mishka
New member
IMO 100 under foot is enough with is a daily driver. I didn't find 110th substantially better on pow. Depends on ski design stiffer skis can be more versatile
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
How wide is too wide?
- Thread starter rocks860
- Start date
rocks860
Active member
I'm not really concerned about the 110 on the 181, I skied the liberty helix a few years ago that was 105 underfoot in sloppy spring conditions and it skied just fine. Just wondering if the jump to 120 is too much. I will also still have the 100's I have now for less than optimal days. Can't really find any reviews online unfortunately
rocks860
Active member
There is also this ski but they have it listed as a park ski
http://www.surfaceskis.com/hardgoods/park/outsider/index.html
http://www.surfaceskis.com/hardgoods/park/outsider/index.html
Last edited:
rocks860
Active member
That one is definitely skinnier at the tip and tail but stiffer. Wish I could find some reviews
I'm not sure I'd like that much rocker in the East. It almost looks gimmicky
Hawkshot99
Active member
You "can" ski anything in any conditions. But will it be enjoyable? For a east coast everyday ski I like to be around 90 underfoot with a decent amount of rocker profile and a metal core.
I have a wider ski (Rossi Soul 7) at 106 under foot, but they are just like every other wider ski I have skied. Great in powder, or soft spring skiing, but to slow edge to edge on anything else, and to floppy to be able to hard charge anything even remotely packed.
I have a wider ski (Rossi Soul 7) at 106 under foot, but they are just like every other wider ski I have skied. Great in powder, or soft spring skiing, but to slow edge to edge on anything else, and to floppy to be able to hard charge anything even remotely packed.
goldsbar
New member
Yup, I have 98s, but edge to edge is noticeably slow when comparing back-to-back with more race oriented low 70s skis. When carving, I can feel the torque on the ski of my weight trying to flatten the ski vs. tipping movements trying to get the ski on edge. They still carve fine, but it's clear why a narrow ski is better in that regard. I use them a lot and they're fun, but I also have a quiver. 88 with some visible rocker seems like the perfect compromise. Enough for all but really deep, light powder (i.e. Alta) and not so bad when "stuck" on groomers. The metal part would depend on skier weight and primary use.
YMMV. I've demoed 115s in Alta and was told people daily drive them.
rocks860
Active member
That doesn't sound like the surfaces I have now. They're 100 underfoot and are totally fine on groomers and at speed. They also don't have any rocker. I think I'm going to go with the daily's. They apparently are the same as the live life model from previous years
fbrissette
Well-known member
Ski width now carries the same 'macho factor' as ski length once was, and it is getting out of control. Obiviously, anyone can ski a 110mm underfoot planks all the time but does it mean you should ?
Who uses wide skis ? World cup FIS skiers ? No. They use underfoot in the mid 60mm. Mogul skier ? Same thing here - mid 60mm. Park ? Big Air ? Slope style ? Nope. Most top guys use skis in the mid 80 to low 90mm. Backcountry skiers ? Hardcore backcountry skiers (the ones who go up and down more than once in a single day) will rarely go wider than 100mm. On the other hand, who uses big fat skis all the time ? Freeskiers charging down big untracked mountains. The guys we see on the videos. This is very telling. 110mm underfoot is the wrong tool for 99% of skiers out east. If you can only afford one pair of skis, if you chase powder all winter long, and take sick days everytime there is more than 4 inches in the forecast by all means go for it. But you are making compromises for any other type of snow conditions. Seriously, wide skis shine in some very specific conditions, but they absolutely suck on the hard stuff (groomers and moguls).
rocks860
Active member
I've been skiing 100mm wide skis for the last 2 years on the east coast and I certainly haven't found that they "suck". In fact they've been way better than the 80mm rossignols I was skiing previously
jrmagic
New member
It's all about choice. I do have a pair of 78mm and a slalom race ski that is about 60mm and I rarely take them out. My locker is 100 yards or so from the lift and I still never go back for the other boards
Is it the absolute best tool for the job? Definitely not in all cases but I can honestly say mine are pretty darn versatile and are a lot of fun in the moguls too . Speed isn't an issue for me on these even with no metal and I am not a small man. Hard pack... Skinnier skis absolutely shine over wider models. Another benefit I have noticed is that my bases do not take the same kind of beating with the weight distribution. I used to routinely end up with gouges in the base and for the most part, that doesn't happen anymore. It's all about what you think is fun and I happen to continually gravitate to the fat ski.
xwhaler
Active member
I ski the 100mm Surface Watch Lifes in 181. Nice ski, sometimes a bit too stiff to really enjoy in the trees/bumps. Wish they were a bit more playful and/or I could control them better in those spots.
That said its a nice all mountain ski that does everything above average for me (other than bumps)
Picked them up a few seasons ago for $250 shipped and they have held up pretty well.
I've thought about getting a true carve ski low waist something around 175 cm long for the true hardpack days
That said its a nice all mountain ski that does everything above average for me (other than bumps)
Picked them up a few seasons ago for $250 shipped and they have held up pretty well.
I've thought about getting a true carve ski low waist something around 175 cm long for the true hardpack days
Last edited:
fbrissette
Well-known member
Suck is relative. My main skis are 98mm wide and they carve relatively well at their natural radius. But their is no comparison to real carving skis.
fbrissette
Well-known member
Same here. I stick to the woods and steeps all the time so 98mm underfoot with mild rocker is my weapon of choice. I have a condo on the hill and only take the carving skis early in the season on artificial snow. And not for long cause I find carving to be boring. But they can't be beat on hard surfaces.
Tin
Active member
I was never a fan of carving but a pair of fat skis with little tip rocker are fun to charge on. My dailys are 105 and the hardest thing to figure out was positioning on them. I have Schizos and now move them back and forth depending on what I need. Once you figure out the ski and how to ride it wide skis are the way to go. There is nothing you cannot do on them, including bumps.
Demo, demo and then demo. Do it on a day where conditions are "average" for where you usually ski. Don't buy into the hype. I'm always perplexed when I see these dudes on double rockered 110mm "bronana" boards. "Yeah, they do fine on a ice." ummm......
fbrissette
Well-known member
You can ski powder on skinny skis. Does not mean you should. It's all about compromise.
You can ski ice on fat skis. You can also ski hard bumps on fats skis. But they are not designed for that.
My point is that you see more and more intermediate skiers with minimal technical ability, who spend most of their time on groomers, sporting fats skis. And it does not make sense.
Tin
Active member
Absolutely agreed.
fbrissette
Well-known member
Yes, yes and then yes.
rocks860
Active member
The green life's I have are the same ski as the watch life. I got them from surface back in 2012 for 150 shipped. I really like them but I'd like to try something with some rocker. I believe the ones I have are 182 with no rocker, just wondering if the 181 is going to feel too short since it has the rocker
Similar threads
