Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cannonballer

Ski widths

Recommended Posts

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.


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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  🤣🤣

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Mobile Apps available!

Please try our mobile apps for iOS and Android

×
×
  • Create New...