EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Evolution of ski width considerations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Evolution of ski width considerations - Page 2

post #31 of 32
Maybe someone has a better nomenclature, but I think about conditions in roughly the following broad categories:
  • Outstanding - extraordinary fresh snow or corn
  • Good - generally recently refreshed relatively consistent nice off piste conditions &/or smooth soft groomers
  • Average - OK but inconsistent or cutup off piste - soft to firm usually cutup groomers, with some inconsistent patches
  • Crappy - unpleasant or unsafe off piste with crust, bad layers, ice, beatup snow, etc - and/or icy, crusty, or inconsistent groomers
So, someone please to explain the reasoning that seems to go like "wow, I just might have to ski on crappy snow now and again so I guess I'll get skis that compromise the heck out of skiing good or outstanding snow and offer no compelling advantage - at least to an average rec skier like your truly - under "average" conditions"?

Personally - if I had to ski regularly under conditions that really made me want something narrower than 105 or so, I think I'd find a different sport. I have no trouble getting my skis on edge under average or better conditions (although I admittedly can stand to ski "better" on skinny or fat skis). And with improving rockered designs, I suspect I'll feel more and more that way over the next few years...

FWIW, I logged about 70 days last season. The narrowest ski I used was 105 at the waist (Gotama and Nomad). Most days I was on skis 122 or fatter. There were maybe +/- 4 days I'd have loved to have had a skinnier hardpack oriented ski. I'm OK with that ratio - especially since the easy answer is to strive to get better at avoiding those days...

Obviously there are people who love their skinnier skis. Whether due to the conditions they usually ski or to personal preference, I have no issue with that. Lots of these folks are better than I am. But I know what I consider to be fun at this point - and the skis that deliver it under most conditions are not traditional skinnier skis.
post #32 of 32
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post
The advantage is to the manufacturers having an entire new line of products innovators would just have to be the first to have.. And lots of folks would suddenly think their gear was obsolete, just like straight skis in the 90s. Just like when shaped skis came out and when fat skis came out and fat shaped skis.
That's the sort of move that looks brilliant when it works and catches on... and bankrupts you if it doesn't catch on (or doesn't catch on until a few years after the first company to try it goes out of business). The problem is no manufacturer wants to be the first one to make a jump like that unless they're really sure there is a market there.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen. If it really makes a big difference in performance of wide skis, and the wide ski market is big enough, then it could be a good idea and whoever does it first (and does it right) will make a lot of money. If it doesn't help that much, or the market isn't big enough, whoever does it will lose a bundle.

There's already a different line out that requires different boots and bindings doing very well. It's called snowboards.
I've heard of those... just a passing fad, if you ask me.
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 › Evolution of ski width considerations