, pretty much handles the (limited) powder we get here in Vermont. Sure, I can ski my Sheevas on the groomers. But a narrower ski really is a blast.

What do you think?

 

[MissySki]

All of my skis are in the 80s and 90s underfoot, that is my mostly happy place and so that’s what I ski. I try to ski off piste as much as possible, so when I can I am in bumps or trees.. even if it’s not prime conditions. I think 80s and low 90s does all of this really well. And I can certainly carve those widths too.

I have tried skinnier skis plenty of times, and mostly gave up because I don’t love them. Do they carve well, sure.. but what I have usually tried is then pretty unfriendly off piste, so I’m not sure when I’d use them. I really dislike the idea of being out and having to think about what is on my feet, as in I want to jump into some bumps or play on the lip of a trail edge.. will I want to do that on super skinny carvers that are likely quite stiff, heavy, and have flat tails?? Maybe not.

All of that being said.. last weekend I did a demo day at Sunday River and decided to try the Stockli Laser MX.. 67 underfoot.. and I LOVED it. I still don’t know when I’d ski it, it would likely be very infrequently that I would commit to it for a full ski day.. but I want them. However, they are $$$ and so I am waiting to see if I find a deal because I’m not sure it’s worth it if I won’t ski them much.

As far as the video’s messaging specifically? I’ll say that I think you should always encourage newer skiers to demo to figure out what they like and dislike. Beyond that, it’s all preference and there aren’t any wrong answers if someone is having a great time on their fat or skinny skis. What’s right for one person might not be for another.. and that’s okay.

 

[snoWYmonkey]

I completely agree with Deb's take on ski width and it drives me bonkers that we have no rentals available under 88 underfoot in my area. The 88s are usually the soft learn to turn ski.

Personally, I mostly ski a 90 day to day. My most fun boards are a 72 and a 106 underfoot. My least used are the 112. The 98 comes in 3rd in terms of use after the 90 and the 72. For years I only had a pair of 88s just as Deb says. I learned the most from the 72s.

I would love to add a soft 80 to 82 underfoot for big bumps and variable spring skiing.

I keep the ones I use the least 10 to 12 years. The 84 to 90 range skis last 4 years max before becoming too soft.

On a side note there is nothing scarier than a large human on a low angle groomer with some unevenly packed snow straightlining it in the back seat. So many complain about snowboarders. For me the skier who is not very good on floppy oversized skis mixed in with the general public is menace number one.

 

[MissySki]

On a side note there is nothing scarier than a large human on a low angle groomer with some unevenly packed snow straightlining it in the back seat. So many complain about snowboarders. For me the skier who is not very good on floppy oversized skis mixed in with the general public is menace number one.

Ugh yes, and I see them more and more! Especially early season when there aren’t enough terrain park options for them to stay occupied with.

 

[edelweissmaedl]

Great piece. Our culture drives a lot of aspirational behavior. I guess we shouldn't be surprised it happens with ski purchases as well.

 

[snoWYmonkey]

Ugh yes, and I see them more and more! Especially early season when there aren’t enough terrain park options for them to stay occupied with.

Thankfully for us the local terrain park 'kids' have more reasonable width boards amd stick to doing tricks. It is the deep powder junkies early season that think they are amazing, but never were all that great we contend with. Especially the ones that have been watching way to much early ski porn and forget that they are not the stars in the movies they watch....not even close.

 

[contesstant]

All of that being said.. last weekend I did a demo day at Sunday River and decided to try the Stockli Laser MX.. 67 underfoot.. and I LOVED it. I still don’t know when I’d ski it, it would likely be very infrequently that I would commit to it for a full ski day.. but I want them. However, they are $$$ and so I am waiting to see if I find a deal because I’m not sure it’s worth it if I won’t ski them much.

As far as the video’s messaging specifically? I’ll say that I think you should always encourage newer skiers to demo to figure out what they like and dislike. Beyond that, it’s all preference and there aren’t any wrong answers if someone is having a great time on their fat or skinny skis. What’s right for one person might not be for another.. and that’s okay.

Ah, welcome to the MX lovers world! They are amazing!

 

[Jilly]

I love my 68mm Hero's. Today at Tremblant we had mostly "packed powder" aka packed groomers. There was some ice. White ice, not blue. I don't think anyone in my group of 7 were on anything more that 70. Head Supershape, Blizzard Phoenix and Hero's.

I sold my SA 88's this fall. Used them 2X and didn't like them. Too floppy and too wide for my knees.

Oh and on Monday we had 38cm of new snow. My Hero's were fine in it. Technique helps! I sometimes think that people are using the wider skis, because they do not the technique to ski to start with and think the wider ski will help.

 

[MissySki]

Ah, welcome to the MX lovers world! They are amazing!

Do you have them too? I was shocked at how much I liked them, I was quite sure I was just going to be checking them off the list of things I wanted to try. Should have known better! Lol

 

[MissySki]

Oh and on Monday we had 38cm of new snow. My Hero's were fine in it. Technique helps! I sometimes think that people are using the wider skis, because they do not the technique to ski to start with and think the wider ski will help.

I’m quite sure 15 inches of snow is a situation even Deb would likely be on her wider skis lol. She does have Fischer 102s in her quiver, and said she skied them a lot last season.

Just because someone chooses a different option (tool for the job) it hardly means it’s because they have no technique.

 

[contesstant]

Do you have them too? I was shocked at how much I liked them, I was quite sure I was just going to be checking them off the list of things I wanted to try. Should have known better! Lol

I’ve skied them twice. I WISH I had them.

 

[PollySid]

I completely agree with Deb's take on ski width and it drives me bonkers that we have no rentals available under 88 underfoot in my area. The 88s are usually the soft learn to turn ski.

Personally, I mostly ski a 90 day to day. My most fun boards are a 72 and a 106 underfoot. My least used are the 112. The 98 comes in 3rd in terms of use after the 90 and the 72. For years I only had a pair of 88s just as Deb says. I learned the most from the 72s.

I would love to add a soft 80 to 82 underfoot for big bumps and variable spring skiing.

I keep the ones I use the least 10 to 12 years. The 84 to 90 range skis last 4 years max before becoming too soft.

On a side note there is nothing scarier than a large human on a low angle groomer with some unevenly packed snow straightlining it in the back seat. So many complain about snowboarders. For me the skier who is not very good on floppy oversized skis mixed in with the general public is menace number one.

I appreciate your comment on the straightliners. Sooo scary! Beaver Creek has signage = no straight lining, and I hope resorts become more vigilant with signage. I’d be happy to see ski patrollers chase them down /yank tickets!

 

[Jilly]

Deb is asking/talking about the average NA skier. They only have 1 pair of skis. Most of us on this forum are not this "average".

 

[snoWYmonkey]

I appreciate your comment on the straightliners. Sooo scary! Beaver Creek has signage = no straight lining, and I hope resorts become more vigilant with signage. I’d be happy to see ski patrollers chase them down /yank tickets!

That's fascinating. JH does allow it, especially since there are times with deep snow, or very long flat areas, that it is necessary. One can really appreciate the need for speed when the patrollers come flying by with a sled, straightlining, and a snowmobile is waiting in case they did not carry enough speed.

Deb's guest speaker was so correct with the wider skis being targeted for men too. It is definitely a chicken and egg question. Would many skiers be on more appropriate skis if they had them for sale in the west?

I just read the winter gear issue that came with outside magazine. Many more narrow skis reviewed than I am used to. Or maybe I am just now noticing them as I am myself becoming a fan?

 

[MissySki]

I appreciate your comment on the straightliners. Sooo scary! Beaver Creek has signage = no straight lining, and I hope resorts become more vigilant with signage. I’d be happy to see ski patrollers chase them down /yank tickets!

I remember seeing those signs at BC last year and thought, wow is that really necessary??? But wince then I feel like I’ve seen the issue crop up more and more at home too.. and it seems that some resorts need those types of signs very badly!!

 

[contesstant]

I don't think they're referring to truly accomplished skiers in that video. I think they are talking about skiers developing a skill set who have not learned to truly engage a clean carved edge. I fall into that group and I think my skill set was inhibited by taking my low-intermediate skills and trying to develop them on an 88 under-foot ski. Honestly, most of us fall into that group. I think most skiers would be best served by two pair of skis--something narrower than 80, and then an all-mountain slarver or powder-centric ski.

There is nothing quite like the feeling of the force and speed and control felt on a clean carved edge. I get it once in awhile and I giggle every time. More people need to try something 80 or narrower under foot. They tend to feel a bit squirrely for about 20 or so turns, then the ease of tipping them registers with the brain and man, are they fun! I now have a pair of Rossi Experience 82ti, and want to go even narrower. (Atomic Cloud keep popping into my head!)

 

[elemmac]

On a side note there is nothing scarier than a large human on a low angle groomer with some unevenly packed snow straightlining it in the back seat. So many complain about snowboarders. For me the skier who is not very good on floppy oversized skis mixed in with the general public is menace number one.

This is how I feel about this subject as well. Honestly...out of control snowboarders don't make it very far before they fall over. But an out-of-control skier (especially when they *think* they're good), can make it a whole run without a fall...and they normally see that as an accomplishment!

 

[elemmac]

I just read the winter gear issue that came with outside magazine. Many more narrow skis reviewed than I am used to. Or maybe I am just now noticing them as I am myself becoming a fan?

I do think manufactures/media are putting more emphasis on narrower skis. Not necessarily sub-80, but in the 80-88mm range which is exactly what Deb is talking about the video (for women).

 

[elemmac]

I don't think they're referring to truly accomplished skiers in that video. I think they are talking about skiers developing a skill set who have not learned to truly engage a clean carved edge. I fall into that group and I think my skill set was inhibited by taking my low-intermediate skills and trying to develop them on an 88 under-foot ski. Honestly, most of us fall into that group. I think most skiers would be best served by two pair of skis--something narrower than 80, and then an all-mountain slarver or powder-centric ski.

This is an interesting discussion point, as I understand where you're coming from, but also feel the exact opposite for my own personal experience. My first pair of skis coming back into skiing as an adult, was 100 underfoot. While I'm certain they didn't do me any favors figuring out a clean carve, they helped me with my personal objectives...which was to ski off the groomers. My objective was not to have perfect form, instructor-level technique, or even to carve a clean turn.

I had basic knowledge of how to ski from when I was a kid and had a fair amount of natural athleticism. Given my snowboarding background (riding a 250mm-ish wide board), I have plenty of patience in the fall line while waiting for my edges to hook up. If I been on an 80mm underfoot ski, with my technical abilities at that time, I'm not so sure I would have stuck with skiing....I would have been bored with groomers and didn't have the technical ability to ski an 80mm ski in the woods.

I think this topic cannot be defined with a catchall width. I think personal objectives play a huge role, that should not be discounted.

 

[MissySki]

I think this topic cannot be defined with a catchall width. I think personal objectives play a huge role, that should not be discounted.

Yes, this!!!