Are 100-plus wide skis overrated for most lift served skiing?

[Wasatchman]

I'm amazed at the number of skis/skiers out there that seem to regularly use skis 100-plus mm wide.

Unless most of the day is side country, I often question why you'd want to go much wider than 100-105 unless it is a deep day and going to continue to dump throughout the day. Heck, I still have a blast in pow even with 90mm wide skis, and I think they are a lot more versatile and can be a better choice if it doesn't continue to dump as conditions can get skied out fast.

My guess is that a lot of people skiing lift served would often be better served with something narrower than 100 versus what they currently choose.

Thoughts?

 

[KingGrump]

Skiing like sex, half (or more) is in your head.

 

[François Pugh]

It really depends on where you ski, what type of terrain you ski and how much you weigh.

Ontario and most of Quebec Canada there is no valid reason to go over 70 mm most days. At my home hill in Sudbury Ontario, most days most trails, a sub 70 mm SL type ski is best. However there is one twisty turny up and down trail there, where one can make lots of tight turns around the trees and rocks through the bush, where I would like to have a pair of Bonafides or similar (tip and tail rocker, 98 mm waist, 2nd longest length). It's not open often, due to low coverage.

When I skied at Mt. Washington on Vancouver Island BC two years ago this Christmas, I found the Völkl 100-eight (also 2nd longest length) best suited for the deeper snow in the trees, and there was plenty of it available, lift-serviced if you knew where to look, even two weeks after a snow fall. I weighed 150 lbs at the time. So if you weighed 240 lbs, you would likely find the best ski for that job to be wider.

For groomers, I would still prefer something closer to a race ski, but for off-piste deep snow, I prefer wider and would have to decide what I was going to ski that day and pick the best tool for that day; I would have at least two very different pairs of skis. Some folks are happy with a compromise, like a 96 mm ski with rocker/camber/rocker, and it's not a bad compromise for soft-snow groomers (we don't have those here in Ontario). Not me. For me an all-mountain ski, no matter how good won't cut it as a carving ski. Definition: deep snow = step off your skis and you are up to your arm pits in snow, or deeper.

 

[Ken_R]

I'm amazed at the number of skis/skiers out there that seem to regularly use skis 100-plus mm wide.

Unless most of the day is side country, I often question why you'd want to go much wider than 100-105 unless it is a deep day and going to continue to dump throughout the day. Heck, I still have a blast in pow even with 90mm wide skis, and I think they are a lot more versatile and can be a better choice if it doesn't continue to dump as conditions can get skied out fast.

My guess is that a lot of people skiing lift served would often be better served with something narrower than 100 versus what they currently choose.

Thoughts?

There are a lot of people on the wrong skis for them and where/when they ski.

I have been one of those people at times.

Even in Colorado skis 90mm wide or less are ideal for most days.

 

[SBrown]

... Thoughts?

My first thought: “Where is that beating-a-dead-horse emoji when you need it?”

My second thought: MYOFB

My third thought: “You aren’t wrong.”

My fourth thought: “Pleeeeeease can we find something else to talk about.”

 

[jmeb]

No they are not.

Or maybe they are.

Anyways, here is Marcus skiing some stuff over 100mm wide skis on days without new snow in a resort.

 

[Ken_R]

My first thought: “Where is that beating-a-dead-horse emoji when you need it?”

My second thought: MYOFB

My third thought: “You aren’t wrong.”

My fourth thought: “Pleeeeeease can we find something else to talk about.”

Here ya go:

 

[geepers]

Skiing like sex, half (or more) is in your head.

Where it also doesn't matter if boots are buckled or unbuckled.

 

[David Chaus]

Skiing like sex, half (or more) is in your head.

Yes, but it’s still better with the right size equipment .

 

[fatbob]

They're overratedfor trolling. Jackson Hogen called he wants you on realskiers

 

[David Chaus]

To answer the OP:

Yes.

Except when I have my 116 wide Billy Goats. Then, it’s completely appropriate.

More seriously, “lift served skiing” doesn’t specify for what types of terrain the skis will be used. For mostly-piste skiing, 100+ is overkill. For a lot of off-piste, many 100+ wider skis will kill it just right, without needing 6” of untracked pow. Can most people have a great time on under 100 skis in those conditions? Sure.

So, the question might better be phrased: “For what conditions is 100+ not over-rated?”

And you have to question, over-rated by whom? A specific ski reviewer? General consensus of friends? Models that sell well?

 

[KingGrump]

Where it also doesn't matter if boots are buckled or unbuckled.

So long the boots keep on knocking.

Yes, but it’s still better with the right size equipment .

Ski on what you brung. It is always the right size.

 

[Ken_R]

No they are not.

Or maybe they are.

Anyways, here is Marcus skiing some stuff over 100mm wide skis on days without new snow in a resort.

That video never gets old. Wow.

It really highlights typical good midwinter conditions at ski resorts in Utah and Colorado. Stellar skiing. That guy is just crushing everything and making it look easy.

 

[Doug Briggs]

My first thought: “Where is that beating-a-dead-horse emoji when you need it?”

My second thought: MYOFB

My third thought: “You aren’t wrong.”

My fourth thought: “Pleeeeeease can we find something else to talk about.”

I'll just pick up the mic and add...

An answer oft neglected: Some of the guys on wide skis only have one pair and they bought for what they hope for, not what they get, most of the time.

And I'll finish with an acronym that I just made up: HTFC

Hopefully I'll remember what it means when someone asks.

 

[SBrown]

An answer oft neglected: Some of the guys on wide skis only have one pair and they bought for what that hope for

That was also a thought, and probably the most accurate one. I have said it before, I would rather have a crappy time using wide skis on a groomer than skinny skis on a pow day. So if you have only one pair ....

 

[Philpug]

No they are not.

Or maybe they are.

Anyways, here is Marcus skiing some stuff over 100mm wide skis on days without new snow in a resort.

Yeah, and that @Marcus Caston he is super human. He could have filmed any of those segments on 68mm GS skis and it would have still looked amazing.

Still, give me an 85-90mm ski for "no new snow for a week" conditions.

 

[Lauren]

The ol’ proverb...Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Some people choose their skis for the conditions they ski most, some choose their skis to maximize the best days (“best” being entirely subjective), some choose a balance in between these two. 100-plus underfoot is not overrated if it puts a big smile on your face.

 

[DocGKR]

For my size and the West Coast conditions and resorts I frequent (Sierras, Wasatch, Rockies), skis in the 95-105 mm range work great for most all mountain use in variable snow. The only place they truly fail is on bulletproof hardpack, which is why it is nice to have either a 70-85mm carving ski or sub-70mm race ski in the quiver.

 

[rcc55125]

 

[Jacob]

I get a lot of good use out of my 110-mm skis in the Alps on lift-served terrain. If it has snowed in the last couple of days and it's not windy or warm, then I can usually find a lot of off-piste terrain with soft snow to play in.

I bring a pair of 90-mm skis on my trips to use when it hasn't snowed for a couple of days or more, and I find my usage of the two pairs is almost 50/50.