What is the difference in feeling between 65mm ski and 80mm ski?

[paulsalzburg]

Please be as detailed as possible for my imagination.

 

[slowrider]

15mm

 

[Jilly]

Edge to edge timing. The 80mm ski will take longer to grip and get on edge. After being on a 68, it's like wait for it, wait for it....yup...there is it, now go. Also depending on the ski's structure it may not grip as well as a narrower ski.

 

[markojp]

A pocket knife and a scalpel...

 

[BLiP]

A sports car and a station wagon.

 

[KingGrump]

Please be as detailed as possible for my imagination.

No need to imagine. With extra 15 mm, you could've been in the movies.

 

[dbostedo]

Edge to edge timing. The 80mm ski will take longer to grip and get on edge. After being on a 68, it's like wait for it, wait for it....yup...there is it, now go. Also depending on the ski's structure it may not grip as well as a narrower ski.

I think this nails it. There's an ease and quickness to getting the ski on edge with very skinny skis. It can make it seem effortless, and make it easier to engage the ski to carve and skid less (if that's what you want... you can skid/slide too of course).

 

[PinnacleJim]

The edge to edge quickness is definitely what sets the narrower ski apart. As to the "feeling" that's more nuanced. Some like like the feel of FIS race skis. Others like the versatility of a wider front side biased all-mountain ski. Me? I am in in the second category and am very happy with a mid 70s carver for the groomer days.

 

[paulsalzburg]

I am in in the second category and am very happy with a mid 70s carver for the groomer days.

What is your reason for choosing 75 but not 65 or 80? Please be as detailed as possible in your reasoning.

 

[Cheizz]

Instead of us trying to describe the difference, try a few different ski widths, radii, rocker profiles.
Take some lessons to be able to at least ski parallel and then rent some different skis or attend a test event. That will tell you so much more than all of us here can tell you together.

 

[jt10000]

What is your reason for choosing 75 but not 65 or 80?

Someone else said to try them. And/or you could also search/browse this site. There has been a lot of discussion of waist width in skis and comparison of different skis in this site.

Please be as detailed as possible in your reasoning.

Is this a joke? It's rather obnoxious to write a directive like this, even with the word "please" in front.

 

[BMC]

It’s been a while since I’ve skied on a ski below 70mm. But like others have said, edge engagement will be much quicker on a narrower ski. On ice and very firm snow the narrower ski will be the tool of choice. That said, the 80mm ski will be a more stable platform. By modern standards an 80mm is pretty modest - dare I say relatively narrow? It will generally still carve pretty well, but not as well as a narrower ski, particularly very firm snow and ice. It will be much better when there is a bit of fresh snow or when the run is cut up into piles.

The narrowest ski I run nowadays is 82 umderfoot. But bear in mind I don’t race and am happy to give up ice carving ability for greater versatility.

”Why not do both?”

 

[Jilly]

Is this a joke? It's rather obnoxious to write a directive like this, even with the word "please" in front.

Remember we have members that may not have English as their first language. OP is from Austria. (Unless you have Salzberg hiding somewhere in the US.)

 

[markojp]

FWIW, a 70 or less race or race constructed ski needs a well fit boot to make it work in an optimal manner. IMHO, standard DIN sole as well... max response with precise inputs like a trained surgeon's hand.

 

[tomahawkins]

15mm

Show your work!

Edge to edge timing. The 80mm ski will take longer to grip and get on edge. After being on a 68, it's like wait for it, wait for it....yup...there is it, now go. Also depending on the ski's structure it may not grip as well as a narrower ski.

The edge to edge quickness is definitely what sets the narrower ski apart. As to the "feeling" that's more nuanced. Some like like the feel of FIS race skis. Others like the versatility of a wider front side biased all-mountain ski. Me? I am in in the second category and am very happy with a mid 70s carver for the groomer days.

I don't get why we equate waist width to "edge-to-edge quickness" -- whatever that means. It's not like waist width is a distance that has to be traveled or propagated. The ski is a flat plate. It's either on one edge or another and the transition from one to another is instantaneous. Just look at good railroad tracks in the snow. Even when the skier is really trucking (~40 mph), the marks from one edge to another are usually within 3 feet of each other. This translates to a edge transition time of about 50 milliseconds -- a timescale most humans are insensitive to.

What we think of as good "edge-to-edge quickness" is just a ski's ability to turn a tighter radius at higher speeds, i.e. the faster a ski goes under you in transition. But that ability is, for the most part, is independent of waist width. Sidecut and flex have a much greater influence.

 

[jt10000]

Remember we have members that may not have English as their first language. OP is from Austria. (Unless you have Salzberg hiding somewhere in the US.)

Sure. But I don't see it as the phrasing but rather the content of the demand for detail. Maybe I'm wrong. Hope so.

 

[cantunamunch]

Sure. But I don't see it as the phrasing but rather the content of the demand for detail. Maybe I'm wrong. Hope so.

*shrug* We got the precise semantic content OP was trying for and we got grammatical correctness.

If either one of us was trying a similar question in German, we'd be lucky to get that let alone cultural overtones correct.

I prefer to save my outrage for native speakers putting up "Discuss" "Talk amongst yourselves" or simply poke-the-beehive-and-run forum gambits.

 

[Lauren]

Please be as detailed as possible for my imagination.

I saw in your other thread that you snowboard. Have you ever ridden a board that is wider than your feet are long? It's a similar feeling on skis. The wider your board is, the more difficult it is to get it up on the edge. Once you get it on edge, it requires more work to keep it there, and carve a clean arc (rather than skidding out).

A narrower ski is easier to get your weight on the edge of the ski to bite into the slope and maintain a smooth arced turn. When you have a ski that is wider, it's harder to get that ski to hold onto the full turn, especially on harder snow.

 

[cantunamunch]

Your other thread focuses off groomers. In that same context, as a counterpoint to @Lauren 's point, a wider ski will be slower to respond to random snow and will therefore feel easier to manage.

 

[slidingmike]

I guess some more context from @paulsalzburg would be helpful before asking people to go to great lengths to answer his question. Is he trying to gain some deeper personal understanding as a relative beginner, intermediate, advanced, or expert skier? What kind of skiing and terrain does he aspire to? Is he doing some crowd-sourced research for an article or a paper? People might be more motivated to go into detail if they better understand what’s behind the question.

It is a very good question, probably asked and answered hundreds of times on this forum to various levels (mostly superficially). It's worthy of Ron Lemaster-level mathematical diagrams for the true devotees, and some simpler explanations for most. Do we get into how riser plates play into the math (or other practical matters as a ski gets narrower)?

@BMC commented that a wider ski would be a more stable platform. In soft conditions, absolutely -- but on firm groomers, with a good boot, stability is all in edge hold -- so a wider ski could be a less stable platform.