Skinny Skis in a Fat Ski World

[thetrailboss]

An interesting read. I’m sure most of you, like me, have a quiver of different ski widths and types.

You Need a Pair of Skinny Skis

Are your skis the best tool for the season you want, or the season you have? An impassioned argument for thin-waisted planks.

www.outsideonline.com

 

[thetrailboss]

A good quote:


Now, I’m not saying go hawk your fatties. What I am saying, though, is go tromp on over to that mirror there, look deeply within, and ask yourself, “Honestly, am I best served on most days by powder skis?”

Ponder it.

“I don’t think it’s one or the other,” says Rogge. “You can never really have too many skis, and that, to me, is part of being a skier. You want to build the quiver that makes your season the most fun.”

 

[machski]

Just saying, 82 under foot is by no means "skinny."

 

[Teleskier]

At first I was excited this article was going to be about true skinny skis aka XC skis.

As I read the article, I realized it applied to me today as I do this currently with my tele skis, While I have some fat powder tele skis in my quiver, I still love my 72mm waist TM22's tele and they are my go to ski for shredding hard snow and ice. They were a blast today - as always - and are still my favorite all around ski for eastern skiing - 'skinny' or not. So I agree with the article for my own skiing.

 

[kingslug]

Its always a decision to make when you head out there. I've ended up on my powder skis in less than stellar conditions but pulled it off. And have had days I wish I had them. I just replaced my 85's with 93's..have to see how that goes. My 105's are the go to ski and rarely let me down. Heading out to Utah I'm bringing the new 93's and the 117's. You can always bring a few and at least have a choice.

 

[Smellytele]

I have a pair of 110's (powder day) and a pair of 82's (great for hard pack but can still hit a few inches of snow). Looking to add something in-between, 90-100 as an every(most)day ski.

 

[kingslug]

I just bought the Head Kore 93 after skiing with Jim G who has them. They replaced the 10 year old Sultan 85's which were pretty heavy. They also make a 99.
When i get back from Utah I'll write them up. I like the 117's so I imagine I'll like these.
I really bought them so I don't have to travel with my Wagners..if they lose those I'm screwed. But 93 is more appropriate for eastern conditions most of the time.

 

[deadheadskier]

I definitely feel many people ride skis far too wide for the prevalent conditions in the East. I see people banging groomers at Sunapee all the time on 100mm skis and just scratch my head. Not everyone can afford or wants a quiver though.

Current waist widths of my skis and percentage of time used

78 - 60%
90 - 35%
107 - 5%

If I skied more frequently in Northern VT or had a schedule that allowed me to time storms better, the wider skis would see more use, but I still think the 78 waist width would get the most use here in the East.

 

[kingslug]

I had the 105's made mostly for out West..but once we started skiing SB and Stowe they became the go to. Skiing Hunter for so many years, a super sharp smaller ski was best. This season I rode the 105's more than anything. Except the big storm days. The 117's are fun in the spring though..like a water ski.

 

[kbroderick]

Just saying, 82 under foot is by no means "skinny."

That's about 2/3 of a soft-snow ski, so IMO, that qualifies as skinny by modern standards (anyone who wants to bring up "fat" skis from 20 years ago is welcome to do so after they finish yelling at the damn neighbor kids to get off their lawn.)

Improved ski tech has helped the whole spectrum, IMO, and while my 100-mm-underfoot skis aren't going to be my first choice the day after a thaw/freeze, they do remarkably well on anything soft enough that I'm not wishing for real race skis. Yes, they take more work to get up on edge, but not an absurd amount (which, IMO, is true of 110+), and they can ski pretty well on true packed powder.

If I were headed to NH or Vermont for a week and had to pick one pair out of my quiver (which includes race skis, retail "race" skis, 100- and 120-waisted all-mountain skis) to bring, it would probably be the Bent Chet 100s. They're not the best at anything, but as long as I don't want to run gates, they'll work for just about anything.

 

[Smellytele]

That's about 2/3 of a soft-snow ski, so IMO, that qualifies as skinny by modern standards (anyone who wants to bring up "fat" skis from 20 years ago is welcome to do so after they finish yelling at the damn neighbor kids to get off their lawn.)

Improved ski tech has helped the whole spectrum, IMO, and while my 100-mm-underfoot skis aren't going to be my first choice the day after a thaw/freeze, they do remarkably well on anything soft enough that I'm not wishing for real race skis. Yes, they take more work to get up on edge, but not an absurd amount (which, IMO, is true of 110+), and they can ski pretty well on true packed powder.

If I were headed to NH or Vermont for a week and had to pick one pair out of my quiver (which includes race skis, retail "race" skis, 100- and 120-waisted all-mountain skis) to bring, it would probably be the Bent Chet 100s. They're not the best at anything, but as long as I don't want to run gates, they'll work for just about anything.

Son just bought a pair of the Chety’s

 

[kingslug]

Higher bindings like the Fritches I have help get the 117's on edge.

 

[kbroderick]

Higher bindings like the Fritches I have help get the 117's on edge.

Try one-skiing on them. I thought I was reasonably solid at such a skill until one of the kids I was coaching forgot his slip skis and I told him to just ski down on one of my 112-underfoot skis and I'd ski down on the other one (so he could leave his race skis at the top and I could prep them before his run).

Let's just say that I really wish I had gone another way down so the other coaches weren't able to witness that attempt.

And there is still a huge difference going from 66 underfoot to 100, but after a run or two I can generally make it work. At 112 (or 120), it takes far more movement and the snow better not be too firm.

The article also glosses over one key issue: regardless of width, the skis should be sharp. I got pretty lazy about that while living out west (for wider skis) until I got the timing wrong on a springtime couloir run and got to deal with refrozen avy debris on a 117-underfoot touring ski that was a lot of things, sharp not among them. It wasn't as terrifying as refrozen skiing on Mt. Washington years ago, but it was still definitely in the Type II fun category.

 

[abc]

Just saying, 82 under foot is by no means "skinny."

We're just homeless people discussion the best kitchen appliance.

The article was about Colorado! So what we use in the northeast is NOT what the article is about. Personally, I skimmed through the article and felt like it's entirely irrelevant.

When he talked about "losing an edge" on "hard pack" in Colorado, we KNOW that's what we call "pack powder" in the northeast!

So yeah, 82 is the right size for that condition. Question is do we even care what ski to use in that condition? I bet most people don't really care. Anything from 70 to 100 will do.

 

[raisingarizona]

Just saying, 82 under foot is by no means "skinny."

My skinny skis are 88 under foot and the skinniest skis I've had in over 20 years. I think by today's standards anything under 90 is skinny. I don't ski the east any more tho.

 

[kingslug]

Chairlift at Stowe..got the 117's on..guy says: you know this is the East?
um...yup.

 

[jimmywilson69]

my skinniest ski is also an 88 and I do a lot of skiing in PA. I primarily ski an Elan Ripstick 96 on all of the days except biolerplate or in really deep snow I have an older fisher Watea 116.

I have no issues making awesome linked turns with the ripsticks. Honestly the best ski I've ever owned.

I agree that ski technology has changed and that you don't need a 67 or 78 in the waste for those "hard" days in the east. To each his own, that's what makes skiing so great!

 

[thetrailboss]

At first I was excited this article was going to be about true skinny skis aka XC skis.

As I read the article, I realized it applied to me today as I do this currently with my tele skis, While I have some fat powder tele skis in my quiver, I still love my 72mm waist TM22's tele and they are my go to ski for shredding hard snow and ice. They were a blast today - as always - and are still my favorite all around ski for eastern skiing - 'skinny' or not. So I agree with the article for my own skiing.

I, too, initially thought it was going to discuss XC skis. But the article brought up a great point about ski width and use. I like the analogy of a ski as a tool and that one needs to have the "right" tool for the conditions.

 

[kingslug]

I think its worse to get caught in a deep pow day with a skinny ski than the other way around..as I have experienced both.

 

[raisingarizona]

I think its worse to get caught in a deep pow day with a skinny ski than the other way around..as I have experienced both.

Yeah, I can get my true fats, 122 under foot or my mid fats, 100 to work in about anything. I’d be lost on my stiffer 88’s on a pow day. I’d probably hate it.