Ski width compared to skier weight.

Sbooker

Member
I’m hopefully doing a course in France next month and the course notes recommend a ski width of “95 to 100mm”.
It got me thinking. I’m a relative light weight at approximately 155 pounds. My skis are 92mm wide. Surely I don’t need skis as wide as someone who weighs say 200 pounds.
Is this a recognised thing?
 

Sbooker

Member
I don’t know as I’m not really into skis or ski tech that much. The course notes didn’t mention anything about stiffness or the method of construction - just the width. That was the thing that got me questioning the logic.

My wife is about 125 pounds so her 85mm (waist) skis are relative fatties I would have thought. The same as a big burly 250 pound bloke on 170mm wide skis? (I get there is no such a thing as 7 inch wide skis). Or is there some kind of inverse relationship as the ski gets wider or the skier gets heavier?
Any engineer types on this forum? 🙂
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
It's length of ski that recommendations vary by height and weight. Width underfoot is mostly about packed vs. ungroomed (and especially powder ) conditions. And also personal preference.

In recent years "all mountain skis" are generally recommended in the 90's underfoot in western North America and the 80's underfoot in eastern North America.

In Europe you see a lot of narrow skis because 95+% of the skiers stay on piste and racing is big in the public eye over there. Some people say that carving groomers on wide skis increases knee strain, but neither Liz nor I have ever experienced that. And personally I want my Blizzard 98's in the Alps for the off piste. If your course in France recommends "95-100mm" that sounds like it's off piste to me and I would go with that recommendation. But maybe you want length in the low 170's cm vs. high 170's for me.
 
Last edited:
Top