Are skinny skis making a comeback?

i feel like stiffer and more durable skinny skis are the only common ones i see, a good example would be poachers, a ski that can handle itself big mtn and off booters while being small enough to swing around like a mad man on jibs

**This post was edited on Feb 2nd 2021 at 1:16:37am

I feel like wider skis have been getting more popular recently. Most of ON3P’s park skis are in the 95-100ish range and that’s similar to what other companies seem to be making too. I feel like in big comps such as the x games skinny skis will always be the most popular, but for park skiing as a whole I think most stuff is a bit on the wider side in the past few years.

h3nry.I feel like wider skis have been getting more popular recently. Most of ON3P’s park skis are in the 95-100ish range and that’s similar to what other companies seem to be making too. I feel like in big comps such as the x games skinny skis will always be the most popular, but for park skiing as a whole I think most stuff is a bit on the wider side in the past few years.

i agree, i dont see many skinny skis that arent super stiff and can charge anymore on the mountain. a lot of soft 98-100 underfoot types

drewju15i feel like stiffer and more durable skinny skis are the only common ones i see, a good example would be poachers, a ski that can handle itself big mtn and off booters while being small enough to swing around like a mad man on jibs

**This post was edited on Feb 2nd 2021 at 1:16:37am

Honestly I'd kind of consider the Poacher to be one of the skis that led the charge of the wider park ski movement. At the time, 85-88 was defs still the norm for what most brands were marketing as a pure park ski.

Wider skis are definitely getting more and more common for 'normal' park skiing people. Comp skiers will always prefer skinny skis because they are easier to ski and spin. Also, Harlaut said that he prefers skinny skis because they are easier for his knees, which is at least somewhat scientifically true (see this paper for reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541126/) I think knee problems might be the reason for skinny skis for other comp skiers as well.
When it comes to average park skiers around 95 to 100mm seems to be the most common and popular width even though like 5 years ago that was pow ski width and park skis were like 80-90mm underfoot. I guess all the brands want to sell do-everything -all-mountain skis.

So in comps skinny skis never left, but for average skiers and ski brands the wide is the way to go.

For comp riders, probably. For normal people, nah. Wider skis in the park and all mountain are more popular than they've ever been.

It’s actually kinda weird that most park skis are so wide. A wide ski is heavier which makes it require more force and energy to get a rotation. I prefer a wider ski since I ride with it all mountain and generally feel like I can ski more aspects with the ski which is great since then I can get 1 ski I like and only need that one. But just for park use especially rails I think there’s a lot of advantages with a skinny ski. But I think over all it doesn’t make much of a difference. I think wider skis are cooler and add a bit of style and they is more useful. I think it has to do with style more than you think mr andri spaghetti’s style would look weird with big blocks under the foot while for example mr edollo would look quite strange with some mini sticks on his feet. But I don’t think there is weird if skinny skis become popular.

yeah makes sense, i just noticed harlaut doesn’t have the typical comp style but he was on the 86s, although that’s just one example, and yeah overall people are on wide skis. i’ve never rode wide skis in park because i haven’t gotten the chance, but i think it might be cool to see some narrow park skis that aren’t stiff comp planks, although there are the wets

I’m on some revolt 95s in the park and they’ve got more of a new age feel (slightly wider, less camber, a little more floppy). I much prefer mid 80s, stiffer underfoot with more camber. I will be going back to that when these give out. Honestly, I think they’re just easier, poppier, and more intuitive in the park once you’re used to them.

I don't really get the wider skis in park thing. I was used to 86 and then I went to 90 which was fine, but my Jeffreys which are 96 just seem too fat for me. It adds extra weight that doesn't feel like it gives me anything. People who ride 100+ park skis, what do you like about them?

I think my Magnus are about as wide as I'd ever go on a park ski, and I wouldn't mind a tad skinnier.

That being said my SFBs are super fun and park ski like. I still want a park ski shaped like this but with like a 90mm waist max, but the same deep sidecut and a little stiffer.

whatsamonadI don't really get the wider skis in park thing. I was used to 86 and then I went to 90 which was fine, but my Jeffreys which are 96 just seem too fat for me. It adds extra weight that doesn't feel like it gives me anything. People who ride 100+ park skis, what do you like about them?

I like them because they can be softer and more rockered while still being stable due to their width. Stiff poppy park skis are fun too but fat skis feel like they are more versatile and forgiving without sacrificing too much

ethanshredzHonestly I'd kind of consider the Poacher to be one of the skis that led the charge of the wider park ski movement. At the time, 85-88 was defs still the norm for what most brands were marketing as a pure park ski.

super true, i just mean that nowadays besides maybe something like a prodigy or certain on3ps, its just about the only skinny ski that can charge that i see people use. lots of softer armadas, blends, ct 1s and 2s, just about anything that can butter insanely well