Originally Posted by beyond
Originally Posted by Tog
Well that's refreshing. Someone with an 87mm ski that's almost too easy in 2ft of powder. Instead of "the 110 was diving and got bogged down. Should i go 123 or look for more rocker, a 5 point tip, more taper?"
(You might like those too^)
Powder skis used to be defined more about sidecut (less) and flex (more) than about width. Anyone recall the late lamented Volkl Sanouk? It's 110 waist would qualify as mid-fat nowadays. But not sure there's ever been a better pure powder ski, excepting maybe the Toon. Or we could think about Pocket Rockets, and how they felt in rolling powder covered bumps.
well go back to the Snow Ranger. That's practically a front side width ski now.
What you're talking about might be true when skis were mostly the same width. Straight. Use a softer ski for powder.
The first requirement for a powder ski is waist width for flotation. There's no way around that. Flex is all over the map but generally softer obvioosly then a frontside ski.
For a while all the serious bros wanted huge stiff skis to straightline Snowbird and Alaska even if they never went there.