or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › "82 mm skis should be good enough for a foot of snow"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# "82 mm skis should be good enough for a foot of snow"

Folks thinking about making their first purchase of a wider than normal ski repeatedly make statements such as, "I expect that this 82 mm wide ski should be 'good enough' for foot deep snow".

The problem with this expectation is that soft snow skiing is a lot like water skiing. Specifically, for a given speed, you and your skis won't start lifting you up unless the upward force that the snow exerts on your skis exceeds your weight. So, a 200 lb guy going 25 mph may get 150 lbs of upward force from 70 mm wide skis, and his skis won't lift off of the hardpack base.

Assuming the lift force is proportional to area of the skis, on a pair of 90 mm wide skis (same speed, same angles, etc.), his skis will be generating 192 lbs of upward force and hence, they will still be sitting on the hard base under the soft new snow. However, as soon as he gets on a pair of 95 mm or wider boards, they will generate 203 lbs (or more) of upward force, and his skis will be able to lift off of the base layer and rise through the soft layer.

Thus, this skier will hardly see any change in float from 70 mm to 90 mm wide, then, all of a sudden, at 95 mm, he will start to experience a change in sensation and mode of skiing. This is precisely why many folks (particularly, those over, say 180 lbs) feel that mid-fats are "Jack of all trades, master of none", and why I object to the statement that mid-width skis are "good enough" for a foot of snow. If they really are "good enough" (ie, wide enough at your weight) to float in a foot of snow, they will float in a meter of snow.

This is also why many folks advocate bypassing the mid-fats and going directly to fats. It is also why lighter weight folks get enough float out of mid-80's skis and like them. To them, mid-80's are "fat" skis (at least in their behavior, if not actual width).

Now, obviously, the above description is a simplification. Skiers don't all travel at precisely one speed, and snow compacts, so new snow just above the hardpacked base will be more dense than snow near the surface, particularly if it has aged for a bit. This means that for real skiers in such snow, the transition from not-floating to floating will not be as abrupt as I described above. It will be more gradual with respect to changes in width, speed, and other variables, so mid-fats will actually float a bit better than 70 mm wide skis, just not as much as most skiers seem to believe.

Tom / PM
Nice analysis. Physics made understandable. Whodathinkit?
I understand your objection; consider the upper edge of the float vs. speed envelope, and whether a meter of snow is more of a limit to speed than 20cm of snow.

The other argument for a midfat has to do with the whipped cream/turkey threads and whether that enhanced-but-not-off-the-bottom float provides better lateral feedback than mid-70s waist. The third argument relates to over-enthusiastic input and whether a longer time to edge reduces the chance of 'catching one'.
PM, that's fascinating. I, for one, had always thought of it as a linear progression, rather than a process with a "tipping point" as you argue - very logically.
With the speed, it's a bit of a "chicken or egg" situation on lower-angle slopes - you can't get the speed unless you have the flotation, but you can't get the skis planing unless you have the speed.

Physicsman, talking of "carving whipped cream" what do you think of Rossignol's claim that the Mutix ski has a "dynamic radius" of 11m with the "short arms" and 15m with the "long arms"?!
(http://www.skipass.com/guide-matos/s...R11-Mutix.html)

All that is being altered is the flex, so presumably we're talking "snow compression" differences here?
PM, I really like this analysis; great topic!

Q: how does the variation in pressure during a turn effect your analysis? It would seem that, given the "tipping point" model, that there would be a dramatic impact during a turn when the under-foot pressure increases dramatically (for example, for a skier who allows the pressure to build at the end of the turn). How might that impact what that skier will experience with the different skis?
Maybe..then again...maybe not .

I'd say something in the 90-95 mm range would be my choice.
I think you are making a mistake in assuming there is a constant downward force. Your analysis is fine if you never bend your legs or turn.

Skiers work their legs up and down. A big down unweighting motion will let a skinny ski float to the top, a sudden extension and hard turn will make a really fat ski bottom out. The change in amount of unweighting required to float should be pretty linear.

You also use a constant 25mph. Smaller skis simply change the speed needed for your critical lift to be achieved. That change in speed ought to be pretty much linear as well.

I know you recognise all these variabilities. Have you really experienced some non linear difference in skis? I've used skis of every width and have not.
Great stuff, PhysicsMan. I noticed a huge difference in powder between my current midfat, Elan 666, and my old one, Dynastar 8000. The 8000 was a little bit wider, but there was a large disparity in flotation. Somewhere between their size differences must be the tipping point for me.

Now, if you could just provide us with a formula so we can punch in certain numbers -- weight, ski dimensions, typical skiing speed (slower here on East Coast) -- that will enable us to figure out what ski would give us sufficient flotation, that would be awesome!
^^^^^^^^^
What he said!
One variable I didn't see (maybe I missed it) is the density of the snow. I'm no physics whiz, but my experience in dense snow (considerable) compared to light snow is that you get a lot more float when you're skiing mashed potatoes than when you're in cold smoke. The width of ski then can be narrower and you will still get lift.

At least that's the way it feels.
Just a few quick comments … more later:

Several people have brought up (directly or indirectly) the issue of vertical accelerations (eg, up and down unweighting, terrain undulations, etc.).

If you are a heavy guy on narrow skis, going sufficiently slow, and the new layer of snow is sufficiently light, your skis will always be riding on the base unless you execute a major unweighting move. OTOH, if you are on wide skis, and the new layer of snow is sufficiently dense, your skis will always be riding well above the base, unless you make a very strong extension and momentarily force the skis to submerge deeper. In the intermediate range of widths (ie, mid-fats), weight, speeds, g-forces, snow densities, etc., sometimes your skis will be riding on the base layer, other times, above that layer.

One of the reasons I think that I don’t particularly like mid-fats is the uncertainty described in the previous paragraph. I like my skis to be either (almost) always up in the new snow, or (almost) always down and well planted on the base layer. Obviously, it’s not the end of the world when you transition back and forth – you adapt to it – but it doesn’t give you that ultimate feeling of smoothness you get from always having your skis floating in the new snow. Nor does transitioning back and forth give you the consistency of technique you can use when your skis are always riding on the hard underlayer. Put differently, what’s hardly more than a “dust-on-crust” layer to someone on 65 mm wide skis may feel like velvet to another person on 95 mm fats.

Speaking of which, one of the things I most love about fats is this ability to turn 6 inches of fluff over a hard, miserable cut-up base into velvet.

SSH questioned how the effects of centrifugal force enter this discussion. These forces are in the plane of the hill, so neglecting some more complicated effects, they shouldn’t directly cause the skier to rise and fall in the (presumed) layer of new snow. OTOH, they most certainly will cause the skier to push a lot of snow out to the sides of the turns (as described in the old “Carve a Turkey” thread).

Comprex & Martin – For this analysis, I’m not considering the increase in drag when you are more deeply immersed in the new snow layer. It certainly is an important effect, but like all good physicists, I like to learn how to analyze the various physical mechanisms one at a time before I try to combine them.

Martin – I’m going to defer the discussion of the Rossi interchangeable links to some other thread. As you hinted, maybe the old “Carve a Turkey” thread needs to be bumped.

Posaune – you are absolutely correct that the density of snow has a major effect on the lift generated. In fact, for a given speed, angle of attack, ski width, the lift will be almost exactly proportionally to the density of the snow in grams/cc, ie, exactly as you pointed out.

As I pointed out towards the end of my first post, the existence of an abrupt transition is an abstraction for skiers who flex, extend, change speed, go over snow of different densities, etc. and thereby partially blur out the effects of increasing width, but my main point was that most skiers don’t even realize that the effect on float of increasing width can be abrupt. They assume it must be smooth (as mentioned by Martin).

If you want the ultimate example of an abrupt transition to “float”, consider an airplane taking off. Overload a small plane with enough lardy passengers, and it’ll never get off the hard base layer (a.k.a., "the ground"). Put the same well-fed passengers in a plane with more wing area, and it will get off the ground just fine.

Tom / PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by comprex ...The third argument relates to over-enthusiastic input and whether a longer time to edge reduces the chance of 'catching one'.
I don't think this is the reason. On a normal ski edged at 2 degrees, your downhill edge may only be a few mm above the snow, whereas on a fatty, it might be 50% further off the snow. Fewer (mechanically strong) terrain irregularities are of the larger height, and so there are fewer opportunities for the aforesaid mentioned snow snakes to raise their heads and trip up wider skis.

Tom / PM
I prefer to look at it this way. If you're not getting enough float your skiing too slow. Find a steeper slope.
Also any old thing should be good enough for a foot of snow. Heck, you can ski with the snow around your knees. Now if your talking 10 feet of snow, size matters.

Seriously though, the 80 mm ski will float at a lower speed than the 70 mm ski, all other things being equal, and given that we often have to ski pretty low slopes getting to and from the steep stuff, wider skis do have a place.
There sure has been allot of talk about fat Skis here.

I have not seen much reference to ski length. The length and flex pattern of a ski also has a big impact on the ride, along with snow depth and density, The pitch of the hill you are on. The speed you are traveling, how tight your turn shapes are and the condition of the snow under the fresh.

You just have to try different things and find what works best for you.

I have two pairs of skis that are near 100 under foot. For me they are both a vast improvement (FUN FACTOR) over any skis I have had the past 40 years. The feel in powder is much closer to 30 year old 200+cm GS skis than a modern shorter ski with side cut.

For those who are attempting to scientifically justify of dismiss today’s big mountain skis, Just ski some different skis. You might not be impressed? Or you may find nirvana.

BTW Mammoth is still open and there is still snow on the peaks if you want to earn your turns.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhysicsMan I like my skis to be either (almost) always up in the new snow, or (almost) always down and well planted on the base layer. Obviously, it’s not the end of the world when you transition back and forth – you adapt to it – but it doesn’t give you that ultimate feeling of smoothness you get from always having your skis floating in the new snow.
Wow! There's a difference! I don't mind riding the top, and like to carve the bottom, but to me going up and down is the best.

(sexual jokes to follow no doubt)

1) Is it possible that "tip dive" is actually the experience of being on a ski with inadequate lift, rather than stiff shovels, bad mounting positions and the usual explanations? When I demoed the new AC4 in March, the 170 "dove," the 177 floated nicely. Latter should have been stiffer, both had the same mounting position (checked).

2) If I can recall my physics, basic formula for lift on any surface (wing, hull, ski) is:

L=C x 1/2 (Density) x (Velocity)** x Area

Where C is a coeficient of lift associated with angle of attack and surface shape and D is the density of the fluid, snow in this case. Obviously, when L=Mass, you're neutral/floating.

So PM is doing this the right way by holding variables other than area constant for now. A formula for a "sweet size" is fairly situational. Others are right that 1) velocity will increase lift significantly (by the square), but then again, the range of velocities we ski at is small compared to say an aircraft wing; and 2) snow density will influence things, but again, range of densities is fairly small.

Far bigger influence will be drag - especially boots/lower leg - which will require more compensatory lift than formula implies. Wonder why manufacturers don't pay attention to this aspect of boot/pant design. (Think about shape of modern bicycle helmets.) Apparently the marketing guys don't find that many people ski powder.

But what's interesting is C. Ski shovels have an angle of attack built in, like a hull, to inhance low speed lift at the cost of more drag. Angle increases in pow as we speed up, I'd guess (backward deflection). But we also vary the angle of attack by sitting forward or backward. Weight back should increase the angle, enhance low speed lift, just as we experience. (Snowboards are set up to have a higher angle of attack, so even at the same area as two skis, boards should come up out of the pow and turn easier.)

C also includes innate design characteristics of the surface like camber and shape. Camber's weird because it changes as we weight/unweight. What this means, if you think about wings, is that more positive camber (during gliding or up-unweighting) will increase lift (bird wing), while negative camber (middle lower than ends during turns) will decrease lift. Which along with deliberate weight shifts may be some of what we experience when we porpoise. And everyone porpoises, I'd argue. It's just more noticable when you're running down in the pow on mild slopes.

Unclear to me if a running ski in bottomless powder maintains some positive camber. (Obviously runs flat on groomed). I also suspect that a short wide ski will hold camber better than a long narrow ski of the same surface area and stiffness, eg, keep its lift. On the other hand, changes in CM should change angle of attack more in a shorter, wider ski. Which may be why shorter skis feel less stable in pow for many skiers.
Hi Beyond - Interesting thoughts.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by beyond 1) Is it possible that "tip dive" is actually the experience of being on a ski with inadequate lift, rather than stiff shovels, bad mounting positions and the usual explanations? When I demoed the new AC4 in March, the 170 "dove," the 177 floated nicely. Latter should have been stiffer, both had the same mounting position (checked).
I’m sure it’s a factor. Just like the colloquial use of the word, “float”, encompasses many physical phenomena (cf. http://forums.epicski.com/showpost.p...38&postcount=9 , http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=2275 ), many factors contribute to tip dive. If there’s plenty of float you can get away with stiff low tips. If there isn’t much float, you’ll dive easier.

Quote:
 2) If I can recall my physics, basic formula for lift on any surface (wing, hull, ski) is: L=C x 1/2 (Density) x (Velocity)** x Area Where C is a coeficient of lift associated with angle of attack and surface shape and D is the density of the fluid, snow in this case. Obviously, when L=Mass, you're neutral/floating.
The above formula (with an appropriate choice of lift coefficient and exponent) is a very good approximation.

Quote:
 So PM is doing this the right way by holding variables other than area constant for now. A formula for a "sweet size" is fairly situational. Others are right that 1) velocity will increase lift significantly (by the square), but then again, the range of velocities we ski at is small compared to say an aircraft wing; and 2) snow density will influence things, but again, range of densities is fairly small.
I’m not sure I would agree with you about (1) and (2). We ski in powder at velocities ranging almost a stand-still to making fig-11’s straight down the hill. The range of densities also goes over a wide range: cold smoke to slurpee.

Quote:
 Far bigger influence will be drag - especially boots/lower leg - which will require more compensatory lift than formula implies. Wonder why manufacturers don't pay attention to this aspect of boot/pant design. (Think about shape of modern bicycle helmets.) Apparently the marketing guys don't find that many people ski powder.
Boot drag doesn’t directly influence lift because the two forces are at right angles to each other. If you keep your skis at a specified angle of attack, your skies and lower legs will generate the same amount of lift whether your boots are clunky or streamlined, so long as you can maintain the same speed.

Obviously, clunky boots will slow you down, but, in my experience, a much bigger factor is the drag caused either by the skier’s body, or by skis intentionally put at large angles of attack by someone who is worried about keeping afloat. This usually happens to folks on skinny skis when they hit the runout at the bottom of the hill on a megapowder day. They start slowing down and sinking, so they sit back to increase the angle of attack and lift. Unfortunately, this also dramatically increases their drag, so they start slowing down even faster, eventually leading to a stall and the skier finds himself floundering around on his back, tips up in the air.

In such a deep-pow situation, keeping centered and maintaining a low angle of attack doesn’t help either because as you slow down, you sink, and at the point when the snow is about waist height, there is so much frontal drag from your body, you’ll again come to a stop, except this time you will be stuck in the snow vertically, instead of laying on your back.

Quote:
 C also includes innate design characteristics of the surface like camber and shape. Camber's weird because it changes as we weight/unweight. What this means, if you think about wings, is that more positive camber (during gliding or up-unweighting) will increase lift (bird wing), while negative camber (middle lower than ends during turns) will decrease lift. Which along with deliberate weight shifts may be some of what we experience when we porpoise. And everyone porpoises, I'd argue. It's just more noticable when you're running down in the pow on mild slopes.
The analogy to a bird wing is not the best. Camber changes in a ski are fractionally fairly small. They will cause the angle of attack at the front of the ski to differ from that at the rear of the ski, but won’t make a direct change on the average angle of attack (ie, averaged from tip to tail of the ski). Thus, normal camber contributes to tip dive, while reverse camber (ie, Spats) helps dramatically in avoiding it, but neither changes the overall float very much. The main effect on float will come from the overall, average angle of attack, even if it is very small, only a couple of degrees.

Quote:
 Unclear to me if a running ski in bottomless powder maintains some positive camber. (Obviously runs flat on groomed). I also suspect that a short wide ski will hold camber better than a long narrow ski of the same surface area and stiffness, eg, keep its lift. On the other hand, changes in CM should change angle of attack more in a shorter, wider ski. Which may be why shorter skis feel less stable in pow for many skiers.
Skis in bottomless powder will almost always be in reverse camber (assuming no unweighting moves are going on). To check this, just put your skis on a mattress and stand on them. Just don’t let your wife/GF/mother catch you.

Cheers,

Tom / PM
PM, thanks for the lookover. My physics is pretty rusty. Agree with your caveats. Except:

For drag, understand it's at right angles, but what I meant was that drag will reduce velocity, which will decrease total calculated lift. Is this incorrect? On the other hand, I may be wrong for another reason - the shovel may create enough divergence in fluid path that the binding/boot is in a little pocket.

Hmm. This also makes me wonder about turbulence and flip tails. Everyone likes twin tips for pow, but I know they will tend to reduce attack angle, which is why Prior and others have developed pintail designs. So is their popularity just about easier turns? Does the roostertail they throw perform strange acts when it's under the surface?

Sure beats working...
A great thread - and a high-powered geek-fest.

The observations here appear credible and comprehensible, even to us non-geeks.

However, I must say that my 84 mm Atomic M:EX's provide substantial float in deep snow, even for my 6'1" 200 lb body. They allow me to surf in snow that would compress under my 74 mm Metron B:5's.

Hence, 84 mm does make a significant, subjective difference for me.

When I go to my 99 mm Sugar Daddy's, it's admittedly a different world - oodles of float. But, for most days, the 84 mm M:EX's acquit themselves well.
A foot of snow! My 78s make a foot of snow seem like a foot and a half when compaired to a fat boy. A mid fat is not the same as, say a Metron. A mid fat gives more balance and support under foot. The buoyancy that you get is spread more evenly.

Who says you have to float in a foot. I like to feel the snow and to be in it. The deeper the snow, the more you need to float. I'm old school and used to ski skinny skis and have fun. 78 has been fine but I would like 82 plus in powder (a foot) as a next step.

So for me, something under foot is important.
I understand why a good carving ski will be narrow and why a good powder ski will be wide, but I'm not sure that either would be effective in variable conditions.

A good hard snow ski performs well if it provides good turn initiation, is quick edge-to-edge and has grip in ice. A ski built for hard snow can have a stiffer flex, more camber and a more aggressive tip shape which help with turn initiation, but also will promote tip dive in deep snow. A narrow ski will always be quicker edge-to-edge since the edge change is easier & faster. Narrow skis have lower torsion forces applied since less leverage is available; also a narrow ski can be made more torsionally rigid than a wide ski. A torsionnally rigid ski contributes to edge grip.

A wide ski will provide float, as this thread has discussed.

However, every skier needs versatility. My Fischer Worldcup RC (112-66-97mm) is an awesome performer on ice and manmade snow, however it is not versatile. It will dive like a u-boat in truly deep snow and requires constant effort in boot-top deep conditions. The RX8 (115-66-98mm) is much better in boot-top conditions and does not have the same degree of tip-dive as the WC RC. I contribute this to differences in flex, camber and a slightly wider tip on the RX8. The Dynastar Intuitive 74 (113-74-99mm) is another step towards versatility in crud a boot-top snow. This ski has a straighter sidecut that reduces deflection and a hull shaped tip that reduces tip dive. The Salomon Supermountain (110-78-100mm) has ski has even less sidecut that reduces deflection completely and a long gradually shaped tip that reduces tip dive to almost zero.

None of the above skis provide float for a 200 pound-er, but all (except the RC) are versatile enough for lift served powder under a skilled skier.

If I owned just two skis, one for hard snow ski (think Worldcup RC) and another for float (think Gotoma), I would be struggling to use either on a typical weekend day at Snowbird.

Cheers,

Michael
I agree with Barrettscv; surface area alone does not make a better deep-powder ski. I remember weighing 145 lbs skiing my 208 SGs that have a waist width of 68. You would think the length would have compensated for the narrowness, but they got bogged down on shallow slopes where you couldn't keep the speed up, even going straight. A softer flex is very important for deep soft snow.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by barrettscv If I owned just two skis, one for hard snow ski (think Worldcup RC) and another for float (think Gotoma), I would be struggling to use either on a typical weekend day at Snowbird.
I agree about the need for versatility, but the performance envelope of modern fats is so wide that many *very* good skiers (e.g., the maggots at the recent Mammoth gathering) are quite happy staying on their fats on a bluebird day.

.

Tom / PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ghost I agree with Barrettscv; surface area alone does not make a better deep-powder ski. I remember weighing 145 lbs skiing my 208 SGs that have a waist width of 68. You would think the length would have compensated for the narrowness, but they got bogged down on shallow slopes where you couldn't keep the speed up, even going straight. A softer flex is very important for deep soft snow.
Hi Ghost – Your experience on old 208’s matches mine. The first time I ever went to LCC was about 1975. I was on 207-ish Volkl Zebras and weighed a lot less than I do now. Some serious storms hit ( …maybe 5 ft in 2 days) and when they let us back out of the lodge, I got bogged down on the runouts just like you.

What I don’t agree with is your expectation that “length would have compensated for the narrowness”. If you stick the numbers for an old 208 cm Volkl Zebra ( 88/68/78) and the numbers for a 180 Explosiv ( 123/95/113) into my spreadsheet, I come up with areas of ~ 1520 and 1850 sq. cm., respectively. The shorter, more modern fattie has 22% more area than the old GS ski. The extra float you get from this is equivalent to a 200 lb guy dropping down to 165 lbs. It’s a BIG effect.

I don’t have a strong disagreement with your final statement that, “…a softer flex is very important for deeper snow…”, but you just can’t jump to that conclusion based on your comparison of skis differing by over 20% in area.

Tom / PM

PS – My sidecut numbers are from memory – I think they are pretty close. I didn’t bother looking them up, but even if they are off a bit, the same argument still applies.
Hey I am in this picture! But standing on my Really big ski's so you cannot see them.

Agree. That's why I got a pair of K2 Axis X (70mm) for everyday and a pair of Gun's (PRs) (90mm) for powder says. I think you only need two pair.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by PhysicsMan What I don’t agree with is your expectation that “length would have compensated for the narrowness”. If you stick the numbers for an old 208 cm Volkl Zebra ( 88/58/78) and the numbers for a 180 Explosiv ( 123/95/113) into my spreadsheet, I come up with areas of ~ 1520 and 1850 sq. cm., respectively. The shorter, more modern fattie has 22% more area than the old GS ski. The extra float you get from this is equivalent to a 200 lb guy dropping down to 165 lbs. It’s a BIG effect. Tom / PM PS – My sidecut numbers are from memory – I think they are pretty close. I didn’t bother looking them up, but even if they are off a bit, the same argument still applies.
I was thinking more along the lines of 208 87/67/77 (just checked 'em), being enough surface area for a 145 lb guy (my fighting weight , I'm 165 now), not along the lines that a modern fat ski wouldn't be better at floating.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ghost I was thinking more along the lines of 208 87/67/77 (just checked 'em), being enough surface area for a 145 lb guy (my fighting weight , I'm 165 now), not along the lines that a modern fat ski wouldn't be better at floating.
This is where you light to normal sized people have a big (pun intended) advantage over us 200 + Lbs skiers.

At 160 Lbs an 82mm X 177mm ski will probably float in powder while still being manageable on manmade snow.

I would need to own a 69mm ski (think RX9) & a 105mm ski (think Gotoma) to cover all conditions at Snowbird. During a typical week, I could be 60% soft snow and 40% hard snow, with a little bit of both on most days.

Maybe I should just lose weight!

Cheers

Michael
Quote:
 Originally Posted by barrettscv This is where you light to normal sizd people have a big (pun intended) advantage over us 200 + Lbs skiers.At 160 Lbs an 82mm X 177mm ski will probably float in powder while still being manageable on manmade snow.I would need to own a 69mm ski (think RX9) & a 105mm ski (think Gotoma) to cover all conditions at Snowbird. During a typical week, I could be 60% soft snow and 40% hard snow, with a little bit of both on most days.Maybe I should just lose weight!CheersMichael
I would bet you could do equal or better on groomed with a 186LP than you could on the RX9. And then take that same LP everywhere else on the moutain and be VERY HAPPY.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Captain_Strato A great thread - and a high-powered geek-fest. The observations here appear credible and comprehensible, even to us non-geeks. However, I must say that my 84 mm Atomic M:EX's provide substantial float in deep snow, even for my 6'1" 200 lb body. They allow me to surf in snow that would compress under my 74 mm Metron B:5's. Hence, 84 mm does make a significant, subjective difference for me. When I go to my 99 mm Sugar Daddy's, it's admittedly a different world - oodles of float. But, for most days, the 84 mm M:EX's acquit themselves well.
since we are in geek-dom here, your B5's are 76mm under foot.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › "82 mm skis should be good enough for a foot of snow"