Why so wide?

[Ski&ride]

A dumb question. But I can’t help it. I’m at a loss as to the why?

I’m talking about the east coast. We rarely have true powder. What we often have that pass as powder are mostly “chowder”, fresh snow so dense the ski don’t sink down much anyway (at least not for me).

So apart from the “float” which I don’t really have much need for, what’s the benefit of wide skis?

(I’m talking about skis wider than 75-80mm)

I’m well aware most sub-80 skis are “carving” skis with much different sidecut etc. But I’m just asking the generic question, because it’s almost summer!

Say if there’s a ski that are the same shape/sidecut as a 95mm “all mountain” ski but only 75 width underfoot (proportional narrower in the tip and tail too). How differently would it ski in the typical eastern condition compared to its fat brother?

 

[trailtrimmer]

The industry needs to sell more skis, 74-82 are great all arounders for the midwest and east.

 

[James]

Why a helmet?
Why put the bar down?

 

[Wilhelmson]

Where do you ski? I have 95 because they were on sale but 86 was just about the perfect middle road for me.

1) For those who aren't super experts wider skis are easier and just more fun. 2) Many people skied narrow skis for 20 + years and just want something different. 3) A lot of people still have narrow skis that they use when the woods are bad. 4) Better prices. 5) They blast through chowdery crap without requiring the finesse of a gazelle. 6) Twin tips. 7) Our typical conditions are atypical. 8) They look cool. 9) 95% of skiers have probably taken less than 20 lessons in their life, and have never raced. 10) Did I say more fun yet?

ps, I still ride a 26" mtb but a brand new 29 would be a lot more fun.

 

[Eleeski]

As one who learned on skinny straight skis, almost everything seems wide. While my SL race skis aren't very good in powder, my 74 wide all around skis work quite well in deep powder. And the 85 wide skis were my first string powder skis a while back.

With that said, some of the new wide skis carve better than some narrower skis on firm days. And of course, they rock in powder.

Width is just one factor in ski performance. There are so many variables that you really need to try a ski to see if it works for you and the conditions you ski. Don't necessarily avoid trying a ski just because it is wide.

Specific skis: Goode 74, great all around skis that are fun in powder
Goode 85, excellent in powder and OK in bumps but struggle on ice
Praxis Backcountry, fat skis that are good all around skis that rock firm snow, bumps and powder
Slant Skis (not sure of the model), fat skis that rocked on the icy day that I demoed them
Head SL race skis, ice only skinny skis

Eric

 

[KingGrump]

Dreams, fantasy and lack of a proper skill set.
And it looks way cool in the lift line.

 

[Bad Bob]

People buy them because they can. I have 4 pairs of ski pants, and only need one.

 

[Ski&ride]

Width is just one factor in ski performance. There are so many variables that you really need to try a ski to see if it works for you and the conditions you ski. Don't necessarily avoid trying a ski just because it is wide.

I’m one of those who just want to ski. And any ski that “works” for the condition is as good as the next one. Just different, not “better”.

The reason I don’t want to go wide is I’m short and have some baggage of knee issues. My knees seems much happier in narrower skis in general. But the relative lack of options in narrower skis with true “all mountain” geometry/construction makes it a challenge to find suitable demos.

Sometimes it’s the mere annoyance of cutting through the description to include or exclude a ski from the list. No, I don’t want a pure carving knife. No, I’m not an aspiring intermediate groomer-zoomer, I can ski all over the mountain in any ski. I just prefer a narrower (or right-sized) all-rounder for the dense chowder of the east for a petite fitness skier.

 

[Wilhelmson]

I’m one of those who just want to ski. And any ski that “works” for the condition is as good as the next one. Just different, not “better”.

The reason I don’t want to go wide is I’m short and have some baggage of knee issues. My knees seems much happier in narrower skis in general. But the relative lack of options in narrower skis with true “all mountain” geometry/construction makes it a challenge to find suitable demos.

Sometimes it’s the mere annoyance of understanding the description to include or exclude a ski from the list. No, I don’t want a pure carving knife. Just a narrower (or right-sized) all-rounder for the dense chowder of the east for a petite fitness skier.

You could try some kids skis in the larger sizes.

 

[James]

I don't think you'll find true park skis wider than 95. Half pipe is more like 85, and contrary to some beliefs, they want a ski that can carve. You need speed to get air.
So around 85mm and 18-20m at 176ish I believe for pipe.
You want some width and not gobs of sidecut to land air.
But, @dean_spirito could tell you exactly.

 

[Ken_R]

A dumb question. But I can’t help it. I’m at a loss as to the why?

I’m talking about the east coast. We rarely have true powder. What we often have that pass as powder are mostly “chowder”, fresh snow so dense the ski don’t sink down much anyway (at least not for me).

So apart from the “float” which I don’t really have much need for, what’s the benefit of wide skis?

(I’m talking about skis wider than 75-80mm)

I’m well aware most sub-80 skis are “carving” skis with much different sidecut etc. But I’m just asking the generic question, because it’s almost summer!

Say if there’s a ski that are the same shape/sidecut as a 95mm “all mountain” ski but only 75 width underfoot (proportional narrower in the tip and tail too). How differently would it ski in the typical eastern condition compared to its fat brother?

After a certain width is not so much about need but wanting something different.

In soft snow the 75mm width ski will be more under the snow and get stuck and hung up in piles of snow, specially at slower speeds. The 95mm width ski will be more versatile off piste no question.

 

[Ski&ride]

I don't think you'll find true park skis wider than 95. Half pipe is more like 85, and contrary to some beliefs, they want a ski that can carve. You need speed to get air.
So around 85mm and 18-20m at 176ish I believe for pipe.
You want some width and not gobs of sidecut to land air.
But, @dean_spirito could tell you exactly.

Well, well, well...

I’ve had a pair of park ski, Dynastar Trouble Maker! At 84 under foot, it was reasonably knee friendly. I retired that by putting tele bindings on it. Should have used something like quiver killer with the new binding so I could go back to using it for east coast as a “all mountain” ski!

But truth be told, it was a tad on the short side at 154 (I’m 162cm tall, I found my sweet spot length being 158~160cm). I would even go a bit narrower than 84 too. Though a tiny bit more sidecut to help with the carving would be welcomed.

 

[CalG]

Wide skis are "easier" in varied real snow conditions . Eastern hard pack doesn't often demand much on that front, New snow gets tracked out "by the week end" even in the trees. ;-)

Volant Chubbs allowed many mediocre skiers to ski where they could not have without them. Off piste, cat and heli.
The float of wide boards transforms a 3D surface into a 2D experience. Some skiers are fine with that. Easier means more fun to many.


Though my daily drivers are 84 mm Volk RTM, My choice for not so deep New England fresh is a pair of Elan 777.
77mm underfoot.
When it's cold and deep, the 98mm Explosiv is a joy.

I revert to my heritage from the sea. Rising up and out to turn is part of the enjoyment. Heck, I need to come up for a breath anyway ;-)

 

[ScottB]

A dumb question. But I can’t help it. I’m at a loss as to the why?

I’m talking about the east coast. We rarely have true powder. What we often have that pass as powder are mostly “chowder”, fresh snow so dense the ski don’t sink down much anyway (at least not for me).

So apart from the “float” which I don’t really have much need for, what’s the benefit of wide skis?

(I’m talking about skis wider than 75-80mm)

I will certainly agree that shape and all the other differences in skis can make a huge difference. but width is a major player too. Skier weight drives width if you want float.(I am a 240lb guy) Once you get enough float, then you don't need to keep going wider. I have a quiver with a full range of widths. My narrow skis are stiffer than my wider skis in general. On hard snow I ski a narrow ski. On soft packed snow I can ski any ski. On soft untracked snow, a wider ski is much easier to ski. I am an expert and I can ski any ski in any conditions, but its what I enjoy most that matters to me and I enjoy the ski doing the work, not me. I always do plenty of work, so the more the ski can do the happier I am.

The best way I can explain it is to describe this past weekend at Sunday River in ME. It was soft spring mashed potatoes mostly, a little frozen in the morning. On my 88mm stiff all mtn ski(Salomon X-Drive), I was stable but cutting into the snow and cleaving it away in turns. My feet keep dropping out from underneath me in a turn and I had to be very much on top of that. I tried a softer 93mm all mtn ski (Nordica Enforcer, not Navigator) and it didn't cleave the snow. It was sinking into the snow and on every carved turn I could feel the snow resisting the ski. It felt like I had constant pressure on the side of the ski. This was very noticeable to my legs. I then got on my 108mm Blizzard Zero G skis (these are light AT skis). These have the same shape as a Blizzard Cochise ski. Magic!!! I stayed on top of the snow. No more side pressure on the ski. I could relax and just stand on the ski and turn whenever I felt like it. They rode up and over all clumps of snow very stable, and I could also throw my tails out anytime I wanted to scrub speed and didn't feel like carving a turn. I found my new spring ski this past weekend.

Now it could be argued all three skis were very different, which is true. Maybe it wasn't just the width of the skis, but I was happy and that's as far as I will analyze it. I have skied my Zero G in lots of conditions, and I like it on hard pack as well, but on hard pack I don't like the width and much prefer a narrower ski (65-78mm). The right tool for the job (and the skiers weight,)

And BTW, one of my ski group was on a Stockli WRT ski, which I think was 67mm under foot. He was carving small radius turns the whole time, but was having a great day as well. He wasn't going straight very often or relaxing on his skis. To each his own and we all have different tastes.

Another point on the weight factor, I traded skis with someone my size, that is how I was on the Nordica Enforcer 93's. He wouldn't give my Blizzard Zero G's back, he liked them that much in that day's conditions, compared to his "narrow skis". He plans to buy a pair.

 

[LiquidFeet]

Does anybody reading here find wide skis harder to control than say 75mm skis in dense choppy snow?

 

[Ski&ride]

In soft snow the 75mm width ski will be more under the snow and get stuck and hung up in piles of snow, specially at slower speeds. The 95mm width ski will be more versatile off piste no question.

Not my experience.

I’ve not had any ski “hung up in piles of snow” since the straight ski days! Granted, the narrowest I’ve tried were 75.

Skiing a 155x90+ skis, I felt like I got two snowboards (short and fat boards) strapped to my legs!

7) Our typical conditions are atypical.

Aren’t that the truth!

 

[Philpug]

Why do people drive SUV's verses wagons and sedans? Image. People buy "stuff" for the lifestyle they hopefor verses the lifestyle they actually have.

 

[Ski&ride]

Volant Chubbs allowed many mediocre skiers to ski where they could not have without them. Off piste, cat and heli.
The float of wide boards transforms a 3D surface into a 2D experience. Some skiers are fine with that. Easier means more fun to many.

I get what you described.

I’m not toting my horn here. But I’m pretty nimble on my feet. So I found skis 75-85 width plenty wide to “transform” much of the dense eastern lumpy snow from 3D into 2D quite nicely already. It’s way “easier” than skis of long ago. But going wider beyond that just doesn’t seem add much, not for me anyway.

 

[AngryAnalyst]

A couple of points:

1. I agree narrower skis are better for carving turns on hard flat snow
2. I don't aspire to ski flat snow even when conditions are firm and fast, so I ski a lot of bumps and some trees in bad conditions
3. My experience has been that the best balance of performance characteristics for firm snow happens for me with wider skis with rocker, not narrower skis with super strong tails because of the bumps and trees
4. Possibly related, if I am skiing groomers and want to go fast I personally value "charger" characteristics (straight line stability) more than "carver" (super tight arcs) characteristics

It is possible bump skis would be a better balance yet than the 90-105 underfoot twin tips, but I think you would need to be more granular than just hard snow = narrower especially when talking about whether the 85-100 class is "too wide." What you want to do on the hard snow interfaces with possible geometries, stiffness profiles and everything else. I don't think

 

[Jilly]

Like the OP, I find wider skis hurt my knees. So for my daily driver on the eastern powder (aka ice), I useda tuned down slalom race ski.
The last 2 weekends this year saw frozen to corn snow to slush throughout the day. I took out the 75mm Rossi MT's and had a blast, except the tails wouldn't hold the ice between the slush bumps. The Rossi ST's at 68 underfoot were better. But I think it was the ski construction, not the waist width.

I had contemplated taking the 95C's out, but I knew they wouldn't be good for the morning till things softened up. But they are great in the soft snow like they get out west. To ski those on the hard east coast groomer.....I'll need more than my knee brace after skiing for the pain.