I ski on wide skis for quite some time and never had a problem with putting them on edge on groomers( no lifts) so I don't understand why so many people say how difficult that is when it's not. On the other hand it might depend on skier's skills and manufacturer of the skis, their shape, materials, length ,weight etc.
Same here, altho' it takes a while to adjust. When I used to rent skis, I'd ski off season in an indoor snowdome on 76mm wide skis, then go to resort & use 106mm wide skis. For the first hour or so, it was like I'd forgotten how to ski!
You certainly can get wide skis on edge, but it is not a quick edge to edge ski. For the average skier it does not matter, they are not on edges anyways. 🤣
Also include effective edge in that discussion. The >100mm underfoot pow slayer is probably rockered front & back disposing of 50% of the edge contact on the groomers & leaving the other 50% flapping in the wind.
🙏🙏🙏 Thank you for highlighting the importance of shoe height But I have an opposite advice wide skis stenghs with the rockers and the surface IS to have a flat deck and the shoes at the lowest point you can have : Of course if you put a plate under your bindings or a "derby flex"😊 you will carve better because you will roll into edge better but is it really the goal ? On the over hand you loose sensibility/stability on edge when you're not carving So you can't do all things at an high level, all is compromises, and find the good ones. My 2 cents from a small french ski designer (yes I know my english🙈 🙈🙈) La Planche Mauriennaise Also lifters increase knee efforts. If you have problems to put wide skis on edge look more at your canting (wich in fact is look carefully at you boot sole and how talus/ malleolus are placed in the shell) and don't forget it's an use to have wide ski and to change this is not easy for all.
Appreciate your video...just purchased Enforcer 100s with Griffon binding, took some getting used to on groomers. Can you recommend spacers for Griffon bindings? Thanks
I watched this video before and I have been thinking about it.. I have multiple pairs of skis that have demo bindings that are lifted.. I also have my 25+ year old race skis that have spacers.. Actually, out of my 10 pairs of skis, I only have 2 pairs that are flat to the ski.. One is 99 under foot and that slides all over the place.. My Stormrider 105s really slice the carve when I roll the edge over.. I am not sure what a spacer would do on these skis.. I am 5'9 so I am not sure if I am in the short category... I am still thinking about all of this...
Old legs suffer from dwindling muscle endurance. My 100mm boards work well in BC powder, loose and freshly groomed slopes. Late-day ice patches drain the strength out of my squat-conditioned thighs. I’m looking for some 80ish planks for days of white concrete.
Manufacturers obviously would like us to have several skis (and we should) Binding design has been put on the back burner because, quite simply, the dollars aren't there to justify a reinvention of the wheel. Consumers are not interested because they haven't been educated. The downside is that it somewhat "numbs" the feel of a ski and can make it twitchy for skiers with less than stellar technique... it also kinda sucks in the park to be elevated if you're slightly stoned.
Okay wow that all made perfect sense and never had thought about that before. Im a ski instructor at a smaller resort that gets about 5-10 good pow days a season but mostly ski groomers. I have 3 pairs of skis that are all mounted directly to the base that are 104w, 86w, 72w. If i was to add a 116-124w in there would i be better off buying a demo bindling pair if the handling is that much better on groomers?
While not all wide skis are fun on hardpack, some wide skis can be lots of fun on groomers, think of it like using a big comfy truck on the highway (minus the pesky gas consumption or the obnoxious social stigma) the right binding stack height makes it even more fun… and for all of those saying that binding height affects how skis perform in soft snow, well… let’s just say that they’re right. A higher stack height makes a ski a bit more reactive in the soft stuff, and while it might make a 100mm ski a bit more twitchy in deep ole, on a ZX115 that’s not a bad thing at all. Got our money we’ll take the overt versatility over the fractional need to be more subtle in deep pow.
Here in the East a resort frontside groomer skier has zero reason to ski anything wider than mid 90’s, and that’s really wider than a skier that prefers to carve will ride. I ski a 74 and my wide all mountain ski is a 89. The superguide 95 is my east backcountry ski. The 100 plus in lift lines here in the east show who doesn’t know what they are doing.
Word. I have only one pair of skis that I take with me both east and west, and it's a 96. I don't want any wider in the east, but I don't want any narrower in the west. Getting out of the 90s makes no sense to me for a general ski, unless you have a dedicated powder ski.
I ski 108 east coast in canada, and would never go back to a skinny ski. I like knowing i have power and float under my feet. I think skinny skis are great if you like to carve but any good skier that goes off into the trees to find the good stuff would never agree with you. imo 100+ waist is how you recognize a good skier from a bad one
It must be so awesome to be able to afford different skis for "groomers". Too bad most of us plebs have scrape together whatever we can to pay for parking, let alone gargantuan lift ticket prices.
It's much more obscene than that. I know people who live in Seattle & ski those local areas, but they have mountain homes in Colorado & Whistler, BC, & if the snow is really good in Europe, then away they go. Mountain real estate prices tell me that money for passes, equipment, & even SUVs is just random pocket change for many.
It's hilarious how so many people are showing up to the resort to ski groomers all day with powder skis! LOL. I had some dumbass kid at the ski shop tell me a 95mm waist ski was for carving!! LOL. They seem to be oblivious to the true experts that rocket by them gracefully, while they are so busy "carving" with thier fat skis.
Why would you bother unless its your only pair and you want the flotation in case you catch a good powder day? Strange video. Doesn’t seem to make a point.
The edge is still the same distance from the middle of the foot, even with the risers. Putting the ski on edge, creates extra torque on the knee. A skier has to be more knock kneed to balance against that edge of a wider ski. Which could lead to an injury to the MCL. I recommend using a ski that's the appropriate width for the conditions. Taking a ski that's too wide, and then trying engineer a solution isn't effective, needed, and could be dangerous. I've used 78mm underfoot skis in 10 inches of powder and they worked great. A wider ski is helpful in about 15 inches, in my experience. Lifters are awesome for carving, but when do we carve on powder days? Maybe 90mm would be a reasonable middle ground. Its still possible to tip those without risers. But, 90mm is really too wide to carve. @@SkiandBikeMagazine
There's plenty of wide skis that rock on groomers, anything in the Nordica enforcer line for example. That extra elevation on the binding doesn't do much other than make your lean angles easier. Any competent advanced skier it's literally no difference. If you actually think that 1/2" is the difference between a powder ski and a power ski that can ski the groomers you're sadly mistaken.
Hey Ryan, no need to be a jerk. You're entitled to your opinion. If, however, you'd like to see the difference 13mm makes on a Nordica enforcer 104 free, meet up with us at Norquay whenever you're in the Canadian Rockies and it will be our pleasure to show you as we have a buddy who owns two pairs with both a Knee Binding and a look Pivot 15 and you'll see what we mean. Until then, please try to keep your comments polite.
@@SkiandBikeMagazineMy comment isn't polite? You're the only one here calling someone names bud. I've literally skied dozens if not hundreds of different skis. Yes the height can help with getting wider skis on edge but that doesn't play a role in making it easier until well above 110mm underfoot. A 100mm with 13mm of rise vs a flat mount 100mm would make absolutely ZERO difference to an advanced skier on groomed slopes, in powder it would actually hurt their dynamic balance. Here's a thought, instead of calling people names try acting professional when the person you were chatting with was acting professional and didn't call you any names. Maybe I would make a call to your boss about you're unprofessionalism and leave a bad review for your shop? Grow up.
Ski design has jumped the shark; just ridiculous and completely anathema to body interaction with the snow surface, I mean, skiing groomers with 100mm underfoot is dumber than dumb; why not strap on some 50gal barrels and point them down.
I ski on wide skis for quite some time and never had a problem with putting them on edge on groomers( no lifts) so I don't understand why so many people say how difficult that is when it's not. On the other hand it might depend on skier's skills and manufacturer of the skis, their shape, materials, length ,weight etc.
Try a lifted binding and you will see the light!
Same here, altho' it takes a while to adjust. When I used to rent skis, I'd ski off season in an indoor snowdome on 76mm wide skis, then go to resort & use 106mm wide skis. For the first hour or so, it was like I'd forgotten how to ski!
Depends on how you ski... that's a given.
Agreed Nicholas
You certainly can get wide skis on edge, but it is not a quick edge to edge ski.
For the average skier it does not matter, they are not on edges anyways. 🤣
That's a very good point never really clued into that perspective before.
Also include effective edge in that discussion. The >100mm underfoot pow slayer is probably rockered front & back disposing of 50% of the edge contact on the groomers & leaving the other 50% flapping in the wind.
Good point!
Great info about the lifted bindings for shorter people. I have never heard of that before.
buddy has brahma 88, with x-comp 18 & raceplate! such a fun ski even on piste/groomers then
commenting as someone who has a 27 1/2 " inside leg, I agree totally.
Thanks for your feedback. This is something that is massively overlooked in tests.
Skiing on wide skis is a preference. More effort to get on edge and carve, the more control you might have, but again...preference.
🙏🙏🙏 Thank you for highlighting the importance of shoe height
But I have an opposite advice
wide skis stenghs with the rockers and the surface IS to have a flat deck and the shoes at the lowest point you can have :
Of course if you put a plate under your bindings or a "derby flex"😊 you will carve better because you will roll into edge better but is it really the goal ? On the over hand you loose sensibility/stability on edge when you're not carving
So you can't do all things at an high level, all is compromises, and find the good ones.
My 2 cents from a small french ski designer (yes I know my english🙈 🙈🙈)
La Planche Mauriennaise
Also lifters increase knee efforts.
If you have problems to put wide skis on edge look more at your canting (wich in fact is look carefully at you boot sole and how talus/ malleolus are placed in the shell) and don't forget it's an use to have wide ski and to change this is not easy for all.
Thanks for your respectful and thoughtful counterpoint, @merlinm69
Great point! Thank you!
Appreciate your video...just purchased Enforcer 100s with Griffon binding, took some getting used to on groomers. Can you recommend spacers for Griffon bindings? Thanks
I watched this video before and I have been thinking about it.. I have multiple pairs of skis that have demo bindings that are lifted.. I also have my 25+ year old race skis that have spacers.. Actually, out of my 10 pairs of skis, I only have 2 pairs that are flat to the ski.. One is 99 under foot and that slides all over the place.. My Stormrider 105s really slice the carve when I roll the edge over.. I am not sure what a spacer would do on these skis.. I am 5'9 so I am not sure if I am in the short category... I am still thinking about all of this...
Old legs suffer from dwindling muscle endurance. My 100mm boards work well in BC powder, loose and freshly groomed slopes. Late-day ice patches drain the strength out of my squat-conditioned thighs. I’m looking for some 80ish planks for days of white concrete.
Our fav is the Stockli Stormrider 88 or the Kastle MX 88... both will serve you well.
So then, why aren't more bindings designed to be taller. Any disadvantages to that?
Manufacturers obviously would like us to have several skis (and we should) Binding design has been put on the back burner because, quite simply, the dollars aren't there to justify a reinvention of the wheel. Consumers are not interested because they haven't been educated. The downside is that it somewhat "numbs" the feel of a ski and can make it twitchy for skiers with less than stellar technique... it also kinda sucks in the park to be elevated if you're slightly stoned.
Great info👍
excellent point made!
Thank you, ETS!
Which Scott jacket is that please!
Discontinued Scott jacket we're afraid.
Okay wow that all made perfect sense and never had thought about that before. Im a ski instructor at a smaller resort that gets about 5-10 good pow days a season but mostly ski groomers. I have 3 pairs of skis that are all mounted directly to the base that are 104w, 86w, 72w. If i was to add a 116-124w in there would i be better off buying a demo bindling pair if the handling is that much better on groomers?
Certainly worth considering. Our fav demo binding is the Marker Griffon (although the KNee Binding is truly the way to go)
Omg thank you. I thought I was crazy because I couldn’t understand why such wide skis were being recommended.
While not all wide skis are fun on hardpack, some wide skis can be lots of fun on groomers, think of it like using a big comfy truck on the highway (minus the pesky gas consumption or the obnoxious social stigma) the right binding stack height makes it even more fun… and for all of those saying that binding height affects how skis perform in soft snow, well… let’s just say that they’re right. A higher stack height makes a ski a bit more reactive in the soft stuff, and while it might make a 100mm ski a bit more twitchy in deep ole, on a ZX115 that’s not a bad thing at all. Got our money we’ll take the overt versatility over the fractional need to be more subtle in deep pow.
Great concise sharing of wisdom in this video, big thumbs up!
Thank you kindly!
Here in the East a resort frontside groomer skier has zero reason to ski anything wider than mid 90’s, and that’s really wider than a skier that prefers to carve will ride. I ski a 74 and my wide all mountain ski is a 89. The superguide 95 is my east backcountry ski. The 100 plus in lift lines here in the east show who doesn’t know what they are doing.
Agreed... We're not advocating using 115's as daily drivers but why not once in a while?
Word. I have only one pair of skis that I take with me both east and west, and it's a 96. I don't want any wider in the east, but I don't want any narrower in the west. Getting out of the 90s makes no sense to me for a general ski, unless you have a dedicated powder ski.
I ski 108 east coast in canada, and would never go back to a skinny ski. I like knowing i have power and float under my feet. I think skinny skis are great if you like to carve but any good skier that goes off into the trees to find the good stuff would never agree with you. imo 100+ waist is how you recognize a good skier from a bad one
It must be so awesome to be able to afford different skis for "groomers". Too bad most of us plebs have scrape together whatever we can to pay for parking, let alone gargantuan lift ticket prices.
It's much more obscene than that. I know people who live in Seattle & ski those local areas, but they have mountain homes in Colorado & Whistler, BC, & if the snow is really good in Europe, then away they go. Mountain real estate prices tell me that money for passes, equipment, & even SUVs is just random pocket change for many.
It's hilarious how so many people are showing up to the resort to ski groomers all day with powder skis! LOL. I had some dumbass kid at the ski shop tell me a 95mm waist ski was for carving!! LOL. They seem to be oblivious to the true experts that rocket by them gracefully, while they are so busy "carving" with thier fat skis.
Why?
because!
Why would you bother unless its your only pair and you want the flotation in case you catch a good powder day? Strange video. Doesn’t seem to make a point.
Some of us don't want to lug around a quiver... or just like having more leverage on a ski, that's the point.
Gotta call BS on that one
Gotta agree to disagree. But please, we'd love to hear your side. Please elaborate.
The edge is still the same distance from the middle of the foot, even with the risers. Putting the ski on edge, creates extra torque on the knee. A skier has to be more knock kneed to balance against that edge of a wider ski. Which could lead to an injury to the MCL. I recommend using a ski that's the appropriate width for the conditions. Taking a ski that's too wide, and then trying engineer a solution isn't effective, needed, and could be dangerous.
I've used 78mm underfoot skis in 10 inches of powder and they worked great. A wider ski is helpful in about 15 inches, in my experience. Lifters are awesome for carving, but when do we carve on powder days? Maybe 90mm would be a reasonable middle ground. Its still possible to tip those without risers. But, 90mm is really too wide to carve. @@SkiandBikeMagazine
There's plenty of wide skis that rock on groomers, anything in the Nordica enforcer line for example. That extra elevation on the binding doesn't do much other than make your lean angles easier. Any competent advanced skier it's literally no difference. If you actually think that 1/2" is the difference between a powder ski and a power ski that can ski the groomers you're sadly mistaken.
Hey Ryan, no need to be a jerk. You're entitled to your opinion. If, however, you'd like to see the difference 13mm makes on a Nordica enforcer 104 free, meet up with us at Norquay whenever you're in the Canadian Rockies and it will be our pleasure to show you as we have a buddy who owns two pairs with both a Knee Binding and a look Pivot 15 and you'll see what we mean. Until then, please try to keep your comments polite.
@@SkiandBikeMagazineMy comment isn't polite? You're the only one here calling someone names bud. I've literally skied dozens if not hundreds of different skis. Yes the height can help with getting wider skis on edge but that doesn't play a role in making it easier until well above 110mm underfoot. A 100mm with 13mm of rise vs a flat mount 100mm would make absolutely ZERO difference to an advanced skier on groomed slopes, in powder it would actually hurt their dynamic balance.
Here's a thought, instead of calling people names try acting professional when the person you were chatting with was acting professional and didn't call you any names. Maybe I would make a call to your boss about you're unprofessionalism and leave a bad review for your shop? Grow up.
Ski design has jumped the shark; just ridiculous and completely anathema to body interaction with the snow surface, I mean, skiing groomers with 100mm underfoot is dumber than dumb; why not strap on some 50gal barrels and point them down.
ski what ya brought. There are no bad ski days...only bad skiers
Clearly you can't ski then.
Skiing 100mm skis on groomers are spectacular on the right binding, with the right tune on your skis. Shark jumping sounds awefully fun though.
@SkiandBikeMagazine my everyday ski is 109 underfoot. I can carve GS turns better than 99% of skiers. My pow boards are 119 underfoot.