How Wide is too Wide for the East?

[highpeaksdrifter]

I'm referring to everyday use lift serviced skiing. My widest ski is 79mm underfoot, but I'm considering getting a 84mm waisted ski (Nordica Hot Rod Jet Fuel). Two years ago I would say that's nuts, but these days it seems reasonable. What do you think?

 

[Greg]

I'm referring to everyday use lift serviced skiing. My widest ski is 79mm underfoot, but I'm considering getting a 84mm waisted ski (Nordica Hot Rod Jet Fuel). Two years ago I would say that's nuts, but these days it seems reasonable. What do you think?

I'm on a 74mm waist. Overly wide waists are prohibitive in the bumps which I'm still working on. For a one ski quiver, I feel a waist in the mid-70's is best. You bring up another interesting point, does 5 little milimeters really make all that much of a difference?

 

[SkiDog]

Im currently skiing the Salomon 1080 GUN...its roughly 90 underfoot. I thought this was going to be a HUGE problem on east coast hardpack (I primarily ski Killington and we all know how HARDPACK that can get ;-) ), but suprisingly these skis stick to anything I could throw at them. not great in the bumps, but you can get them to move around, so, depending on sidecut, id say you can go pretty big underfoot these days.

Just my .02...some people think im nuts skiing those all season in the east...i'll talk to them when they finally catch up to me in the lift line...

M

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Just my .02...some people think im nuts skiing those all season in the east...i'll talk to them when they finally catch up to me in the lift line...

M

Nice :lol: U OK Dog.

 

[SkiDog]

Nice :lol: U OK Dog.

Gracias Senor.....

I say fatter the better...in both my skis and my belly....

Im always looking for the one ski quiver...this ones good...but i'll keep looking I know it... ;-)

M

 

[JimG.]

I won't ski on anything fatter than 80mm...my current ski is 74mm.

Now if I lived out west I would probably think differently.

 

[awf170]

IMO, the problem with fat skis is the moguls. Fat skis are getting better and better at skiing groomers and hardpack, but there is just no way to make a ski with a 90mm waist good at skiing moguls. So if you avoid moguls 80mm+ waist skis are fine for everyday skiing.

 

[SkiDog]

IMO, the problem with fat skis is the moguls. Fat skis are getting better and better at skiing groomers and hardpack, but there is just no way to make a ski with a 90mm waist good at skiing moguls. So if you avoid moguls 80mm+ waist skis are fine for everyday skiing.

This is true 100%...moguls are the only place that I have any type of issues at all...but I can still make it happen...not like a bumper on bump skis, but still...

M

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

I'm on a 74mm waist. Overly wide waists are prohibitive in the bumps which I'm still working on. For a one ski quiver, I feel a waist in the mid-70's is best. You bring up another interesting point, does 5 little milimeters really make all that much of a difference?

With all your connections, what you doin with just 1 pair? :wink: Don't forget it's 5mm in the waist, but the width is even more pronounced in the tip and tail.

I can ski bumps fine in my 79mm Top Fuels, but when I know I want to ski my best in the bumps I'll reach for my Speedmachine 14s (67 waisted).

 

[riverc0il]

You bring up another interesting point, does 5 little milimeters really make all that much of a difference?

5mm makes a huge difference. 5mm less than 74 would be 69... remember those days folks? :lol: seriously though, that is more than a 6% difference in width. 5mm may seem small, but that is a large increase under your boot when you look at the percent.

i think for the ideal one ski eastern quiver, 75-80 is becoming ideal and the norm for advanced and expert level skiers. i have 79 and 89 sized skis and can honestly say that the 89 waist is complete overkill when i am not skiing powder or steep stuff. the difference in liveliness between the dyna legend 8000 (79) vs 8800 (89) for example is night and day. one ski is a nimble jack rabbit, the other a power horse jack hammer.

in the end, it all comes down to individual preference. there is no one "ideal" that all skiers share.

HPD brings up a good point that we need to look at a lot more than the waist. adding 5mm at the waist adds a HUGE amount of material to the ski at the tip, tail, and in between. weight can also become a factor with larger size skis. it is all up to invidual preference.

 

[AHM]

Wide is just fine in the bumps.............

All: Fat skis work fine in bumps, especially a foam core one like the Rossi XXX. Has a lot to do with how you ski bumps too. Fats can take bumps head on very nicely, but work just fine for quick percission turns. My everyday ski is a 90 mm and I could not see anything smaller doing the job. I think a lot has to do with overall foot speed. If this is high, the 90 becomes no problem. Also, how much air you take (as in top to top) is a big factor and fat skis can really make the top to top transition easy. So don't discount the fat ski as a bump ski. Also, with the combo's of woods, bumps, and groomers, the fat ski becomes the ideal all mountain ski. GIve it another try.

 

[riverc0il]

AHM, this may come down to personal preference--i think many people may have had different experiences than you when comparing fat to not so fat in the bumps and on the groomers. for myself, i have several ski sizes in my quiver with waists of 63, 79, and 89. the 63 definitely gets it done in the bumps, i can make the 79 get it done in the bumps, and the 89 i can really work to make it get by in the bumps. so yes, you 'can' ski bumps on a wide ski, but it is a heck of a lot easier on something narrow. buying an "all mountain ski" for a one ski quiver is all about compromise and it really comes down to where you spend most of your time. i wish i could say i spend most of my time skiing pow, but i don't and most people in new england don't (that is why i opted for multiple skis). for the bumps, there is a reason pro-bumpers have the skinniest skis around. as for groomers, there is a reason why race skis like volkl's race tiger are still under 70mm at the waist, the design is better for ripping groomers. you really can not equate a 90mm waist ski as just as good in bumps and groomers as narrower skis that are made to rip in those conditions no more than someone could advocate a volkl race tiger for pow. the thread topic "how wide is too wide" seems to suggest the ultimate compromise ski. 90mm doesn't compromise much and favors pow too much for a one ski quiver exclusively for the east coast, imo.

 

[AHM]

Yes and no...............on the fat ski in the bumps

Riv: I think it comes down to when and how long you've been skiing bumps. Yep, pro bumpers use narrow skis for comps. Big mountain skiers use fat skis all around. I have a sneaking suspicion if you found the east's biggest big mountain skiers (pro or proesque skiers who are in the east), they'd be on fat skis. Every hill has their top dogs, but guys like Mayes, Parky, Murphy, and yes JE all use an 88 mm waist ski or bigger every day. Remember when Dynastar was just bringing the pro rider out--it was not available to anyone but the top skiers--JE was on that board then. I think for most bump skiers or bump skiers that haven't been riding bumps big time for more than a decade, they are still carving quite a bit or maybe they have not or do not want to develop a straight on, more air time oriented bump turn. For this, the narrow board is better. Once you go pretty straight, I really think the fat ski is better. I am just convinced that I am a faster better bump skier on my 90s than I was on say a 61 waist GS ski. I just look at how I can attack on a fat ski and how quickly today's ski comes around. I am a big believer in not having too many skis, just ski the ski you got and go. So for me, that's a fatty all the way. In fact, I think my stockli stormrider scott schmidts are one of the finest GS skis around, they are just so stable and able to suck up terrain changes that would make a race ski jittery. Just my view. Sounds like you got a lot of boards.