school me on Skin width

If you haven't already, you may want to ask this question on that other forum... ;-)

Ideally skins are cut to the shape of the ski for the best grip, but it sounds like you already know that.  I did not see the dimensions of the DPS on your link.  With that said, the 115mm G3's should do the job in most conditions.  If they are brand new, you may consider selling them & getting the wider skins.

 

Maybe Bob Lee or Mudfoot will chime in, otherwise maybe send them a PM.

 

JF

Much is made of wall-to-wall.  But a straight skin that is 5 mm less than waist width is actually ideal; the more sidecut of the ski, the better the straight skin.  Straight skins track better than shaped skins.  The main traction of the skin is underfoot to the fore and aft major contact points.  Now, I don't go to any length to have straight skins.  Because I prefer G3 skins, first and foremost I want to ensure the clips will work on my shovel.  I don't even worry about length that much.  So, IMHO, make sure your tip attachment will work well.  Then get skins/cut skins so that width is 5 mm less than waist.  I used to forego tail attachment, but that put too much tear and wear on my spring-summer-fall gloves, so now I use the tail attachment too.  Remember, the best route up is rarely the steepest that skis can climb.  Match your up track to the terrain and avalanche danger.  Rarely is skin grip the determinant.

115 are fine choice. Don't sweat it. Wall to wall is over rated. 

tl:dr.  But the rule of thumb that I use is to get skins the closest to the width of your tail.  Most of the traction is in the back half of the ski so that's where you want the wall-to-wall - doesn't matter so much in the front.  That will also save a little weight and maybe some $$.  A few mm one way or the other won't make any difference.  

I use 115mm skins on my 112s. I already had them laying around and didn't feel like spending the extra money. You will be fine.

One thing you'll like is that little G3 trimmer that presumably came with your skins. In the middle, you'll be shaving maybe 4 mm a side. That trimmer is gonna make it a lot easier than eyeballing it...

 

Thanks - that's a good tip.

Also worth noting - the grip from tail thing becomes way less true the more tail rocker you have. Skin a Lotus 138  or a Praxis Powder Board or anything else of that genre and that'll become obvious pretty quick...Even more shaped skis with tail rocker grip way more in the center.

Hmm, probably a good point. I've never skinned on a ski with tail rocker.

So if you're putting a skin on a twin-tip, for example, just worry about the width underfoot and forget about the rest pretty much?

I'd still go with my ROT. Isn't the widest part of the tail still a contact point on most twin tips? That's the case on my Nomads.

I think the 115 should be fine. Spend the money you saved on a good set of liners.

 

Yeah - lots of twins have the camber terminate pretty near the tips. Like Nomads.  I was talking about meaningful tail rocker, especially if combined with early taper. Which is almost everything I ski... That includes some twins. But as already noted, not all by any means.

 

I don't know for sure, but I suppose that would make sense.  So on a ski that was 143 - 116 - 134 and a twin-tip you'd go for a 130 skin vs. 115 then?

Yeah, though I think a 125 (BD STS) would work well too. You'd have about 5mm of exposed ski on each side of the skin at the tail, which is nothing.

OTOH, a 115 would work, but I'd opt for the better coverage and traction of the larger skin. That's just me. The problems with narrower skins start when you go sidehill on harder snow. And you can go steeper easier with the wider skins (more skin, less smooth base) but that doesn't matter to a lot of people. So if you can live with the limitations, or even not be affected by them, then go with the 115.