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

[Josh Matta]

I've never skied out East but those videos make me want to! I love that kind of skiing. If I was following Josh around in those conditions, I'd probably want my DPS 112rp's. They are super quick and the big rockered tips ride over the buried sharks. They are wide enough to float over most of the crispy base layer but will hold an edge if I hit it. If I was on my narrower skis I'd feel like being more cautious/paranoid. My 124 under foot Pescados would be good there too for similar reasons.

They would be a great ski. Especially if you wanted a OSQ for powder in the woods.

I generally use

Monster 83 - hardpack, or unfloatable dust on crust
Brahma - softer hardpack, unfloatable dust on crust, tighter trees than the Monster 83
E93 - softer packed snow, like REALLY soft packed snow, light amounts of powder with good coverage and good snow underneath. Really would be my only ski if I had to pair it down, or if I could have 2 skis it would be this and my Renegades
E100 - I usually only grab these if there is 100 percent chance of finding soft snow nearly 100 percent of the time. On groomers they feel pretty good but they feel clunky in skied out off piste, they work really well in light powder, like freakishly well, if the snow doesnt have weirdness to it, I prefer these over my wider 4frnts. I will also use them on marginal dust on crust days trying to less the blow to hard snow underneath.
4frnt Renegade - a ski for the days that no one else wants to ski. Its extremely, fast, nimble as long as the snow is 3d and dense, its exceeds at wind slab, wet snow, and weird crust. They are actually awful in lighter dryer snow as they are too stiff, they need meaty snow to work. If I had 2 ski quiver I would use the 93 and these.

skis that are niches

4frnt Devastor - light amounts of heavy snow and REALLY tight trees. Again not good in light snow but not as bad the Renegades. Has alot of the same attributes as the Renegade but since its narrow and more traditional less shitty when you get on packed snow.

4frnt Hoji - like the other 4frnt but MUCH softer and there for better on lighter dryer snow. Mine are set up with Tech binding and they requires a lighter touch when the condition get weird but they still work really well.

in fact I can not rave about 4frnt wider skis for eastern powder/3d/wind slab snow enough, they are simply amazing at dealing with less than ideal powder that is getting more common around here, if I was in colorado with its light snow though the only one I would consider is the Hoji, as the others literally do not work at all in light snow.

 

[Josh Matta]

I ski Utah and there is a plenty of bottom feeding here.

After several bone breaks I avoid the Utah trees until well into January. Being on FIS skis in November and December keeps me honest and I avoid the temptation while having a great time on the excellent groomers.

I dont remember much bottom feeding but my daily ski was a 189cm Seth, and my powder ski was 192cm 120mm wide Thug....... I also only weighed like 160lb when I was in utah....

 

[cantunamunch]

*wonders what Josh's ski for really tight ice bump trees would be*

 

[silverback]

I dont remember much bottom feeding but my daily ski was a 189cm Seth, and my powder ski was 192cm 120mm wide Thug....... I also only weighed like 160lb when I was in utah....

It's the worst in Park City. I was hurt burying the tip of my loaded downhill Bonafide under a small buried log then high-siding into a tree. My monster 83s, mx98s, and race skis would all have done the same thing. My DPS or Line skis would have just gone over the top.

 

[cantunamunch]

It's the worst in Park City. .

I think it's worse in Steamboat than any of those Utah places but

 

[silverback]

I think it's worse in Steamboat than any of those Utah places but

Steamboat isn't in Utah. I was responding to Josh's post about Utah.

 

[crgildart]

Another "fat skis suck" thread. Just what we need to pass the time until more terrain opens

 

[Viking9]

With everyone clued up on skis here , I get into the ski wall a lot longer with 70 somethings on display rather than the fatty’s.
I remember Start Haus having a great display a few years ago with SJ going on and on about those Stokli’s !

 

[Ross Biff]

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.

Sorry if that sounded like a rant on how all I need to ski any conditions is a beefy, skinny, FIS SL ski. That was not the intention. I was just pointing out that, for my area and conditions, they perform better than a wider, rockered ski but a lot of skiers are on wider, rockered skis due to a perceived and well marketed cool factor. The same goes for a 14 year old mountain biker riding an 8" travel dh rig around the city and dropping off 4" kerbs. As long as they're havconditions at's fine! I took my 91mm skis out on the last day of the season on dirty groomers that had not frozen overnight. I could get these up on a high edge angle and bury them in a carve and had a great day, despite the conditions so I'm not just a race ski kinda guy. It comes down to the best tools for the job, IF you can get them which, I think, was the gist of the OP.

 

[cantunamunch]

Another "fat skis suck" thread. Just what we need to pass the time until more terrain opens

Look at the range being discussed. 66-120++mm waist? They're ALL fat skis.

 

[Josh Matta]

*wonders what Josh's ski for really tight ice bump trees would be*

Brahmas...although I bet the Brahma 82 would be even better. Monster has the waist width but sometimes are too traditional, not all the time, just sometimes.

 

[Blue Streak]

Brahma 88 is my daily driver for Vail. It’s Pretty darn versatile front side or backside. And in a typical day, I am all over the mountain.

 

[Josh Matta]

yeah if I was at vail I would have no issue skiing the 187cm and I probably would find it to be slightly floatier as well. My 180cm lack float, but the 187cm make its much worse at shitty eastern off piste skiing.

 

[LiquidFeet]

....shitty eastern off piste skiing.

@Josh Matta, did you just say what I think you said about eastern off-piste skiing ?

 

[Josh Matta]

shitty is a condition which luckly isnt all the time. If its crap, I grab narrower skis.

 

[Ski&ride]

Yeah, right!

If your feet is size 10, it’s still much better to be in a size 12 than in a size 6!

Just don’t touch anything near size 10!

so you can ski tight eastern trees, in wind packed snow on GS master skis? before you say yes, realize IMO video or did not happen.

So you want video of a size 8 dancer dancing Swan Lake on size 6 shoes. And that will prove your point that bigger is better!

 

[Josh Matta]

umm honestly man whats are you trying to prove with your arguement? Have you read my post....I am not here saying you should ski 100mm plus skis all the time....

 

[Jacob]

Going back to the point about what’s on the wall, I think you guys are forgetting to note what’s on the rentals racks.

You say that most people would be better off buying narrower skis, but a majority of skiers, at least at destination resorts, are renters. And, the rentals they use are mostly on the narrow side of the spectrum.

The sales wall doesn’t reflect what’s good for most skiers, because it’s not targeted at most skiers. It’s targeted at skiers who are willing to fork out a decent chunk of cash to own their own gear. And, a lot of those skiers aren’t looking to buy what they can already easily rent.

If you’re worried about whether the majority of skiers are on the wrong skis, then you should be checking out the rentals section, not the sales wall.

 

[Jim McDonald]

not that i really have a dog in this fight, but...
a lot of skiers are on wider, rockered skis due to a perceived and well marketed cool factor
I take it then, that no skiers are on narrow FIS SL skis due to a desire to emulate highly accomplished skiers who insist that's the only valid choice???

 

[Ski&ride]

not that i really have a dog in this fight, but...
a lot of skiers are on wider, rockered skis due to a perceived and well marketed cool factor
I take it then, that no skiers are on narrow FIS SL skis due to a desire to emulate highly accomplished skiers who insist that's the only valid choice???

That’s very much true. The marketing machine is pushing wide skis.

It doesn’t matter what WIDTH the professional are skiing. For the most part, even those watching World Cup races can’t tell what skis the racers are using apart from the brand.

The sales wall doesn’t reflect what’s good for most skiers, because it’s not targeted at most skiers. It’s targeted at skiers who are willing to fork out a decent chunk of cash to own their own gear.

I don’t know where you’re skiing. But where I’m, just about every one-week-a-year “casual” skiers own their own equipment.