It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
Why does the ski industry have an obsession with making skis as light as possible?
I'm not talking about backcountry skis, it just seems like every ski manufacturer is trying to reduce weight. Is this just the same thing that Apple does with the iphone? There isn't anything to innovate so they just try to make the skis lighter because what else they can do? What are the benefits that I am missing?
I kinda see where you’re coming from. Like the iPhone thing, there really is no point to keep making it lighter because it’s not like it needs to be lighter. But on skis, lighter is usually better, unless they’re sacrificing Durability. The only time I see when skis should be lighter is when they’re noticeably lighter.
When you’re doing tricks, lighter is obviously better. Sure you can do the same trick on a mid weight ski vs. a light ski, but you may not be able to do a same trick on a super heavy ski vs. a midweight ski.
Almost like a pass or fail class. Once you get a high enough grade, you’re good. In other words, if you’re good, then you’re good. Which translates to once the ski is light enough, there’s no need to make it much lighter because A. You’re going to be able to do the same stuff on something that’s a little heavier and B. Once the ski gets so low in weight it’s going to stop making a difference, and then it’s going to come down how heavy your boots are or how strong your legs are or something.
voy10I kinda see where you’re coming from. Like the iPhone thing, there really is no point to keep making it lighter because it’s not like it needs to be lighter. But on skis, lighter is usually better, unless they’re sacrificing Durability. The only time I see when skis should be lighter is when they’re noticeably lighter.
When you’re doing tricks, lighter is obviously better. Sure you can do the same trick on a mid weight ski vs. a light ski, but you may not be able to do a same trick on a super heavy ski vs. a midweight ski.
Almost like a pass or fail class. Once you get a high enough grade, you’re good. In other words, if you’re good, then you’re good. Which translates to once the ski is light enough, there’s no need to make it much lighter because A. You’re going to be able to do the same stuff on something that’s a little heavier and B. Once the ski gets so low in weight it’s going to stop making a difference, and then it’s going to come down how heavy your boots are or how strong your legs are or something.
Kinda goes in circles, Hope that makes sense
I don't ski park but that makes sense. What about other skis besides park skis though? Are there lighter skis that are just as durable and can still bust crud? Are lighter skis more fun to ski then heavier skis?
CLQI don't ski park but that makes sense. What about other skis besides park skis though? Are there lighter skis that are just as durable and can still bust crud? Are lighter skis more fun to ski then heavier skis?
Lighter skis are usually not as durable, but they can be more fun. Easier to spin, more flexible, etc. but a lighter all mountain ski might not feel as solid when you get it going real fast, therefore it might not be as fun. But I agree with you, it wouldn’t really matter how light a non-park ski would be, at least I’d imagine that.
When people pick up my skis that have a lot of metal and pivot 18's they immediately say "wow these are heavy" but no shit they're going to be heavy if you want those materials and an in bounds performing ski the weight will benefit you. If you're touring you sacrifice the performance of the ski to benefit from a lighter set up.
lmao my dad has dynastar chams and they are probably some of the heaviest skis ive ever seen, but apparently they ski well on hard stuff bc the added weight reduces the chatter. however, lighter skis are obviously way better for spins or swaps on rails.
noahleppy10lmao my dad has dynastar chams and they are probably some of the heaviest skis ive ever seen, but apparently they ski well on hard stuff bc the added weight reduces the chatter. however, lighter skis are obviously way better for spins or swaps on rails.
Yea I can't imagine trying to ski the way I do on a light ski. Even in the park I wouldn't want to be launching off 50+ footers with something super light weight.
For my touring set up I'm thrilled I have a 4-5 year old Blizzard Scouts (only mounted it recently) and not the current slightly lighter Super G (I think thats what the new touring cochise is.) I'll deal with the extra weight to feel stable on hard pack and be able to ski it well.
Because the freeskier goods market is made up of morons. I’m strapping heavy ass wood to a heavy ass boot connected by a heavy ass binding. I really don’t give a shit about the weight of a ski and neither do most park skiers that arent doing dub 12s regularly. In my experience lighter skis almost always = lasts 3/4 of a season maximum.
The "make it light as possible" is not just in the ski industry its in others too. Bikes, firearms, shoes, vehicles, hiking gear, etc.
I like my heavy skis and havent had a problem with them but then I haven't attempted doing tricks on them so I dont have much to say in that area
Anyone ever find that a good weight on their skis helps them put their skis where they want them? I swear when I tried some on3ps once the weight helped me control the ski better
the "make it as light as we can" trend has actually come back a little now. It has had super similar parallels to our "make it as wide as we can" experiments of 2003-2005. personally, as a ski designer (and this moniker was consistent at Armada when I was there), weight was no higher than #2 on the list of important ski factors, even in our touring skis. First is ALWAYS how well does it ski (shape, flex) with various factors like durability, weight, dampness, material characteristics, etc coming later depending on the product category.
it does beg the question though, why can't a freestyle ski be lighter? granted, for pipe and to some extent big air you are going to want boats on your feet for stability, but for skiing rails, personally, I want the ski to be as light as possible without blowing up. It's a fun balancing act to play with. I think this whole website is going to be excited about the all new Bdogs coming out next season, I think it's going to be my favorite freestyle ski on the market.
CLQI'm not talking about backcountry skis, it just seems like every ski manufacturer is trying to reduce weight. Is this just the same thing that Apple does with the iphone? There isn't anything to innovate so they just try to make the skis lighter because what else they can do? What are the benefits that I am missing?
You gotta remember that the ski industry runs on people who ski for only one week a year. These people HATE carrying their ski's and boots around because they are not used to it, and it kinda sucks. When this one week a year skier walks into a ski shop and a ski salesman gives them two skis, they are going to buy the lighter one. And it's going to be the same thing with ski boots soon.
In my opinion, when it comes to actual skiing and not just tricking, there is such a thing as too light. The ski needs to have some mass to give it momentum to bust through chunder, otherwise you’re just getting rocked at high speeds. I got on the faction bandwagon last season and absolutely did not like the way my candide 3.0s skied because of how light they are.
Don't you all see the meta game of these ski companies? They are pushing each other to create the lightest ski. Soon they will be so light that you can generate lift while spinning. This will allow the pros to be able to hit the first jump, skip the second, and land on the third's landing. Soon we will be able to start calling spins helicopters again.
Idk on3ps are super trendy and they are heavy as fuck.
Obviously I like light skis for Backcountry and hiking around Bridger. I'd trade some weight for a quality ski that performs well though, seems to always be a trade off with weight / performance. Being able to day a ski is super light is definitely a marketing tool
light skis don't tend to last, but most kids that want to learn dub 12 buys shit like that. i think that there is a big market for light skis, but people that really ski, and can notice the differences in skis will prefer a little heavier ski. i took 2 laps with some cambered light skis this season, and they felt so light that i didn't know if i could really trust them. turns felt weak in a weird way, like the whole ski didn't want to cooperate. i think a little heavier ski feels more solid, and i can trust going into butters. (and occasional ditches)
chris.goodhueIdk on3ps are super trendy and they are heavy as fuck.
Obviously I like light skis for Backcountry and hiking around Bridger. I'd trade some weight for a quality ski that performs well though, seems to always be a trade off with weight / performance. Being able to day a ski is super light is definitely a marketing tool
They are super trendy with real skiers for the most part. Realistically real skiers don't want something super light unless they are touring. Everyone I know who puts in 30+ days in the resort is looking for something to mash when the place gets skied out. There are expections.
SessionThey are super trendy with real skiers for the most part. Realistically real skiers don't want something super light unless they are touring. Everyone I know who puts in 30+ days in the resort is looking for something to mash when the place gets skied out. There are expections.
"Real skiers" who all ski a very similar way. There's plenty of real skiers where a light ski would be a great marketing point, others not so much. There's also plenty of lighter skis out there that are bomber as well.
It's all about balance. Having different skis for all types of skiers is great, some don't need a lot of durability, some don't need to mash crud and chunder at mach 11.
We're lucky the ski companies try to cater to many different types of skiers because if they didn't one of the first lines to go out the window would be park skis.
philipcYou gotta remember that the ski industry runs on people who ski for only one week a year. These people HATE carrying their ski's and boots around because they are not used to it, ..And it's going to be the same thing with ski boots soon.
How are the boots changing - mass would imply strength and don’t think companies need that liability
skiguy04How are the boots changing - mass would imply strength and don’t think companies need that liability
Different plastics have different tensile strengths. Many touring boots are already made with lighter plastics/different buckle designs/ect..., and there are already downhill boots that are made with pebax or triax plastic, a lighter alternative to PU. In 10 years no consumer boots will be heavier than your standard touring boot.
CLQI'm not talking about backcountry skis, it just seems like every ski manufacturer is trying to reduce weight. Is this just the same thing that Apple does with the iphone? There isn't anything to innovate so they just try to make the skis lighter because what else they can do? What are the benefits that I am missing?
Because marketing. its like carbon, stuff being light is trendy at the minute
DominatorJacquesI love a pair of heavy skis for rippin' the groom. Light skis are fun as long as they are stout enough.
I'm surprised you like the light and stiff mix. I demoed a pair of faction dictator 3.0's (light and stiff) and all it seemed to do was cause more deflection.
wpskiI'm surprised you like the light and stiff mix. I demoed a pair of faction dictator 3.0's (light and stiff) and all it seemed to do was cause more deflection.
Well, "stout enough" can mean for one's weight. I'm light, so I do need a ski I can flex when cranking a groomer turn.
I still like those old super heavy skis. In my edit posted below, you will see me on a few Atomic's and a pair of Rossi Power 9's.
Those skis are all like super heavy. Then for a bit I am on some Salmon Q-98's. They are quite light compared to the heavies.
I'd say about half the weight.
If one wants some good heavy skis just look to race skis with plates to find them today.
I have a sore knee, and I do notice on days when I ski on my Icelantics vs my older lines that my knee is sorer and I'm more tired when I ski on the heavier skis (the lines). So that is one benefit to a lighter ski that I've personally found. That said, when charging groomers/goin fast, I wanna be on my lines, not my icelantics. if I'm skiing in soft stuff though, 9 times out of 10 I pick the lighter ski. If they could make a ski that was as snappy and as good at high speeds as a heavy ski but was light, I'd buy it.
This trend has particularly taken off with more traditional on piste carving skis. A few seasons ago most major ski manufacturers started distributing foam core rental skis, opting away from heavier and more expensive wooden chassis. This change benefits alot of beginner/intermediate skiers who find the skis more maneuverable and less tiring. However it greatly reduces the integrity; some skis would come back with snapped cores from seemingly small impacts. So while there certainly are benefits of a ski designed to be light, most hardcore skiers are still going to prioritize performance with the swing weight being a smaller consideration.
steezy.stewThis trend has particularly taken off with more traditional on piste carving skis. A few seasons ago most major ski manufacturers started distributing foam core rental skis, opting away from heavier and more expensive wooden chassis. This change benefits alot of beginner/intermediate skiers who find the skis more maneuverable and less tiring. However it greatly reduces the integrity; some skis would come back with snapped cores from seemingly small impacts. So while there certainly are benefits of a ski designed to be light, most hardcore skiers are still going to prioritize performance with the swing weight being a smaller consideration.
The best part is those rental skis, especially for kids, are injected molded foam. not even layered foam sheets with fiberglass. Cheap to produce and dont hold up for shit. Lucky to get a few seasons out of them. The base tunes for shit and the binding plates are even glued on. But if that gets more skiers on the hill it means more money going into the sport and it allows those manufacturers some R&D money for the fun stuff we all like. Like carbon stringers in skis with hybrid flex patterns and bomb proof bases.
freeskibum82The best part is those rental skis, especially for kids, are injected molded foam. not even layered foam sheets with fiberglass. Cheap to produce and dont hold up for shit. Lucky to get a few seasons out of them. The base tunes for shit and the binding plates are even glued on. But if that gets more skiers on the hill it means more money going into the sport and it allows those manufacturers some R&D money for the fun stuff we all like. Like carbon stringers in skis with hybrid flex patterns and bomb proof bases.
Exactly. There were countless times this past season where out of shape middle-aged ladies where ravings about the newer generation of rental skis because they had never had an easier/more fun time skiing, despite the low tide conditions we had in CO. So I would reckon that these trends are succeeding to make skiing more attractive to a larger audience, despite the challenges in the industry like climate change and general costs. Even Armada is introducing a rental lineup this season, equipped with rebranded tyrolia demo bindings. Like you eluded to this should make Armada more appealing to more people, not just core shredders, which hopefully translates to more sales, greater R&D and more opportunities for their team. Time will tell. It’s certainly an interesting time in the industry.
steezy.stewExactly. There were countless times this past season where out of shape middle-aged ladies where ravings about the newer generation of rental skis because they had never had an easier/more fun time skiing, despite the low tide conditions we had in CO. So I would reckon that these trends are succeeding to make skiing more attractive to a larger audience, despite the challenges in the industry like climate change and general costs. Even Armada is introducing a rental lineup this season, equipped with rebranded tyrolia demo bindings. Like you eluded to this should make Armada more appealing to more people, not just core shredders, which hopefully translates to more sales, greater R&D and more opportunities for their team. Time will tell. It’s certainly an interesting time in the industry.
Im willing to bet its just a rebranded salomon rental ski to appeal to the kiddies. you know, since salomon now owns armada.
Honestly lighter skis are so much easier to ski on then heavy skis. The biomechanics that are involved in skiing can take quite a toll on different parts of the body. You can have things like ACL/MCL tears, and ITB issues. Not to mention issues with joint problems ( knees/hips I’m looking at you...). Lighter skis is the cheapest way to deal with those issues.
Another way to look at it is ski equipment in general is the most advenced sporting/leisure equipment in the world. We had things like carbon fiber, fiberglass, modern epoxy mixes, computer design, etc way way before any other sporting goods . As a result this kind of has a trickle down effect throughout many markets. You have multi-sport conglomerates ( Head for example) that will use skis as a test bed for materials, technologies, and processes that will flow down to their other sporting goods ( road bikes, tennis rackets, skates, etc).
Another thing to think about is park skis make such a small segment of the market these days. Touring is moving up very quickly as far as sales/investment go, and all terrain/caving skis always have a large market share. So as a result your going to see skis marketed and built to what sells. Hell Salomon is a perfect example. They used to be the market leader in terrain park skis, now they only have two models ( I think) that nobody really buys.
tcurleWhen people pick up my skis that have a lot of metal and pivot 18's they immediately say "wow these are heavy" but no shit they're going to be heavy if you want those materials and an in bounds performing ski the weight will benefit you. If you're touring you sacrifice the performance of the ski to benefit from a lighter set up.
I would debate that you lose performance just to get a lighter setup. Try skiing the G3 empire 115's inbounds on all your favourite cliffs and hits on a pow day. I think you'll redact that statement!
But yes you're probably right to a large extent. There are probably a handful of light and weaker carbon touring skis if you charged to charge too hard on you may damage?
MLBHonestly lighter skis are so much easier to ski on then heavy skis. The biomechanics that are involved in skiing can take quite a toll on different parts of the body. You can have things like ACL/MCL tears, and ITB issues. Not to mention issues with joint problems ( knees/hips I’m looking at you...). Lighter skis is the cheapest way to deal with those issues.
Another way to look at it is ski equipment in general is the most advenced sporting/leisure equipment in the world. We had things like carbon fiber, fiberglass, modern epoxy mixes, computer design, etc way way before any other sporting goods . As a result this kind of has a trickle down effect throughout many markets. You have multi-sport conglomerates ( Head for example) that will use skis as a test bed for materials, technologies, and processes that will flow down to their other sporting goods ( road bikes, tennis rackets, skates, etc).
Another thing to think about is park skis make such a small segment of the market these days. Touring is moving up very quickly as far as sales/investment go, and all terrain/caving skis always have a large market share. So as a result your going to see skis marketed and built to what sells. Hell Salomon is a perfect example. They used to be the market leader in terrain park skis, now they only have two models ( I think) that nobody really buys.
Salomon now owns Armada. The Salomon brand doesnt need park skis anymore to hit that demographic. Most companies only have a few park skis these days. Most are moving into all mountain and side country skis because thats where the money is heading.
freeskibum82Salomon now owns Armada. The Salomon brand doesnt need park skis anymore to hit that demographic. Most companies only have a few park skis these days. Most are moving into all mountain and side country skis because thats where the money is heading.
