Author Topic: Wider skis for my wife?  (Read 1514 times)

bushwacka

  • Instructor
  • 400 Posts
  • **
  • Posts: 471
Re: Wider skis for my wife?
« on: November 03, 2011, 07:01:43 am »
go back to my simple answer

She doenst "NEED" them, and the only argument I am going to make against math is that math doesnt tell the whole story and like I said enough is never enough.

I don't agree that it's that simple.  If it were true that wider always equals better, then we would all be on 140 mm skis, 2 meters long....water skis, basically.  You're neglecting to mention the trade-offs for going wider -- heavier skis (wider/longer = more material = more weight), slower edge-to-edge, less agility, more knee strain, poorer hard snow performance, etc.. 

But I do agree that math may not tell the whole story, and that's the reason for posting my thread, is to get some insightful and well-reasoned opinions on this. 

Basically, we're trying to find a balance between soft snow float (ie. how much width/length is needed) and hard snow performance (lateral and torsional stiffness; sidecut).  We're not talking heli skiing in BC or Alaska here.  We're talking inbounds bowls, trees, chutes, and groomed runs in western resorts. 

Furthermore, we haven't even touched on some of the other variables that affect how a ski performs in soft snow, such as sidecut (how much? where should it start relative to the tip?), stiffness and tendency to trench vs. float, rocker (how much? tip and tail?), flex pattern, etc..

Like I said, this all about balance of ability and versatility, so I'm asking for input from others who may know more than I.  Josh, you're clearly in a different situation than the rest of us when it comes to ski choice.  You mentioned in another thread that you were sponsored by Blizzard (I think I'm correct on this), so I imagine that you are in the enviable position of having armloads of skis thrust upon you and can therefore pick and choose whatever your whim desires.  But that's not our reality -- with 8 pairs of skis in our family, we have enough already.  We have to be choosy and selective and make well-informed decisions, so our family quiver stays within sensible numbers.   ;)

armloads of skis  to test maybe. A pair a year for nothing. I am not Arne Backstrom. Last year I really only skied on 3 skis all winter. Mag 8.7 for hard snow, "the one" for everyday, Katanas for powder. The Bushwackers I got last year effectively replaced the 8.7 for all but the hardest snow, and my Bonafide's this year will replace "the one" that are now a rock skis. For my powder skis I will most likely go to another company because Blizzard doesnt make a great east coast powder ski yet.

I generally have a 3 ski quiver and the middle ski can pretty much handle it all.

Jim

1. your right most have some really big skis, even at stowe some people I ski with have 130-150mm underfoot monsters that would make no sense unless you were us. With that said I would say our 100mm skis our the ones that come out to play most often. For me I feel I can ski better than 95 percent of people on piste on them, and puts me in the 1 percent category off trail.  The 100 mm waist width many of which our actually 98mm is by far the most versatile skis you can buy.  With sharp edges on 98mm skis I never have an issue getting an edge on any surface

2. I do not like the calculators and how people use them. Like I said there is no such thing as too much float for anyone. Go as wide as your legs can take/still edge grip on the hardest snow you will see. For most people this 100mm wide.

3. it relevant only that most people can get on a 98mm skis and just go, there is no real learning curve.