 Poster: A snowHead
|
I’m buying a set of wide skis for powder days, currently looking at faction and black crows. Widths seem to go up to 113, which seems a lot. From your experiences, how wide becomes too wide in soft snow?
Similarly, how wide becomes unusable in anything other than fresh snow?
Thanks heads!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Until 2020 my narrowest ski was 112, when I bought some 100mm touring skis. My other skis are 120, 124, 138 and 148
There is much more to a ski than its waist measurement. Wider skis usually have more tip/tail rocker, or can be full reverse rocker. For example my 190cm 148mm skis are full reverse rocker, so have an effective running edge on hard snow of about 40cm. They are an extreme example, as the features that make them amazing in deep snow, compromise them on hard pack, but I’m really only interested in powder snow performance, so don’t really care 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I have the DPS Spoons from that list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| PowderAdict wrote: |
Until 2020 my narrowest ski was 112, when I bought some 100mm touring skis. My other skis are 120, 124, 138 and 148
There is much more to a ski than its waist measurement. Wider skis usually have more tip/tail rocker, or can be full reverse rocker. For example my 190cm 148mm skis are full reverse rocker, so have an effective running edge on hard snow of about 40cm. They are an extreme example, as the features that make them amazing in deep snow, compromise them on hard pack, but I’m really only interested in powder snow performance, so don’t really care |
Genuine question:
How much skiing do you do and how often do you get to ski deep powder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@albertosaurus, there are tons of other variables. If you’re mostly skiing in Europe, I think much over 105mm risks being too difficult in hard conditions. In the western US groomed snow often stays edgable for longer so I know people who ski 120mm skis every day. Before anyone jumps on me, I’m not saying that 105mm skis are perfect in all conditions. They won’t carve like a race ski. However, a reasonably stout 105mm ski will hold an edge on steepish hard pack if the driver has a reasonable level of skill
As to too wide in soft conditions, that’s totally a matter of taste and what sensations you are looking for when skiing soft snow. Some people like to be more in the snow; others want to skim along the surface
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realise that I'm way out of date with my 122mm-waist Salomon Rocker 2s, from eight or nine years ago, but they still tick all my boxes.
So I don't really get this "too wide" question. Yes, they're not as good on hard piste as my race skis, but I'll happily use them all day, even for teaching, if there's an opportunity to drop into the pow for an hour or two, and have never really felt over-compromised when doing so.
Yes, of course my race skis are better on hard pistes, they will carve more precisely at higher speeds with less effort, and will hold an edge on real ice that would have the fats skidding all over the place, but it's simply a case of adapting your skiing to what you're using on the day.
Anyway, on a related note, I do need to replace the Salomon and it seems that most manufacturers have moved away from the very fat models, with most going up to only around 108mm. Are these actually wide enough or should I go for one of the true fat ones mentioned by @albertosaurus ?
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Wed 26-10-22 9:54; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@albertosaurus, you presumably have access to other skis, do you have something all mountainy for days that will be mostly on firmish terrain but you don't want a full on piste ski? If so, no real reason not go really big, FYI my 'big' skis are 108mm underfoot and if it wasn't for the stress that they put on my knees if used too much on hardpack I would use them all the time apart from when conditions are icy
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Top tip - when it's too fat to fit in the hole.
By that I mean the slot on the ski rack that is usually affixed to the outside of the ski lift - if you happen to bring them into the gondola with you and whack someone in the face- stay serious and respond to them with "it's just the tip mate" - it mostly diffuses the situation with laughter - every now and then though it doesn't work so well 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I reckon around ~120mm is the ideal spot for a powder day ski these days. The super fat skis (I have a pair of 135mm but haven't skied them for a couple of years now) DO provide a different level of float and a different sensation, but they really need untracked snow (not a lot of snow, 20cm is fine, as long as it's untracked) to be fun, so in most places are only really good for the first couple of hours on a powder day.
~120mm skis give most of the float and surf but are fun all day and still a riot to charge through the sort of fresh chop, powdery bumps and soft pistes you get at 4pm in most resorts on a powder day.
Much below 110mm you noticeably start to lose float and the surfy feel; less so on bluebird days in the alpine at higher speeds and with room to move, but it does make a difference on those delicious storm days in the trees. And on days with less fresh snow you start feeling the base under the fresh sooner too.
| albertosaurus wrote: |
| I’m buying a set of wide skis for powder days, currently looking at faction and black crows. Widths seem to go up to 113, which seems a lot. |
Both of those brands have wider skis than 113mm - BC's powder ski is the Nocta at 122mm, and Faction have the Machine 5 at 126mm. Personally from those I'd probably pick the Nocta... The shape, especially the rocker profile, just speaks to me more (especially for storm day tree skiing).
But tbh if I were buying for myself rn I'd most likely get the Völkl 121 or Atomic Bentchetler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
From those who've skied it, another thumbs up for the Bentchetler
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bergmeister wrote: |
| PowderAdict wrote: |
Until 2020 my narrowest ski was 112, when I bought some 100mm touring skis. My other skis are 120, 124, 138 and 148
There is much more to a ski than its waist measurement. Wider skis usually have more tip/tail rocker, or can be full reverse rocker. For example my 190cm 148mm skis are full reverse rocker, so have an effective running edge on hard snow of about 40cm. They are an extreme example, as the features that make them amazing in deep snow, compromise them on hard pack, but I’m really only interested in powder snow performance, so don’t really care |
Genuine question:
How much skiing do you do and how often do you get to ski deep powder? |
I typically skied 5-6 weeks pre-pandemic, I skied in Japan for 5 years in a row, and before that 5 years in BC, and every year in Switzerland for 30+ years. There is nowhere near as much deep powder as there used to be (and 20cm new snow, isn’t powder skiing in my book). I now tour when there is no lift served powder, and I have skinned on all of the above skis, even the 148’s (there is photo evidence on this forum).
I’m a slightly different case to most as I have a club left foot (left leg 1" shorter below the knee), so on piste I ski mainly on my right leg, and I plateaued around class 4 in ski school. Then one day during I private lesson, we went into slope side powder and my skiing objectives changed forever. I could instantly ski in a more balanced manner, as edge pressure no longer mattered as much. I believe that if I hadn’t discovered off-piste and powder skiing, I would have given up skiing. I’ll happily ‘suffer’ being on the ‘wrong’ ski for 90% of the day, for the 10% when they are exceptional. The few who have tried my DPS Spoons in powder conditions, have wanted to keep them
I the early ‘powder’ days I was on typical 60-66mm skis, so I rented some then huge Head Monster 88’s, which were a revelation , the next year I rented some 101mm K2 Coombacks, then the following year bought a pair of Line Sir Frances Bacon’s, which were 115mm, and my first rockered skis. Following my first trip to BC I discovered DPS skis, and haven’t looked back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| PowderAdict wrote: |
| Bergmeister wrote: |
| PowderAdict wrote: |
Until 2020 my narrowest ski was 112, when I bought some 100mm touring skis. My other skis are 120, 124, 138 and 148
There is much more to a ski than its waist measurement. Wider skis usually have more tip/tail rocker, or can be full reverse rocker. For example my 190cm 148mm skis are full reverse rocker, so have an effective running edge on hard snow of about 40cm. They are an extreme example, as the features that make them amazing in deep snow, compromise them on hard pack, but I’m really only interested in powder snow performance, so don’t really care |
Genuine question:
How much skiing do you do and how often do you get to ski deep powder? |
I typically skied 5-6 weeks pre-pandemic, I skied in Japan for 5 years in a row, and before that 5 years in BC, and every year in Switzerland for 30+ years. There is nowhere near as much deep powder as there used to be (and 20cm new snow, isn’t powder skiing in my book). I now tour when there is no lift served powder, and I have skinned on all of the above skis, even the 148’s (there is photo evidence on this forum).
I’m a slightly different case to most as I have a club left foot (left leg 1" shorter below the knee), so on piste I ski mainly on my right leg, and I plateaued around class 4 in ski school. Then one day during I private lesson, we went into slope side powder and my skiing objectives changed forever. I could instantly ski in a more balanced manner, as edge pressure no longer mattered as much. I believe that if I hadn’t discovered off-piste and powder skiing, I would have given up skiing. I’ll happily ‘suffer’ being on the ‘wrong’ ski for 90% of the day, for the 10% when they are exceptional. The few who have tried my DPS Spoons in powder conditions, have wanted to keep them
I the early ‘powder’ days I was on typical 60-66mm skis, so I rented some then huge Head Monster 88’s, which were a revelation , the next year I rented some 101mm K2 Coombacks, then the following year bought a pair of Line Sir Frances Bacon’s, which were 115mm, and my first rockered skis. Following my first trip to BC I discovered DPS skis, and haven’t looked back. |
The depth of the powder is related to the width of the ski 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I'm on 96mm underfoot for an all mountain ski and its fine for all but the deepest days. I do still have some SideSeth from 2013 knocking around at 118mm which are still awesome when conditions are right, my old knees do struggle with anything over 100 as an all day / all mountain ski these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
I’m a slightly different case to most as I have a club left foot (left leg 1" shorter below the knee), so on piste I ski mainly on my right leg
|
Have you looked into getting a plate on the bottom of the boot on your short leg ? an instructor friend has a similar level of leg length discrepancy and he skis very well (L4 instructor)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
One thing that always bugs me when people discuss ski width is that length is never mentioned. I see a lot of people skiing very wide, but too short, "powder" skis for their weight.. If you are after float in deep snow and don't want to sacrifice on piste performance go as long as you can get, this will get you a lot more float than a bit of width.
For instance if you have a 107mm wide ski at 1890mm long to have the same surface area in the shortest 1750 long version of the same ski it would need to be 141mm wide to have roughly the same surface area. The 1820 would need to be 122 wide...
I would much rather ski a longer but narrower ski all day long, better for aft stability and quicker edge to edge on piste. Some like skiing spoons that you can make slash turns with but worth thinking of a bit longer instead of wider.
Too wide a ski and your knees will suffer...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| One thing that always bugs me when people discuss ski width is that length is never mentioned. |
I was about to say that fat skis didn't come in shorter sizes, but a quick fact-check shows me that my 192s were also available as short as 180, which I just don't get. Like you I feel that length is at least as important as width.
| skimottaret wrote: |
Too wide a ski and your knees will suffer... |
My knees suffer anyway, but honestly I can't say that they hurt any more after a day on the fat ones than on dedicated (race) piste skis. I think it's more about having enough leg strength, such that you're able to hold the skis straight and flat with your muscles rather than relying on your knees to do it for you.
Yes, I need to do a lot more to engage the edges on a hard piste, but I really don't feel that the additional moment is putting more stress through my knees.
Everyone else's MMV.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Wed 26-10-22 14:52; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
<Duplicate>
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Wed 26-10-22 14:52; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
One thing that always bugs me when people discuss ski width is that length is never mentioned. I see a lot of people skiing very wide, but too short, "powder" skis for their weight.. If you are after float in deep snow and don't want to sacrifice on piste performance go as long as you can get, this will get you a lot more float than a bit of width.
For instance if you have a 107mm wide ski at 1890mm long to have the same surface area in the shortest 1750 long version of the same ski it would need to be 141mm wide to have roughly the same surface area. The 1820 would need to be 122 wide... |
I generally agree many people ski (on all categories of) skis that are too short, but disagree that more length really compensates for reduced width. How the surface area is placed and used is as (or more) important as amount of surface area, and very very few narrower skis are shaped to maximise powder performance. Also IME while a longer ski definitely helps stability at speed and to ski with a more aggressive style in powder without worrying about tip dive (even with rockered skis), width underfoot is still the main cause of the surfy feel* (followed by rocker profile, then flex, then sidecut) and is also what allows the reduced width at tip and tail in pure powder designs. There's so much more going on in how the ski interacts with the snow than just 'how much surface area do I need to avoid sinking', especially when different slope angles, speeds and snow densities come into play.
*If that's what one wants. If people prefer to also ski powder with a more 'technical' style that's cool too.
(Sidenote: it's really nice to see discussions about skis and skiing on here again recently!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I think we can all agree that width underfoot is just one piece of the puzzle - length, sidecut, flex etc all play a part
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is where I bring in my (bonkers) "Flotation Factor"...
Ski Length (cm) x Ski Width (mm) and divide by Weight (kg)
Look for a figure of 250 plus. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Old Fartbag, Not really that bonkers, TBH. Change the cm to mm and you get a perfectly acceptable, and really quite sensible, derived SI unit. My fats come it at 27.5 sq mm per kg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| @Old Fartbag, Not really that bonkers, TBH. Change the cm to mm and you get a perfectly acceptable, and really quite sensible, derived SI unit. My fats come it at 27.5 sq mm per kg. |
What is their Flotation Factor based on my formula (which I plagiarized from elsewhere)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@clarky999, I wasn't so much saying a long piste focused ski will be better than a fat short Off Piste ski but rather if you want an off piste focussed ski that will get occasional on piste use which for most people is the case you are better to go longer.
Most All Mountain or Off Piste skis now come in a range of widths and lengths. My example was Atomic Backlands. I would MUCH rather have the longest middle width ski as it will be more versatile than the fattest version but in a size shorter. They come in 117, 107 and 100 wide and pretty much similar sidecuts but if you go down a length and go wider you will have less float and be less versatile on piste or in crud.
* agreed nice to be talking skiing not politics or whatever.. just about gave up on this site
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
but honestly I can't say that they hurt any more after a day on the fat ones than on dedicated (race) piste skis
|
@Chaletbeauroc Your knees must be in pretty good knick , lucky you !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| albertosaurus wrote: |
I’m buying a set of wide skis for powder days, currently looking at faction and black crows. Widths seem to go up to 113, which seems a lot. From your experiences, how wide becomes too wide in soft snow?
Similarly, how wide becomes unusable in anything other than fresh snow?
Thanks heads! |
Depends how you ski. I have a K2 all mountain ski 85 underfoot, and a Volkl mantra 102 for off piste in Europe. I can ski either in powder but it's much harder with the narrower ski. Similarly the fatter ski is hard work on very icy pistes, but I just adjust my style for that, and often just avoid ice and pistes anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
The Floation Factor explains why my son on his 65mm wide moguls skis is better off-piste than me on my Bent Chetlers.
That's my excuses sorted for next winter already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Seriously though for how many (Euro holiday) peeps is proper powder an issue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| @Old Fartbag, Not really that bonkers, TBH. Change the cm to mm and you get a perfectly acceptable, and really quite sensible, derived SI unit. My fats come it at 27.5 sq mm per kg. |
What is their Flotation Factor based on my formula (which I plagiarized from elsewhere)? |
It's just a factor of ten, so 275. I was suggesting that simply switching the units made it sound much less 'bonkers' and more scientific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have the 125mm Volkl Sumo and they are awesome in powder but a complete disaster the rest of the time... probably too wide for most people but nice to have in the quiver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I think "floatation" isn't a great word here. You're not floating, you're planing. And who needs to float, exactly? In snowboards at least, there's no reason you want to be "on top" of the snow at any point, particularly, it's just not relevant. The more of that base you have in the white stuff, the more control surface you have. I think. Snowboards are definitely different though - rocker specifically is much less popular in modern snowboards than skis, and I think it works much better for skiers than snowboarders.
Back when all powder boards were big, the surface area of a powder board made it ungainly on hardpack. As board designs have improved (and become smaller), it's just now become possible for me to find a board which works well in a snowdome all the way to over the head powder. This coming season will be the first I don't carry two boards everywhere. I don't know if skis are in that place or not.
My current favourite board runs at 270 or so on your "floatation factor", if I divide by two as you're measuring one ski. Most powder novices would not feel happy on that board and would opt for more area and less tail... and a bigger number. Looking at images, I think they mostly ride higher in the snow, but it's hard to compare like with like. I don't really see, in light dry powder, why it makes much difference, but bigger boards are easier for novices in open terrain at least. I think the trade is manoeuvrability versus stability/ acceleration. Not sure how that works in skis.
--
There's also a vast difference between 30cm of fresh snow on a pisted base and the same amount of snow in the back country... one snowboard can do both, but they feel different and most holiday skiers will be more used to the first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@phil_w, You are most probably correct. However...
What I am describing, is having enough surface area to allow the skis to float up to the surface - where they can then plane ie. There is no planing, without The Float. Straight skis didn't have enough "Float", so remained "In" the snow.
"Floatation Factor" is really a bit of fun - and is the only attempt I know of to put a figure on a ski's ability to rise up to the surface. It is simplistic, as it doesn't take into account certain important design features - and speed. However, it does show the big impact of a skier's weight.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Thu 27-10-22 10:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
so in any kind of a normal width, say 110mm, I need 230cm skis...
