Do I like skinny skis or am I just bad

whatsamonad

whatsamonad

Member
I'm 6' 135 (yeah light AF I know), but I'm atheltic and lift regularly so I feel like my legs are plenty strong for what I do. I ride east coast almost exclusively these days. I mostly like to hit park, go fast, blast goomers and side hits, and hit the woods if they are open. i'd call myself an expert skiier comfortable on anything.

I Rode 86mm AR7's for many years in 176cm. I recently picked up some Magnus 90's for mostly park days and Jeffrey 96's (both in 181cm) for all mountain days with a few parks laps. I really like the Magnus, even all-mountain it feels great. I've got about 12 days on the pair of them this season combined.

The Jeffreys feel great too, but every time I ride them I wish they were 90mm ish underfoot. Everyone says that 95-100mm ish is the new all-mountain norm these days so I thought those would be good for me, but I can definitely feel that extra 6mm underfoot when I turn or go in the woods. It's just a tiny bit harder to turn and I have to say pickup the inside ski a tiny bit where my other skis it's not noticeable. In the air I can still rotate fine so it's just on-snow agility that I miss. I don't really feel like the extra width underneath gives me anything but I also don't ski much variable terrain in the ice coast, mostly hardpack. I don't really care about the ice part since I'm used to riding on whatever in the ice so I don't notice it even if the edge hold is ass.

Am I just bad at skiing/not strong enough or is it okay that I just prefer 90mm ish skinnier skis? I'm very light so maybe it's just harder for me to ski them? Opinions are appreciated
 
i feel the same way but in the opposite. like i prefer fat rockered skis cus theyre easier to pivot and turn in tight spaces. then i jump on a 100mm underfoot with camber and im like ehhhhhh i could ride these fine but i prefer being able to pivot on a dime.

in hindsight i think its a mental thing for a lot of us, as someone else previously mentioned.
 
14240003:brentkimball said:
i feel like the change isn’t that horrible

maybe you have weak legs
Click to expand...

Well the thing is I can ski them just fine, I just feel like the extra width doesn't give me anything while I can notice a small amount of extra work required when turning.
 
A video of you carving turns would probably help. To me it’s way more about ski shape than width (and for reference I have exactly zero interest in trying to make real turns on any of the skis you listed but happily lay tracks on very narrow to very wide somewhat more directional skis). Doubt it’s strength you don’t need to be jacked to carve a turn.
 
I might have agreed with you in the past when my daily drivers were 107 and I went down to my 84s for a day. Felt so much easier.

BUT I jumped from some 95s to 110s on Saturday for a few laps and it wasn’t that noticeable.

What it probably is is that you need to angulate and Inclinate more. Tip your ankles more and then tilt your body weight over the skis (downhill). That’s usually what it is. Also, if you don’t have footbeds, it can make it way more tiring on wider skis.

Another thing to note is the profile of the ski. You went from a ski pure camber to a ski with a pretty hefty rocker. It just takes some getting used to.

Also, it totally could be that you just like skinnier skis. I, personally, prefer around 85 in the park.

**This post was edited on Feb 8th 2021 at 3:23:17pm
 
14240104:BradFiAusNzCoCa said:
I might have agreed with you in the past when my daily drivers were 107 and I went down to my 84s for a day. Felt so much easier.

BUT I jumped from some 95s to 110s on Saturday for a few laps and it wasn’t that noticeable.

What it probably is is that you need to angulate and Inclinate more. Tip your ankles more and then tilt your body weight over the skis (downhill). That’s usually what it is. Also, if you don’t have footbeds, it can make it way more tiring on wider skis.

Another thing to note is the profile of the ski. You went from a ski pure camber to a ski with a pretty hefty rocker. It just takes some getting used to.

Also, it totally could be that you just like skinnier skis. I, personally, prefer around 85 in the park.

**This post was edited on Feb 8th 2021 at 3:23:17pm
Click to expand...

Yeah when blasting groomers I tend to basically skis turn quickly by slicing my tails out a lot to control speed rather than making proper turns just because I like to straight line and that way I can keep my speed up better. So maybe I just have a different style when I’m not trying to do “proper” turns. I’ll definitely try out what you said thanks for the advice!
 
For what it’s worth - my 107s were more akin to an ON3P and my 84s were some Armadas with pure camber. So I get where you’re coming from.

Try to play with your stance more too aka more centered, more forward, etc. Just takes some feeling out.

14240127:whatsamonad said:
Yeah when blasting groomers I tend to basically skis turn quickly by slicing my tails out a lot to control speed rather than making proper turns just because I like to straight line and that way I can keep my speed up better. So maybe I just have a different style when I’m not trying to do “proper” turns. I’ll definitely try out what you said thanks for the advice!
Click to expand...
 
I really doubt the 6mms of width is gonna be that noticeable. I’d agree w the guys above that its probably mental or mount position. The magnus’s are centre mounted (at rec) while the jeffs are set back and that’s gonna make them respond differently.
 
Different turning radius , and different mount position , different stiffness.

All those will feel different. Its possible too that you are just sensitive to change. I know I am. It took me a long time to get used to my center mounted Magnus when I switched from the Jessies which mine are not center mounted. The biggest change was when I went from Volkl carving skis at 81mm to the Jessie 88. I learned how to ski on a 65mm race ski. So the 88 and the 90 felt Fat. It took a long time to get used to the width. It takes a little more "work" and focus on technique that I found. I'm used to the center mounted 90 now but it took half the season to get there. If I ski with lousy technique my knees will certainly complain
 
14240248:nmwninjart said:
Different turning radius , and different mount position , different stiffness.

All those will feel different. Its possible too that you are just sensitive to change. I know I am. It took me a long time to get used to my center mounted Magnus when I switched from the Jessies which mine are not center mounted. The biggest change was when I went from Volkl carving skis at 81mm to the Jessie 88. I learned how to ski on a 65mm race ski. So the 88 and the 90 felt Fat. It took a long time to get used to the width. It takes a little more "work" and focus on technique that I found. I'm used to the center mounted 90 now but it took half the season to get there. If I ski with lousy technique my knees will certainly complain
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice! I’m technically coming off the 86mm AR7, so the 90mm magnus doesn’t feel any different but the 96mm Jeff I can feel it a bit. I think I just need to get used to it more which I’ll definitely do in addition to fixing my stance as per the comments.

I think what I’m mostly struggling with is that even though I have no problems skiing the 96mm, I don’t feel like I’m getting any benefit out of it in exchange for what I currently feel is a very small dip in agility. Probably because I’m skiing on almost exclusively hard pack idk.
 
my 100 waist skis dont really feel that different than my ~80 skis. I can feel the difference going from either of those to JJs at 116 underfoot but thats only on hard pack, if the snows loose the jjs carve just fine
 
I feel like your just thinking about it too much, of course they're gonna feel wider but that's mostly because of the weight and overall build on an on3p. i switch between my marksman and wets and I almost prefer my marksman turning because they feel easier to ski edge to edge as they aren't designed 100% for park. Just go skiing man, you may prefer a skinny ski but a slightly fatter ski isn't any harder to ski than a 86 underfoot.
 
I skiied 88 underfoot on east coast and had no interest going wider. Ski a 108 significantly longer ski in CO and have no interest going shorter or skinnier. There’s not really a benefit to skis wider than 90 in the east coast at least to me.

14240266:whatsamonad said:
Thanks for the advice! I’m technically coming off the 86mm AR7, so the 90mm magnus doesn’t feel any different but the 96mm Jeff I can feel it a bit. I think I just need to get used to it more which I’ll definitely do in addition to fixing my stance as per the comments.

I think what I’m mostly struggling with is that even though I have no problems skiing the 96mm, I don’t feel like I’m getting any benefit out of it in exchange for what I currently feel is a very small dip in agility. Probably because I’m skiing on almost exclusively hard pack idk.
Click to expand...
 
14240300:ericforman said:
I skiied 88 underfoot on east coast and had no interest going wider. Ski a 108 significantly longer ski in CO and have no interest going shorter or skinnier. There’s not really a benefit to skis wider than 90 in the east coast at least to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think I worded this thread poorly. I really have two things to ask about:

1) Is it normal to feel like skis with an extra 6mm underfoot are slightly less agile

2) Do I really need more than 90mm in the east because it doesn't feel any different having the extra 6mm like you said
 
14240327:whatsamonad said:
Yeah I think I worded this thread poorly. I really have two things to ask about:

1) Is it normal to feel like skis with an extra 6mm underfoot are slightly less agile

2) Do I really need more than 90mm in the east because it doesn't feel any different having the extra 6mm like you said
Click to expand...

Do the 2 skis have different turn radii? I just went from 90mm underfoot to 105 and i found my 105s much better for carving and i think part of it is they have a 14m turn radius whereas my 90s have a much larger turn radius

Maybe thats why the 90s feel better than your 96s?
 
Yep makes sense. I think yes - slightly less agile although flex and mount point is likely more relevant in this case. And then you’ll get different opinions but to me, no. Broadly speaking a narrower ski is easier to get on edge, hold an edge, and quicker side to side where as a wider ski floats better and is more stable in variable snow. Back when I skied the ice coast I valued the former more now in CO I would be so angry skiing a 88 underfoot ski all day.

14240327:whatsamonad said:
Yeah I think I worded this thread poorly. I really have two things to ask about:

1) Is it normal to feel like skis with an extra 6mm underfoot are slightly less agile

2) Do I really need more than 90mm in the east because it doesn't feel any different having the extra 6mm like you said
Click to expand...
 
14240339:nathanlayland said:
Do the 2 skis have different turn radii? I just went from 90mm underfoot to 105 and i found my 105s much better for carving and i think part of it is they have a 14m turn radius whereas my 90s have a much larger turn radius

Maybe thats why the 90s feel better than your 96s?
Click to expand...

Looks like the radius on the Jeffrey is about 0.8m larger (18.3 to 19.1m) so not much.

Honestly I probably just have to get used to them. Actual carving on them seems fine I don't notice any difference it's really just when I have to turn really quick I think I'm not used to the small amount extra I have to move my body over to shift my weight on the ski.

Even tho the 90mm's feel fine, this is my first season on both of these skis so I am coming from many many years (like 8 years) of using 86mm.
 
14240345:ericforman said:
Yep makes sense. I think yes - slightly less agile although flex and mount point is likely more relevant in this case. And then you’ll get different opinions but to me, no. Broadly speaking a narrower ski is easier to get on edge, hold an edge, and quicker side to side where as a wider ski floats better and is more stable in variable snow. Back when I skied the ice coast I valued the former more now in CO I would be so angry skiing a 88 underfoot ski all day.
Click to expand...

Yeah I remember I took my 86mm out west many times (too young to know any better) and damn was it painful. A few inches of pow and I was drowning, especially since they were all camber.
 
Looking back, it seems to be the mount you weren’t used to. Center mount and kicking your tails out vs a more directional mount (jeffrey). Did you ever get it figured out?
 
14407248:BradFiAusNzCoCa said:
Looking back, it seems to be the mount you weren’t used to. Center mount and kicking your tails out vs a more directional mount (jeffrey). Did you ever get it figured out?
Click to expand...

Yeah it just took some getting used to. I still can’t do like on the ground spins quite as fast since I can’t edge to edge as quick, but other than that I adjusted myself to have a more forward stance and drive harder and now I have no issues!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top