Why are skis so wide?

[WynnDuffy]

I'm not talking about powder skis, but regular all-mountain skis. Most skiers don't get a single powder day all year so the idea that you want a one ski quiver doesn't make sense. In the East Coast, where the trees are very tight, most skiers aren't good enough to go into the trees where they might find powder. But they will definitely find a lot of ice on the groomers. I assume out West the trees are easier because they are less dense, so perhaps the regular 10 day a year skiers hit them? What do you get out of a ski that is 80mm or 90mm underfoot if you aren't in powder?

Edit: I don't know much about ski gear, but I do think that the tradeoffs for an 88mm ski are relatively small, so maybe that's it? Get a lot better in powder for only a small loss of functionality on groomers?

 

[cantunamunch]

What do you get out of a ski that is 80mm or 90mm underfoot if you aren't in powder?

Wider lateral balance error envelope - you can be sloppier with your CoM side-to-side positioning
Wider lateral balance error envelope - less likely to be caught out with surface irregularities
Lower angulation required per tipping angle (all angles, all surfaces)
Easier (less precision-critical) ski behavior when loose snow is on top of hardpack (manmade, chalk, windrift)
Less sink and bog-down in slush at slow speeds (read: easier to skid in slush)
No FOMO when getting low levels of skiable precip during the day.

(Notice that all of the above applies to why people prefer 62mm waists over 45mm waists also)

 

[KingGrump]

We've covered this topic way too many times in this forum.

Like sex. Most of it is in your head.

 

[WynnDuffy]

Wider lateral balance error envelope - you can be sloppier with your CoM side-to-side positioning
Wider lateral balance error envelope - less likely to be caught out with surface irregularities
Lower angulation required per tipping angle (all angles, all surfaces)
Easier (less precision-critical) ski behavior when loose snow is on top of hardpack (manmade, chalk, windrift)
Less sink and bog-down in slush at slow speeds (read: easier to skid in slush)
No FOMO when getting low levels of skiable precip during the day.

(Notice that all of the above applies to why people prefer 62mm waists over 45mm waists also)

Wow that was exactly what I was looking for. I had been thinking about the first item in terms of freestyle skis and riding out an off-balance landing.

 

[Jilly]

I hate them and am sticking to my tuned down race slalom skis.

 

[focker]

I've been skiing Rosi Hero LT GS racing skis this year (albeit in the midwest) and having a ton of fun on them.

There's no need to ski a wide ski if you don't want to.

 

[Rudi Riet]

My daily driver (as a racing coach, mind you) is an Atomic Redster X9 - the narrow waisted version rather than the WB model. It's versatile but not especially forgiving of pilot error - and area where wider skis tend to excel.

So ski what you like to ski - that's the easy answer.

 

[Dougb]

Try posting this on TGR or Newschoolers and see what sort of response you get LOL.

 

[Sibhusky]

Most skiers don't get a single powder day all year so the idea that you want a one ski quiver doesn't make sense.

Actually, in the west this isn't true. It actually snows DURING THE DAY HERE. So you could be an "only groomers" skier and be forced to ski powder.

 

[Bad Bob]

What they said; forgiveness and latitude.
Not too proud to say that the daily driver is an 88.

 

[Chip]

well, because everyone loves a 'fatty' every once in awhile....

 

[Tony Storaro]

Once again: I thought 80mm+ skis were stupid and useless on piste and then I got the SR95.

Plain fun. They put a wide grin on my face and that's what counts to me.

 

[crgildart]

 

[James]

In the East Coast, where the trees are very tight, most skiers aren't good enough to go into the trees where they might find powder.

Woods are, well were yesterday, very icy now. Our resident tree expert no longer here would disagree with you though. Stowe can get decent woods powder. Fatter rockered tend to be easier and or give you more options.

Notice that all of the above applies to why people prefer 62mm waists over 45mm waists also

What have you skied this narrow? Didn’t Elan have something in the late 90’s that narrow?

 

[cantunamunch]

What have you skied this narrow? Didn’t Elan have something in the late 90’s that narrow?

Yes. The Predator X and Terminator X - that the original Anton Gliders were based on. Of course I had to have them

90-45-90 in a 170cm. Flex comparable to a mogul ski. Did I mention the enormous lifter plate?

 

[focker]

Yes. The Predator X and Terminator X - that the original Anton Gliders were based on. Of course I had to have them

90-45-90 in a 170cm. Flex comparable to a mogul ski. Did I mention the enormous lifter plate?

I'd imagine it would have to so you don't boot out

 

[cantunamunch]

I'd imagine it would have to so you don't boot out

It had to to even mount the bindings - the lifter tops were 15mm wider than the ski.

The lifters were actually a PITA - you had to have a binding with a center strap -or- huge elasticity because of the lever arm and you couldn't do a remount because there was simply not enough surface area for multiple hole sets.

Poor @telerod once tried to get his remounted for tele - you can imagine ski shop enthusiasm for that.

 

[Bad Bob]

Just a thought to this thread.
Could a main underlying reason for everybody going back towards a narrower ski be: "C" The ski manufacturers want us to buy more skis.
In my short time skiing the progression as far as I can remember went something like this, discounting materials:
Softer, shorter, waist moved back, waist moved forward, longer, center grove disappeared, more hour glass shape, shorter, turned up tails, rocker, rocker with camber, wider, and wider still, narrower, longer, narrower, shorter.
These are all in the time of plastic boots.
The ski companies would be the natural place to look for a lot of these "improvements". Not complaining here, todays toys are lots of fun to play with and make it easier to ski; but would question if it really is any more fun.

 

[4aprice]

I keep a pair of skis with a 106 width under foot at my sons in the Denver area so I don't have to travel with skis. At home here in the northeastI have a pair of RTM 84's. Normally on a trip to Colorado the 106's are more then sufficient for the snow, but this year, as many know, not such a great snow year in Colorado, I had a couple days where I came to miss the 84''s.

 

[TexasStout]

I've been skiing Rosi Hero LT GS racing skis this year (albeit in the midwest) and having a ton of fun on them.

There's no need to ski a wide ski if you don't want to.

I don't know if you can adequately compare ski conditions in Wisconsin to those out West.

While I love using my Head i.Rallys to carve on groomed runs, they are not my best option on ungroomed runs or when the powder has already been all chopped up. That's why I keep a pair of all mountain 96s, for the many ungroomed runs I come across at Rockies and Sierras ski areas.