• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

One Cm at a time

Tytlynz64

Getting off the lift
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
490
So I posit this to all the sages out there who can help me understand the benefits and drawbacks of adding a ski to my quiver. The question I have is what are the real differences in feel and performance as one moves up a cm in waste width? I am on 93 mm and looking to add a wider ski that might help in softer snow when skiing on the west. Specifically what are the trade offs as you go wider? Is there a skill progression that needs to be considered? Is there a downside to too wide? I would like a soft snow biased ski to help in exploring more off piste conditions. The range is 100 to 108 as I think anything wider would be a daily demo. Thanks.
 

Monique

bounceswoosh
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
10,561
Location
Colorado
Sorry ... too busy snickering at thread title ....
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tytlynz64

Tytlynz64

Getting off the lift
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
490
Snickers are welcome. The question I have is really a twist on the "does size matter" meme. But truly is there a way to assess whether adding a ski with more surface area is worth it?
 

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,297
Location
Reno
So I posit this to all the sages out there who can help me understand the benefits and drawbacks of adding a ski to my quiver. The question I have is what are the real differences in feel and performance as one moves up a cm in waste width? I am on 93 mm and looking to add a wider ski that might help in softer snow when skiing on the west. Specifically what are the trade offs as you go wider? Is there a skill progression that needs to be considered? Is there a downside to too wide? I would like a soft snow biased ski to help in exploring more off piste conditions. The range is 100 to 108 as I think anything wider would be a daily demo. Thanks.

Lots of questions here, but we need some more information from you.
  • what are the real differences in feel and performance as one moves up a cm in waste width?
  • Specifically what are the trade offs as you go wider?
  • Is there a skill progression that needs to be considered?
  • Is there a downside to too wide?

  • What is your skill set?
  • What size are you? (weight and height) Size matters ;)
  • Where do you ski?
  • What kinds of terrain do you like to ski?
  • What are you currently skiing on?
  • Besides adding a soft snow biased ski to your quiver, what else do you want to get out of it?


As anything in life, when you ask a ski to do one thing a little better, you can bet its going to give up some skills in another area.
Going more soft snow biased is going to help you in spring crud and powder, but you're not going to find it as easy to maneuver as a daily driver, especially when things are firm. There are, however, some fun skis in that category that are pretty darn good on groomers, even though they aren't groomer specific.

Are you looking for any specific skis?
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tytlynz64

Tytlynz64

Getting off the lift
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
490
Lots of questions here, but we need some more information from you.
  • what are the real differences in feel and performance as one moves up a cm in waste width?
  • Specifically what are the trade offs as you go wider?
  • Is there a skill progression that needs to be considered?
  • Is there a downside to too wide?

  • What is your skill set?
  • What size are you? (weight and height) Size matters ;)
  • Where do you ski?
  • What kinds of terrain do you like to ski?
  • What are you currently skiing on?
  • Besides adding a soft snow biased ski to your quiver, what else do you want to get out of it?


As anything in life, when you ask a ski to do one thing a little better, you can bet its going to give up some skills in another area.
Going more soft snow biased is going to help you in spring crud and powder, but you're not going to find it as easy to maneuver as a daily driver, especially when things are firm. There are, however, some fun skis in that category that are pretty darn good on groomers, even though they aren't groomer specific.

Are you looking for any specific skis?
Fair enough.
53 yo, Advanced intermediate, 6 foot 7, 270 lbs.
I live in flyover country and ski 6-8 days a year here and 10 -15 days out west.
I prefer to venture off piste out west and have been experimenting with trees. I like skiing in trees and softer snow.
I am on Enforcer 93s 193 cm. I like these skis and probably would not go narrower even locally.
Was wondering if a 100-104 ski would be much different/ better for days with boot deep fresh?
Also interested on what the drawbacks of going wider are?
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
42,624
Location
Reno, eNVy
Fair enough.
53 yo, Advanced intermediate, 6 foot 7, 270 lbs.
I live in flyover country and ski 6-8 days a year here and 10 -15 days out west.
I prefer to venture off piste out west and have been experimenting with trees. I like skiing in trees and softer snow.
I am on Enforcer 93s 193 cm. I like these skis and probably would not go narrower even locally.
Was wondering if a 100-104 ski would be much different/ better for days with boot deep fresh?
Also interested on what the drawbacks of going wider are?
6'7" 270 lb? Day-um. You are a big boy and being an flyover state, I a assume you are corn fed. Aa 93mm wide ski for you is a 80some for mortal sized humans. You need a lot of ski to get you to float, I am trying to think what ski would be a complete it... @DoryBreaux @Drahtguy Kevin to the white courtesy phone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Monique

bounceswoosh
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
10,561
Location
Colorado
So I posit this to all the sages out there who can help me understand the benefits and drawbacks of adding a ski to my quiver. The question I have is what are the real differences in feel and performance as one moves up a cm in waste width? I am on 93 mm and looking to add a wider ski that might help in softer snow when skiing on the west. Specifically what are the trade offs as you go wider? Is there a skill progression that needs to be considered? Is there a downside to too wide? I would like a soft snow biased ski to help in exploring more off piste conditions. The range is 100 to 108 as I think anything wider would be a daily demo. Thanks.

Okay, more seriously (I've been cogitating):

Every centimeter (maybe even every 5mm) will make it a bit slower to tip your ski. It's more effort. But I say this as someone who at 5'5 has happily skied 113mm waists in all conditions from Colorado hardpack to two feet of snow. It's just an adjustment when you go from something narrower to something fatter, but once you're used to it, it's just the way the ski feels. At your height (and presumed leg length), I really can't imagine any width being *too* fat for you - just a matter of preference. But whenever I go up in width after skiing something narrower for a while, the first few runs on firm snow feel like I'm on planks. Then I adjust to the difference and it's my new "normal."

People will tell you that it is harder on your knees to ski a fat ski on *hard* snow. I never noticed until last season, rehabbing after ACL surgery. All of a sudden my beloved all-condition 113s were hard for me to tip. They were still just fine in powder, but suddenly I understood why people said they were harder on your knees on groomers. They really are. But it wasn't something that bothered me until all this mess. Still hoping it will sort itself out.

Is there a skill progression? Sort of. As I said, the fatter the ski is, the slower it is edge to edge. This means that unless you have good skills already, it's easier to get sloppy with fat skis. Fat skis are "cheaters" for soft snow, but they are the opposite on hard snow. For your stats, I'm not sure I'd even call a 108 fat.

Please note caveats in my signature :) And my tag line is my username in many other places ...
 

Swede

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Jan 29, 2016
Posts
2,390
Location
Sweden
Hard to say when talking generally, as ski-binding/plate-boot work together to create the on snow feel, but if everything else is equal, a wider ski will be a little slower edge-to-edge. Ontoh inme wider skis are more forgiving and not as demanding in variable conditions, which might be a funner experience for most skiers.
 
Last edited:

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,196
Location
NYC
There are a few other variables to consider beside underfoot width when looking at a pair of skis.
Camber, rocker, splay, profile and stiffness are a few off the top of my head. Skis can handle quite differently even with similar specs.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tytlynz64

Tytlynz64

Getting off the lift
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
490
Okay, more seriously (I've been cogitating):

Every centimeter (maybe even every 5mm) will make it a bit slower to tip your ski. It's more effort. But I say this as someone who at 5'5 has happily skied 113mm waists in all conditions from Colorado hardpack to two feet of snow. It's just an adjustment when you go from something narrower to something fatter, but once you're used to it, it's just the way the ski feels. At your height (and presumed leg length), I really can't imagine any width being *too* fat for you - just a matter of preference. But whenever I go up in width after skiing something narrower for a while, the first few runs on firm snow feel like I'm on planks. Then I adjust to the difference and it's my new "normal."

People will tell you that it is harder on your knees to ski a fat ski on *hard* snow. I never noticed until last season, rehabbing after ACL surgery. All of a sudden my beloved all-condition 113s were hard for me to tip. They were still just fine in powder, but suddenly I understood why people said they were harder on your knees on groomers. They really are. But it wasn't something that bothered me until all this mess. Still hoping it will sort itself out.

Is there a skill progression? Sort of. As I said, the fatter the ski is, the slower it is edge to edge. This means that unless you have good skills already, it's easier to get sloppy with fat skis. Fat skis are "cheaters" for soft snow, but they are the opposite on hard snow. For your stats, I'm not sure I'd even call a 108 fat.

Please note caveats in my signature :) And my tag line is my username in many other places ...
Thank you! That was the feedback I was looking for. I am debating adding another ski to have more fun in the variable conditions and the trees. I assumed an adjustment period but don't want to pick up bad habits as I probably have too many to begin with. I skied 10 days in Utah last year and didn't experience one "powder" day as they know them. I did have a few days of 2-6 inches falling during the day and wondered if a wider ski would be more fun or a better tool for the job. Again thanks for everyone chiming in. It is great input and helps people like me who often do not have the opportunity to experiment with equipment.
 

David Chaus

Beyond Help
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
5,529
Location
Stanwood, WA
Caveat: I am a lightweight at 5-10 and 145 lbs, a mere fly on the wall, so take this with a minuscule grain of salt. Like Sargent Schultz, I know NOTHING!!

My guess is that for the range of conditions you've experienced so far, you're probably on the right skis, up to 3-4" of fresh powder. Even though your Enforcers are wide, they are long and that helps a bit with floatation for your overall mass in those conditions. For 6"+, or for heavier or cut up crud, I'm thinking a ski between 108 and 115cm will offer characteristics that are different enough from your Enforcers to be useful, and still easy going and playful for tress.

Maybe the Enforcer 110? I was going to say Blizzard Cochise or Bodacious, but I'm leaning more towards Armada Tracer 108, or Salomon QST 106 or maybe 118 (comes in 192 whereas the 106 goes up to 188). Volkl 100Eight or One. The smaller sizes of these have been compliant and playful for a lightweight like me compared some other boards.

Good hunting and forget everything I wrote.
 

QmaartenQ

Booting up
Skier
Joined
May 17, 2017
Posts
14
Location
Europe, Netherlands
It would probably be a good idea to look into longer ski's too.
At 6'7" you should move up to 200 cm ski's in softer snow.
I'm 6'4" and ski mostly on the Praxis Protest in 195 cm, 134 mm under foot, with little issues on hardpack.
No knee problems also. I am a bit younger though, 51 ;-)
Only on really, really hard conditions they are challenge.
Not saying you should move up to 134 mm, but longer ski's with 110 mm under foot make a lot of sense!
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tytlynz64

Tytlynz64

Getting off the lift
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
490
It would probably be a good idea to look into longer ski's too.
At 6'7" you should move up to 200 cm ski's in softer snow.
I'm 6'4" and ski mostly on the Praxis Protest in 195 cm, 134 mm under foot, with little issues on hardpack.
No knee problems also. I am a bit younger though, 51 ;-)
Only on really, really hard conditions they are challenge.
Not saying you should move up to 134 mm, but longer ski's with 110 mm under foot make a lot of sense!
Longer? Really? I thought i was currently at the outler as far as length. I will give that some thought.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Tytlynz64

Tytlynz64

Getting off the lift
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Posts
490
Caveat: I am a lightweight at 5-10 and 145 lbs, a mere fly on the wall, so take this with a minuscule grain of salt. Like Sargent Schultz, I know NOTHING!!

My guess is that for the range of conditions you've experienced so far, you're probably on the right skis, up to 3-4" of fresh powder. Even though your Enforcers are wide, they are long and that helps a bit with floatation for your overall mass in those conditions. For 6"+, or for heavier or cut up crud, I'm thinking a ski between 108 and 115cm will offer characteristics that are different enough from your Enforcers to be useful, and still easy going and playful for tress.

Maybe the Enforcer 110? I was going to say Blizzard Cochise or Bodacious, but I'm leaning more towards Armada Tracer 108, or Salomon QST 106 or maybe 118 (comes in 192 whereas the 106 goes up to 188). Volkl 100Eight or One. The smaller sizes of these have been compliant and playful for a lightweight like me compared some other boards.

Good hunting and forget everything I wrote.
Was considering the 100eight and the QST 106. Also can get a deal on BC Atris in 188.
 

Tom K.

Skier Ordinaire
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
8,397
Snickers are welcome.

I could eat a Snickers right now. Favorite post-training season bike riding food (other than the chocolate chip cookies from Sweet Dreams in Moab).

Anyhoo, If you're going to have two widths in your entire quiver, I'd go 1.5 cm wider, rather than 1.
 

QmaartenQ

Booting up
Skier
Joined
May 17, 2017
Posts
14
Location
Europe, Netherlands
Just saying that you can go longer than your current 193 cm, at least don't go shorter for soft snow IMHO.
Float is also about surface aria, so longer gives more float also.
 

Sponsor

Top