Are wider skis uncomfortable?

[Wilhelmson]

I was fine going from 85 to 95, never skied anything over 95.

 

[KingGrump]

But this begs the question: When I look at a lot of the new skis on the wall, a lot have those big fat flared tips that pull one into the turn, even on some 80+mm skis. Is only ease of turning the goal, not versatility in varied snow conditions? Many people only buy one ski.

Most skiers are on groomers more often than off. Regardless what they say.

 

[Crank]

Widest I have skied with any regularity are 105mm waisted skis. I have demoed up to 120mm. From my very not technical point of view and skiing technique I will say I am pretty comfortable on anything up to 107ish. Going much over that width I just find the skis to be kind of awkward for moving around the hill, you know skating, maneuvering in a lift lines etc.

I have not noticed increased knee pain but then when I am on a fat ski I probably carve less and smear more.

I also think you can go less wide if you go with more length in deep snow...that way you get more support out front and are less likely to sink you tips and do a superman.

 

[Wendy]

Most skiers are on groomers more often than off. Regardless what they say.

I completely agree....especially since I live in PA, where most everything is groomers. It’s just that....I can take a narrower ski with a lot less sidecut and find it more fun if a big snow happens and I don’t lose carving capability.

And...skis with a lot of sidecut are harder on my knees, even if they are narrow. Perhaps this is because they pull you harder into the turn which encourages higher edge angles. I don’t know for sure though.

I recall @James discussing how FIS SL skis are more versatile due to less sidecut (he can correct me if I am wrong) and I found the same to be true about my Blossom FIS SL’s compared to cheater SL’s. They are easier on my knees. But I don’t really know if this is a issue related to the original topic, and if not, my apologies and I’ll stop here.

 

[KingGrump]

I completely agree....especially since I live in PA, where most everything is groomers. It’s just that....I can take a narrower ski with a lot less sidecut and find it more fun if a big snow happens and I don’t lose carving capability.

And...skis with a lot of sidecut are harder on my knees, even if they are narrow. Perhaps this is because they pull you harder into the turn which encourages higher edge angles. I don’t know for sure though.

I recall @James discussing how FIS SL skis are more versatile due to less sidecut (he can correct me if I am wrong) and I found the same to be true about my Blossom FIS SL’s compared to cheater SL’s. They are easier on my knees. But I don’t really know if this is a issue related to the original topic, and if not, my apologies and I’ll stop here.

I have skis from 65 mm to 116 mm underfoot. They all ski differently and require different technique and tactics. Even skis with similar underfoot width, different technique and tactics are required to get the most out of the skis.

I find that the most difference between skis on groomers is not so much side cut but camber/rocker/splay profile.

BTW, I am the one responsible for turning @James onto FIS SL for spring skiing back on Epic. For the NE, my DD is usually a pair of FIS SL. For my son, the FIS SL is his all mountain ski, east and west. He will often ski up to a foot of western powder with them. We share 8 pair between us.
The FIS SL skis are a lot more approachable than most skiers think. Mamie wanted a pair for herself after skiing KT West Face with mine last spring. Bought her a new pair of X12 binding so she can get in on the fun. The DIN on the our X16s starts a too high for her.

 

[Ken_R]

Most skiers are on groomers more often than off. Regardless what they say.