Is narrow the new fat?

**LeeLau** · 02-01-2018, 11:00 PM

and is 88 really narrow?

I've been ski touring these 88 underfoot Salomon Mtn Explore 88s for a season and a half now. Paired with SCARPAa F1s. Who knew "narrow" skis could be so much fun? Who knew light boots could be so much fun?

Recently saw Mike D rip around on his QST 99s with Shifts ninja-ing Whistler trees. Makes me remember how the pendulum swings. About 6 years ago I tried some BD Megawatts and at 125 underfoot there was almost nowhere I could ski them. I have Prior Overlords and at 115mm underfoot only bring them out on big resort days.

Also have Blizzard ZeroG 108s and they're also amazing but they don't let you drive into the snow and get that double headed black mamba diamond dust quadruple overhead blower feeling unless things get really deep. Kind of trite but they ski so differently then the 88 underfoots.

Anyhow nothing more then a ramble. I'm light and meadowskip. Also coastal snow is different then interior snow which is different then Rockies snow which is different then Japow yadda yadda. Makes me wonder what ski to pair with the Salomon Shifts when I get them to test - 99 underfoot or 109 underfoot? #firstworldproblems

**LeeLau** · 02-01-2018, 11:04 PM

and yeah TECH TALK JONG

**2FUNKY** · 02-01-2018, 11:07 PM

**Bdog325** · 02-01-2018, 11:09 PM

Is this a joke or...? I thought no one skied anything under 98 underfoot

Make money. Buy toys.

**tone capone** · 02-01-2018, 11:13 PM

I think the modern ski design is just so sick that you can float and carry speed way better on the narrower skis than you used to be able to. Watched my buddy rip a big face yesterday in massive 50+ meter gs turns on his 181 kastle's that are 102 underfoot like they were big mountain destroyers and he is close to 200lbs. I think it's so cool you can still do that on skis that you can legitly noodle around on still. I am next in line to try. I love the big skis when it's hero but my knees are old enough to really feel it when it's not.

**hawkgt** · 02-01-2018, 11:16 PM

Ski what you got, dream about whachu don’t. All falling down hill....

Edit: share a beer either way at the bottom

**I've seen black diamonds!** · 02-01-2018, 11:20 PM

Hasn't snowed much in CO this winter. But there has been shitloads of wind, at least where I tend to ski. I've got Zero G 85's and 108's as well as UL GPO's (116 waist). Keep reaching for the GPO's because of how well they handle the transition from powder to crust to impenetrable windboard and back again.

**reckless toboggan** · 02-01-2018, 11:27 PM

No.

[/end thread]

**goldengatestinx** · 02-01-2018, 11:35 PM

Stiffer and higher torsional rigidity have a better crud handling effect than wider.

**phatty** · 02-02-2018, 01:23 AM

I saw Mike's post on IG about how he skis his QST 99s 90% of the time and started thinking maybe he was onto something. Then I remembered I'm 5" taller and 40# heavier. I do like my QLabs at 109 underfoot for most conditions, but I'll still be reaching for my Protests if given the choice. All my sub 100 skis have no rocker, so I'll get a newer pair for next year to give the rockered skinny shapes a try.

**ncskier** · 02-02-2018, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by phatty

I saw Mike's post on IG about how he skis his QST 99s 90% of the time and started thinking maybe he was onto something. Then I remembered I'm 5" taller and 40# heavier. I do like my QLabs at 109 underfoot for most conditions, but I'll still be reaching for my Protests if given the choice. All my sub 100 skis have no rocker, so I'll get a newer pair for next year to give the rockered skinny shapes a try.

^^^^this times a 100. Perhaps you girly sized men and petite sized pro skiers can go back, but at 6"3" and 215 lbs 105-110 is my default width and I'm not going any skinnier.
Now I have been skiing volkl 108's this year and can say I don't miss the metal so there's that. But as long as I can noodle on blues with kids and ski steepish and deepish terrain I'm not going back to an 80 width ski.

**Timberridge** · 02-02-2018, 08:18 AM

I just went to 64mm. My ARV ti's now feel like lunch trays strapped to my feet. There's a velocity at which all skis, no matter their waist size, begin to plane on the surface of the snow. It's become my mission to find it.

**ncskier** · 02-02-2018, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Timberridge

I just went to 64mm. My ARV ti's now feel like lunch trays strapped to my feet. There's a velocity at which all skis, no matter their waist size, begin to plane on the surface of the snow. It's become my mission to find it.

Busting out the k2 el camino woody editions again?

**Timberridge** · 02-02-2018, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by ncskier

Busting out the k2 el camino woody editions again?

Did they have a light like my Merlin VII's?

**TahoeJ** · 02-02-2018, 09:17 AM

I think designers have realized that rocker helps offset the need for quite so much float underfoot. Unless you're breaking trail.

**buttahflake** · 02-02-2018, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Timberridge

Did they have a light like my Merlin VII's?

Derr, no piezo in the Camino.
Go on, now.

**californiagrown** · 02-02-2018, 09:46 AM

I am perfectly happy skiing SFBs at 108 underfoot for everything, including deep powder. There are two situations where big skis work much, much better and that is when jumping off stuff into pow, and when the slope isnt all that steep. The sweet spot for landing airs into pow is much smaller on a skinnier ski, and the added float that a big ski gives you makes <35% slopes much, much more fun and playful in powder.

**GeezerSteve** · 02-02-2018, 09:51 AM

Timely thread. I just started a search for a new pair of 88mm-97mm touring skis. FTR, I'm 6'2", 240

Anybody got a deal on 184cm Salomon MTN Explore 95 or 183cm Fischer Hannibal?

**Jonny Snow** · 02-02-2018, 09:52 AM

I have powder skis with waists from 80mm up to 128mm. Some are newish, some are over 20 years old, some are in between. They all ski powder, but all they do it differently. What was your point again?

**doebedoe** · 02-02-2018, 09:53 AM

Praxis Yetis are my go-to ski 85% of the time in CO BC. With 94mm waist and a good bit of tip rocker they have no problems with a good bit of fresh.

It needs to be a big day to justify the heft of Lhasas.

**LeeLau** · 02-02-2018, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Jonny Snow

I have powder skis with waists from 80mm up to 128mm. Some are newish, some are over 20 years old, some are in between. They all ski powder, but all they do it differently. What was your point again?

Point - Choices are good!!!

Edit puking snow again. Trucks getting stuck. Pow frenzy redux

**Dhelihiker** · 02-02-2018, 10:32 AM

I totally disagree, I had some 88 UF Dynafit Mustagh and they sucked, I switched to 102mm Atomic Backlands and the same boots and bindings and its shredville, pow, corn, ice no matta. I am 6'-5" 220lbs so that may very well play into it.

**carlh** · 02-02-2018, 10:41 AM

6'3" 200lbs. I find lhasas at 112 underfoot make pow way more fun than my zerog95s. I can have fun on either but as a big buy width helps. The newer shapes make a big difference, the zeroGs and my goliaths ski powder fairly similarly.

**gregL** · 02-02-2018, 11:01 AM

Whether the narrower shapes work for you is up to you to decide. In the meantime, the trend in the ski industry for next season definitely concentrates on narrower versions of existing skis - witness the Bent Chetler 100, Rustler 9, etc.