For recreational skiers a consideration of ski width

Based on a research study, Skinny and wide skis are discussed.

[@newttella1043]

You're an Olympian... I trust your advice. I feel bad for beginners who are being pressured to use fat skis and they are struggling with the basics.

[@edsearancke4711]

Very good point. I'm a keen recreational skier and own three pairs of skis in different widths; 115mm, 95mm, 74mm. The narrower ski is by far the most versatile ski outside of powder and is my go-to choice for 95% of skiing.

[@marekholub8668]

I'm thinking about getting 95s for pow and spring slush. Would you say that's a good idea? I was riding 65s my whole life except last few years on 74s

[@liamkingsbury7438]

That is an awesome setup! When I’m older and buying my own ski gear, I would love to buy a three ski quiver like that: 75-80mm, 95-100mm, and 110-120mm. Carving, mixed conditions/off piste, and a deep powder ski respectively.

[@aliceh9186]

I ski at a local resort. Have noticed the preponderance of pow skis in the lift line,and envied all the powder skiers,wondered what off pist they were headed for. Turns out it is just a status thing. I have stuck to groomer skis and shoot the powder ,when it comes to my ski resort , quite nicely. Remember? Skiers used to do powder on narrow skis. Hahah. Good going Deb👌

[@juliemartin8849]

Love your video's Deb. I find the information very helpful. I just started back skiing after a 20 year hiatus and am really learning a lot about the skis on the market now. So different from the ones I used before. Keep putting out the great content, it is much appreciated!

[@steveliberman3000]

BTW Deb, I really like your presentations. Very analytical yet down-to-earth. Very helpful. I can see/hear that you greatly care for others optimizing their skiing.

[@ski4life]

Great stuff Deb. A discussion I am always having with my clients who are on 90's skiing in the east on almost completely groomed and hard packed snow.

[@darylluthas2004]

Wow thanks for this Deb. Specific, concise info that makes sense, and helps us make decisions about spending our hard earned money as recreational skiers. I almost purchased new skis this year with the new boots I purchased at a wonderful ski shop. All the new ski's were so much lighter and wider. They wanted to sell me some mountain Bent Chetlers that were so wide underfoot. Would love to look "cool" on the slopes, but as I stay on piste most of the time, the info you provided has given me facts that help me make a better choice for myself personally. Thank you. Rather be practical than trendy.

[@charp6884]

Thanks Deb- I have been thinking about this subject for the last few years after reading comments by an orthopedic surgeon/instructor who cited anecdotal evidence about a correlation between wide skis and knee injury. I’m pretty sure that skiing in deeper snow predates wide skis by a few years LOL. Your videos have been a great inspiration to my own coaching journey, working with kids, and helped inspire me to reach my goal of attaining PSIA L3 at age 59!!

[@jefftribiano1875]

First off Deb your communication skills are impeccable. You follow the old saw brevity is the soul of wit by compressing large amounts of insight and knowledge rather than rambling monologues that are sadly all too often apart of KZbinrs. I don't think there any right or wrong answers here accept your assertion that the pendulum has moved way too far towards Fatboy skis which as you say are best suited in deep powder. I went out and bought a pair of 85 Under Foot and after a short time I scrapped them after jumping back on my old 25 year old wood core volkl skis which quickly reminded me how much faster I could initiate turns. Being 61 it's hard to convince the younger generation of the old narrow skis which I grew up on and still employ except for deep powder in which case I dust off the Fat Boys . Unfortunately shaped skis allowed a whole generation to quickly turn their skis by relying on the sheer technology of the ski as opposed to solid fundamentals that you and I we're taught actually turn the ski absent the innovation. You know better than I that the quickness of 65 Under Foot allows for supremely precise incredibly quick turning that's not quite the same as say 85 Under Foot. For me Deb my 25 year old wood core voelkel's is my go to ski unless there's a sizable amount of snow in which case The Fat Boys rule. For me more choices are better than less. Read ask questions experiment an ultimately any skier will be able to sort this out. God bless keep us informed!

[@janinerosenke5463]

Love your podcasts Deb. Appreciate this cast immensely. Hope your safe and healthy.

[@ggbird72]

Thanks Charlie for giving us a demo of the right gear for the right conditions 👍🐕😄

[@abqdentalassociates1657]

Deb, I am in your camp here. My goto ski is a Stockli Laser AX (78 mm). I love its' ability to hold a carve and surprisingly how it reacts in powder. Converse to this my other commonly used ski is a Mantra M5 (96 mm). This past season I found myself favoring the Stockli in all conditions including deep powder (20" Utah fluff). The Stockli has quicker turn initiation and floats nicely. Not once did I have any experience where the ski wanted to dive. When you've been on the Stockli and then you switch to the Mantra the difference is DRAMATIC! The Mantra comes nowhere near the quickness in turns and wants to be slarved vs. carved. Very different techniques and ultimately differing levels of enjoyment. I'm sure the wide ski camp would say otherwise. I grew up skiing slalom skis and perhaps that's why I'm more sensitive to turn initiation and carve. Me thinks that the fat crowd doesn't mind bombing the slope and minimizing the effect of a turn on speed control. Different strokes for different folks.

[@yahwada]

Pretty good video Deb. I'm an Eastern Ontario skier and I have one pair of 93mm and one pair of 65mm. I've been skiing for many years and have never been out when powder snow was available. I have the wider skis for skiing in crud which we do get quite a bit of. The wider skis are not as stiff as the narrow ones so they can flex more in crummy conditions. And, I agree with you that the skiing experience is better on the narrow skis.

[@alanbrown5802]

While I love my 90 under foot skis, this makes too much sense to me! I'll have to demo slalom skis next season! Deb, another thought provoking video! Thanks! I'll keep watching!

[@mitchdavis2902]

Great conversation! I've been saying this for 4-5 years, and we are seeing a new trend at our little mountain. I'm seeing really good skiers going back to the narrower waisted skis and they are having a blast! It seems, even in skiing, that the sports industry is always trying to re-create the experience. Good skiers can ski on just about any waist width of ski, but try that with a newbie and they quickly become frustrated on the wider skis. Maybe we are doing a disservice to the beginners. There is a lot to discuss about waist width's, but I applaud you for speaking up and challenging the status quo! Your videos are fantastic!

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

Thank you!

[@__Steph]

When I ski in France/Andorra I see most rec skiers on 70-85 mm underfoot. I went to Canada for the first time last April (Banff/LL) and felt really out of place on my 74 mm carvers, I was probably the only one... For me the ski that puts the biggest smile on my face is my FIS SL.

[@MCR1565]

I love your videos and your point of view! Keep up the amazing job please!🙏💖🙏

[@flyshacker]

I bought my first set of freestyle skis in the 1970s, narrower and straight, simple graphics. Unfortunately I gave them away 10 or 20 years ago. I just bought new skis which I look forward to using really soon. But they are wide and shaped and have LOUD graphics! I don’t know what I am going to find, but after watching your video I am sorry that I got rid of my old skis!

[@ernestdaly1944]

Thanks, Deb! I feel less guilty now about my preference for thinner skis underfoot over wider skis. Before your video, I had been feeling like I was missing something, seeing all the wider skis flood the market and at the resorts. I mostly ski/ each east coast, and teach a LOT at night with very icy conditions, so it just made sense to get a thinner ski underfoot. And even when I'm skiing/teaching out west I rarely do backcountry (Too injured for that...) You just confirmed my choice. So, I'm not so stupid after all! But, with the contemporary preference for wider skis, it's harder to find thinner skis underfoot. I'm on a very, very limited budget, and was shopping around recently looking for bargain basement options.(My one and only pair of skis, carving skis, had been stolen from the ski instructor room somehow....) Luckily, a ski instructor friend gave me a pair of carving skis (76 underfoot, Nordica Fire Arrow) as a gift when he realized I couldn't afford a pair at present. The skis he was kind enough to give me are are a bit longer than what I would prefer and are better at wider turns than short radius turns, but, man, do they fly when I put them on edge! I feel like a racer, which I am not. Hope to go out west again next season, so I will eventually invest again in a second pair of slightly wider skis for powder, but I don't feel guilty for the moment... Thanks again! Love your videos!

[@BillCadmus]

Thanks Deb, straight to the point as always! I ski on 82's and I enjoy the stability at speed, on ice and in the crud. These may be too mush ski for me, but hey... I also have a pair on 122's with major rocker. These are just play skis for my local woods (back country in NH). Skin up and play down...just to stay young at heart!

[@junkname9983]

4 years ago, I went from a 65mm underfoot skis which I bought in the late '90s to a new pair of skis that's 93mm underfoot with a big wide plow in the toe. That's a pretty dramatic jump. What it did was it opened up a whole lot of terrain for me even if I'm a 100% resort recreational skier. I'm able to get off the groomed trails and into deeper and unmarked areas that I wasn't able to go before and basically freed me to go where ever I want to. I could use a second pair that's even wider for the deeper powder days, say something between 97-103. I don't think I'm ever going to want or need something like a 115 or anything like that, but I'm really not interested to go back to anything narrower than 88mm, let's say, unless something else also changes that would make us swing back to narrower skis more compelling. I'm also don't think I'm the kind of audience that Deb's trying to talk to though, since I'm not trying to improve my performance or learn how to ski more technically sound to race or make those competitive carving turns, per se, I'm trying to get better in so far as I can get to the terrain that I want to get to so I can have more freedom.

[@joshdavis4781]

Thanks for this Deb! I run a shop in SoCal and I have this talk all day everyday with people. Everyone hears they "Need" a 102mm and I shake my head. For most folks I'd say over 95% they spend over 95% on firm snow! Get a "Daily Driver" that rips on what you ACTUALLY ski on not what you "HOPE" to ski on. On epic days or crud days pull out the 100+mm🤙!

[@stevenmoore4078]

I just came back from Colorado. During my stay, I was fortunate to have a few days of fresh powder. Being from the east, I thought, wow, I should rent some powder skis. So I got a pair of 100mm skis and did some runs. I didn't like them at all. Compared to my 80mm, 15M radius skis, these fat skis didn't seem to want to turn. At lunchtime, I got my old skis back and had a much more enjoyable day skiing the whole mountain. Thanks for your observations.

[@alanroach1565]

Deb, I hear ya on the narrow underfoot thing. I recently went from a Rossi 9s racing slalom ski (1995 model 205 & narrow waisted) to a 88 underfoot and 177 long. I like to make tight linked S turns most of the time on groomed and bump runs. Ski shop told me the 88 would do it and it pretty much does but it took me 4-5 long days to learn how to make em "work". I was really gunshy of such a short ski but believe it or not they are more steady at high speed than my 205's. Thanks for all your work and sharing of your skills Alan Roach

[@christophervulliamy1482]

I totally agree. Skiing 95mm Extrem Fusion all season and love the ski and amazed how good it is on groomers etc but I do miss the agility in the bumps of my old K2 at 70mm underfoot.

[@barkbook1440]

This is an awesome discussion! Thank you for uploading this! Just got some 82mm for all around tour on and off piste. I was using 115! Which I still enjoy for floating straight down the mountain haha

[@barry144]

Deb I think you’re 100% correct. I spent years - and thousands of dollars - on lessons from pious instructors that said I needed to carve on wider skis and ‘graduate’ to a narrow race ski. BS!!! A race ski gets you carving. And if anyone here says they experience ‘no difference’ carving between a 90 vs 65 under foot, I can almost guarantee they don’t know how to truly carve a turn. Go Deb!,

[@VickiKech]

Got an 68mm waisted Fischer women's ski after skiing on 88mm or 80mm skis for several years. OMG so much fun, especially with my short legs (less leverage). So another topic to explore is length for recreational skiers--are manufacturers playing it safe when they recommend what seems like a really short length., or how skier weight might change things.

[@davidivers9295]

Hi Deb, I live in Utah and ski at Snowbird. I couldn't agree with you more! Frontside is Dynastars @67 underfoot. Off piste/ powder Nordicas @ 100. Looking forward to this winter. Take care.

[@urbanrunoff]

snowbird where I can't find a rental under 90mm (business travel, when I can't bring my ski and only have a day or two )

[@BigPurpleSkiSuit]

I also ski the bird. I will say this much, wide skis ski groomers way better than narrow skis ski anything other than groomer. I ski a 112 underfoot 194 length daily and while I'm sure I could do short turns way better on a narrow ski, the stability on landings and in powder or chop is unparalleled. Ski however you want and have a good time doing it! Just my 2 cents

[@MONGOOSE748]

than you, thank you, thank you. I'm always amazed at the amount of wide skis at resorts, especially out east. It's gotten so bad i start to think I'm the crazy one. I fondly remember the days when your race skis were also your powder skis and mogul skis!! i feel bad that people are missing out on the opportunity to learn how to carve which makes skiing just that more exhilarating.

[@andrewsteavpack9079]

My main skis are 106mm for Colorado but have a pair of 120mm and 92mm. I recently picked up some 65mm FIS Slalom skis and it opened up a new style of skiing, I got them to practice carving at night, and don’t take them out frequently and want to do a recreational night ski racing next season.

[@georgewcamp]

Again..Just great common sense which is so hard to find most days!!!

[@TheSnifmister]

Deb excellent video. I sometimes really wish I had a norrower ski. I think everyone should own 3 ski widths 65-80 , 85-95 and 95 and above.

[@alicekane3913]

YES, Deb! You've addressed a "fad" that's made me think that I'M crazy. Predict a "power day,' & any resort I've been to is immediately "sold out" of 'FAT rentals' for the next day. (Which is kinda funny since these areas inevitably get a meager few inches.) The coupla times I rented fat skis & wound up on typical groomed surfaces, I was SO unhappy with the lack of control I had. It's like I had to go where 'they' told me! While I love stability in a ski (like Volkl...even tho I have a 'slight' frame), I totally missed the 'response' and the feel of the narrower width. I KNOW the industry needs to market what's' new' in order to thrive, but, as you say in your video, there HAS to be a happy medium. And speaking of 'new,' here's to a better world and restoration of the skiing universe we all love! P.S. Hi Charlie! Charley?

[@heidinunnikhoven5260]

Well stated Deb, thanks for sharing the research!

[@sandyudontneedtoknow2826]

Hey Mama!

[@chrisdowning1528]

I would add how your center of mass moves over your edge on a lifted slalom ski adding leverage. As you press on the inside of the cuff to start angulation the pressure will become very balanced over the edge at a certain degree, as angulation increases the pressure will switch to the outside cuff. Vs. A wide ski with the edge farther out from under foot putting the pressure against the inside cuff when skied on ice it's fatiguing but as snow depth increases the width is supported and not focused right on the edge. 65mm - 78mm = Binding Lifter/System ski , 80mm & up = No lifter & becomes easy to skid over things. Final thought a fat ski can be carved every turn top to bottom with the same technique as a slalom. But the pressure in the boot cuff will not be the same.

[@darrensmith9143]

This study confirms what I had a gut feeling about since the advent of the fat ski fad. You didn't mention it but together with the trend of super fat skis is reverse camber or "rocker". Lots of these fat skis have half the length in front of the foot as reverse camber. I believe this is less than ideal for an on-piste ski where grip is needed.

[@gatticusfpv3174]

Thank you! Finally! Its so hard to find good all mountain skis these days since they are basically what powder skis were 10 yrs ago and of course the powder specific skis are getting ridiculous. I typically ski FIS slalom skis or beer league GS skis for groomers and then use Rossi Experience 88s for everything else. I don't mind working a bit harder in the powder but the 88s feel crazy floaty compared to race skis. And I don't see what's wrong with making face shots a little more likely to happen. =)

[@3johnnys]

I skied Jackson in Feb and told that 105s “are what we ski on around here”, great fun but well, wide!

[@Triggerboy62]

Great video Deb. I use narrow racing skis for everything I do mostly for practical reasons but skiing powder with a GS ski is as good as it gets by my standards :)

[@danblumel]

You are right, 100% agree with you, I ski everything on 198 cm GS skis.

[@simon1066]

It’s an interesting dilemma. I swapped my 78mm new Head Rally piste skis for a 65mm waist pair of Dynastars which my friend had and he wanted to try my Heads. The difference I thought was his skis worked well on a less challenging piste. They made you ski slower, in a more precise manner using curve shape to slow, rather than skid. The Heads though I felt smashed through most conditions, skid and be much more brutal if you have to be. They are much better at displacing snow, but not so good (or I’m not so good) at making fast finessed precise short turns. The Heads just want to go fast and so do I!!

[@mickm2293]

Hi Deb love your videos. Just want to share what works for me regarding ski width. I ski in Australia where we have lots of variable conditions, crud, ice, boilerplate, afternoon slush the odd powder day. I learn't to ski in the 80s on long straight skis when there was little grooming. I progressed to some K2 axis skis in the later 90s. The next ski was a performance Blizzard G force pro carver, and wow, did they grip and taught me to really edge. As I get older I tend more often than not to ski by myself as a lot of my friends don't ski anymore. I found I was getting bored skiing carvers on the groomers and really started to explore the mountain. It was then that I purchased a pair of Atomic Vantage 90Ti. I rarely ski the groomers anymore and I find the 90 width perfect for me. I can still carve on the groomed ok but they really excel on the ungroomed harder runs. Definitely don't ski ice as well as my carvers, but are so much more fun and stable off the groomers. Also, in afternoon slush they are much easier. My carvers are hard work in the cruddy bumps we get over here and tend to track too much. Probably more skillful skiers than me don't have this problem. Anyway, this width works for me (and our Aussie conditions) but would not go any wider. I agree, all skiers should learn on performance carvers. Not sure I could have learn't on the 90mm. We get many teenagers in Oz on the wide 110 skis and they tend to slide their turns most of the time. They are definitely out of place!

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

Great stuff. Thank you for sharing.

[@barrywhite4334]

I had given a comment on your teaching style a while back. Now I would like to give my opinion on the narrower underfoot ski. It only makes sense to ski on a narrower ski just for the ability to put the ski on edge to initiate an easier turn with less physical effort. Therefore I do agree in your theory also. Thanks, Barry

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

Sounds good😉

[@filmic1]

Love your insight. Fires up my interest that I felt when I skied a lot as a kid. I went back to it in my mid fifties and found a pair Dynastar Skicross 66 (186cm) on a liquidation sale still in plastic. They wouldn't let me ski on the easy intermediate. Killed my quads, but the steeper I skied, the more they performed even in the modest glades.. (plus they were heavy) still uncomfortable on low grade runs. My friends were skiing on really light skis, left me wondering. A couple of years ago I bought new Ross Experience 80's (168cm) and it says 'autorocker...' ?? (I recall you saying something negative about rocker'd skis. dunno) these are fun skis in the single diamonds and tougher blue... I'm heavy at 215lbs. But the Skicross, one has to work em, but boy do they perform if you're in shape.

[@whoormaster]

I'd love to have a proper heated argument with deb about skiing. problem is I like everything she says. that's annoying me.

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

HA!!!! love it

[@seaskiguy]

I agree with you 1000% for so many reasons. My everyday ski is 73mm under foot. And, frankly, it's perfect for up to a few inches of new snow. It used to be that our GS skis were our powder skis! My powder ski is just 92mm under foot which I can still carve on soft snow. For resort skiing, I don't like anything wider. Let's face it, at most resorts, the powder is gone after a few runs, so you're back on groomed or at least packed and bumpy terrain. One thing you only alluded to is the stress a wider ski puts on knees. When you put a wide ski on edge, it puts pressure on your knees because you are that much higher off the snow. I could go on, but I'll spare you. LOL! Thanks for addressing this issue.

[@arontal]

Agree. I moved out to the PNW 12 years ago and found that the wider skis made a huge difference for handling the wet chunder. I think it was sea-change in skiing and made mixed terrain a lot more fun. Eventually a 108 under-foot Cochise became my daily driver. But, heading back into the intermountain West for vacations, the Cochise felt like an anchor, not a springboard, to accessing terrain. It was a bitchin bumps and lacked maneuverability in trees or steeps unless you had the line and/or the gumption to ski it mach 10 in those situations. I'm back to a 102 Volkl Mantra and it's a better daily driver to cover my bases in teh PNW and in the intermountain West. But, feeling that pull to going to an even narrower ski. Definitely think the industry pendulum is swinging back to the narrower skis.

[@docbrazen]

As a new skier I was sold some some 135- 84-116 skis. And this is for someone that skis always groomers on the east coast. I had no idea that was not the optimal ski for the type of terrian I skiied most, but the salesman was adamant it was the best most versatile ski for me. Go figure. Would love to try some skinnier ski some times. Especially after seeing this video. Thanks Deb.

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

Ya, this story is all too common. Too bad and I am sorry!!!!! Often the folks selling skis sell what they understand and know, what they ski and what they like. anyway, an 84 under foot is not terrible but certainly not ideal for the groomers you spend the majority of your time on. Good luck!

[@docbrazen]

@@DebArmstrongSkiStrong Thanks for the reply. I agree, It's not terrible at all and I've been skiing them for two seasons now. Just glad to be able to hit the slopes. I'm sure I'll grow my ski quiver in the future so it's no big deal. Just glad to always be learning and improving.

[@larryburstein7611]

I'm on a 106 All Mountain ski and carve rail GS turns on the frontside by moving the bindings forward of center.

[@africanjew1596]

For a guy who loves speed, air, and playfulness while also going switch instead of forwards a lot, I don’t like more narrow then about 88 at the most for that style of skiing but I’m not pro. My 96 Armada ARV are so fun for me! Also mounted freestyle at +2cm I believe. I still want a slalom ski haha

[@andarrigo]

Love the subject and want to get more into it when I’m there in Taos this week for your clinic. Can’t wait😊

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

Awesome!!!!!

[@kenmcc5734]

Hey Debs. Just back from ITALY Cervinia. Normally an out and out GS man in the old days when you couldn’t Instruct unless your Skis 2m long. So for the first time I asked for an all mountain Ski and got a K2 Pinnacle 95 170L. I’m H175 and reckon I should have gone 177-180ish but boy what fun. I could do all the stuff but the big test was an ice stretch and thought Here we go need my old Skis to cut the Ice but wow these babies got stick right in.

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

Awesome!!!

[@chiplunsford3369]

I dig my Faction Moguls.... 61 underfoot... like rack and pinion steering... no margin for daydreaming...but gotta go wider with new snow and steeps.

[@amberhamster9610]

My evolution went the other way. I love the feeling of a carved turn, so I spent 2 decades on narrow skis. As I got older the cut up powder and push piles at the end of the day became less fun so I settled on the perfect ski for me now which is an 84mm with a tail rocker. Some people think this is "narrow."

[@TayTayVideoGaming]

On the east coast the only time I’ve wanted a wider ski than my 76 was the one powder day we got this season. Other than that I’ve been very happy having a narrower ski to get up on edge on the ice.

[@getriteb4ugetlft]

You and I are on. The same page! 100% Now to convince the “Industry”!

[@georgiasmaglee3511]

I live in the northeast and we rarely have the conditions for the wide skis, yet you see people skiing them all the time, and I just want to say to them that they could instantly improve their skiing in just one run on narrower skis. All the rental skis are narrow and there's a reason for that. Just think how many people would never come back if they had their first lesson on wide skis. I just bought a new pair that are 68 underfoot (Head Power Joy). My last pair are 74 and the ones before that are 72. I haven't skied my new ones yet but I'm looking forward to it. I tried wider skis once and didn't like them and it actually was a little bit powdery that day.

[@jim5549]

Had to laugh Deb! I wanted some new skis & got bit by the wide ski bug. Skiing mostly groomed slopes they are more work but got them to work. We went to Canada in early February with lots of fresh deeper snow and they really shined. I've decided to stick with my old pointy skinnies on the groomers. So once again came to the same conclusion - not by reason but by sheer luck! (My old adage of "if you can't be good you've got to be lucky" still holds! 😜) Thank you - always like your insights!

[@johnditoro1676]

I spent the last week working on replacing my front side skis. For perspective, I am 69, have been skiing for 50 years, ski 70-90 days per season and live in the Vail Valley. I have a pair of very wide DPS skis for powder, and have been on Völkl RTM 84's for the past 12+. Just had my 4th knee surgery this past spring and have reluctantly accepted the fact that my skiing will now be groomers or deep untracked power. I still ski very fast, but I'm also a blind skier guide which means lots of slower/moderate speed turns. I wanted to get something narrower under foot. If you are familiar with the Vail Valley you'll know we have a plethora of ski shops. I visited all of them over the past week. Many didn't carry anything under 84mm. I wanted to get into the mid 70's. The closest I was able to get was an 80mm (Stöckli Montero ax). I love the skis (slightly shorter and a much smaller turn radius than the RTMs), but was very disappointed in the process. I know I can buy something online, but I don't buy a new ski type without demo'ing.

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

So true and so very unfortunate! I am working on a video covering this topic. We need to continue to educate and nudge the industry. I feel the need to educate the “gatekeepers”. Shop owners, magazines, ski manufacturers themselves in the States. The tail is waging the dog here and there has been very little leadership in this regard. Meaning I want to see everyone access the proper ski for the type of skiing they are interested in and not funneled to a ski that is the wrong tool for the job.

[@margaretreid6570]

I started on long 190 narrow skis in the 1970s. I have always resisted and to a certain extent fear wide skis. My current ski however purchased in 2014 has an 84mm waist. Often feel I should go back to a narrower ski. Interesting video and something to think about. I was also wondering if you are able to do a video on handling ice Deb. That would be very useful. Thank you for another great video

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

the problem with living in Colorado is that we seldom have ice. I will look for some next season and see what I can do. It is a very important topic to cover. Thanks for the feedback.

[@margaretreid6570]

@@DebArmstrongSkiStrong Thank you Deb. We seldom have powder in Scotland and often icy and windblown or at a minimum really solid pistes however I am finding confidence going and lots of sliding happening in recent years with an increasing fear of such conditions especially on steeper slopes. Look forward to that next season. Thank you once more.

[@auntiefan4202]

I keep getting comments on the lift that my skis are too skinny and I need to get powder skis. 68 underfoot Nordica's and I love them. They take me everywhere I want to go. I have demoed some powder skis and I felt like I couldn't move. Searching here because I knew you would have a video on the topic, thank you!

[@misterfunnybones]

I have a very wide ski called a snowboard, but I also spend most groomer days (rain freeze, boilerplate, dust on crust) on a set of Fischer 190cm GS race skis, so I agree that a narrower ski is preferred especially for beginners & intermediates. West coast concrete, cementimeters, chunder, crud is just easier to ride on a snowboard; ergo, I'm getting old & lazy.

[@superskier61]

Great video! Straight talk, good advice to use on my next ski purchase. Will you be doing a video on the width of tips and tails with narrower underfoot.

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

in terms of your video question. probably not. Blizzard makes their HRC which is a perfect blend of width under foot with tip and tail shape.

[@superskier61]

@@DebArmstrongSkiStrong hell Debbie. Thank you for the reply. So prompt. I will check Blizzard out this fall. Not a popular one in Eastern Provinces of Canada. More marginal snow, usually with the same amount of rain.

[@001Cherith]

I think for recreational skiers, no matter how, 75-85 mm should be the right size. This is sweet spot for width, it allows the skis to be versatile and easy control as well.

[@Dan-xo9ly]

I Ski 108 mm skis all the time. Probably wouldn't go narrower than 100. Pretty happy on them all the time as long as the edges are sharp when its a little icier! Sure they'll never be scalpels but are great fun especially with the rocker and twin tip. Smearing, drifting and going backwards are just another way to enjoy skiing! I'm sure however that the carving skis have their own fun characteristics though!

[@stevedoe1630]

Born and raised to ski East Coast ice, so it was always narrow skis or me. In my youth, the decision wasn’t about width, but more about flex...e.g. ¿Do I want a mogul ski or a carving ski? Also, back then, one’s [perceived] skill level was directly seen in their ski length. I never went above 94-mm underfoot... stainless steel Volant Machete FB (fatboy), so torsionally stiff it skied like a mid-fat on slimfast, but so heavy it felt like a mid-fit on a fried donut fasting diet. (I guess that’s why I got them cheap.) No matter what type of equipment, wide or narrow, long or short, stiff or compliant... always big smiles gliding on snow with gravity. (Exception: ill-fitting boots can most certainly invert a smile.)

[@henrygonzalez3842]

I learned on 108 under foot skis lol Finally bought 88 under foot Kendo’s and it wasn’t a huge difference. They ARE more nimble than my 107 Corvus beasts, but for some reason I keep wanting to go back to the Corvus 🧐

[@mocha2259]

Personally I haven’t felt any on piste difference from my beginner carving skis to my current 90mm all mountain park skis. Granted that’s probably because the first skis were beginner skis but I think the fact that one can buy a 80-90 mm ski that will truly give them all mountain access is very reassuring.

[@thomasmedeiros5722]

So I have been in the ski industry since 1975 and have lots of experience with the evolving technology. I do agree with Deb that many skiers buy skis that don’t suit their most frequent snow conditions, terrain or skiing skills. However we always have the new narrow models left over at the end of the season and sell out the 88- 98 mm waisted skis here in New England. To be clear the entry level to lower intermediate level ski in the 72 -78 mm width sell out. However the Advanced/ Expert level skiers buy the wider width skis in the 88- 98 mm range. Personally I find my Blizzard Brahma 88 is my favorite everyday driver for all conditions. I do love my Blizzard Firebird HRC ( 76 mm) when it’s firm and frozen like a race course . If we follow your advice and bought mostly narrow high performance skis in that 64- 76 mm range we would loose money. You are correct on your ski width/ performance advice but unfortunately that is not what the majority of our customers actually buy.

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

A few things. A 64 under foot, is that even made😉 i have a 68 under foot and thats about as narrow as they come. I do not suggest that a recreational skier ski on a 68 under foot. I would say a 72 under foot would be the narrowest. So I suggest 72 or 74ish on the narrow side up to 80ish. As for what sells. I hear every day that folks are pointed to a direction of wider and generally that is what shops in the states sell. Different in Europe of course. In Europe rentals are high performance and often quite narrow under foot. In many cases in the states it is the tail wagging the dog and folks buy what the shops offer and or/what the sales person suggests. More often that not this is a wider ski. If you have 68 and 72 width skis left on the shelf my thought is they should be. Thats too aggressive. If more folks are versed in the benefits of a 74ish to 80ish under foot I think many folks would be very happy. And dont get me wrong, a fat ski on a powder day is a ton of fun!!!

[@didimas]

Nice comments. I wish I had seen this video prior to purchasing my skis. 😢

[@chipkent]

Deb, thanks for your insights. I have been skiing for a few years and am really trying to dial in my technique. When I was bad, I skied a 106 ski in ungroomed snow. As my technique improved, I've moved to a 92 as my preferred ski in most powder. You now have me thinking that I should give something even more narrow a try. I have a few questions: 1) In your other video, you recommend a ski in the 68-82 range. Can you comment on how skier height and weight impact what you recommend? (e.g. I'm 5'9" 240lbs, short and dense weightlifter vs my 5'3" 100lb cross-country-runner son) 2) What are your thoughts on ski radius for a recreational skier? 3) What do you recommend for the trees, where the snow is ungroomed, but precision is needed?

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

that is a lot to answer in this text. height and weight does not matter in terms of width under foot. for a sandwich layer construction ski more layers of metal will make the ski stiffer which is good for a stronger skier and possibly a heavier skier. Ski ability has more to so with what ski a skier should be on and not their size. All things being equal, if you and I skied at the same ability level, you are much larger than me, then you would be on a longer and possibly stiffer ski. However I am a better skier than you so my ski may be longer than your ski and likely a stiffer, more performance ski. am I making sense? I actually gave my friend my 175 Blizzard HRC. It is 74 under foot. I am 5'5 and 135. He is 6 feet and probably 220 pounds. He loves my ski and he is a good skier. It is a great ski for him. He loves this ski for everything, as do I. Hope this helps.

[@DrTimWhatleyDDS]

This makes so much sense. I’m an intermediate skier who skies east coast groomers 95% of the time. I need a solid carving ski even though I WANT to ski powder. I’ll just rent fatter skis for my occasional trip out west, or maybe buy a second pair.

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

👍👍👍👍👍👍 sounds good

[@cswalker21]

Yeah, at least in Colorado it makes no sense to me to have a super fat ski as your daily driver. I ski around 40 days a year and maybe 5 of those are powder days. I love the dog sweater analogy-- it's about having the right tool for the job. Most of the time I'm on firm snow, so most of the time I'm on carving skis. YMMV

[@tonymallis2185]

You're peaching to the converted here! Skiing in Australia, you see too many fat skis inbounds. I only crack open the fat skis on powder days.

[@davidwells997]

Hi, Deb! New subscriber here & love your straightforward instruction, tips and viewpoints. I recently wrote to a leading magazine regarding their propensity for showing the latest and greatest (and “expensivest “) gear & places to ski. What advice do you have for budget-minded skiers wanting to get into the sport. What advice do you have regarding how to best navigate “ski swaps”?

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

Oh wow. not a straight forward answer. The fact that you found me shows me that you are doing the homework to be informed. There is so much info out there. If you have specific questions shoot them my way and I will do my best to answer,

[@ggrimpecom]

What's your favorite width for messy piste conditions ? Groomers that have been skied a lot (with icy and soft, bumpy patches alternating on the steeps) , spring slush etc. We tend to get a lot of that stuff over here (France) unless you can ski mid week mornings only, or on a closed race-training run...

[@warrenoberholser]

Hi Deb, Awesome channel! I would like to purchase new skis for carving & bumps (last year's model is fine). I believe you recommend 68 to 72cm in the foot. I am 5’ 8”, 160 pounds: ski level (basic) advance. Any advice on ski brand/models to includes total ski length and size for the shovel and tail? Thanks Warren

[@ChefChrisDay]

This was great!

[@user-ud2nd5xm4c]

Hi Deb, brilliant video as usual! I have always skiied skiiny skis, this season I bought a pair of ARV 116's now these are some fat boys. Sure they make for a different experience on groomers, however when I change to regular skis I find that my time on my fat skis has improved my overall ability (this may be a confidence thing due to the ability of the narrower skis doing the work for you) but I find the 11'6's a useful tool and so much fun! I was worried I wouldn't be able to ski them on groomers and I would be falling over every time I tried to carve but i found that I was racing past 99% of the people on the mountain and I felt like I was smooth and fluid! Any thoughts? could this be a placebo?

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

I would have to see your skiing to comment. You mentioned going fast. That does not reflect skill. Glad you are having fun!!!!! Take care

[@user-ud2nd5xm4c]

@@DebArmstrongSkiStrong Being a "younger" keen self taught skier (and a typical male) I do like to go fast across all terrain. Once again you are 100% right, Unfortunately I don't ski as narrow as others but I naturally squat wider than most also! (not sure if the two are comparable lol) Would love to have the opportunity to get taught by someone of your experience and attitude towards skiing!

[@mattsmith1185]

Thank you, Deb!!! Another great video!!! Yea!! What is your go-to ski for everyday (non-powder) skiing?

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

D Doe 12 years I use only one profile of ski. A 165 mens SL race ski, 68 under foot. I still use it 90% of the time. I also have the blizard HRC which is 74 under foot. No fat skis. Never for powder. I like turning too much.

[@mattsmith1185]

Awesome!!! Thank you!!!

[@williamhall7785]

I agree. Same holds true for other sports as well. Im a windsurer, and the same psychology applies there too. People love spending money on the equipment designed for conditions that we wish occurred much more frequently that they actually do. Marketing has a lot to do with it. I see most people on 85mm+ skis here in new england skiing the groomers, where its firm in morning and boilerplate by noon. Even off piste, its usually not that deep....

[@MikeP-we2ve]

I agree.....well said Deb

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

Thanks Mike!

[@GMec78]

Now that we're mostly on the off-season what about a Q and A video or a live stream maybe focused on equipment or goal setting or something like that?

[@yoboo6167]

Interesting. The last time I skied was in the 90's and seeing the new skis at the local shop I wondered why they were so wide! I thought maybe my mind was playing tricks on me haha. Looks like I'm off to dig my old Atomics out of storage.

[@GMec78]

Hi Deb, with the industry still moving wider and wider underfoot and narrow underfoot skis becoming less readily available, what are your thoughts on less than expert skiers using generally available GS race skis for recreational skiing? The arguments against this are that race skis are unforgiving to even the smallest technical mistakes and that “most” racers wouldn’t take a set of racers out for more than a few groomer runs because of the energy involved in controlling them. Do you agree with that line of reasoning? Thank you.

[@ryanletterman1434]

If there is no rocker in skis does that make it harder to get the ski to turn on its own, assuming proper body position and angles are constant?

[@oligohome]

For years I skied on pair of 2014 Black Pearl's (88 underfoot) or a pair of 2008 Fisher RX8's (my "ice"/teaching ski (I ski and teach in Maine)). When the Fishers aged out, I replaced them with a pair of 2018 Atomic Cloud 12's (70 underfoot), spec'ed fairly close to the RX8's...I love them. I even used them on the couple of power days (I usually save the Black Pearls for those days). I feel like I control the ski better.

[@aliceh9186]

Opps- I meant Off Piste ,of course. Anyway,keep informing us on good skills set for all conditions,Deb.

[@timruth8767]

I have a factory sealed brand new pair of old school Hart F-17's ( skinny as they get ) I keep looking at them and this makes me smile,.......

[@lynnpiesnikowski9700]

I am skiing on a Fischer KOA 84 underfoot length 159. (Love them but I want to try a narrower ski.) Any suggestions for a ski with a 72-75 width. Ski mostly groomers, intermediate trails and some blacks. Any suggestions would be helpful.

[@sk22ng]

For some reason this video appeared in my que. When I want to get serious and don't want my "narrow under the feet" skies to slide, they are easy to dig into the snow to the point I feel my spine compressing while carving a turn. This kind of carving rather than sliding also goes a long way towards controlling speed whenever skiing something fairly steep. I'm an advanced intermediate skier so what width do you recommend under foot today for all mountain skiing on groomers, moguls, crud, the occasional ice, and maybe a tiny amount of powder? I was thinking 95's this time around.

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

It really is impossible to give recommendations without understanding the individual circumstance. The points in this video are general and I stand by the sentiment. I consider a 95 under foot still quite wide. 85 and under fits into the category of narrower under foot. Good luck!!!!!!!😉😉

[@steveliberman3000]

My "east" skis are 80 under foot and an inch over my head. My "west" skis are 100 under foot and about eye high. On groomers, I thought the wider skis would be a little harder to get up on edge and less stable at high speeds. Not so! They're nimble and they can scream. Surprise.

[@TimTheMusicMan]

This is exactly what I’ve been waiting for. I was going to order 86 for my daughter and it looked too wide. Then I was researching online. Ski essentials back country avo. And they don’t carry less than 86. Once in a while I see a 76. But there are thousands of beautiful skis but no one in the east can use these. So I am glad I watched this. But where do I find 68’s 70’s. ?

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

YA, good question. it is a tail waging the dog scenario. people purchase what is on the shelves. shops order what people and purchasing. most ski manufacturers make a 76 underfoot. Blizzard, rosi, fisher, atomic, etc. And also these companies make narrower under foot, like a 68, but this will be a specialty ski, a SL race ski. got to look but you may not find these skis at the shop.

[@TimTheMusicMan]

@@DebArmstrongSkiStrong thanks

[@whoisthe1412]

Thanks Deb what would you recommend for a men ski with 5'10" 165 lbs that ski groomer.

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

I think the Blizzard HRC is fantastic. that is what I ski by choice. you cant go wrong here. The are many good skis out there but I have only skied the Blizzard so I can only make a first hand comment on that. look at the HRC specs to compare with other brands. good luck. I will be interested in what you find, learn, and end up on.

[@sethmasia8198]

Thanks, Deb. A lot of my students turn up on 90mm skis, and are handicapped in skiing groomers and bumps. I put them on 75-80mm full-camber skis and the lights go on. See skiyoungernow.com/2020/03/14/ski-width-realism/

[@JasonAGregg]

Super video! I applauded for $10.00 👏👏👏

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

Thank you Jason!!!! those funds go directly back into the channel to make more videos. Greatly appreciated! Where do you ski?

[@JasonAGregg]

@@DebArmstrongSkiStrong You are welcome Deb. It's not just for the ski width video, I also enjoyed the one with you recently in Taos skiing steeps wit kids, and also your one on lessons from Sarejevo. I'm very lucky to have a home at Aspen Highlands, so if I'm a "local" anywhere would be here.

[@muralikrishnanms1992]

There aren't much ski shops that sell skis with less underfoot width(65-75mm). Or, I couldn't find skis for my wife to demo with less underfoot width. Anyone facing the same issue? She is an intermediate skier who is planning to get her first skis. She is just using the 75mm rental skis for now. I am thinking of buying a ski with 70-30 with 70 been on piste.

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

It is a problem for sure. Keep looking. Take care.

[@dhrracer]

Deb, What is your opinion. Do you think we even need a steel sharp edge on a wide powder ski? There is a reason I ask. If I get a response I will follow thru.

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

Great question to ask. That is not my area of experience but I can see skiing a wide ski in powder without a steel edge. Many conditions however, situations to account for

[@boredboiseboy]

I think a 88mm metal ski is about right for true all mountain skiing, but a narrow carving ski sure does help your skiing.

[@GMec78]

Hi Deb, is an 85 underfoot too wide for a beginner just starting to transition in to parallel skiing in northern New England? This year 2022-2023 has been a low snow year so we have a lot of man made snow, hard-pack and ice. I’m a 6-foot, 175 guy with a hockey skating background but I seem to be getting a fair amount of slide out and loss of edge control later in the day and I’m wondering is some of it is attributable to being on the wrong set of skis for the conditions. Thanks

[@DebArmstrongSkiStrong]

85 is ok. It’s ballpark. High 70s low 80s might be better