Opinion: Why 100-108mm waist skis?

[Coolhand]

The current, best selling, "go to", ski category in the US is 100-108mm waist, all-mountain designs. I'm curious to hear from skiers on this forum, as to why that is.

My experience is that these designs are mediocre at almost everything. Too wide and slow edge to edge to be much fun on groomers, as well as adding unnecessary knee strain while doing it. Ponderous in moguls. Too narrow to be truly "floaty" in deep snow. The width of these skis increases tip deflection in crud snow, whereas narrower skis kind of "slice" through crud piles. I've come to the conclusion that for true "resort" conditions, that designs with waist widths from mid 70mm- mid 90mm are the best tools for the job of true all-terrain skiing.

I know that I must be mistaken, and must be missing something, because manufacturers wouldn't be building so many of them, and consumers buying so many of them if my thoughts were true. So enlighten me.

 

[PinnacleJim]

I agree with you. Most resort skiers are better on something from mid 70s to mid 90s. I have no use for anything wider. But I am not typical.

 

[KingGrump]

As I often said, skiing is much like sex. Most of it is in your head. Biggerer gotta be betterer. Right?

 

[jmeb]

We really need the beating a dead horse emoji back on this forum.

People ski that width because they like them. They don't care whats the fastest edge to edge or what people think they would be better off on.

Saying that a 70-90mm ski is the best for average resort conditions doesn't mean much. As a consumer, I don't care about whatever the general average is, I care about what the average of where and when i ski. Furthermore, the average ski buyer is not the average skier. The average ski buyer is skiing more often (and probably at a higher level) than the average skier.

My favorite current ski for taking out when I don't want to think about conditions is 108mm wide. It's the ski I'd grab if I was going on a trip with one ski and not to the East coast. Its simply the most versatile tool for the job. That 108 skis crud better than any of the many 90mm skis I've been on, especially deep crud. It skis powder way better than a 90mm. It more stable to land on especially in variable snow. It's slower edge to edge, but is actually easier in the bumps than any of my narrower skis because of its rocker profile than any of my narrower skis. In the quiver I've got everything for 85 to 128. It's not a lack of options

 

[cantunamunch]

As I often said, skiing is much like sex.

When's demo day, again?

 

[KingGrump]

When's demo day, again?

Everyday can be demo day. Depends on your set up.

 

[anders_nor]

A lot of companies completly seems to neglect 80/90mm category, and just give mushy beginner friendly stuff in 80-90mm ish class.

Example, 102 ranger FR is more fun then 94 FR.

Volkl has lots of good stuff in lower 80, then stiffer again at mantra 102, but kinda nothing in between deacon 84 and mantra 102? maybe kendo, but its so close to the deacon again, and not quite there in stiffness.

I've been trying to find fun 80/90 skis that can carve, have twintip and charge, and its not easy, the best ones seems to be high 90s, and well. yeah. hmm


Grew up with skinny skies and FIS racing skies, and find it weird when 100mm ski better than 80 or 90.

 

[cantunamunch]

^Exactly. The fact that a 95 mm ski is lumped into the same acceptability category as a 25mm-thinner 70mm ski whereas a 5-mm wider 100mm ski is somehow not acceptable is just bonkers.

 

[Coolhand]

Please note, this is not an attack on anyone who loves their 100's - 108's, or is another narrow ski vs. fat ski rant. I really want to know what make the majority of skiers and the industry consider the "One-0-Somethings", the best ski width choice for resort conditions. As far as the 75mm-95mm cutoffs? Yes, maybe a little arbitrary, especially at the extremes. But, most "All-terrain" or "All-Mountain East" skis fall into this width range, there are a few skis on either extreme that defy the characterization, but overall this group is more similar than different.

 

[jmeb]

I really want to know what make the majority of skiers and the industry consider the "One-0-Somethings", the best ski width choice for resort conditions.

Because most skiers only want to own one set of skis. And because most skiers are willing to trade off some hardpack performance for soft snow/3D performance. Even if that doesn't match the majority of conditions people ski (i.e. non-3d snow) -- it's a preference for being better on the good days than better on the bad days.

There's nothing particularly logical about skiing -- spending hundreds or thousands of dollars, hours of drive time, to throw yourself down a cold wet hill at high speeds with minimal safety equipment. I don't see why anyone would expect ski selection to be particularly logical.

 

[jmeb]

^Exactly. The fact that a 95 mm ski is lumped into the same acceptability category as a 25mm-thinner 70mm ski whereas a 5-mm wider 100mm ski is somehow not acceptable is just bonkers.

It's especially silly when you consider that the difference between a 70 -> 90mm ski is -- as a percentage -- a much larger jump than a 90 -> 110mm ski.

 

[ScottB]

The current, best selling, "go to", ski category in the US is 100-108mm waist, all-mountain designs. I'm curious to hear from skiers on this forum, as to why that is.

My experience is that these designs are mediocre at almost everything.

We seem to be just coming out of the "fat ski" era and seem to be heading back towards narrower skis. I suspect there will be a "lag" in the sales data reflecting that. Also lumping 100mm with 108mm skis seems to cover two categories, and two of the most popular ones. I have come to believe the 100mm category is the non-East coast daily driver size. If you focus on East Coast sales, I suspect it would be the 88-100mm categories as the best selling.

I don't agree that all skis in the 100-108 category fit your assessment. For skiing in soft snow, (especially ungroomed) the 100-108 width performs the best, IMHO. The width allows you to stay on top of the snow (with a little speed) and that makes them the easiest to ski. Certainly the all mtn category (regardless of width) is the jack of all trades ski and is the most recommended ski type in the industry, or on the internet. If you go to the mtn to just ski, and don't have a particular focused type of skiing, they perform the best across the range of all conditions. For me on the East Coast, I feel my Blizzard Brahma (88mm) fits that bill. For Western skiing I would say the Blizzard Bonafide (100mm) is ideal. I would say those two skis do everything well, nothing exceptional. Doing everything well could be considered exceptional

 

[cantunamunch]

...and travel. Having a multipass -> more travel, more chances at good days, more reason to think that one shouldn't be locked into an Eastern or Western daily driver.

 

[EricG]

Many One ski quiver people buy skis for the conditions they wish they skied, not conditions they actually ski.

 

[Philpug]

Just look at what people drive and what are the best selling vehicles. Image, image, image.

 

[Ken_R]

The current, best selling, "go to", ski category in the US is 100-108mm waist, all-mountain designs. I'm curious to hear from skiers on this forum, as to why that is.

My experience is that these designs are mediocre at almost everything. Too wide and slow edge to edge to be much fun on groomers, as well as adding unnecessary knee strain while doing it. Ponderous in moguls. Too narrow to be truly "floaty" in deep snow. The width of these skis increases tip deflection in crud snow, whereas narrower skis kind of "slice" through crud piles. I've come to the conclusion that for true "resort" conditions, that designs with waist widths from mid 70mm- mid 90mm are the best tools for the job of true all-terrain skiing.

I know that I must be mistaken, and must be missing something, because manufacturers wouldn't be building so many of them, and consumers buying so many of them if my thoughts were true. So enlighten me.

I cant say I disagree with you.

My 102mm wide skis are my AT "Backcountry" skis with AT bindings. I need a good ski in powder but that also holds an edge on the various crusts common in the alpine.

For resort skiing I only have my Monster 88's and my BC Nocta (122mm wide) for powder. Most days I am on my Monsters.

 

[jmills115]

When's demo day, again?

The express to the divorce attorney?

 

[PNWRod]

The express to the divorce attorney?

I recommend Saul Goodman

 

[ski otter 2]

Because most skiers only want to own one set of skis. And because most skiers are willing to trade off some hardpack performance for soft snow/3D performance. Even if that doesn't match the majority of conditions people ski (i.e. non-3d snow) -- it's a preference for being better on the good days than better on the bad days.

There's nothing particularly logical about skiing -- spending hundreds or thousands of dollars, hours of drive time, to throw yourself down a cold wet hill at high speeds with minimal safety equipment. I don't see why anyone would expect ski selection to be particularly logical.

I agree completely with the first paragraph and all of @jmed previous post, but as to the second paragraph, not sure most skiers who buy their own skis are not being logical. In my experience talking to a lot of folks going up on lifts, their choices make good sense, usually. People have different styles, different skills, different objectives, on different mountains, and on different days: there is a lot of diversity in this way, and something to learn about skiing from these choices, very often.

 

[Snowflake2420]

For me I've found 100+ mm skis much easier to handle in challenging terrain or conditions unless it's truly an ice rink and much of this has to do with the rocker profile. Ex. my favorite all mountain ski at the moment is the Blizzard Sheeva 10, it has a lot of rocker for an all mountain ski, isn't a noodle, can handle some new snow, can hold an edge, easy to shut down or pivot when needed, easy to initiate a turn in any terrain. Of course not every 100-108 mm ski is the same, but I think many of the popular ones have the attributes described above and that's what a lot of people want, especially if they only own one ski. These types of skis also makes skiing off piste easier, where many ski buyers want to be (whether simply aspiration or not).