Skis Getting Narrower -- Did Colorado Ski Shops Not Get the Message?

[Mike King]

BTW, Mr. @Doug Briggs with actual FIS World Cup Points, , I suspect you also know how to tip and bend a ski...

 

[slowrider]

 

[KingGrump]

Much easier to sell wants rather than needs.

 

[Ken_R]

Josh,

Wide skis involve different muscles in the turn than a narrow ski. Wide skis encourage pushing the ski around rather than learning to tip the ski, bend it, and allow the ski shape to turn. Wide skis put more force on the knees than a narrow ski. Not learning how to get performance from a ski will probably limit the skier, especially if they ever wish to teach and become certified. See https://www.pugski.com/threads/ski-width-and-certification-exams.15647/

That is very true but Ski Shops want to sell skis and most people want a ski in a certain width range since they will only have that one ski for everything. Skis in the 88~108mm waist width range sell the most by far. Would most people be far better off on narrower skis during most of their ski days? Absolutely.

 

[Ski&ride]

Ski Shops want to sell skis and most people want a ski in a certain width range since they will only have that one ski for everything. Skis in the 88~108mm waist width range sell the most by far. Would most people be far better off on narrower skis during most of their ski days? Absolutely.

Totally!

Most buyers don’t know what’s good for them. They’ll buy whatever the marketing machine tell them to buy. And the marketing machine is telling them narrow skis are for beginners. Who wants to admit they’re beginners after a weekend on slope?

They need some sort of guidance. But many shop sales don’t know all the much. They push what they ski.

Instructors? We have one here who insists anyone beyond beginner should be on 85+ in the east coast. Why would a shop stock any skis narrower than 85?

I was at Jackson’s demo tent. Looking for something “around 85”. I was told they don’t have any below 85. I had something like 3-4 to choose from that are between 87-89!

I have plan to hit a few demo days this season. It will be interesting to see how many sub-80 skis I’ll be able to test here in the northeast!

 

[Philpug]

Much easier to sell wants rather than needs.

Ding Ding Ding...we have a winner. Hell, just look at what people drive...SUV's that are the 100mm skis of transportation.

 

[Mike Rogers]

Much easier to sell wants rather than needs.

Honestly, I think a lot of people ski soft snow more often than the harder stuff. Everybody is a powder princess these days.

Most of my friends who ski, including former racers, don't have a pass (life gets in the way, eh) and will only buy lift tickets (more expensive than ever) when there is fresh. They watch the forecasts, and will take last minute "vacation days" to ski powder.

I don't think these guys are unique...the local hills seem empty during dry spells, but are packed when it snows.

Even people with passes seem to seek out soft snow after the obvious stuff gets skied out.

And they tour when they can't find good snow at the hill.

If the back-country has hard snow, it's often a good opportunity to bag a peak or get on something big.

 

[KingGrump]

Honestly, I think a lot of people ski soft snow more often than the harder stuff. Everybody is a powder princess these days.

Most of my friends who ski, including former racers, don't have a pass (life gets in the way, eh) and will only buy lift tickets (more expensive than ever) when there is fresh. They watch the forecasts, and will take last minute "vacation days" to ski powder.

I don't think these guys are unique...the local hills seem empty during dry spells, but are packed when it snows.

Even people with passes seem to seek out soft snow after the obvious stuff gets skied out.

And they tour when they can't find good snow at the hill.

If the back-country has hard snow, it's often a good opportunity to bag a peak or get on something big.

Most of skiing, much like sex, is in people's head.

 

[Mike Rogers]

Most of skiing, much like sex, is in people's head.

I'm not sure what that means

 

[David Chaus]

I think it means it’s not about the size or width of the equipment, rather it’s how skillfully you use the equipment to gently caress the exquisite terrain and achieve satisfactory and often thrilling results.

 

[KingGrump]

I'm not sure what that means

Whatever floats your boat. Means and method are up to the individual.

 

[markojp]

Totally!

Most buyers don’t know what’s good for them. They’ll buy whatever the marketing machine tell them to buy. And the marketing machine is telling them narrow skis are for beginners. Who wants to admit they’re beginners after a weekend on slope?

They need some sort of guidance. But many shop sales don’t know all the much. They push what they ski.

Wanna make a small fortune in ski retail? Start with a large one and be a buyer who only buys what they personally like.

Want to get written up or let go as a shop employee? Push what you ski without regard to what the customer needs.

Ski instructors insisting only on +85 skis? None of us do . Ski on what works for the day, where and what your teaching, and who you're teaching. Sometimes ya just rung what jya bring. FWIW, the PSIA chair skis and teaches most of his days on iSpeed Pros.

 

[JimL]

I've actually read the research on ski width, namely Seifert's manuscript (don't know if it's actually published in a journal), and the article by Zorko et al that is published in Journal of Sports Science and Medicine in 2015, that are both discussed in the Seifert lecture.

The Zorko article uses 6 male skiers between 20-30 years, from the Slovenian Demo team and competitors, using 3 skis 176cm long, 21.4m radius, similar construction, with 66mm, 88mm and 110mm width. They ran a hard snow course on a 14.5 degree slope, with 12 gates 30m apart and offset horizontally by 11m between gates. They measured knee flexion (bend), internal rotation and abduction through the turn, along with ground reaction force. The results were: ground reaction force was essentially identical for all three ski widths. In order to achieve this, knee flexion, internal rotation and abduction varied between the three ski widths, with the skiers making active adjustments to achieve the same ground reaction force. However, these adjustments "could bring the knee joint unfavorably closer to the end of the range of motion in transversal and frontal planes as well as potentially increasing the risk of degenerative knee injuries." In the discussion, it was suggested that wide skis might produce increased tension on the medial collateral ligament - the ligament on the inner side of the knee joint, and more speculatively, more risk of ligament injury in case of abrupt sudden increase in force, and increased risk of knee cartilage degenerative damage over time.

The Seifert study used one skier, Olympic Gold Medalist Debbie Armstrong, on 66mm slalom skis and 95mm wide skis and looked at activity in several muscle groups from waist to ankle, as well as knee flexion. She skied a course on a 22 degree average pitch groomed run with gates 15m apart and 4m offset, as well as free skiing. In the course, her turns were faster and with a greater edge angle on the 66mm skis. The conclusion was "Skiing wide skis substantially changes skier movements, muscle activity, and ski actions compared to narrow skis."

Both studies show that expert skiers ski differently between 66mm, 88-95mm, and 110mm skis, but they don't actually define where the boundaries between narrow, mid and wide ski are. In the Zorko study, the curves for the mid size (88mm ski) for knee flexion and abduction mostly lie close to the fat ski curves and separate from narrow ski curves while the internal rotation curve is more or less midway between them, so one could argue that 88mm is more "fat" than "narrow," as far as the knee is concerned. Without data on widths between 66 and 88mm, the best we can do is draw a line midway between the two, which would be 77mm, close to Seifert's 80mm. And finally, all this is predicated on skiing on firm, groomed snow.

One other potential issue for wide skis, as mentioned in the Zorko article, is the possible increased risk of ligament injury in case of abrupt increase in force, which may be more likely in uneven terrain, e.g. chopped up heavy snow, moguls, etc.

Since the majority of skiers are found on groomed slopes, one might therefore conclude based on this research, that the the shops should be full of 70-75mm skis. OTOH, who wants to be considered average...

 

[Ross Biff]

I've actually read the research on ski width, namely Seifert's manuscript (don't know if it's actually published in a journal), and the article by Zorko et al that is published in Journal of Sports Science and Medicine in 2015, that are both discussed in the Seifert lecture.

The Zorko article uses 6 male skiers between 20-30 years, from the Slovenian Demo team and competitors, using 3 skis 176cm long, 21.4m radius, similar construction, with 66mm, 88mm and 110mm width. They ran a hard snow course on a 14.5 degree slope, with 12 gates 30m apart and offset horizontally by 11m between gates. They measured knee flexion (bend), internal rotation and abduction through the turn, along with ground reaction force. The results were: ground reaction force was essentially identical for all three ski widths. In order to achieve this, knee flexion, internal rotation and abduction varied between the three ski widths, with the skiers making active adjustments to achieve the same ground reaction force. However, these adjustments "could bring the knee joint unfavorably closer to the end of the range of motion in transversal and frontal planes as well as potentially increasing the risk of degenerative knee injuries." In the discussion, it was suggested that wide skis might produce increased tension on the medial collateral ligament - the ligament on the inner side of the knee joint, and more speculatively, more risk of ligament injury in case of abrupt sudden increase in force, and increased risk of knee cartilage degenerative damage over time.

The Seifert study used one skier, Olympic Gold Medalist Debbie Armstrong, on 66mm slalom skis and 95mm wide skis and looked at activity in several muscle groups from waist to ankle, as well as knee flexion. She skied a course on a 22 degree average pitch groomed run with gates 15m apart and 4m offset, as well as free skiing. In the course, her turns were faster and with a greater edge angle on the 66mm skis. The conclusion was "Skiing wide skis substantially changes skier movements, muscle activity, and ski actions compared to narrow skis."

Both studies show that expert skiers ski differently between 66mm, 88-95mm, and 110mm skis, but they don't actually define where the boundaries between narrow, mid and wide ski are. In the Zorko study, the curves for the mid size (88mm ski) for knee flexion and abduction mostly lie close to the fat ski curves and separate from narrow ski curves while the internal rotation curve is more or less midway between them, so one could argue that 88mm is more "fat" than "narrow," as far as the knee is concerned. Without data on widths between 66 and 88mm, the best we can do is draw a line midway between the two, which would be 77mm, close to Seifert's 80mm. And finally, all this is predicated on skiing on firm, groomed snow.

One other potential issue for wide skis, as mentioned in the Zorko article, is the possible increased risk of ligament injury in case of abrupt increase in force, which may be more likely in uneven terrain, e.g. chopped up heavy snow, moguls, etc.

Since the majority of skiers are found on groomed slopes, one might therefore conclude based on this research, that the the shops should be full of 70-75mm skis. OTOH, who wants to be considered average...

Thanks for breaking those studies down to a manageable bite size. It backs up the non scientific gut feeling I formed after my experiences with 90+ mm skis. I don't get much deep powder at my hill so my daily drive is generally a 65ish wide GS or SL ski, both of which are useable in deeper snow. I see a lot of younger skiers on heavily rockered, fat skis which are flapping around on the hardpack with maybe a meter of ski in constant snow contact if they're lucky. Marketing and fashion trump function yet again! I just hope they have as much fun as I do on my " skinny" skis.

 

[fatbob]

Ah turning into another thread where people can brag about skiing their SL and GS skis in powder etc.

Well I can't, at least not very well. My FIS SLs are superb fun on hardpack groomers and grip like a rabid chimpanzee but they are severely compromised in more variable conditions - too heavy, too stiif, not that easy to slide/ pivot.

Something in the mid 80s would be way more versatile IMV.

The thing about skiing is people tend to have fun on what they brung. You'd get pretty tired everyday criticizing everyone in a gas guzzling SUV caught in an urban jam or the people in the same traffic hitting a max of 20mph or potholes in their Enzo.

If you want skinnier skis ask your store to order them in and buy them. Enough of you do that and stores behaviour will change.

 

[Josh Matta]

Totally!

Most buyers don’t know what’s good for them. They’ll buy whatever the marketing machine tell them to buy. And the marketing machine is telling them narrow skis are for beginners. Who wants to admit they’re beginners after a weekend on slope?

They need some sort of guidance. But many shop sales don’t know all the much. They push what they ski.

Instructors? We have one here who insists anyone beyond beginner should be on 85+ in the east coast. Why would a shop stock any skis narrower than 85?

I was at Jackson’s demo tent. Looking for something “around 85”. I was told they don’t have any below 85. I had something like 3-4 to choose from that are between 87-89!

I have plan to hit a few demo days this season. It will be interesting to see how many sub-80 skis I’ll be able to test here in the northeast!

yeah I said my student generally want to ski off piste, I never insist especially if that is not their plan. in fact they probably found me though here, or the ski school recommended me because they wanted to ski off piste. Off piste in the east is sketchy even for good skiers are narrow skis in packed conditions. Again I would love to see some video of someone ripping trees on masters GS skis or SL ski but it does nt exist. Please do not post a video from out west. The coverage is better there, and the snow generally more consistent with an actual harden base in say colorado.

IF someone's goal is to be good at technical skiing,then by all means I want them on something fairly narrow. The thing is at my resort we rarely get true hardpack because after freezes they grind up the top layer and make about 6 inches of loose granular. I find that stuff not very fun to ski on anything but its awful on really skinny skis. Basically I own SL and GS skis but I generally use either Ititan or Monster 83 on days with out much fresh snow because they handle the loose granular better, and do well in hardpacked off trail condition. Now here is the kicker, on those granular days if I am going to stay on groomers I would rather be on my Enforcer 93 because they feel the best on that stuff.

Again saying "east" is kind of silly. I skied 80+ days last year when I could find some sort of 3d snow to ski on. Many of those days the groomers were awful and I would never choose to ski there.

Like these days, the groomers were awful but the tree had just enough powder that a fat ski could float on it. You here that scarping? that was constant on smaller skis. We get many days like this, and I dont post or document all of them, in fact many supposed locals do not know how to follow wind.


We do not get deep snow that much but we have many days it skis bottomless if your on widers skis.

deep wind pack, a normal condition for stowe, again you will not sink in much but its awful to ski on narrow skis

or wetter heavier snow, BTW the clip at the end of this video at 1:10 how I am railing those turns on packed snow?!.1 I am on a 108mm full reverse ski? its impossible......



The thing is the skiing I like is messy, its generally does nt have clear cut lines, the snow varies from turn to turn, and there are rocks/stumps/sticks under the snow that you do not want to hit. I never see competent skiing being done on narrow skis here, and I know its pretty hard for me to do, so why would I recommend a Student ski somehting I know makes it harder.

 

[Ski&ride]

The thing is the skiing I like is messy,

“The thing is”...

That’s hardly typical eastern condition. Nor typical skier behavior.

Again, for the average skier who only have one ski, that’s NOT the average condition and their choice of terrain.

There’s a reason why many casual skiers WANT wide skis beyond the marketing messages. But I won’t go there.

If you have kids who love skiing and wonder how they can make a living in snow country, tell them to be a knee surgeon!

 

[Josh Matta]

its typical for my Ski hill though, I would say Smuggs, Jay and Le Massif are similar, as well as some small hill in the Chic Chocs.

and if someone wanted one pair of skis I steer them toward either Brahma or E93. If I had one pair of skis it would be a pair of E93s...

again if I was somewhere else it might not be what i would want.

but its still easier to ski hardpacked on a 90mm skis, than weird 3d snow on a 70 or under carver.

 

[Blue Streak]

Watch the video. Narrow is <80. And yes, there are different muscles between a 78 and an 88. Probably. At least there are between 65 and 88. Watch here.

Maybe you can find a couple of pugskiers who can tip a wide ski up and rip like they could on a narrow ski, but here's a former Olympian who is no ordinary skier who finds a pretty different performance...


Watch the video. Yes it is 55 minutes long. But it provides the experimental evidence of the things I'm saying.

Mike

Will do. Thanks.

 

[Josh Matta]

Get back to the original post about Colorado specifically I have been to colorado nearly every month of the ski season and the snow is so light that I am not sure it really matter what kind of ski you are on, also coverage isnt really an issue like it here.