Powder Ski size vs. Skier Size

I found this really good article regarding skier height and weight and the difference it makes in the amount of lift in a given width ski. Essentially I would need to be on a 125mm under foot ski to get the same lift as a 190 pound guy on 88s. One of those things that really makes sense, but isn't often addressed. I hope I'm not breaking a rule by posting a link to an article on another board....

http://epicski.onthesnow.com/a/powder-skis-and-skier-size

Wow. That was really interesting. I have to say, it makes sense intuitively. But at the same time, I don't see many women on 49-59mm waisted skis. Are they getting way more float with their normal skis than we are? The article implies that they do. Very weird stuff to think about.

The psychology of his theory is even more interesting than the physics.  He's right... the east coast skier needs a groomer ski and a fat ski. Not a tweener.

I am here to admit that the first  time I ever really floated was last winter on that "local" slide we all love on my Worths. 100mm.

(via mobile)

Is weight on an even curve when at speed vs standing still? I don't know the physics but I would think skis would plain up easier at speed rather than standing still or going slow. Is that relevant or does the science say irreverent?

I used to be a quiver skier bringing two, sometimes three, pairs to the mountain. The current technology has made the quiver excessive for most skiers unless you really want a race/cheater ski or if you need a bump ski or something like that.

The problem is that even on "powder days" you still need a ski that can deal with hard pack, groomed, bumps, etc. Unless you score a surprise mid-week powder day or score an early/late season day with low traffic, eventually the powder is going to get tracked up, even off piste. And at most mountains, you'll need to get in between the trees on groomed terrain. You can't just show up and make a "powder" or "hard pack" ski and have that work all day (in most situations). It is great to have a ski that hits the sweet spot that does great in powder but has minimal draw backs on hard pack, bumps, groomed, etc. The average northeast skier, especially the have northeast skier that doesn't ski trees (or even those that ski trees but don't go off map) will only get 1-2 hours of good powder before it is all tracked out during a typical weekend. You can swap out skis but that is a PITA. Better to be able to have one ski that doesn't have the draw backs of a "powder only" ski that has the best float but isn't the best overall. My two cents as a former quiver proponent.

I think there are lots of variables that the writer didn't really go into. How much sidecut does the ski have? How big is the shovel on the tip? How much rocker does the ski have? What's the density of the snow, etc. etc. Certainly 12 inches of utah blower is much different than 12 inches here. The biggest takeaway for me is how much different a ski is going to perform based on the size of the rider. Based on this, three different riders of different weights are going to have potentially widely different experiences on the same ski.

I demo'd an older pair of line bacons in March last year right after a nice 8-10 inch dump. They were 120 under foot and were fun for the first 3-4 runs of untracked snow. After that they just bounced me all over the place because they kept me on top of the chop. They were also like wet noodles (probably because of my weight). After the first couple hours I wanted something that would float enough but not too much and be stiff enough to blow through the snow. I completely agree - for an east coast skier a big powder board is overkill except maybe for a midweek all day dumper. Even there I think if you have the right ski that "does it all" you'd be fine.

riverc0il wrote

The problem is that even on "powder days" you still need a ski that can deal with hard pack, groomed, bumps, etc.

I've got really limited experience with deep snow and fat skis, but have got to agree with River and Danzilla this.

The skis below, from Worth, are 100 under foot with some modest tip rocker (hardly fat by today's standards).  I skied them twice.

They were awesome on a local bc slide with no tracks. But on a day at Gore after a foot plus, I just couldn't ski them for the same reasons Danzilla mentions.  For me going between tree runs on Chatiemac and Hawkeye, bottoming out in icy mogul troughs... I just couldn't handle it. (cue skimore... :)



For my weight (180) the key point seems to be between 90 and 100. 90mm I'm skiing on the bottom. 100mm on top.

Danzilla wrote

I hope I'm not breaking a rule by posting a link to an article on another board....

That was a good article IMO.

No forum rules against posting links to anything really for forum members in good standing, which is almost everyone, you included Dan.

I don't like thin posts placed in the Trip Reports forum that link to TRs elsewhere.  That's my main link-type pet peeve really. The TR Forum is for TRs.

Really good article - thanks for posting the link. I think there are other variables the author left out and one is the density of the snow. More moisture content should mean more float and on the east coast we don't see 7% snow. Another factor is ski length or the total area under the ski, not just the width. In any event, I have yet to have a day even when hiking to ski where I have had all powder. Resort skiing is usually a mixture of both even in a dump'n Utah storm. I have found that 85 under foot (I weigh in a 180) is a good width, one that I can edge when I hit hard pack and float in the pow. Last year I bought a pair of 100's under foot and they are no fun on hard or mixed conditions. If you look at what a lot of ski mountaineering folks recommend, it is in the 80mm underfoot range, something that has a strong edge grip in those really demanding conditions. One of my favorite skis that performed excellent in Pow was 74 underfoot.