Why are wider skis more expensive
- Thread starter Vish-shoe
- Start date
maaattt
Active member
You're comparing a price point ski to a basically flagship ski
Likely very different constructions, material cost, different tooling for the actual ski construction. There's lots that goes into a width change than just "make ski but wider"
**This post was edited on Mar 13th 2024 at 8:59:48pm
Likely very different constructions, material cost, different tooling for the actual ski construction. There's lots that goes into a width change than just "make ski but wider"
**This post was edited on Mar 13th 2024 at 8:59:48pm
BallClapper
Active member
topic:Vish-shoe said:
Was thinking the same exact thing today. My thought is that not everyone needs a wide ski so by raising the price they are compensating for the fact that they will probably sell less of the wider ski. Thats just a theory.
Yukon_Cornelius
Member
topic:Vish-shoe said:
its sucks fr, but there are legit reasons, even though they may seem lame from the consumer’s perspective. Sometimes more goes into the building or development of one model vs the other. Other times they include features that the other doesn’t. A lot of the time, the company will produce fewer high-end or situationally-specific pieces of equipment (think powder ski like the JJ, vs a narrow ARV that you could easily rent from any shop with demo bindings). All of these reasons necessitate a ski company’s price variance between models, and why even across model lines, the price can vary a lot.
Think various boot flexes; stiffer boot plastic doesn’t cost 2x the softer boot, but they
a) make fewer
b) spent more money designing/testing
c) build with nicer components
fwiw, NOBODY is getting rich from making or selling skis. Even within the biggest brands in the space, people work for them because they love it. Equivalent roles, especially corporate, in other industries pay multiples more for the same job.
hi_vis360
Active member
14598139:SkiBud2 said:
Yeah this, chances are a pow ski is somebody’s second or third pair of skis, those customers have money. A lot of park skiers have one pair of skis and are teenagers or in college, plus they know they are going to get destroyed so the investment doesn’t seem as worth it.
Basically the more niche a ski is, the more expensive it will be. You can get frontside carvers for dirt cheap
also, my guess would be part of this is the fact that customers would be fucking PISSED if you had to spend more money for the same pair of skis if you sized up.
Shorter customers would be able to spend less on the same pair of skis and people would feel jipped if as they go up in ski height in the same model, it ends up costing more.
Material costs are likely a portion of it, but bumping up prices as the ski gets wider is likely a way to recoup those costs for longer skis as well in a manner that's not going to make people freak out
Shorter customers would be able to spend less on the same pair of skis and people would feel jipped if as they go up in ski height in the same model, it ends up costing more.
Material costs are likely a portion of it, but bumping up prices as the ski gets wider is likely a way to recoup those costs for longer skis as well in a manner that's not going to make people freak out
SlushSeason
Member
It's mostly a "because they can" situation. Wider skis definitely cost more to make, requiring larger presses, and having more opportunities for defects to form. But the same can be said for longer skis
Benchhitter
Member
math time. Area=Length x width
165cm long 100mm ski- 1650cm2.
175cm long 100mm ski- 1750cm2
165cm long 110mm ski- 1815cm2
i failed high school math. However I can extrapolate from this complex data that adding 10mm of underfoot width creates more material than lengthening the ski by 10x that much. That not only affects core, but also bases, topsheet, edges etc. not even going to touch the physics of designing a wider ski structurally.
so yes a longer ski does cost more material, but a wider ski much more so, and rather than tax tall people pennies, they just call it even, I guess. The consumer can choose the width freely, but the height is a little less negotiable.
Alternatively, maybe you’re onto something and I’m just a sheep. it could be a deep conspiracy by big ski. You should get in deep and blow the whistle.
**This post was edited on Mar 14th 2024 at 2:54:30pm
165cm long 100mm ski- 1650cm2.
175cm long 100mm ski- 1750cm2
165cm long 110mm ski- 1815cm2
i failed high school math. However I can extrapolate from this complex data that adding 10mm of underfoot width creates more material than lengthening the ski by 10x that much. That not only affects core, but also bases, topsheet, edges etc. not even going to touch the physics of designing a wider ski structurally.
so yes a longer ski does cost more material, but a wider ski much more so, and rather than tax tall people pennies, they just call it even, I guess. The consumer can choose the width freely, but the height is a little less negotiable.
Alternatively, maybe you’re onto something and I’m just a sheep. it could be a deep conspiracy by big ski. You should get in deep and blow the whistle.
**This post was edited on Mar 14th 2024 at 2:54:30pm
Vish-shoe
Active member
14598322:Benchhitter said:
True, but its still just one piece of wood and trees are super wide. I'm sure that they get all the Ptex and top sheet material in rolls or sheets that are wide enough that they can make a ski of any width. There is not much more material used when you make a wider ski, you're just cutting off more.
SofaKingSick
Active member
i'd guess that one factor is that while fat skis are generally hot these days, they still don't make as many of the fatter models as they do the skinny/medium width skis