One Cm at a time

[Tom K.]

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.

Absolutely. At the OP's size, longer will be better than shorter, in terms of both flotation and fore and aft stability.

But.....if you like skiing tight stuff, I wouldn't go beyond 190-ish. If that's the case, at your size, you'll just need a bit more width.

OR MORE PLANING SPEED!

 

[fatbob]

Start at Cochise in a 185 and work your way up from there.

 

[Tony S]

Start at Cochise in a 185 and work your way up from there.

Can't imagine it, personally, but it sounds right! Fatbob can ski. I'd listen. Beyond that, all I have is, "That's what she said."

 

[PTskier]

The stiffness of a ski is increased as the length is increased. You have the longest & stiffest ski made in that line (Nordica Enforcer 93). OK so far. You need the stiff ski because of the energy you put into it with your size & weight and whatever speed you develop. A different line of skis with the longest even longer than yours will float more, but boot deep powder is hero snow--we're all skiing on the base in this stuff except maybe for a lightweight rocketing down the hill. Tree skiing will be OK if you roll the skis on edge and "bank" through the turns, you'll flex the skis enough to do well. If you skid them sideways it'll be tougher getting really long skis through there. In olden days we all skied 195s to 205s in the trees.

As already noted there are many considerations besides just the waist width of any line of skis. You don't state your ability. The wrong skis will be a setback for anyone, especially the infrequent skier who isn't an expert. Demo as many skis as you can. What you have will be fine in the conditions you state. It's more about technique than about equipment...it ain't the wand, it's the magician. If you had some really deep fluffy stuff, rent the biggest skis you can find to try to get some float...but still, many of us grew up on skis not much wider than the boot sole, and we had fun in all conditions. We skied in 3 dimensions in the powder...I still like to ski that way but on modern equipment.

 

[Monique]

Question for the crowd:

At OP's height and weight, would he generally benefit from the torsional stiffness of a wider ski, all else being equal? And if he would benefit from torsional stiffness, should he be looking primarily at skis with sidewall construction?

 

[Tony S]

the torsional stiffness of a wider ski

Can you explain this phrase? Its meaning is not intuitive to me.

 

[Monique]

Can you explain this phrase? Its meaning is not intuitive to me.

Do you mean the term "torsional stiffness"? I'm sure you're familiar with this term ...

Well, at the risk of exposing myself as having misunderstood something - torsional stiffness is how stiff the ski is across the width, not the length. And I would assume that just as a given ski becomes stiffer as it is built longer, a wider ski would become stiffer ... of course it would depend on how laterally stiff the construction is in the first place ... I would think that all things being equal, a wider ski would be stiffer across the width.

http://www.mechanicsofsport.com/skiing/equipment/skis.html

Torsional stiffness is also very important for skis as if a ski will twist the edges will not push on the snow with as much force. This effects a ski in very similar ways to stiffness along the ski with torsionally stiffer skis being less forgiving and intended more for racing.

 

[Monique]

Then again .. race skis being torsionally stiff tends to argue against my understanding ... so I'm now very curious about my own question

 

[David Chaus]

A wider ski would require stiffer construction than a narrower ski to maintain the same degree of torsional stiffness. Unless they do something different with materials I would think a wider ski would have less torsional ridigity than a narrower ski of similar construction. More overal mass, yes, perhaps more "burly", but not stiffer, either torsionally or longitudinally.

 

[Tony S]

Then again .. race skis being torsionally stiff tends to argue against my understanding ... so I'm now very curious about my own question

Yeah, I would have thought that just as the longer of two skis with identical constructions would be easier to flex longitudinally, the wider of two skis with identical constructions would be easier to flex torsionally.

When you say,

a given ski becomes stiffer as it is built longer

,

I think you may mean, "a given ski is intentionally built stiffer as it is built longer" - i.e., it does NOT have the same construction as its shorter sibling.

Edit: What David said.

 

[Monique]

Basically I got everything completely backwards - not sure how that happened. I blame, um, can't think of anything to blame at the moment. Sorry about that!!

 

[Tytlynz64]

The stiffness of a ski is increased as the length is increased. You have the longest & stiffest ski made in that line (Nordica Enforcer 93). OK so far. You need the stiff ski because of the energy you put into it with your size & weight and whatever speed you develop. A different line of skis with the longest even longer than yours will float more, but boot deep powder is hero snow--we're all skiing on the base in this stuff except maybe for a lightweight rocketing down the hill. Tree skiing will be OK if you roll the skis on edge and "bank" through the turns, you'll flex the skis enough to do well. If you skid them sideways it'll be tougher getting really long skis through there. In olden days we all skied 195s to 205s in the trees.

As already noted there are many considerations besides just the waist width of any line of skis. You don't state your ability. The wrong skis will be a setback for anyone, especially the infrequent skier who isn't an expert. Demo as many skis as you can. What you have will be fine in the conditions you state. It's more about technique than about equipment...it ain't the wand, it's the magician. If you had some really deep fluffy stuff, rent the biggest skis you can find to try to get some float...but still, many of us grew up on skis not much wider than the boot sole, and we had fun in all conditions. We skied in 3 dimensions in the powder...I still like to ski that way but on modern equipment.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Skill wise I think I stated I am an advanced intermediate. I don't know what the technical definition of that is, but to me it means I can ski most of Alta and Snowbird with no much issue. I am primarily self taught and lack the fluid grace of those who grew up on skis. Off piste I can ski less than tight trees and moderate bumps. I agree that skill is most important but as one who doesn't currently live close to a ski hill and gets at most 20 to 25 days on the hill, I thought maybe a wider ski can help the learning curve. Learning to ski in the East one learns to edge in hard conditions. I like the flow of skiing in soft snow when I travel west. I probably will test drive some wider boards but increasing my knowledge about right tools for the job is important Too.

 

[Swede]

Then again .. race skis being torsionally stiff tends to argue against my understanding ... so I'm now very curious about my own question

Yes, torsional stiffness has nothing to do with width, per se. Like you say, a race ski is as stiff as they come torsionally and they are 65 mm under foot.
A torsionally weak ski will "twist" when up on edge and pushed, not carve cleanly. You'd always want a ski to be torsionally stiff. So that's pretty uncomplicated.
Then as mentioned, there's (longitudal) flex as well. Not as straight forward. Again, has nothing to do with width per se. Race skis, again, flex very stiff. At the OP:s off the scale size he'd probably need something that flexes stiffer. But stiff is not always good when it comes to flex. If you ski slow and/or don't put skis on edge properly, a softer flex is more relaxed as you can bend it easier. If you ski in challenging terrain like trees and bumps (a little slower), softer can often be better. Bombing down rock hard pistes, you'd want stiff. A soft flex will "fold" when carved fast with proper technique.
Technique and ability (speed) can be the determining factors as well as the terrain you ski (again speed) and then weight and height.
Some skis have stiff tails, others have soft tips, some are stiffer under foot, then there's "nice and even flex"... and variations and combinations. A science where one has to try and see what's suitable. I for instance HATE soft tips.

 

[NE1]

Torsional Stiffness is best described as "resistance to twisting"; it's influence on the characteristics of the ski increase as you move out toward the tip or tail from the midline.

Another term, Horizontal Stiffness, could be used to describe a ski's resistance to bending across its width along the whole length of the ski. This has become more important with the advent of wider and wider skis.

Longitudinal Flex, as Swede mentions above, is the ski's resistance to flexing along its length.

 

[Monique]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Skill wise I think I stated I am an advanced intermediate. I don't know what the technical definition of that is, but to me it means I can ski most of Alta and Snowbird with no much issue. I am primarily self taught and lack the fluid grace of those who grew up on skis. Off piste I can ski less than tight trees and moderate bumps. I agree that skill is most important but as one who doesn't currently live close to a ski hill and gets at most 20 to 25 days on the hill, I thought maybe a wider ski can help the learning curve. Learning to ski in the East one learns to edge in hard conditions. I like the flow of skiing in soft snow when I travel west. I probably will test drive some wider boards but increasing my knowledge about right tools for the job is important Too.

I'm really not sure what I was thinking with yesterday's post - I *know* better. Brain fart.

Confused by "most of" + "less than tight trees and moderate bumps." Does that mean you're comfortable on steeps and in chutes? Or that you ski groomers most of the time? Because "most of" Alta and Snowbird is a heck of a lot more than groomers. And I want you to be able to experience that! When I first moved to Colorado from the east, I had a limited view of what was possible. My old self would be in awe of what my new self skis. This may not describe you, but just in case, throwing it out there.

I'll plug lessons because, well, I'll always plug lessons, especially for someone who is self-taught. It will catapult your skiing forward and unlock a lot more of the mountain, even if it is initially frustrating because you will need to unlearn bad habits. That "fluid grace" doesn't just look good - it's a side effect of good skiing that will save your bacon in tight trees, on steeps, etc.

One caveat. I don't think this is an issue so much because of your size, but depending on where you are in skill progression - I love wide skis. My concept of a daily driver is much wider than most people's - and that's largely because I spend most of my time skiing soft or chopped snow. (Not powder - god, I wish I spent most of my time skiing powder!) But until you are to a certain point in your skills progression, wide skis can reward bad habits. As I mentioned upthread, they do take a smidge longer to tip. That smidge matters. If you don't have a solid turn to begin with, you will tend to fudge it even more with a wide ski. And you will get away with that in hero snow, but when you get to tougher conditions, it will limit your control over speed and direction.

 

[Tytlynz64]

I'm really not sure what I was thinking with yesterday's post - I *know* better. Brain fart.

Confused by "most of" + "less than tight trees and moderate bumps." Does that mean you're comfortable on steeps and in chutes? Or that you ski groomers most of the time? Because "most of" Alta and Snowbird is a heck of a lot more than groomers. And I want you to be able to experience that! When I first moved to Colorado from the east, I had a limited view of what was possible. My old self would be in awe of what my new self skis. This may not describe you, but just in case, throwing it out there.

I'll plug lessons because, well, I'll always plug lessons, especially for someone who is self-taught. It will catapult your skiing forward and unlock a lot more of the mountain, even if it is initially frustrating because you will need to unlearn bad habits. That "fluid grace" doesn't just look good - it's a side effect of good skiing that will save your bacon in tight trees, on steeps, etc.

One caveat. I don't think this is an issue so much because of your size, but depending on where you are in skill progression - I love wide skis. My concept of a daily driver is much wider than most people's - and that's largely because I spend most of my time skiing soft or chopped snow. (Not powder - god, I wish I spent most of my time skiing powder!) But until you are to a certain point in your skills progression, wide skis can reward bad habits. As I mentioned upthread, they do take a smidge longer to tip. That smidge matters. If you don't have a solid turn to begin with, you will tend to fudge it even more with a wide ski. And you will get away with that in hero snow, but when you get to tougher conditions, it will limit your control over speed and direction.

So I prefer Alta over Snowbird so that may be a tell. I have skied Greeley, and the trees and bumps off Wildcat. I haven't been in Catherine's because it was closed. I prefer off piste but ski groomers as well both blacks and blues. At Snowbird I skied Peruvian and a lot off of Gad. I prefer Alta because it is easier to navigate and I usually ski by myself. I struggled in the very steep bump runs controlling my speed and not launching off the vw sized moguls. Tight trees are the hardwoods in the east and Midwest that divide the runs. Heavenly has less than tight trees. Maybe that helps, maybe it doesn't.

As to progression, that is kind of the point. Will a different tool make the limited opportunities more enjoyable? Because in the end it is a hobby not my vocation. Yes lessons would probably yield to optimum results, but I may never get any better than I am right now.

 

[Monique]

As to progression, that is kind of the point. Will a different tool make the limited opportunities more enjoyable? Because in the end it is a hobby not my vocation. Yes lessons would probably yield to optimum results, but I may never get any better than I am right now.

Unfortunately I don't know Alta/Snowbird super well, aside from their reputations, so I can't speak to the specifics of what you've listed - though I know others here can.

The different tool may make limited opportunities more enjoyable, if you already have a certain baseline skiing skill, which you may very well have. If you don't, a wider ski is going to make things harder. IMHO. I suspect you'll be fine - I'm just throwing it out there. If you demo, you'll certainly find out quickly enough which it is.

I understand it's a hobby, but man, skiing is so much more fun with more skill ... like, for example, what if you could control your speed on any bump run, no matter how steep? Wouldn't that make things more fun? Okay, off the soap box now ...

 

[dlague]

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.

This is spot on! A fully rockered 115 underfoot will feel a whole lot different than a 115 rocker camber rockered ski especially on the groomed sections returning to the lift. Even the stiffness of the tip and tail of the ski can change the characteristics. Does the ski feel damp through crud or responsive? I often read reviews to get what I want and it may not be the the most popular. However if you can narrow it down and do not mind waiting a season, then demo the skis and see how they feel.

With your height and weight going from 93 underfoot to 104 ish will not be that big of a deal and may not get you that much more float - the Enforcers 93 already have a good float rating.

 

[David Chaus]

Basically I got everything completely backwards - not sure how that happened. I blame, um, can't think of anything to blame at the moment. Sorry about that!!

Hmmm...you are in Colorado. Is there some (now legal) recreational activity that you haven't disclosed?

 

[Monique]

Hmmm...you are in Colorado. Is there some (now legal) recreational activity that you haven't disclosed?

LOL!

Nopers. I'm currently looking for a job, so that would be quite silly. I honestly don't know what happened - somehow my brain flipped everything around.