How wide are your skis underfoot?

gores95 · Jan 29, 2007

Just curious as to what other ECers are skiing. If this needs to be moved to Gear forum so be it...I thought it would get more action here.

I have a one ski quiver, Atomic Izor 9.7 that is 72mm underfoot. I know many are going fatter even with the lack of powder in our area (or my area!). I am an intermediate/advanced and ski mostly blue/black groomers with some glades thrown in. Don't like overwhelming bumps either. Hey I'm 39 you know!!!

Anyway do most of you have something more substantial underfoot? I just wonder if it makes sense to add a second ski to my collection, something 85mm or bigger underfoot? With our mostly had packed icy conditions would a bit fatter help in that regard? I know in powder it certainly helps!

Thanks.

Hawkshot99 · Jan 29, 2007

72, and 85

riverc0il · Jan 29, 2007

my three skis are 62, 79, 89

gores95 said:
I am an intermediate/advanced and ski mostly blue/black groomers with some glades thrown in. Don't like overwhelming bumps either.

SNIP

I just wonder if it makes sense to add a second ski to my collection, something 85mm or bigger underfoot? With our mostly had packed icy conditions would a bit fatter help in that regard?

no

you want edge grip on icy groomer conditions? check out the waist of skis being used by pro racers for slalom and GS. race skis are still under 70mm under foot. certainly no need to go above 75-79 max if you ski mostly groomers.

highpeaksdrifter · Jan 29, 2007

67, 72, 79

ALLSKIING · Jan 29, 2007

70 and 78...the 78 is as wide as I would go for skiing in the east.

koreshot · Jan 29, 2007

80, 83, 99, 115

115 not used on EC, but have used 99 a couple of times with decent results.

thetrailboss · Jan 29, 2007

64 and 75

awf170 · Jan 29, 2007

78 and 89. After skiing on the ones with a 89mm waist for the first 10 or so days of the season it was a great feeling to ski something skinnier. Being able to hold an edge on groomed terrian is great feeling.

My two ski quiver is kind of wierd and doesn't really make much sense. Fat skis for moguls, glades, and powder. Skinny skis for groomers and crud.

eastcoastskiier · Jan 29, 2007

68, 72, 74, 84..... the 84 are my park skis, and they handle pretty decent( as decent as a super soft park ski can handle)

from how your describing you skiing ability and terrain i would make you max no more then 82... and you will be fine hitting nose level. Any wider and its gonna be more work then benifit when getting it over on edge while riding the groomers. between a 78 and a low 80 would br optimal if you really like riding the 'powder' on the side of the trail allowing you to float over everything..

with most skis now they are also blowing out the tips with the waste allowing you to go even shorter and still having PLENTY of surface area to float on

gores95 · Jan 29, 2007

Thanks for the responses. One thing I probably should have mentioned....I am 6' 195 lbs. so not sure how graceful I'd be on those 62 or 64mm carvers!

Steve/Boss you guys a little lighter than me I would assume? Should a near 200 pounder be on skis so thin?

One other thing...I am taking the Izors with me this weekend to SLC for a four day trip. Is 72mm OK for Utah even in powder? I know they haven't had much snow recently but if we get dumped on I may demo a fatter ski.

Grassi21 · Jan 29, 2007

68 here. I'm probably an intermediate. Honestly I don't know what constitutes beginner/intermediate/advanced. That would probably be a decent thread. Anyway, I spend most of my time on blues and blacks, always groomed (not much else besides groomers where I've been skiing lately). I just started playing in the bumps.

koreshot · Jan 29, 2007

gores95 said:
Thanks for the responses. One thing I probably should have mentioned....I am 6' 195 lbs. so not sure how graceful I'd be on those 62 or 64mm carvers!

Steve/Boss you guys a little lighter than me I would assume? Should a near 200 pounder be on skis so thin?

One other thing...I am taking the Izors with me this weekend to SLC for a four day trip. Is 72mm OK for Utah even in powder? I know they haven't had much snow recently but if we get dumped on I may demo a fatter ski.

On hard snow:
Width under foot primarly helps with float in soft snow, something you are not all that concerned with since you are primarily a groomer/hard snow skier. So why get a wider ski and sacrifice hard snow grip and edge to edge agility if you don't really need to? When it comes to your size, at 6 feet and 195 lbs, you have a lot of leverage and strength which can overpower shorter and softer skis. So on hard snow, I would worry about flex and length of the ski more than the width under foot. If you are really aggressive and feel like the current skis are getting overpower on hard snow, get something stiffer and/or longer for better high speed stability.

On soft snow:
Yeah, at your weight and height 70mm under foot is not ideal for Utah soft snow and powder. Not saying it won't work, cause there are plenty of skiers that do just fine, but a wider ski will make the job easier and more fun IMO. I am 6'2" and 225lbs and on my trip to Utah I felt like 99mm under foot was a bit narrower than I would have liked (2+ feet of fresh snow).

WWF-VT · Jan 29, 2007

66 mm Fischer RX-8

tirolerpeter · Jan 29, 2007

There is no need to go wider unless you start skiing a lot of powder. I actually have skied 12"+ powder with my 164cm Volant Platinums (w/107cm tips, 70mm waist, and 96mm tails). It all depends upon how hard you are willing to work. Wider skis reduce effort considerably.

snoseek · Jan 29, 2007

82 cm. for me. work good on everything

eastcoastskiier · Jan 29, 2007

if your going out to utah i would recommend something in the upper 80s

take your skis and test them for the first day, if you stay on the packed powder then you may not have a bad time.. but they get alot of tossed up snow on the side of the trials and you may not float as much as you could be...

the second day your out there go to a shop and demo a mid-fat to fat ski in the upper 80 range.. it will be alot better ride due to the added surface area and float......

have fun!

Birdman829 · Jan 29, 2007

69 and 90 for me.

f2racer · Jan 29, 2007

63mm (2004/5 Atomic SL:11) and 67mm (2005/2006 Fischer RX6).

JD · Jan 29, 2007

112mm. I have two pairs.

John84 · Jan 29, 2007

70 and 70

How wide are your skis underfoot?

New member

Active member

New member

New member

Moderator

New member

Moderator

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Similar threads