• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

78 vs 88

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,441
It's not your height, it's foot width. It's where the ball of foot to heel axis lines up with the ski edge. But yes, if you hang over the edge of an 88 with your wide foot, that may be similar to someone on a 78. However, a 78 will still react differently for you than an 88. . Your shop is giving you the wrong ski type if you keep crushing them. It's not the width.

There are 6'7" world cup slalom skiers skiing 64 mm 165's. Note that those skis have plates. (Plus they're extra beefy, not off the shelf) You should probably ski something that's narrowish with a plate. Stockli SC, Wrt, SX come to mind.

Kastle MX series.
Add a plate to those and if you overpower it you'll probably need to go semi custom to custom. Augment (formerly Croc) comes to mind with 10 stiffness levels available.

Fischer curve gt, or just the curve-that one can be a beast in 180 whatever. I've seen it in the store. It's thicker than a gs race ski. I don't recommend it actually unless at ine time you had say under 50 fis points or less in gs.

Volkl Deacons.
Blossom White Outs or similar. They make one with less sidecut.

Atomic X9, X9 wide (next year)

Rossi Hero Masters Gs - very versatile piste ski.

Plenty of beefy narrow skis.
@Drahtguy Kevin is a big guy and tests a lot. He'd know more.

You should avoid adjustable system bindings imo unless they're bomber. You put too much torque on it. They all have play, you'll push it to the limit.
You should also ski the beefiest bindings, not ones made for llight women. Pivot 18's, not 12's.
 
Last edited:

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,894
Location
Behavioral sink
, 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?!

Distance from centered-on-axis scales the same for both you so - the hypothetical skier on the 78mm ski will always be in dynamic balance at greater angles than you will.

They will, of course, also be required to angulate more. Whether that's a net positive or negative for you depends on your skiing intent. If you want pure rollercoaster dynamic turn feel, go narrower. If you just want to make "turns of a given size" then there is no need.

I

Plenty of beefy narrow skis.
.

I bet Original+ would make him whatever he asked for.
 

Marker

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Posts
2,350
Location
Kennett Square, PA & Killington, VT
@James @cantunamunch Thanks for your input and patience with me. I only had problems with the E83, my other skis are fine for me, no complaints with their intended use. I've been working on more angulation this season, but my bad back gets in the way. Doesn't stop me from skiing though, just can't get the edge angles I could aspire to. I like mixing up the turn shape, not sticking to just the standard sidecut turn. Anyway, my comments were specific to stiff, narrower all-mtn skis, not SL, cheater GS, etc. The Stockli Laser AX at 78 looks interesting to me, but a little rich for my blood. I forget his name, but enjoy watching that 6'7" SL skier from Switzerland (?). Oh to be 30 years younger.

Distance from centered-on-axis scales the same for both you so - the hypothetical skier on the 78mm ski will always be in dynamic balance at greater angles than you will. They will, of course, also be required to angulate more.
I still want to explore this one more time as I think I'm not asking the question in the best way. Doesn't the longer lever arms of my tibia and femur compensate, even partly? I've followed some of those threads where the stick figures are drawn to demonstrate angulation, inclination, etc. (I'm NOT that conversant in ski instructor lingo). If all the dimensions for the ideal figure are scaled between 5'6" and 6'6", doesn't ski width scale with height? I'm a chemist, not an engineer!
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,894
Location
Behavioral sink
[
I still want to explore this one more time as I think I'm not asking the question in the best way. Doesn't the longer lever arms of my tibia and femur compensate, even partly? I've followed some of those threads where the stick figures are drawn to demonstrate angulation, inclination, etc. (I'm NOT that conversant in ski instructor lingo). If all the dimensions for the ideal figure are scaled between 5'6" and 6'6", doesn't ski width scale with height?!

Not if you want high lateral G-force. You will be too upright. You will be able to make X meter turns at Y speed just fine, and if your body puts the ski through transition fast enough the ski tracks might look very similar but you will not feel the carve as deeply as the short guy with dainty feet.

There is an upside for you. You have a huge advantage in doing wedelns.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,441
Wedeln was what experts did in the day. These are straight skis.

I always thought it was faster side to side than these.
 
Last edited:

ARL67

Invisible Airwaves Crackle With Life
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Posts
1,218
Location
Thornbury, ON, Canada
The guy at my hill on the Monoski has that action.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Dwight
    Practitioner of skiing, solid and liquid
Top