I think the best width for park and all mountain is around 95-100

h3nry.I think the best width for park and all mountain is around 95-100

what he said

Agreed

h3nry.I think the best width for park and all mountain is around 95-100

KindHalvahHey !

What do you think is the perfect width for an all mountain cruise/park ski, for maximum fun ?

I have the impression that skis are wider each year. And that more and more people like wider skis as their all mountain/park skis. It may be me but it seems that the "standard" of all mountain / park skiing has rather become around 104/106mm (prodigy 3.0, revolt 104 , fly two 105, atomic bent 100 ...) than 90/95mm. When I look at some pros, I really have this feeling. So it leaves me wondering, isn't 100+ not too much for the park or when the snow is a bit hard in the early season ? I've always skied skis around 95mm, but considered going a bit wider.

Does this mark the end of fatty boys for big powder, to be replace by a one quiver ski, to rule them all ? What are your thought ?

Thanks !

100% personal preference and skiing style. My 108 underfoot skis were on my feet 98% of the time last year even in the park while my 96 waist park skis sat at home

inb4 some dweeb mentions v****u

100 up. Anything under 100 is pussy shit unless you weigh like 90lbs

anything over 85 is for pussies who go slow

isaacwronginb4 some dweeb mentions v****u

vishnu

East Coast vs West Coast like a 90's rap feud.

95-105, 90-100, really it's all about preference, ride what ya like.

108. Nothing else

I like 85-90 mm for all mountain cruising and park, also appreciate stiffer skis with some camber and pop. Main reason is that's what park skis were like when I first got really into skiing. It's all personal preference though.

I have a pair of Prodigy 2.0s and they handle all mountain pretty good but i prolly should have gotten 3.0's for steeze

95.

even tho colby stevenson kills it on k2 reckoner 102s (which kind of astounds me that somebody could throw such a wide ski around in a modern slopestyle comp) and many ppl seem to like the volkl revolt 104 in the park, i would say 95 is the perfect width for a ski.

just because a ski is wider doesnt mean it will automatically be better in powder. My 90mm kinks were better in the powder and easier to maneuver than my arv 106s were.

and in the park my kinks are light and easier to toss around as would be expected.

If i had to choose 1 ski for the rest of my life it would be a 95 mm waist ski. Wider just feels better up to a certain point. Once you get too wide you start to feel like youre just slipping around and not as in control as you would be on narrow skis. You can almost see this in the way colby stevenson skis on his reckoner 102s. He seems like he cant rely on the skis digging in on takeoffs and landings as much as the rest of the competitors who are using much narrower skis.

Maybe thats nof the case but it certainly seemed like it to me. Id love to try some reckoners next winter though and see what they are like.

but i think colby would do better on a 95mm or narrower park ski

He’s normally on 96 underfoot Poachers. He could really like the new reckoners 102 or the team could have an incentive for them to ride them since they’re new (I’ve noticed a lot of the poacher guys on them) for a year or two

DolansLebensraum95.

even tho colby stevenson kills it on k2 reckoner 102s (which kind of astounds me that somebody could throw such a wide ski around in a modern slopestyle comp) and many ppl seem to like the volkl revolt 104 in the park, i would say 95 is the perfect width for a ski.

just because a ski is wider doesnt mean it will automatically be better in powder. My 90mm kinks were better in the powder and easier to maneuver than my arv 106s were.

and in the park my kinks are light and easier to toss around as would be expected.

If i had to choose 1 ski for the rest of my life it would be a 95 mm waist ski. Wider just feels better up to a certain point. Once you get too wide you start to feel like youre just slipping around and not as in control as you would be on narrow skis. You can almost see this in the way colby stevenson skis on his reckoner 102s. He seems like he cant rely on the skis digging in on takeoffs and landings as much as the rest of the competitors who are using much narrower skis.

Maybe thats nof the case but it certainly seemed like it to me. Id love to try some reckoners next winter though and see what they are like.

but i think colby would do better on a 95mm or narrower park ski

BradFiAusNzCoCaHe’s normally on 96 underfoot Poachers. He could really like the new reckoners 102 or the team could have an incentive for them to ride them since they’re new (I’ve noticed a lot of the poacher guys on them) for a year or two

Yeah. Its kind of crazy if you asked somebody in 2004 when arguably the best park ski was 78 mm underfoot if they believed that in 2021 the winning slopestyle run would be laid down on 102mm skis.... im sure they would be like “in your dreams pal”.

i still cant believe somebody can perform that well on such a wide ski. Pretty much every other skier is in the 80s width wise, but heres colby tossing 102s like his little bitch militia lol

That's excalty why I'm asking here. I really feel like the new standard is wider than 95mm. Some many people are now riding park and cruise the resort with wider skis. And I don't now if it's just a trend or really more fun/better

I personally like landings a lot more on wider skis, maybe it’s just because I grew up riding pow skis all the time but landing on a wide ski feels so much easier than something that’s more narrow