I was idly browsing some ski review sites recently, and I couldn't help notice that when manufacturers update one of their powder specific skis these days, they often shave a few mm off the width. E.g the Liberty Origin 116 becoming the 112. The Faction CT3.0 going from 112 to 108. Salomon replacing the Rocker 2-122 with the QST 118 (Ok, that was a while ago)... And the number of skis now available to buy with a waist width of over 120mm seems somewhat limited.
I've seemingly always had the fattest skis of anyone I know. Back in 2005 I bought a pair of Line Motherships, which at 98mm were the fattest things going at the time. In 2012 I bought a pair of Liberty Genomes, which at 141mm always were e a bit absurd but oh so much fun in soft snow.
But am I behind the curve here? I just saw some video from my recent trip, and it's noticeable the way the Genomes are knocking me into the back seat quite a lot except when we'd had about 30cm of very light snow overnight. In more "usual" conditions they really are on top of the snow all the time.
And with the Genomes coming to the end of their natural life, and to be honest a need to rationalise the quiver a bit, should I be happy with something about 115ish as my deep snow specific ski? Can such a ski ever be as playful, as easy to slarve on as the Genomes in soft snow? I'd be really loathe to lose that fun from my pow skiing. And if I had a ski of that sort of size, would I really also need my Faction 3.0s?
Or is a 120+mm ski still the go to for pow days if you can justify it?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Pure pow skis are definitely still 120mm+ and definitely still have their place. The likes of the Faction CT3 are more 'every day freeride' than proper powder skis - remember the Candide range still goes up to the 122mm (I think?) CT5.
However I do think the days of the superfat (130mm+) ski is basically over. I still have some 135mm Down CD1s in my basement, but you're well into the game of diminishing returns at that size, and they are far less useable than ~120mm when things start to get tracked from lunchtime.
To answer your specific question: I can't think of any 115mm ski that will feel as amazing and playful as your genomes in deep untracked. Especially storm day in the trees type stuff (less of an issue the bluebird day after in the alpine with more open terrain and higher speeds). However a ~120mm Bent Chetler, Völkl Revert 121, Black Crows Nocta etc will do, with their more modern shaping, and will also be more useful in the pow day-afternoon leftovers.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
I think I need to get on the Bent Chetler...
I am very tempted by the Origin 112 though... I bought my Candides specifically for resort powder days, but whilst they cope with everything, they just don't have anything like the fun factor I was expecting. Ironically it's been the slushy spring conditions where I've loved the ski.
Blister review hypes up the fun factor of the Origins... Hmmmm....
Was just wondering if something modern in circa 115 would allow me to also retire the Genomes... But seemingly not...
I am very tempted by the Origin 112 though... I bought my Candides specifically for resort powder days, but whilst they cope with everything, they just don't have anything like the fun factor I was expecting. Ironically it's been the slushy spring conditions where I've loved the ski.
Blister review hypes up the fun factor of the Origins... Hmmmm....
Was just wondering if something modern in circa 115 would allow me to also retire the Genomes... But seemingly not...
I’ve been mainly skiing my DPS Lotus 124’s this season and the Spoons a few times. When I went narrower I regretted it. Looking at the new “lighter, more playful” Pagoda 124 to replace when they die.
I’ve also found the Faction CT’s a bit dull when I tried them a couple of years back - CT 3.0 / 4.0 / 5.0
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Anytime any review or manufacturer's blurb uses the word "charger" I know I'm going to hate the ski....
After all it is free
After all it is free
BobinCH wrote:
flaming wrote:
I think I need to get on the Bent Chetler...
I am very tempted by the Origin 112 though... I bought my Candides specifically for resort powder days, but whilst they cope with everything, they just don't have anything like the fun factor I was expecting. Ironically it's been the slushy spring conditions where I've loved the ski.
Blister review hypes up the fun factor of the Origins... Hmmmm....
Was just wondering if something modern in circa 115 would allow me to also retire the Genomes... But seemingly not...
I’ve been mainly skiing my DPS Lotus 124’s this season and the Spoons a few times. When I went narrower I regretted it. Looking at the new “lighter, more playful” Pagoda 124 to replace when they die.
I’ve also found the Faction CT’s a bit dull when I tried them a couple of years back - CT 3.0 / 4.0 / 5.0
Wow those DPS aren't cheap.....!
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
From the Blister 21/22 buyers guide
Top picks
More detailed reviews
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Thu 13-01-22 10:54; edited 2 times in total
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
flaming wrote:
BobinCH wrote:
flaming wrote:
I think I need to get on the Bent Chetler...
I am very tempted by the Origin 112 though... I bought my Candides specifically for resort powder days, but whilst they cope with everything, they just don't have anything like the fun factor I was expecting. Ironically it's been the slushy spring conditions where I've loved the ski.
Blister review hypes up the fun factor of the Origins... Hmmmm....
Was just wondering if something modern in circa 115 would allow me to also retire the Genomes... But seemingly not...
I’ve been mainly skiing my DPS Lotus 124’s this season and the Spoons a few times. When I went narrower I regretted it. Looking at the new “lighter, more playful” Pagoda 124 to replace when they die.
I’ve also found the Faction CT’s a bit dull when I tried them a couple of years back - CT 3.0 / 4.0 / 5.0
Wow those DPS aren't cheap.....!
Yes they are expensive. But when you’ve tried some it’s hard to go back. And I buy them in the Dreamtime sale which takes 20% off.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
As I see it...
1) Yes, skis are getting narrower in general.
People appreciate the versatility a narrower ski gives when conditions aren't blower powder.
2) IMvHO 100mm is plenty width for all but the very deepest days.
Just need a little speed and semi-decent technique.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Much like the snowboard Market, now more complex profiles are available the overall footprint can be reduced without compromising the float needed in soft snow.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@Richard_Sideways, I’ve thought this for sometime. I think ski profile plays a very big role in how it behaves in pow. Not as much as width, but not far off IMHO
1) Yes, skis are getting narrower in general.
People appreciate the versatility a narrower ski gives when conditions aren't blower powder.
2) IMvHO 100mm is plenty width for all but the very deepest days.
Just need a little speed and semi-decent technique.
So why are most FWT riders still on 110 to 120mm wide skis?
What a pro athlete uses for single completion run / hucking 50 footers not really relevant to what joe-blogs might use as a daily driver.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Richard_Sideways wrote:
Much like the snowboard Market, now more complex profiles are available the overall footprint can be reduced without compromising the float needed in soft snow.
Interestingly though the latest trend with snowboards is for ‘volume shift’, i.e. shorter but wider boards to keep the same contact area.
Much like the snowboard Market, now more complex profiles are available the overall footprint can be reduced without compromising the float needed in soft snow.
Interestingly though the latest trend with snowboards is for ‘volume shift’, i.e. shorter but wider boards to keep the same contact area.
No doubt about it : tip rocker aids floatation which means skis don't need to be quite so wide.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Haggis_Trap wrote:
BobinCH wrote:
Haggis_Trap wrote:
As I see it...
1) Yes, skis are getting narrower in general.
People appreciate the versatility a narrower ski gives when conditions aren't blower powder.
2) IMvHO 100mm is plenty width for all but the very deepest days.
Just need a little speed and semi-decent technique.
So why are most FWT riders still on 110 to 120mm wide skis?
What a pro athlete uses for single completion run / hucking 50 footers not really relevant to what joe-blogs might use as a daily driver.
But the question wasn’t Joe Bloggs asking for a daily driver. And the pros, at least around here, aren’t changing the skis on non comp days from what I can see. So if with speed and technique they go wide, why does a lesser skier go narrower? I don’t see any decent freeriders on 100mm skis around here.
wide, why does a lesser skier go narrower? I don’t see any decent freeriders on 100mm skis around here.
Versatility.
My general perception is that skiers are tending back to slightly narrower skis (95-105mm vs 110-120mm). Very few can ski like Jeremy Heitz (almost all the FWT were junior racers to high level). There is only a handful of pow days in an alpine season that truly justify a 120mm wide ski.
A more obvious trend I see is that far more people are skiing 50:50 touring kit as daily driver. Lighter skis and lighter boots (a decade ago everyone was rocking Dynastar XXL or Movement Goliath with alpine boots. Now it's more likely to be a Rustler 10 plus shifts and Tecnica Zero-G).
Free-touring (.... a horrible marketing term) more in fashion than slaying resort on heavy / charging kit.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Yeah, I only want to be on my 125mm skis in fresh snow or freshly tracked snow. In other conditions sub 110 is a better tool.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Quote:
There is only a handful of pow days in an alpine season that truly justify a 120mm wide ski.
Amen to that!
Not sure what I am doing wrong but I am actually very happy tootling around in every kind of snow (except chin deep blower, which I can't remember seeing anywhere around here for years) on my Völkl Kendo 88s.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Quote:
There is only a handful of pow days in an alpine season that truly justify a 120mm wide ski.
To an extent. Wider skis will dramatically improve marginal fresh snow and anything with a crust. 10 cm on my wider skis feels deeper and is more fun than on narrower skis as you don't bottom out in the same way. They are much worse in other conditions and much harder to use once things are tracked. If I had only one pair for off piste they would be c.100mm.
I agree with your points re hybrid touring gear. That said, I haven't skied in two years and am mainly on skinny AM skis now shepherding small children.
Oh interesting... Dunno what I saw that made me think that. Thanks!
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Haggis_Trap wrote:
Versatility.
My general perception is that skiers are tending back to slightly narrower skis (95-105mm vs 110-120mm). Very few can ski like Jeremy Heitz (almost all the FWT were junior racers to high level). There is only a handful of pow days in an alpine season that truly justify a 120mm wide ski.
My most recent trip was a Heli trip in Canada, where the snow definitely did justify a wide ski, though noticeably since I was last there the skis the heli operator provided were also generally narrower...
I also have my Candides as a "general European soft snow" ski, but my Genomes (or more specifically the bindings) are on their last legs, so I'm debating if something a little wider than the Candides would be enough ski for my occasional silly powder chasing trips, whilst also replacing the Candides, which I haven't really bonded with, as a European soft snow ski.
It does seem a little silly to keep the Genomes in the garage for the once every x year trip, but at the same time when I do luck out on the conditions in Europe wishing I had a bit more ski than the Candides.....
Dilemmas....
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Using them in Engelberg last week, the snow was often less than ideal, somewhere between soft but heavy wind-deposited snow, and similar with a breakable crust on top.
Quite honestly, it would have been easier skiing with the Volkls, my fitness and technique probably wasn't up to skiing well in those conditions on the narrower skis. It was knackering most of the time!
In good powder and on-piste the Black Crows were excellent though, and they were much more comfortable on the climb too.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
"Much like the snowboard Market, now more complex profiles are available the overall footprint can be reduced without compromising the float needed in soft snow."
The above is what the market is telling you .....they also know the average punter does a week or two and might get a few days of boottop a season .
Very few are getting more than 20 powder days a season so they buy into marketing
In real deep light powder surface area wins .
What is very very helpful is the few brands that state surface area squared .
Most wont do this they dont want you knowing what works so they can churn new gear every season .
Last edited by So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much on Mon 17-01-22 11:51; edited 1 time in total
The guy I’m skiing with is a 21yo stronger skier than me on Helio 105’s. I’m sure I had an easier ride down than him.
The Kaestle’s are stiffer than the DPS but I just find them harder work in any off piste situation vs the Lotus 124’s. On piste the Kaestle’s are miles better.
Obviously it’s not just width but construction, rocker etc but IME every time I go wider I enjoy it more.
Interested in the 95-105 skis you guys have liked off piste? I heard good things about Line Sick Day 104 and Fischer Ranger 102 which I’d like to try
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Just a reminder of what the OP was:
flaming wrote:
And with the Genomes coming to the end of their natural life, and to be honest a need to rationalise the quiver a bit, should I be happy with something about 115ish as my deep snow specific ski? Can such a ski ever be as playful, as easy to slarve on as the Genomes in soft snow? I'd be really loathe to lose that fun from my pow skiing. And if I had a ski of that sort of size, would I really also need my Faction 3.0s?
Or is a 120+mm ski still the go to for pow days if you can justify it?
100mm skis just do not float, surf and slarve like 120mm skis, it really is that simple. That obviously doesn't mean anyone NEEDS 120mm skis to ski powder regardless of where one is based in the world, but skiing deep powder on even 100mm skis leaves as wide a performance envelope on the table as does skiing 100mm skis on piste compared to slalom skis. And in case it needs stating, of course skiing on 100mm skis is great fun both on piste and in deep powder, regardless of how much performance would be available on other skis.
gorilla wrote:
Quote:
There is only a handful of pow days in an alpine season that truly justify a 120mm wide ski.
Wider skis will dramatically improve marginal fresh snow and anything with a crust. 10 cm on my wider skis feels deeper and is more fun than on narrower skis as you don't bottom out in the same way.
Yep. This has been pointed out a million times on here too, but it seems the idea that you need 1m of Japow style snow before fat skis are fun will never die!
I think the idea that the Alps so rarely get deep powder (which is often stated on here) is wrong too; the fact that it's rare to regularly ski deep powder if you only ski a couple of weeks a year and have to book in advance is not the same thing!
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
clarky999 wrote:
100mm skis just do not float, surf and slarve like 120mm skis, it really is that simple. That obviously doesn't mean anyone NEEDS 120mm skis to ski powder regardless of where one is based in the world, but skiing deep powder on even 100mm skis leaves as wide a performance envelope on the table as does skiing 100mm skis on piste compared to slalom skis. And in case it needs stating, of course skiing on 100mm skis is great fun both on piste and in deep powder, regardless of how much performance would be available on other skis.
If were are talking proper bottomless blower-powder then its true that a 120mm ski will float better (no-one has denied that).
However the alps get a handful of days like that in a season.
My personal experience / preference / opinion is that a ~100-105mm (ish) is far more versatile across a variety of conditions likely to be encountered.
That seems to be the way skiing is going - if you like skiing soft-snow / pow then more and more people are touring for it (rather than skiing it off the lifts).
Hence the trend to lighter and narrower kit.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Haggis_Trap wrote:
clarky999 wrote:
100mm skis just do not float, surf and slarve like 120mm skis, it really is that simple. That obviously doesn't mean anyone NEEDS 120mm skis to ski powder regardless of where one is based in the world, but skiing deep powder on even 100mm skis leaves as wide a performance envelope on the table as does skiing 100mm skis on piste compared to slalom skis. And in case it needs stating, of course skiing on 100mm skis is great fun both on piste and in deep powder, regardless of how much performance would be available on other skis.
If were are talking proper bottomless blower-powder then its true that a 120mm ski will float better (no-one has denied that).
However the alps get a handful of days like that in a season.
But the point is 1. the question was about days like that; 2. a 120mm ski also floats better on 10cm of blower on crust, 30 cm of wet concrete, etc etc; and 3. I think both Bobinch and I both reckon we get more than a handful of deep cold powder days in our areas of the Alps each season. There were 5 just in the first half of December this season!
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
I think some of us are answering the "what's driving market trends" question and some of us are answering the "is there a use for wide skis outside of really deep powder" question.
Everyone is right about the question they are answering.
I think some of us are answering the "what's driving market trends" question and some of us are answering the "is there a use for wide skis outside of really deep powder" question.
Everyone is right about the question they are answering.
that is correct.
the thread title is "Latest thoughts/ trends in ski width for soft snow".
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Haggis_Trap wrote:
clarky999 wrote:
100mm skis just do not float, surf and slarve like 120mm skis, it really is that simple. That obviously doesn't mean anyone NEEDS 120mm skis to ski powder regardless of where one is based in the world, but skiing deep powder on even 100mm skis leaves as wide a performance envelope on the table as does skiing 100mm skis on piste compared to slalom skis. And in case it needs stating, of course skiing on 100mm skis is great fun both on piste and in deep powder, regardless of how much performance would be available on other skis.
If were are talking proper bottomless blower-powder then its true that a 120mm ski will float better (no-one has denied that).
However the alps get a handful of days like that in a season.
The bottomless powder is a red herring. You can ski the spoons in 20cm of powder and it will be more fun than on any 100mm ski. Of course it’s not versatile if there’s combat skiing, moguls, ice etc to navigate
There are for sure a lot more people putting tech bindings on skis and hence looking for lighter setups but even if lighter skis/boots are improving and can be used as a 1 ski quiver, they still aren’t a match for a proper freeride setup.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I was just rummaging through my skis just now digging out my 88 Superguides for a potential rock-hopping tour tomorrow and thought of this thread as I saw my K2 Coombacks at the back of the garage, which I have not used for three or so years, but that's probably as I'm always on a touring set-up even though with the Coombacks I did a fair bit of touring as I have Dynafiddles mounted, but the skins weighed a ton along with the skis, so I just ended up skiing other set-ups.
But they are such a beautiful ski
Two trips to Japan and one to Siberia and I never felt I needed more than 108 underneath and I encountered on all trips classic conditions, in fact I'd go as far to say if you do encounter true smoking cold powder that is light as talcum powder leaving the crystals hanging in the air, then you can get away with just about any wide ski
This shot was taken whilst touring in Val Maira after a Retour Est, my friendly guide was skiing in Abries, Queyras that day, and he said that was better than anything he'd skied in Japan, but it does prove the point that it's very rare to get Folleti Fairy Dust.
And guess the width?
After all it is free
After all it is free
BobinCH wrote:
The bottomless powder is a red herring. You can ski the spoons in 20cm of powder and it will be more fun than on any 100mm ski. Of course it’s not versatile if there’s combat skiing, moguls, ice etc to navigate
BobinCH wrote:
There are for sure a lot more people putting tech bindings on skis and hence looking for lighter setups but even if lighter skis/boots are improving and can be used as a 1 ski quiver, they still aren’t a match for a proper freeride setup.
Each to their own...
I have skied enough in alps (multiple seasons / month long trips) to know that most of the time I find 100mm more fun most of the time.
For sure : 120mm skis are great in powder.
However they are also absolutely misery on piste, bumps, ice, steeps, skinning <etc>
My simple theory is that a ski wider than your foot (~100mm) simply cant grip on its edges properly.
I would rather a more versatile tool.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Weathercam wrote:
Two trips to Japan and one to Siberia and I never felt I needed more than 108 underneath and I encountered on all trips classic conditions
That was my experience of Japan. Visited for honeymoon in 2013.
Literally didn't stop snowing for a week - as deep as I have ever seen it in alps.
- 108mm (188cm k2 sidestash) was more than enough.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
I don't know how exhaustive their database is, but the number of skis on skipass.com with a 125+mm waist looks to be on a downward trend:
Back in 2013 if you wanted a 125+mm ski you had 33 to choose from! You know it was a rad time when you could be on a pair of 141mm CoreUPT Watch Outs and get put in the shade (literally) by someone with some 177mm Monstre Fats.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
