UKC

My current 95 underfoot touring skis are mullered, and I'm not fond of the ramp angle on the dynafits.

US websites all seem to be pushing wider and wider freeride skis, but European snow is rarely that deep or powdery. I'm not that weight obsessed and fitter than the average bod, so I don't mind pulling 1600-1900 a foot, but is a 106 or 109 too wide for Europe? Are there any downsides outside of icy skin tracks?

Saw loads of people in Cham on BC Atris with touring bindings - they can't all be freeride world tour athletes?

In reply to neuromancer:

No, but they can all have more money than sense.

In reply to neuromancer:

I think you've got to ask yourself - how often did you suffer from a lack of float with your 95s....

In reply to neuromancer:

I think it depends where you're planning to spend your time in the Europe.  I'm based in the Eastern Alps and it's rare to see anything over 100mm unless it's a powder day.  Waist widths are creeping up but the standard width is closer to 85mm than 95mm.

It's a different story in the West due to a combination of snow conditions and local trends.

In reply to neuromancer:

I would say that the only time that a 90-100mm ski was better than a 100-110mm ski off piste was in firm steep terrain but most people shy away from firm steep terrain anyway. You just lose a tiny bit of edge control as it is further away and it can increase the bending forces on your knee in firm conditions

In terms of European snow not quite matching Western US quantity/quality I would argue that this was more reason to go fat, a fatter ski needs less snow to not bottom out when conditions are half way between dust on crust and a proper powder day and in dense/wet fresh snow they hook up a lot less than narrower skis. A guide who I have skied with prefers an approx 85mm ski in most conditions but after dense snow falls he will borrow skis well over 100mm from the shop attached to his guiding outfit

In reply to neuromancer:

If it is often hard 90 to 100mm is a good option (aim for a stiffer ski, at least at the waist and back for good edge hold).

if it is often soft, 105 to 120mm is a good option.

These days I ski mostly in the Nordics and while my allround skis are 106mm at the waist, they have been missing the bindings for now like 6 or so years. And my daily driver for everything has been a reverse/reverse dealio at 125mm waist, mucho fun when on icy groomer… also the bindings are broken at the heel and it rises all the time . Good enough for sub 1500m touring vert days. And nice for the mini golf lines I need to settle for the next few years still.

In reply to neuromancer:

The wider the skis, the quicker you travel on powder, so the quicker it's over. Go narrow to get up quicker and down slower for a better skiing/skinning ratio!

In reply to neuromancer:

My take is that it depends on whether one is skinning for an hour off the lift system ( 100 plus  ish ok) or doing multi day tours with over 1000 m of ascent a day ( 90 to 95 mm better)

In reply to neuromancer:

I skied 95 for quite a few years and never really felt that I need to go much bigger, saying that I have been very lucky and been asked to test and review some skis over the last few seasons, I have been given lots of different sizes to try. 

Out of all of them so far my favourite is the OGSO 106 fully rocketed model, its not just the size its the shape and flex, I just find it a real fun ski to ski. I ski just about full time in the winter, and when not testing its my go to ski for everything. Its light for a 106 ski but obviously still heaver than a skinnier equivalent, but I am happy carrying it for the fun it gives me on the way down. I was a bit worried as it was fully rocketed and a medium flex it may struggle on the steeper lines, but no I love it.

Mainly the reason you see people on fatter skis, is for most snow types the extra float makes it easier. I haven't found a down side of skiing a 106, no situation where I wished I had thinner skis.

For me I think anywhere between a 95 and 106 is a nice sweet spot for one ski to do everything, with a 95 being a bit lighter and a 106 being a bit easier to ski. ether side of that and its starting to get a bit more specialised for example I am currently testing a 86 underfoot version of the 106 ski and I really like it, but it is harder work in the deep, but I think it will fly on good spring snow. I think getting a flex and shape you like is just as important as size underfoot.

In reply to neuromancer:

If you see a massive pair of boards sitting outside an alpine hut odds are they belong to Brits.  

In reply to neuromancer:

106-109 isn't too wide at all.  Maybe hire some and see how you find them.  The BC nest in Chamonix could sort you with a set of Artis for a day, I'm sure (only as you mention those skis and Chamonix).  

In reply to raliadsa skcalbwah:

I was looking at something like a pair of Ripstick 106's in 188. I found my MTN Explore 95's in 177 a bit short and flappy on hard snow, but also they dived and hooked up a bit when it was deeper and fresh. That said, that might be a product of the Speed Radicals delta f*cking up my stance. I tried some Navis freebirds with kingpins and they were much nicer to ski and more natural. 

I'm honest with myself; I don't ski enough and I want a ski that will flatter me and make things easier when it's hard rather than the other way around. I'll happily pay some weight as I spend 12 hours a week on the bike the other 10 months of the year!

In reply to daWalt:

I tour on Scott Missions for all round performance and value for money. Skiing powder is easy, but it’s crud or breakable crust that’s the problem and a wider ski will help with this. If I know the conditions are bad I quite often ski the Vallee Blanche on Dynastar 105,s which are perfect with minimal effort, but if it involves steeps or numerous difficult kick turns it’s back to the Missions.

In reply to ecrinscollective:

sounds dangerous,

but to be fair, speed works to your advantage when you don't want to get bogged down....

In reply to daWalt:

good spot, bloody auto correct. I wish they had rockets for the way up.

In reply to ecrinscollective:

I too have a pair of Ogso's (super light Corbett 110s(, and I mainly ski in Chamonix). I love my Ogso's to bits. They are a lovely ski - they ski nicely on piste, and are beautiful in powder. They were somewhat suboptimal on icy crud up at Cornu today, but any light ski would have found it tough)

In reply to neuromancer:

I just got some in 181 with the Salomon hybrid pin binding. Used them for 4 days mainly on piste so far and really like them. Was with my 8 year old so I was hardly shredding the gear, but the odd bit of side country  was great, they seem to transition pretty seamlessly. With those bindings it means I can wear either DIN alpine or AT touring boots without changing anything at all. It's a slightly weighty rig but I cant wait to try them uphill too.

In reply to beardy mike:

Just so you know, the Shift toepieces had some issues looking for touring more or something. I recall it was the shape of the DIN ”screen” or something. Most proper retailers should have the tweaked pieces and can swap ’EM in like a minute. If it is new enough, no problems.

and indeed, they are a really good idea. Perfect for a Quiver of one. And even better, if you have a lighter dedicated touring set (say with lightweight ATKs).

enjoy your turns, liftserved to earned. With your kid or without.

In reply to ecrinscollective:

"I think getting a flex and shape you like is just as important as size underfoot."

A really good point. Definitely try a full rocker ski if you like easy central pivoting turns ( steep or tight terrain) Enjoying my Black Crow Daemons, 99mm.

Echo that 95 to 105 suits most all mountain conditions. Probably 110 or above only if second or third ski.

A good option is Salmon Shifts and Quiver Killer inserts over 2 or more skis. Definitely love to try some Ogsos but can't justify another pair.

In reply to neuromancer:

They're meant to be nice skis.  Extra length and some more width should help in deeper snow but going up in both could potentially feel like quite a big jump.  That might be exactly what you want/need but best way to find out would be to test a couple of things/models you're interested in and decide after that.  Most shops will waive your rental fee if you decide to buy from them.  

Enjoy the season.  Lots of snow around Chamonix for the time of year, though some more precipitation would be welcome.  

In reply to gooberman-hill:

I currently have a range of OGSO skis to test from 76 underfoot to 106, maybe next year I will get some Corbett's to play with.

In reply to neuromancer:

I have some OG Soul 7s (106mm underfoot) as a quiver of one (with some FT12s). Apart from icy skin tracks and icy steeps, they are great. With a pair of Scarpa freedom SLs of the same vintage they have done everything from family ski trips to powder to hacking around Scotland.

I treated myself to a more dedicated touring set up (Camox, ATKs and F1s) as I have aspiration for some multi day tours in the next few years.

In reply to HeMa:

OK - thanks for that. I believe they are brand new bindings. A quiver of one was exactly what I was going for. Most of my skiing these days is a mix of in resort with the squirt, or piste to get to free ride and day ski touring. These just seemed to cover all bases, albeit with a weight penalty in terms of the binding. But as the saying goes, what doesn't kill you... at least with a hybrid binding the weight is at the back of the ski when in "walk" mode so wont be a total pain in the ass like frame bindings are. And if I get around to do multiday touring, I will have to salvage my old Dynafit bindings and get some new planks for those as my K2 Ascents have done 15 odd years now and calling them rock skis would be unkind to rock skis.

In reply to neuromancer:

is a great combo - I ski on these (with Shifts) for off the lifts and short day tours; longer tours I’d use my lighter touring pair which are 98 underfoot. I’m 188 tall/ 80kg and certainly not a FWT athlete, though I do take skiing fairly seriously (and don’t have more money than sense).

Personally I wouldn’t go any wider than 110mm for Europe (unless I lived in the Alps) even in deep snow I’ve not felt the need. And you start needing bigger/ beefier boots to go along with the bigger skis. 

In reply to neuromancer:

I used to have multiple pairs of skis but now have one pair Whitedot R.98s: 98mm wide, 22m radius for everything: piste, crud and powder. Fatter skis were a bit more fun in powder but not essential and were a real pain on icy pistes or steep traverses en route to or from the powder. Also harder work to swing round in couloirs and between trees etc.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Not really true, wideness plays less in this than the shape. My nimblest, Quickest, and most responsive ski is also my widest, mere 136mm at the waist. Even my 78mm misery stixes are more work in tight terrain, like trees or between rocks. Being full reverse sidecut and reverse camber might have something to do with it…

oh, to be honest my second widest skis with 125mm waist are actually more nimble, ’cause they are 10cm shorter but still full reverse reverse things. And they have been my main ski for the last 6 or so seasons… heaps of fun on groomers, ice or not. And when you actually get to ski some more interesting minigolf terrain, this is where they shine… not the best for rails though, but having them with telebinders certainly doesn’t help either. Nice to ski with my soon 6 year old kid though, in park, on groomers or off-piste.

In reply to HeMa: fair comment, my fat skis had a traditional camber and the extra weight was probably the main issue. I’ve tried rocker skis but didn’t like the feel of them. I’m happy with what I’ve got

In reply to kevin stephens:

Yeah, good for you that you have a good rig you like. Same soet of applies for me, I actually have my ”allround skis” sana bindings in the storage, they’ ve been there for 7 years now. And they have a few friends to keep ’EM company. This is partly cause I’m lazy at mounting them, which Books down to the fact that even the current skis I have mounted work well enough. Plus I got some 2nd hand beater park skis with alpine binders, so that I can ski at the kiddo/gran-pa park with my boy… learning new stuff is good, even for and old grumpy like myself.

In reply to neuromancer:

Unfortunately for my bank balance, I've decided to split the difference. Navis Freebirds in 185 will do me nicely!