Wide skis are overrated af

[Notaskibum]

fr tho, i see yall rocking wide af skis for no reason on non powder days, hard on the knees, harder to spin, harder to swap on rails, harder to carve and charge, just a waste of time. give me the 80mm 2x4s from the early 2010s any day of the week

 

[vibecheck]

no just no, im gonna stick w my big skis thx u

 

[Treegrabber]

More stompability

 

[33luke33]

yeahhh nah... def don't have the money to get pow skis so I'd say its a very pleasant compromise

 

[ski_salmon69]

sighhh... [tag=273397]@WoFlowz[/tag]

 

[WoFlowz]

sighhh... [tag=273397]@WoFlowz[/tag]

What is up with all these stupid Pussys making these threads. Prolly ski 164s also SMH. Fuck you op grow up and buy some skis over 100underfoot man forget that over 105 underfoot.

**This post was edited on Mar 26th 2021 at 8:09:39am

 

[CatdickBojangles]

Its spelled thicc.

 

[zero*]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CMpz3GFhqn2/

.

 

[gussin_it]

sighhh... [tag=273397]@WoFlowz[/tag]

 

[doubleblackjack]

View attachment 998611

well done sir

 

[animator]

fr tho, i see yall rocking wide af skis for no reason on non powder days, hard on the knees, harder to spin, harder to swap on rails, harder to carve and charge, just a waste of time. give me the 80mm 2x4s from the early 2010s any day of the week

A good wide ski is most certainly not harder to carve and charge on than a skinny ski, sorry bruh

 

[jRoma]

So since were talking about it, looking to cop some new skis and looking into on3p jeffrey 96. For someone who skis 90% of their time in the east coast, unless i make trips out west, should i think of going wider to 102 or is 96 already too wide for the east

 

[WoFlowz]

So since were talking about it, looking to cop some new skis and looking into on3p jeffrey 96. For someone who skis 90% of their time in the east coast, unless i make trips out west, should i think of going wider to 102 or is 96 already too wide for the east

I ski a 106 underfoot ski as my daily driver on the east and as my park ski

 

[Notaskibum]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CMpz3GFhqn2/

.

These are 96 underfoot, not exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking ppl repping 100+

 

[DUKES]

Why do you care about what other people ski on?

Honestly I feel it comes down to peoples preferences and maybe personal stat proportions. I'm 6'4" 190lbs and rock a 108 daily and it feels proportional to my build and what I feel is personally best for the skiing that I do even though it's in the park. I mostly do tricks that are low impact for my knees like nosebutters and rails with the occasional jump thrown in. I personally don't like chucking my meat for a spin over 540 and that is my personal preference.

It's all personal preference. So why should it bother you?

 

[Notaskibum]

Why do you care about what other people ski on?

Honestly I feel it comes down to peoples preferences and maybe personal stat proportions. I'm 6'4" 190lbs and rock a 108 daily and it feels proportional to my build and what I feel is personally best for the skiing that I do even though it's in the park. I mostly do tricks that are low impact for my knees like nosebutters and rails with the occasional jump thrown in. I personally don't like chucking my meat for a spin over 540 and that is my personal preference.

It's all personal preference. So why should it bother you?

Sir this is newschoolers

 

[DUKES]

Sir this is newschoolers

So you're the problem

 

[BigPurpleSkiSuit]

Why do you care about what other people ski on?

Honestly I feel it comes down to peoples preferences and maybe personal stat proportions. I'm 6'4" 190lbs and rock a 108 daily and it feels proportional to my build and what I feel is personally best for the skiing that I do even though it's in the park. I mostly do tricks that are low impact for my knees like nosebutters and rails with the occasional jump thrown in. I personally don't like chucking my meat for a spin over 540 and that is my personal preference.

It's all personal preference. So why should it bother you?

I agree, I really liked how Kitten Factory had it oriented with the width increasing as the height of the ski increased.

 

[sullivano*b]

These are 96 underfoot, not exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking ppl repping 100+

there 86 and he is showing that even henrik isn’t rocking wider skis now

 

[shin-bang]

130 underfoot on the daily, op. Eat my ass

 

[Notaskibum]

there 86 and he is showing that even henrik isn’t rocking wider skis now

Proving my point even more

 

[animator]

there 86 and he is showing that even henrik isn’t rocking wider skis now

He said in an interview that he went down to a narrower ski because his knee has been bothering him, and a skinnier ski helps reduce the impact when doing big airs and stuff. That being said, who the fuck cares what he’s skiing, or any pro for that matter? Ski what you like dude, who tf cares what other people’s preferences are? They’re preferences for a reason.

 

[sullivano*b]

He said in an interview that he went down to a narrower ski because his knee has been bothering him, and a skinnier ski helps reduce the impact when doing big airs and stuff. That being said, who the fuck cares what he’s skiing, or any pro for that matter? Ski what you like dude, who tf cares what other people’s preferences are? They’re preferences for a reason.

yeah i don’t get this at all there’s like 3 threads on each side on the first page rn.

 

[D_Walk]

fr tho, i see yall rocking wide af skis for no reason on non powder days, hard on the knees, harder to spin, harder to swap on rails, harder to carve and charge, just a waste of time. give me the 80mm 2x4s from the early 2010s any day of the week

Damn, I see you're catching a lot of hate. Here's my opinion (although it looks like it will be unpopular).

Let me start off by saying I don't think sub-100 skiis nor plus-100 skis are definitively harder on the knees (i've skiied both for plenty of years, but i absolutely welcome your inputs from this statement).

Secondly, I agree with your sentiment in this post. I think fat skis are the newest cash grab - by this I mean that the industry must keep themselves evolving and therefore relevant and (in the consumers' mind) relevant each and every season. I believe these fat skis are the latest and greatest per their marketing teams.

HOWEVER. I also believe that the newest and fatter skis offer more all-mountain capabilities than those of the 2010s. They're more versatile than they used to be. Hellbents weren't exactly all-mountain capable, but now the fat skis are arguably exactly that.

Also, at the same time, i do think the majority of the ski community has neglected the history and function behind skinny skis. At first, the racers and big-pow folks let their tails slide while maintaining a narrow stance. As technology has progressed, we've been seeing skis that allow not only speed without tail-slippage, but that same ski performing comparably or equally as well in the high-altitude backcountry pow.

Wide skis now offer versatility where they haven't before. although, i do agree with you, nothing beats a 75-90 underfoot for rotation and low-incline carvability.

-D_Walk

 

[Eddie_skis]

Companies went all in on rocker and taper when they came around. Hellbents, rossi s7, bent chetler (123?) , Volkl chopsticks and Armada JJ were the flavor of the month at the time, circa 2010.

They were coming on the heels of even more niche reverse reverse skis like the Armada arg and k2 pontoon.

I think now we are in the age of changing up the materials/ construction rather than more radical dimensions. Stringers, inserts, double barrel core or whatever. More interesting weaves made of flax and carbon which weigh less than just the standard fibreglass.

 

[-arc-]

I agree, I really liked how Kitten Factory had it oriented with the width increasing as the height of the ski increased.

Pretty sure Icelantic does this too.