Width to Weight Ratio

[Tricia]

I had a discussion with a guy in the shop about powder skis and told him that I was skiing the Santa Ana's for my powder ski and feel that its idea for nimbleness at my size.
I was thinking, what is the ideal width for someone a certain size? Does it have to do more with technique and terrain choice?
I admit, I liked the Dakota, which was stiff and 108mm, zero camber, for chutes and steeps, but when I get into the trees on a deep powder day, I love love love the Santa Ana.

I'm guessing a big guy like @Mike Thomas would like something a little more substantial, but then he's got skills under his belt that may say otherwise.

 

[David Chaus]

Wasn't there a formula in the skiing interwebz? I'm sure I saw it on the other site, for optimal width for powder for a given height.

I think flex characteristics are just as important as width. A 108 like the Dakota is a different animal than a softer 108. Also consider length. I'm on the lighter side, I tried an ON3P Billy Goat 116mm, the 184 was too much ski, OK but a bit of work in tight chutes and tress. The 179 was perfect, lively and fun and nimble.

That said, I was pretty happy with a few 95-105 models as well, usually 180-ish. Guess I'm easy to please.

 

[crgildart]

Any width to weight/height table would only be 100% valid if length is also included.. and only then when standing still. Speed is a huge variable in the float formula, ask anyone that's ever water skied.

 

[fatbob]

There's too many variables for a straight width weight relationship to be definitive about agility. A fully rockered ski may be more agile than a skinnier full tail ski. a five point might be easier to flick than a three point.

 

[Monique]

Yeah, I think speed is a definite factor. But also, so is preference. Some people prefer to be more "in" the snow, so all else being equal, they would prefer a narrower ski than someone who prefers more float.

 

[skibob]

Yeah, I think speed is a definite factor. But also, so is preference. Some people prefer to be more "in" the snow, so all else being equal, they would prefer a narrower ski than someone who prefers more float.

And honestly, I've never really found what it takes to get "on the snow". I'm big, but not that big (200lbs) And I can tell you 116mm/190cm doesn't get me "out of" the snow. And yes, I realize that isn't quite a "powder ski". On the other hand, up to 18-24 inches at least, I am just fine with 106mm/187cm. It doesn't get me out of the snow per se, but it gives me all of the resistance I want. It feels "surfy" without actually surfing. And maybe that's the real point?

 

[crgildart]

Snow density is another factor. The lighter and fluffier it is the harder it is to procure float. But surface area (length and width) would be the main variables to offset weight with flex being a minor one if we are only talking about float standing still. Speed changes everything... maneuverability, ability to pivot,(camber vs rocker, profile characteristics) are all variables we can add to handling, which I see as totally separate to float..

 

[Monique]

And honestly, I've never really found what it takes to get "on the snow". I'm big, but not that big (200lbs) And I can tell you 116mm/190cm doesn't get me "out of" the snow. And yes, I realize that isn't quite a "powder ski". On the other hand, up to 18-24 inches at least, I am just fine with 106mm/187cm. It doesn't get me out of the snow per se, but it gives me all of the resistance I want. It feels "surfy" without actually surfing. And maybe that's the real point?

Totally with you there. I don't need to be on a hovercraft, nor do I want to be skiing on the crud under the powder. Somewhere in between is just fine by me, where I feel floaty and still get the sensation of snow pushing against my shins. And I've had that at both ~115 and ~125. I am not trying 135.

 

[Mike Thomas]

I don't see the point of anything wider than about 115, more like 105 to 110 for skiing fresh... but I am a bit of a freak.

 

[David Chaus]

So the answer to the OP is:
If you're 5'10 and 145 lbs, a 115-116mm wide ski in a length of 180-ish with a slightly soft tail, firm underfoot with some camber and a firm tail, is the ideal powder ski for moderate to fast speed in PNW maritime snow on moderate to steep slopes littered with moguls.

 

[crgildart]

I don't see the point of anything wider than about 115, more like 105 to 110 for skiing fresh... but I am a bit of a freak.

There are definitely different points diminishing returns at some point for people of different sizes.. I'm I70 pounds and I don't feel the float above 99 offsets the edge to edge quickness above that but I'm an east coast old school skier. If I had learned and spend a lot of days on wider skis I'd probably prefer a little wider.

 

[Philpug]

I don't see the point of anything wider than about 115, more like 105 to 110 for skiing fresh... but I am a bit of a freak.

Not at all and 105-110 is 95-100 for mortal sized people. This gets back to the 11/10th skis thread.

 

[ScotsSkier]

oh, you're talking about skis.....

 

[Bill Talbot]

I don't see the point of anything wider than about 115, more like 105 to 110 for skiing fresh... but I am a bit of a freak.

I don't get to ski knee deep (or better) low moisture snow often at all. My go to ski for that would be my Watea 114. I consider it a fairly soft big mountain ski. But once it gets tracked out and bumped up I'll switch out for my tried and true Tokyo nights Gotama's @ 105 under foot.

 

[Tricia]

So the answer to the OP is:
If you're 5'10 and 145 lbs, a 115-116mm wide ski in a length of 180-ish with a slightly soft tail, firm underfoot with some camber and a firm tail, is the ideal powder ski for moderate to fast speed in PNW maritime snow on moderate to steep slopes littered with moguls.

See...I think that's too wide for someone that size, unless you want to straight line.

I don't see the point of anything wider than about 115, more like 105 to 110 for skiing fresh... but I am a bit of a freak.

I really like my 100mm waist for nearly any powder I ski. I did, however play around with the Zelda @106 and enjoyed it in heavier snow, because its got a fun shape tip that is less likely to tip dive.

 

[fatbob]

We are spoiled. I'm a pretty big guy and used to rock around everywhere on an original Line Mothership Ti - the one that K2 essentially ripped off dimension-wise for the Seth. I didn't notice the "lack of float" because I had more than on almost anything else available at the time including the XXX, Pocket Rocket, Lawnchair, Atomic Pimpdaddy.

Those skis were a revelation - I could have a hoot all over the mountain and they were the things that dragged me back from snowboarding Still got em mounted with some tele bindings. Nowadays a ski with a 97 waist - crusty mank days only probably.

 

[David Chaus]

See...I think that's too wide for someone that size, unless you want to straight line.

I really like my 100mm waist for nearly any powder I ski. I did, however play around with the Zelda @106 and enjoyed it in heavier snow, because its got a fun shape tip that is less likely to tip dive.

I would have thought so, too, until I tried the ON3P Billy Goat. Otherwise what I've liked has been in the 100 to 108 range.

 

[markojp]

Yeah, I think speed is a definite factor. But also, so is preference. Some people prefer to be more "in" the snow, so all else being equal, they would prefer a narrower ski than someone who prefers more float.

The best skis can both be slowed down AND skied at mach silly.

 

[Monique]

The best skis can both be slowed down AND skied at mach silly.

Sure, but it's going to be a different experience ...

 

[markojp]

I hope so!