78 vs 88

[martyg]

Interesting how most people here think a "78" is a better choice for most than an "88" but 88's outsell 78's by a big margin. I have been trying to sell these like new Cheyenne's for what seems cheap but no takers. I bet the 88 version "Black Pearl" would be gone. https://www.pugski.com/threads/2016-blizzard-cheyenne-like-black-pearl-78-170cm.13705/

Like Tim Petrick said in his letter to the industry some yeas ago, People tend to buy skis for the snow that they want to ski, not the snow that they will be skiing.

I see it all the time: Dudebro buys something 100+ underfoot, tech binding, tech boot, spends 90% of his time skiing inbounds, on-piste.

Are you getting that info on width from SIA / NPD Group?

 

[neonorchid]

Like Tim Petrick said in his letter to the industry some yeas ago, People tend to buy skis for the snow that they want to ski, not the snow that they will be skiing.

Some of us will try are best to not go skiing when chances of finding the snow we want to ski are minimal to nonexistent.

I see it all the time: Dudebro buys something 100+ underfoot, tech binding, tech boot, spends 90% of his time skiing inbounds, on-piste.

How would you know that? Dudebro may be skiing inbounds on-piste all day to sort out issues with and or get used to such gear before venturing out of bounds where consequences can be very serious. No?
-
[/QUOTE]

 

[neonorchid]

Yes, it would be same length, 168cm, and similar flex.

LMK your BSL? If workable with my bindings and we both decide to attend the NE gathering, should be soft snow, I'll bring along my 168cm Kastle BMX 88's for you to play around with. I personally think they are too short for you but if nothiing else you'll get a better idea what a soft 88 can do for you.

 

[tinymoose]

Ya know, once upon a time I would have said 88 for versatility but after having spent the majority of this season on my 64?? 65?? waisted SL skis, even in push piles of snow on a warm day, I think going skinny for most of the season has greatly helped my skiing. Even when I went back to my 84-waisted skis a couple weeks ago, my skiing was improved over last year. I also take an adult race clinic and have for the last few years so I'm sure that's a factor, but this is the first season I free skied mostly on my race skis, and I think that made a big difference overall. All that to say, for developmental reasons and since you're on the east/"ice" coast I'd go narrower.

But like Phil said, it would also depend on the characteristics of the skis too (besides the waist width).

 

[martyg]

Some of us will try are best to not go skiing when chances of finding the snow we want to ski are minimal to nonexistent.
How would you know that? Dudebro may be skiing inbounds on-piste all day to sort out issues with and or get used to such gear before venturing out of bounds where consequences can be very serious. No?
-

[/QUOTE]

How do I know hat?

1. When you are at ski hill 100+ days per season, much of it as an instructor, the nuances of people's skiing abilities and habits are apparent.

2. When you live in the small western mountain town that is connected with that ski area, you soon learn that everyone knows everyone.

Those two factors provides a valuable glimpse as to who has game, who is real, who has real credentials. Much more so than an anonymous handle on a forum group.

 

[Tom K.]

When Jon Seifert was conducting his research into ski width we were communicating on a regular basis, this is the summary that he sent to me, prior to the study being released:

4. Edge changes were faster with the wide skis. This would indicate less arcing and straighter turns.

Lots of interesting info (that I did not quote for brevity) but I'm not seeing #4.

When I do what my wife calls "your perfect carved little noodle turns" on my 65 mm slalom skis my edge changes are FAR faster than with my Enforcer 100s.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the context?

 

[trailtrimmer]

Lots of interesting info (that I did not quote for brevity) but I'm not seeing #4.

When I do what my wife calls "your perfect carved little noodle turns" on my 65 mm slalom skis my edge changes are FAR faster than with my Enforcer 100s.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the context?

I’m guessing he’s referring to edge change vs. edge engagement. It takes less movement to start to get an edge, but it takes more to actually engage it.

 

[François Pugh]

I would welcome thoughts on the difference (pros/cons) between a 78 underfoot ski and an 88 underfoot ski for an intermediate skier (5'9 / 170lbs) looking for what folks here refer to as "a daily driver" to ski on blues/blacks mainly on the east coast.

Would the 78 be "too narrow", would the 88 be "too wide"?

Thanks!

Both of your choices are two wide for hard snow conditions, i.e. conditions where less than half your (68 mm wide) ski sinks into the snow when you put them on edge. Stick with 68 to 74 mm for hard snow conditions. Get yourself a second pair of (98 mm) skis for storm days and excursions into the woods.

 

[François Pugh]

Lots of interesting info (that I did not quote for brevity) but I'm not seeing #4.

When I do what my wife calls "your perfect carved little noodle turns" on my 65 mm slalom skis my edge changes are FAR faster than with my Enforcer 100s.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the context?

Of course wider skis are quicker edge to edge - that's why Marcel Hirscher uses 108 mm wide skis for SL

 

[neonorchid]

How do I know hat?

1. When you are at ski hill 100+ days per season, much of it as an instructor, the nuances of people's skiing abilities and habits are apparent.

2. When you live in the small western mountain town that is connected with that ski area, you soon learn that everyone knows everyone.

Those two factors provides a valuable glimpse as to who has game, who is real, who has real credentials. Much more so than an anonymous handle on a forum group.

Ok I believe you and yes there are lots of posers, however, it is also true that advanced level skiing skills and abilities aren't a requirement to do backcountry skiing. Plenty of people enjoy the hike up and are happy and content to do gentle low angle descents.

 

[neonorchid]

Ya know, once upon a time I would have said 88 for versatility but after having spent the majority of this season on my 64?? 65?? waisted SL skis, even in push piles of snow on a warm day, I think going skinny for most of the season has greatly helped my skiing. Even when I went back to my 84-waisted skis a couple weeks ago, my skiing was improved over last year. I also take an adult race clinic and have for the last few years so I'm sure that's a factor, but this is the first season I free skied mostly on my race skis, and I think that made a big difference overall. All that to say, for developmental reasons and since you're on the east/"ice" coast I'd go narrower.

But like Phil said, it would also depend on the characteristics of the skis too (besides the waist width).

Pfff, 65mm waist pooiefooie - try 44mm 43mm 44mm -

 

[Tom K.]

Ok I believe you and yes there are lots of posers, however, it is also true that advanced level skiing skills and abilities aren't a requirement to do backcountry skiing. Plenty of people enjoy the hike up and are happy and content to do gentle low angle descents.[/QUOTE]

Hippy Pow FTW!!!

 

[dbostedo]

Lots of interesting info (that I did not quote for brevity) but I'm not seeing #4.

When I do what my wife calls "your perfect carved little noodle turns" on my 65 mm slalom skis my edge changes are FAR faster than with my Enforcer 100s.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the context?

I think the implication was that the wide skis are not turned as much - so the edge angles developed are low, allowing for quicker edge changes. For a narrower ski, you'll tend to get it up on a higher angle, and take longer to change edges. I'd guess that given the same edge angles, the narrower ski will be quicker. But point 4 is saying that people don't ski with the same edge angles on wider skis.

 

[Wilhelmson]

If you can get out over the next week or two it would be a great time to demo different width skis. While there's some "traditional" ice, if it warms up enough there will be some random soft snow in between hard patches. See how your legs and back like the variable conditions on narrow skis before committing to your daily driver.

 

[Chef23]

I would go 78ish for a daily driver in the east. While if you live at Stowe like Josh and ski every day there is plenty of fresh snow but as a weekend warrior I ski on what is there the day I can go which is usually packed powder best, loose/frozen granular to icy. I can get my Rossi E88s to hold an edge but it requires more technique than my Rallys.

 

[Marker]

Would height and weight affect this choice? I know the OP is smaller than me (6'6", 230 lb, 30.5 boot), but asking for general discussion. Would my 88 on me feel like a 78 on him?

 

[James]

Would height and weight affect this choice? I know the OP is smaller than me (6'6", 230 lb, 30.5 boot), but asking for general discussion. Would my 88 on me feel like a 78 on him?

For floatation it matters, but the rest is geometry. The 30.5 boot would be wider, so possibly where your ball of foot is would be closer to tbe edge of an 88 than say a 27 boot. Afaik, the DIN sole plate is the same though. So the contact patch is the same for both boots. It's an interesting problem.
@cantunamunch ? Thoughts?

However, for you there would still be a significant differrnce between a 78 and 88. You'd need a plate I would think or a high binding to not boot out on skinnier skies.

 

[cantunamunch]

For floatation it matters, but the rest is geometry. The 30.5 boot would be wider, so possibly where your ball of foot is would be closer to tbe edge of an 88 than say a 27 boot. Afaik, the DIN sole plate is the same though. So the contact patch is the same for both boots. It's an interesting problem.
@cantunamunch ? Thoughts?

I agree - the bigger foot guy is going to be far more sensitive to boot setup and edge position under his lateral arch. See it on skates all the time. The boot contact patch doesn't matter unless the ski is ridiculously soft in torsion.

 

[flbufl]

If it is between the 78 mm and 88 mm versions of the same model (or very similar construction) like Black Pearl 78 and Black Pearl 88, Navigator 80 mm and Navigator 90 mm, I will pick the 78 mm version for east coast skiing.

But as far as I know, most of the 78 mm models currently on the market are categorized as technical skis, and do not have a 88 mm counterpart. Some of those skis may be not as playful and forgiving as you may like.

I would welcome thoughts on the difference (pros/cons) between a 78 underfoot ski and an 88 underfoot ski for an intermediate skier (5'9 / 170lbs) looking for what folks here refer to as "a daily driver" to ski on blues/blacks mainly on the east coast.

Would the 78 be "too narrow", would the 88 be "too wide"?

Thanks!

 

[Marker]

I agree - the bigger foot guy is going to be far more sensitive to boot setup and edge position under his lateral arch. See it on skates all the time. The boot contact patch doesn't matter unless the ski is ridiculously soft in torsion.

I ask because I can find a plethora of all-mtn 88 skis suitable for my size, but very few 78 that would not collapse under pressure. I gave up on my old Experience 83 for this reason and went to the much stiffer Amphibio 88 XTi with a Pivot 12. I added a Hero Elite LT at 69 underfoot, which has the demo type Axial 3 binding a la @James high binding. When I examine the relationship of the contact points at the widest part of my foot (108 mm) with the 88 ski, they are hanging over the edges. If my knees are adapted to my foot and longer tibia in say running shoes or a hiking boot on a rocky trail, why wouldn't a 88 width ski present the same physical relationship as a 78 width ski to someone that's a foot shorter than me?

P.S. Please ignore the powder skis in my avatar that only come out on days with plenty of fresh snow!