Cannonballer 660 Posted February 22, 2019 Report Share Posted February 22, 2019 As usual the headline and the story are out of sync. But it's still an Ok read. Headline: "Skinny skis are back" https://www.rei.com/blog/snowsports/skinny-skis-are-back Actual story: “I feel like the industry has found the sweet spot, which is somewhere in the 85mm–105mm underfoot range,” I agree with that as the sweet spot. I don't consider that to be skinny. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cdskier 35 Posted February 22, 2019 Report Share Posted February 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Cannonballer said: Actual story: “I feel like the industry has found the sweet spot, which is somewhere in the 85mm–105mm underfoot range,” I agree with that as the i spot. I don't consider that to be skinny. Agreed on both counts. Perhaps I'm too sheltered in the East Coast, but I didn't even realize there were skis out there with 140mm+ waists. It doesn't help that I dropped my subscriptions to the various ski magazines years ago either and don't pay a ton of attention to all the new models coming out every year. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ABV 155 Posted February 22, 2019 Report Share Posted February 22, 2019 10 hours ago, Cannonballer said: As usual the headline and the story are out of sync. But it's still an Ok read. Headline: "Skinny skis are back" https://www.rei.com/blog/snowsports/skinny-skis-are-back Actual story: “I feel like the industry has found the sweet spot, which is somewhere in the 85mm–105mm underfoot range,” I agree with that as the i spot. I don't consider that to be skinny. Id agree also, Im right in that spot with a 97 and 106 that are my most frequently used skis ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MassNerd 48 Posted February 22, 2019 Report Share Posted February 22, 2019 Agreed. After skiing 8 different and owning 3 different all mountains skis with widths 100+, I would never consider going narrower than 95 for that type of ski. I would never consider them anything close to skinny though! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thesnowway 93 Posted February 23, 2019 Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 100mm is my sweet spot, plus or minus a few mil. I wouldn't go below 95mm. 85mm is a horrid width for most skiers. If you only rail groomers, you are fine with a skinny cheater ski. If you ever ski powder, 85mm leaves a lot on the table. It is a compromise ski in search of a compromise... compromise everything to gain nothing. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Benski 78 Posted February 23, 2019 Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 Pedigree ski shop in Bedford New York did not sell skis over 100mm under foot 2 years ago. I think they only had one over 90mm. Pedigree was also charging 100 dollars more for the helmet I wanted from a Binghamton area ski shop. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bootladder 11 Posted February 23, 2019 Report Share Posted February 23, 2019 I currently have 98's and 88's underfoot, but there is more to it than just width. Length, rocker style, camber, stiffness all contribute. Try before you buy. Looking back at that last sentence, it looks oddly like one of those "that's what she/he said" comebacks. No harm intended. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MadRussian 22 Posted February 24, 2019 Report Share Posted February 24, 2019 most of this article, is different form off marketing. and should be considered as such the only part is relevant to understanding skis and their performance… Subject I've been talking/explaining about for years "But now, we realize, it’s not purely about surface area. Now it’s about having the right rocker lines, the right taper ratios, the right construction—all of that has more effect on how a ski handles powder than anything else" Only now Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Weatherman 523 Posted February 25, 2019 Report Share Posted February 25, 2019 I'd agree with that sweet spot range. I ski the Enforcer 93 as my eastern USA daily driver. The Enforcer 100 as my Alps and spring ski, plus light powder or sloppy seconds days. That covers most of the season. I've got a couple narrower skis for the days of groomers only, which have been rare this year. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Flying Yeti 152 Posted February 27, 2019 Report Share Posted February 27, 2019 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Meh 9 Posted February 28, 2019 Report Share Posted February 28, 2019 It's not skinny until you drop below 60mm waist Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dblskifanatic 41 Posted March 3, 2019 Report Share Posted March 3, 2019 I so want to jump all over this. Back east I skied 97 underfoot as a daily driver. Now in CO I am skiing fats that rail super smooth and driver over crud like it is not there and floats on powder like a dream. Fat skis and mid fats for that matter are so technically improved that making them a daily driver out west is not an issue. Even today with 2 feet of fresh at Breck 122 underfoot is awesome. Love my skis, also love my mid fats as well. I would love to see skinny skis in the woods here today. Trees are deep! Ski what feels good to you.Sent from my SM-G930V using Northeast Mountain Sports mobile app 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brad J 43 Posted March 6, 2019 Report Share Posted March 6, 2019 I am in the 84 to 88 camp as a eastern daily driver, with a 74 on hardpack groomer days, west ski is 106 , I just bought a pair of 95 's that I brought out west as a two ski quiver but with a week of daily new snow never used them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.JPG.9562b3cee9a5e05c1e81b2c6433964c3.JPG)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.