Why go skinny?

[Boissal]

I was trying to say that it took several months of me hacking my way downhill on light gear for the advice you gave me to sink in. I am begrudgingly admitting that extra weight is worth it

Muuuaaahhahahahah! The heavy trend will soon wash over our slopes and skinners! That is 2 people I know of who've now seen the light and embraced their fatter selves, mallwalker and you!!
I think we also need to remember that what we're currently calling heavy gear is lighter and works 10x better than what was top of the line 10ish years ago. The stuff works so dam well we get to argue about relatively small differences in performance at the margins. I wish I had kept my first AT setup, I'd ski it once a year to remind myself how spoiled I am. And I haven't even been at it for that long...

[CirqueScaler]

...the range of conditions where fairly typical for spring in CO, and I was happy to have a 105 underfoot ski to whole way down.

this makes sense to me, thanks.

I'm a skier by choice and an uphill walker by necessity, my personal compromise will always favor the down and for me the right tool is >100 underfoot, >185 long, and > 1500 g. There are plenty of other setups that work, ski whatever floats your boat. I get passed on the skinner by people with heavier setups than mine and I blow by rando bros who have less weight on both feet than I have on one. I've been completely blown away watching people on sub-1kg boots and microscopic skis tear down big faces and I've seen people hack their way down moderate runs on setups that could win the FWT. There's no right or wrong way to do it because we all have a very different idea of what "it" should be. Being dogmatic about it makes you an asshole.

I literally agree with all of this. I'm saying that I'm probably the reverse. Not sure where I was being dogmatic about it unless you're referring to the part where I said I was interested in hearing other people's thoughts

[Boissal]

I literally agree with all of this. I'm saying that I'm probably the reverse. Not sure where I was being dogmatic about it unless you're referring to the part where I said I was interested in hearing other people's thoughts

Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of being dogmatic, I was just pointing out that in general there isn't a right or wrong AT setup and it's a very personal choice. Clearly if you're asking where other people are coming from you're not already convinced that they're wrong and your way is the only way.

That being said man, 78 underfoot, ooooooof, that is skinny

Just messing with you, I bet you wouldn't even notice if those things fell off your pack on a booter, they must be so freakin light. I'm biased because the last time I was around a ski of that size it ended in a weird close call. I was perched on a rock in the middle of a steep and very firm slope watching a buddy make turns a few 100' above me, I looked down for a sec to see which side of my rock looked best for him to ski, and when I looked back up he was on his ass and one of his skis was flying at my head. I didn't have time to blink as the thing sailed maybe a foot next to my face. It knew I didn't approve of how skinny it was and tried to skewer me... It put the fear of skinny skis in me forever.

[CirqueScaler]

Sorry, I wasn't accusing you of being dogmatic, I was just pointing out that in general there isn't a right or wrong AT setup and it's a very personal choice. Clearly if you're asking where other people are coming from you're not already convinced that they're wrong and your way is the only way.

That being said man, 78 underfoot, ooooooof, that is skinny

Just messing with you, I bet you wouldn't even notice if those things fell off your pack on a booter, they must be so freakin light. I'm biased because the last time I was around a ski of that size it ended in a weird close call. I was perched on a rock in the middle of a steep and very firm slope watching a buddy make turns a few 100' above me, I looked down for a sec to see which side of my rock looked best for him to ski, and when I looked back up he was on his ass and one of his skis was flying at my head. I didn't have time to blink as the thing sailed maybe a foot next to my face. It knew I didn't approve of how skinny it was and tried to skewer me... It put the fear of skinny skis in me forever.

All good. To be fair, I'm not a very good skier. So part of my perspective is that I'm not skiing in style like you guys anyways.

I just like being in the mountains - all year long.

[XXX-er]

the only reason i have a 1290 gram ski is cuz buddy was selling them almost new/ really cheap with skins and if you read the wildsnow you must have a super light in the quiver right ?

Super light is a pretty handy tool if you aren't completely trained up

i somehow have 7 skis that will tour

[turnfarmer]

As far as width goes, I feel the magic number is at or just under the width of the ball of your foot. Anything much wider is harder to edge on hard snow.
So go as wide as your foot and it gives you the best compromise of float and edging ability. As most feet are 98 to 104 mm wide, pick the width that matches your foot for best results.

[waxoff]

Do you really think I ski big sticks to be cool? I imagine your comment was tongue in cheek but since it's not the first time someone makes a similar quip when the topic of skinny vs wide comes up I figure I'd check.


OK, how much more do you think you can do on a light setup vs a heavy one? You're not shaving 50% off your uphill time by dropping a pound per foot. To me the weight argument is only relevant if you have a limited time of time to bang out a certain amount of vert. If you have the entire day in front of you it actually makes sense to drop the uphill pace by 5 to 10% and drag a bigger ski around. If will add 1 hour to a 10 k day but save a ton of energy and provides a huge amount of fun on the down.

I'm a skier by choice and an uphill walker by necessity, my personal compromise will always favor the down and for me the right tool is >100 underfoot, >185 long, and > 1500 g. There are plenty of other setups that work, ski whatever floats your boat. I get passed on the skinner by people with heavier setups than mine and I blow by rando bros who have less weight on both feet than I have on one. I've been completely blown away watching people on sub-1kg boots and microscopic skis tear down big faces and I've seen people hack their way down moderate runs on setups that could win the FWT. There's no right or wrong way to do it because we all have a very different idea of what "it" should be. Being dogmatic about it makes you an asshole.

^^^^ Just came here to say that this guy sums it up beautifully. Thanks!

[North]

Picked up some CD104Ls last spring to replace my 177 MTN Explore 95s for spring wannabe #mountaineering. I had pretty much stopped skiing the 95s and was instead skiing 188 QST 106s unless it was gonna be a really really long day. I don't recall any downsides to the added width of the QST. The CD104L is closer to the QST in width, but closer to the MTN in weight and length. Was hoping to get something in between - interested to see how they do!

[bean]

I'm thinking about getting some hardpack skis, I've got the QST99 which is fine for all-around soft conditions but I think something narrower and heavy would be nice. The Kastle MX84 and 89 are available used for cheapish nearby, by wife just got some 89s and loves them but I'm wondering if the 84 would be better differentiation from the 99s or if they'd be narrower than ideal (though I remember when my 85mm Public Enemies were "mid-fat"). Radius is the same, construction the same, anything different between the two that I'm not aware of?

[Reformed]

Lots of good discussion in here. I put together a skinny-ish touring set up last spring to experiment with a lighter/narrower setup for longer spring days. I have now put enough days on the skinny sticks to share my experience.

Others have already touched on most of this, but I think the decision to bring/not bring the skinny skis on a given day should come down to the objective for the day and what kind of snow conditions you are expecting to find. There is no such thing as the optimal ski for every day/condition. If the day involves lots of elevation gain and big distances to access firm snow or corn a skinny ski makes sense. Skinny skis are easier to sidehill on firm skintracks, are lighter/easier to skin/carry on your back, accept narrower/lighter skins/ski crampons and ski firm/corn just fine. If I manage to characterize the day accurately (and that's a big if) I have not regretted grabbing the skinny skis and have enjoyed the relative ease of travel that they provide.
If, on the otherhand, a day involves less travel/vert or provides even a chance of pow/3d variable snow (warm or cold) I take the wider/heavier setup EVERY SINGLE TIME. Wide skis ski pow better than skinny skis and mass/waist width/shape/rocker helps deal with variable 3d snow. The effort the skis save on the way down more than makes up for the increase in effort that they require to get them to the top of the line.

I typically default to the wider set up. Wide skis (within reason) are less of a compromise on firm snow than skinny skis are in pow/3d variable - i.e. I typically wouldn't regret being on the wider ski if things end up being firmer than expected, but I'd certainly regret being on the skinny ski if things were deeper/better or more variable than expected. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone - right tool for the job and all that, but it has been fun to confirm and it's great to have options.
Skinny skis: 185 Atomic Backland 95s with Dynafit Verticals and B&D toe shims
Wider skis: 184 ON3P Steeple 108s with Tectons. Recently remounted with ATK Crests to lose some weight.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Lots of good discussion in here. I put together a skinny-ish touring set up last spring to experiment with a lighter/narrower setup for longer spring days. I have now put enough days on the skinny sticks to share my experience.

Others have already touched on most of this, but I think the decision to bring/not bring the skinny skis on a given day should come down to the objective for the day and what kind of snow conditions you are expecting to find. There is no such thing as the optimal ski for every day/condition. If the day involves lots of elevation gain and big distances to access firm snow or corn a skinny ski makes sense. Skinny skis are easier to sidehill on firm skintracks, are lighter/easier to skin/carry on your back, accept narrower/lighter skins/ski crampons and ski firm/corn just fine. If I manage to characterize the day accurately (and that's a big if) I have not regretted grabbing the skinny skis and have enjoyed the relative ease of travel that they provide.
If, on the otherhand, a day involves less travel/vert or provides even a chance of pow/3d variable snow (warm or cold) I take the wider/heavier setup EVERY SINGLE TIME. Wide skis ski pow better than skinny skis and mass/waist width/shape/rocker helps deal with variable 3d snow. The effort the skis save on the way down more than makes up for the increase in effort that they require to get them to the top of the line.

I typically default to the wider set up. Wide skis (within reason) are less of a compromise on firm snow than skinny skis are in pow/3d variable - i.e. I typically wouldn't regret being on the wider ski if things end up being firmer than expected, but I'd certainly regret being on the skinny ski if things were deeper/better or more variable than expected. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone - right tool for the job and all that, but it has been fun to confirm and it's great to have options.
Skinny skis: 185 Atomic Backland 95s with Dynafit Verticals and B&D toe shims
Wider skis: 184 ON3P Steeple 108s with Tectons. Recently remounted with ATK Crests to lose some weight.

Usually when I think of skinny touring skis it’s sub 90mm waist.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[pureantigravity]

Seems like identifying region would be helpful to the conversation. Here in the PNW, I find an 80-90mm waist ski indispensable for the tail end of the ski season (April - July; it’s a long tail). We have high density snow and the spring corn never gets more than a few inches deep. If it’s deep and isothermic, go home. You’re too late. A narrow ski is lighter on the up, and has no negatives while skiing steep corn.

In contrast, when I lived in Utah, 100mm is the narrowest I’d go for any part of the season or type of snow. Oregon couloirs in the spring (broken top, Hood, etc) and Rockies/Tetons/wasatch/etc couloirs in the spring are totally different beasts in my opinion. Optimize your quiver accordingly.

This. And also, skinny skis are way better in sticky snow. They just don't lurch like fatter skis when things get melty/poliny/dirty. Since when was 80mm skinny anways? Oh right, this is TGR.

[Reformed]

Usually when I think of cross country skis it’s sub 90mm waist.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Fixed it for you I did say skinny-ish. I am aware that there's a whole world of touring stuff narrower than 95 or so - it just doesn't really register for me or my use cases. YMMV of course, and that's one of the key points of this thread - know thy self and know the conditions you ski.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Fixed it for you I did say skinny-ish. I am aware that there's a whole world of touring stuff narrower than 95 or so - it just doesn't really register for me or my use cases. YMMV of course, and that's one of the key points of this thread - know thy self and know the conditions you ski.

I don’t own a ski under 95 right now. None of them are skinny.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums