WildSnow Ski Weights Comparison Charts
Update! Today I added the Movement Shift to our charts and did some edits. Shift has nice weight/surface score of 75, well below our running average which today comes in at 77. The Shift is our 8th lightest weight/surface ski out of 39 models, same score as DPS Yvette and just over the G3 C3 which scores a 73. In case you didn’t notice, our overall lightest weight/surface ski is now the Trab Magico 171 cm, which comes in at an amazing score of 64, with each ski weighing only one kilo. Shift also receives an excellent score of 8.42 weight/length in comparison to other skis of similar waist width (98) such as Trab Volare and DPS Wailer 99.
Per reader’s request I also put the ski waist widths on the bar graph titles; it’s the last number that shows on the title (not on the mouse-over popup, which shows the score as last number). Widths shown are sometimes a millimeter or so less than manufacturer stated width, probably due to factory tuning. For the calcs I used our measured width. If the bar on the bar graph is too short, the ski width number won’t show but it will show when you mouse over.
At any rate, if you want something wide and light, check the third chart to verify your pick. For example, G3 C3 appears to knock it out of the park!
We spend quite a bit of time on this project, using real-world measurements of skis we have here in the workshop. Spreadsheet formula is fairly simple and subject to slight revisions, which I’ll make sure get updated in this chart. I did a lot of experimenting with different formulas and most arrived at the same spread of weights for the comparison of the different skis, so as I refined it was really just splitting hairs. Guest blogger Jonathan got started on this a while back, but we needed to do it where I had more skis in hand and the current ones for our Ultimate Quiver, so better we do another version. Much rounding and some estimation is involved, so don’t look at this as an exact way of comparing several similar skis. For example, the Goode and the Dynafit Cho Oyu we evaluated are only one score point different, which means they are virtually the same.
First chart is ski weight vs surface area score, the stat that skiers focused as much on downhill as the uphill should focus on. Below that you’ll find length vs weight which for the total weight fanatic is perhaps the more important stat. Click on and slowly mouse over the bars for a score number.
Second chart is length vs weight. Round our scores up or down, to something like 6,7,8,9,10,11. Anything 6 or 7 is super light, 8 or 9 delightful, and 10-11 is on the heavy side.
Bear in mind that skis tend to have some odd variations in weight/surface as well as length/weight when lengths of the same models are compared. We assume this is because sometimes a shorter ski can be built quite light as it undergoes less leverage and generally supports lighter skiers, but by the same token the shorter skis could be overbuilt if laid up and the same as a longer ski.
Again, skis within a few points of each other are virtually the same, so be careful if you tend to obsess. I was tempted to group the skis into three or four weight classes based on the scores, and show that instead, but opted to show more detail at the risk of nit picking and getting yelled at by the ski makers.
We used unrolled “deployed” lengths (rounded for display, measured to several millimeter accuracy for the spreadsheet), but the lengths shown on the chart bars are the manufacturer’s stated model ‘length.’ Sometimes the two measurements are the same, sometimes they’re slightly different. All chart data is subject to revision (as are our formulas) as we verify retail ski weights, correct typos, and so forth. So if you’re tempted to try and reverse engineer what we’re doing with this, I’d suggest that would be a waste of time. Have fun calculating using your own data, but don’t try to back your results out of our numbers.
In terms of shopping for the best weight/price/performance ratio, we’re thinking the sweet spot on the chart is the score 73 to 83 range. The lighter skis are tempting but expensive, and the heavier ones may be unsuitable for folks doing much hiking, though perhaps more to the liking of aggressive skiers or those needing a plank that works well as a lift-served resort board with crossover to the BC.
We used to not concern ourselves as much with ski weight, but things have changed in the ski manufacturing world. More skis are now available that trim ounces but still might ski well. So this year’s 2013/2014 Ultimate Quiver project will more strongly consider weights of the skis, thus we had to quantify our take as an antidote to the marketing drugs those PR guys slip into our espressos.
Due to small ongoing revisions we’re not sharing our formula, but it is pretty simple. We basically just split the ski into two trapezoids based on an average of where the ski waist is located. The area of the traps is then made into a score based on ratio of weight and surface area. We compensate a bit for tip and tail shape, measure things fairly accurately with skis in hand (no catalog or magazine data, but occasional data from trusted sources), and let the spreadsheet do the calcs. Again, bear in mind that due to our estimating and averaging (as well as the fact that the same ski model will frequently vary a few grams in weight from one to the next), skis within a few score points of each other are essentially the same weight vs surface area — thus, don’t obsess.
Comments
58 Responses to “WildSnow Ski Weights Comparison Charts”
Got something to say? Please do so.
Nice analysis Lou. I have often wondered about the weight to surface area comparison. Pretty tough calcs to do with all the varied geometries. One technique that you could use that might simplify things is to use paper cutouts of the ski surface. The weight of the paper cutout can then be compared to the weight of a piece of paper with a known and easily measured surface area. One key is to use paper with a similar density.
W1/A1=Wx/Ax
Where:
W1= wieght of known paper piece
A1=surface area of known paper piece
Wx=wieight of ski cutout paper
Solve for Ax: Ax=(A1*Wx)/W1
All, one thing to know is at this point the mean for our scores is 83. If the ski is within a few points more or less of an 83, it’s average in weight on the chart, not heavy, and meaning it’s rather light because our selection of test skis is on the light side.
Greg, you method would work fine if one needed to be that accurate. We don’t need that kind of accuracy, however. So long as I’m confident we can generate a fair comparison chart and get something to state in our reviews, I’m good for now.
Interestingly, I did try simply averaging the tip/waist/tail and using that for the width x length to get a surface area number that could be compared from ski to ski. This actually worked pretty well and I was tempted to go with it, but the trapezoids got slightly better results and the formula was easy. I spent a lot more time measuring the skis and doing the chart than I did on the spreadsheet.
Another observation we made was that in some cases shorter skis tend to be less efficient in terms of surface area vs weight. Keep that in mind when trying save weight by going shorter. You can save weight that way for sure, but at what cost in performance? (Note, on some brands the opposite seems to happen. Thus, be careful when extrapolating our scores to different length skis of the same brand/model.)
Shorter skis are still lighter, the skins weigh less, and they handle better on the pack. As I learned from a post of yours ages ago, cheek-height works great. Shorter than that, and it’s too short…
Once you’ve settled in on your desired method of width determination, please consider detailing it. If it’s a useful number, it’s a thing that manufacturers can quote and for which they can optimize future designs.
Great to see Wildsnow going cautiously quantitative!
Charlie, really good point about the skins! Some weigh a ton! I’m finding the forehead height for heavily rockered skis is frequently better than the old cheek standard. This is one of the reasons why ski weight has suddenly become more important. Ditto for skin weight, then next frontier for all these guys essentially still cutting skins out of conveyor belt material.
All, I just added in the weight vs length chart. These charts update automatically as I update the spreadsheet, so we’ll be adding more skis as more Ultimate Quiver contenders arrive. Fun. Now we’re totally dialed for picking skis that give the best mix of weight vs performance.
Hey Lou,
Great stuff (as usual) – you gave us a teaser earlier and I’ve been looking forward to seeing this.
One thing I’m getting different results on is that shorter ski model versions actually score better in my analysis (than longer skis of the same model) – this is quite consistent across the board and even using couple different formulas (one from Jonathan found here on WildSnow and others elsewhere on-line and developed one myself).
Even precise statistics only goes so far ;- ) Either way, this is definitely very helpful for an initial comparison when ski shopping. As mentioned here by many, actually skiing the planks is the best way to figure out whether a particular skier likes them or not… but if no such option is available, this may help with the decision making.
Thanks a ton.
Pavel, glad you enjoy it.
All these things should have a purpose. Our purpose it to simply place the skis into some weight classifications so that we can say things like “this average weight ski performs well, so you’re getting fun downhill without an extra penalty on the way up.” Beyond that, yeah, perhaps if I split hairs I could change the results a bit. I experimented quite a bit with that, and I couldn’t shift the results enough to skew my classifications, though the numbers would bounce around a bit.
In terms of shorter vs longer skis of same model, don’t be surprised if results are unexpected. First, be sure you are calculating using real-world widths and exact unrolled lengths, as shorter skis are frequently narrower, meaning less bang per unit surface area. More, just because a ski is the same model doesn’t mean the shorter one is made the same, with the same amount of resin, fiber, and so forth. They can vary quite a bit. I figured they should be close in weight/surface, but would have been surprised if they’d been exactly the same and I’m not bothered if they are quite different.
For example, I was just dealing with that today with one of our ski manufacturers, who is saying one of the lengths we’re testing may be coming out of the mold at a different weight than what we got off our current testers.
If your results are a lot different, perhaps we’re compensating for tip and tail shape in different ways. Whatever, again, so long as we can make some meaningful classifications of the skis, we are happy with the results. I’ll leave it to someone with a lot more spare time to do something like cutting out paper forms and using them to calculate exact surface area (grin).
Lou
I think that the weights, and, widths of the skis seem to be missing. Though I guess you may still be working on your charts.
We might put some of the data in there. We’ll see. Much of it is on our ski weights chart here:
http://www.wildsnow.com/more/backcountry-skiing-gear-weights/
And I’ll update with latest.
What about the pure carbon G3 ZenOxides? Considering they are the lightest at 105mm would be nice to have them in….
Hi Lou,
I find the charts really interesting. Just a thought that crossed my mind:
The weight/surface area calculations are geared towards riding performance in soft snow, I guess? It would be nice if you could post the surface area data as well, because when you ride in soft snow what really matters is the riders total weight (including backpack, boots, and so on) vs. surface area. So a big guy with a heavy pack has to choose a much larger ski than a skinny girl, for example. The differences in ski weight are probably negligible in this respect.
Of course, ski weight matters as well, since this adds to the weight you have to move with every single step when ascending.
D.,. a lot of stuff is going in, including those. It’s an ongoing project and the charts automatically update when I update my spreadsheets.
Martin, you can do that informally by just knowing which skis are fatties as you examine the charts, but perhaps I can figure out a scoring system for fatness. I don’t really want to publish the exact numbers as they’re subject to possible corrections and don’t reflect running surface. As someone alluded to above, having the dimensions on the chart would be good, and probably as much as you’d need to determine fatness. Lou
I third the skins chart idea. My setup seems pretty light until the orange skins are installed and things begin to feel heavy quickly. Not sure if that is a misperception or reality. I am curious as to how other skins would change the “real feel” which would take into account the skin on the ski, rolled out at the ends of the levers. So it would be cool to have a chart that shows actual skin scale weight and also a subjective category on how an installed skin feels in the weight department, relative to other skins. I assume there would be three categories: full syn, mohair/syn blend & pure mohair which may indicate weight to some degree and also grip/glide.
Lou-
Would love the see the Dynastar Cham High Mountains (87,97, 107) on this list and see you guys do a review of them as well. Love my 97′s!
AK, talk to Dynastar…
All, I’ve been working on this project a bunch, it’ll probably be today’s blog post as well.
Regarding skins, we have enough around here to do something with them. I’ll see what we can do. The correct approach would involve simply cutting the skins up into chunks with the exact same size, the weighing. We might have enough old ones laying around to start on that.
Lou
Hi Lou,
Nice to see these charts, thanks for the work. Noticed to the Grand Teton and Yeti on there, two skis I am interested in. Have you skied either yet? Any quick impressions on how they compare to each other? The Yeti’s weight is very appealing, can’t seem to find much info on how it skis though. Thanks for any input!
All shall be revealed, sooner or later. The Yeti is amazingly light.
to me the alpinists looked so light and minimalist but when I actualy weighed them I found the G3′s and BD’s with the old tip loops actualy weigh about the same within 5 grams while my Dynafit skins are significantly lighter
A pair of BD skins trimmed for some old 180cm version 1 BD verdicts weigh 688, a pair of skins for a longer/wider 191cm Stoke weigh 602, so lets say pomoca’s will probably be about 100grams lighter for the same size ski than a BD or G3
whats that 12-15%?
Pomoca/Dynafit skins really are quite something, I have to say. But the G3 offerings have some pluses, mainly, super durable.
I think that it would be helpful (for me at least) to see a sample calculation explaining the methodology behind the charts.
Bar, Jonathan explained it all well,
http://www.wildsnow.com/6270/ski-surface-to-weight-rati/
and we’re essentially doing what he was doing but built something a bit different from scratch, our end result is a numeric score rather than a percentage. Mainly, bear in mind we are simply comparing skis to one another, not trying for some kind of actual number of grams per square millimeter. It all has a certain degree of course granularity due to the fact that no two skis weigh exactly the same, and the shape is difficult to perfectly explain in a mathematical formula.
Perhaps you’re confused by our two charts. The first one is indeed base on surface area vs. weight. But the second one is super simple and is just weight vs length with no consideration of width.
All lengths are actual measured in the workshop unrolled (measured tip to tail along the base).
On the surface area chart, skis with scores of only one or two numbers difference are essentially the same in real-world use. If it’s helpful, think of the skis in the first chart as three classes: Heavy, average, light. Visualize the chart that way. Most human powered skiers would want to stick with the average to light skis, unless they had a good reason to go with the heavy ones.
Lou
surface area to weight ratios seems to me to be a really good indicator of how hard a ski is going to get tossed in hard variable snow. Not shocking to see a surface ski score very well in this catagory.
Sure, if you think heavier skis as a rule our better, our charts can be used that way. My take after skiing most of this stuff is the “average” weight skis do just fine in terms of being tossed around, it’s the ones on the lighter end of the scale where how they are built becomes key, as well as the skill of the skier.
Lighter weight gear sometimes demands more skill, but the rewards can be worth it.
Will you be adding more skis to this chart? Would like to see how some of the Black Diamond touring skis, especially the Drift size up.
We’ll be adding next season’s BD skis in a few days. They significantly changed their manufacturing process so I’m not going to bother fooling around with older ones. Other skis will go in as well, but mostly ones we’re considering for our Ultimate Quiver.
Thanks, looking forward to it. Their new lineup looks pretty nice, especially the Convert.
We’ve got some new winners added to the charts. Check out those feather light G3 C3 skis!
Great chart! But could you try and include the Swiss-made Movement X ski (http://www.movementskis.com/en/products/skis/x-series/logic/ ), which at 1100 grams for the 176 cm length is the lightest ski I have ever come across. I have had my Movements for two seasons now, mounted with Dynafit bindings, and just love them- both for backcountry and piste skiing. And unlike my earlier Goode skis, I have had no problems with the Movements breaking or delaminating.
I have always believed that light skis are not only a bonus when you’re touring, but also make turning easier. It’s basic physics: to turn, a ski needs to change direction, and the less weight there is, the less energy it takes to turn the ski. I’d be interested in other skier’s thoughts on this.
Frank, if we ever get any to evaluate we’ll include. We generally only include skis we evaluate here, ourselves. Dozens of excellent skis out there we never evaluate.
1100 for 176 is pretty good. Goal in the industry now, for those oriented to human power, is the “one kilo ski.”
Lou
Yowwww! I just added DPS Yvette 112RP, super light! Check it out!
This about ties it. No reason for us to test or tour on klunky skis. Things have changed!
As a point of reference, I just added the K2 Remedy alpine ski. It’s definitely not a backcountry plank. Quite heavy and with a turned up tail. It probably skis great, but not appropriate for Ultimate Quiver. Lou
Maybe more weight is better than less weight to a certain extent?
Tell that to DPS…
Seriously, the weight of a ski is one of probably 300 factors that affect how it performs. So yeah, sometimes more weight can be helpful, but more weight can also work against you when making turns.
If I was shopping for backcountry skis I’d use the weight charts to pick models that are in the middle to low range of weight, then demo. I’ll guarantee many of those skis do just fine.
Lou
Just added La Sportiva Hi5 178, looking a bit heavy for a human powered option…
Lou- can you include just the weight and ski length? Maybe I’m missing something, but the be all and end all for me is just weight- for a given length, how much ski do I have to push up the hill?
Frank, easier said than done. We’ve sample around 30 skis so far for this project, here in our shop. One or two lengths each. Considering those same skis come in 3 or 4 different lengths, to attempt to simply provide the weight of each ski, verified in-house, would be impractical. It would involve hundreds of skis, including acquisition, shipping, etc.
Even so, know that we have several weight resources here at WildSnow that might be useful for you. If you want just raw skis listed by weight , irregardless of width and length, check our gear weights page:
http://www.wildsnow.com/more/backcountry-skiing-gear-weights/
I’ll keep improving the charts above, and attempt to add some sort of weight data. But I don’t want to detract from the purpose of these charts, which is TO COMPARE THE WEIGHT OF SKIS TO EACH OTHER, in one case based on how much surface area, and in the second chart based on how much length.
If you simply need to pick the lightest skis, the charts do work. Just pick a ski that shines both in the surface/weight score, as well as the length/weight score. As you can see on the charts, it’s obvious which skis the really light ones are.
Lou
Any chance you will be evaluating the Kastle TX97? I would like to see how this ski compares on the weight charts and hear a review of the skis performance.
All, I’ve recently been dealing with catalog weight vs verified ski weight. For those of you scouring the web for other surface/weight charts, please know that unless the skis are weighed and measured in-house or based on actual measurements by technicians at the ski company, such charts may have so much inherent error as to be useful only for a general guideline or as an amusing pastime. I wish we could evaluate more skis, but we’ll continue to only do ones when we can get verified data, usually in-house.
Mike, I’m not yet sure what we’ll be doing with TX97. Stay tuned.
Lou
Hi Lou,
Any chance you can give us the actual weight of the Soul 7′s? I’ve looked all over the internet and cant find a single source of published weight. All I can find is that they’re 30% lighter then similar brands in this width. Not sure if that means 7pds or 9pds. Thanks
Hi Eric, I just added Soul 7 to our gear weights chart:
http://www.wildsnow.com/more/backcountry-skiing-gear-weights/
It’s quite a light ski for its performance and width, though not what I’d overall call “light.”
They’re probably quite a bit lighter than other _alpine_ skis, but just average when compared to backcountry skis.
http://www.wildsnow.com/more/backcountry-skiing-gear-weights/
Just got a few BD skis, 2013/14, in for evaluation. Revert is on the chart as slightly above average for surface/weight. Meaning it’s quite good since our chart is biased to the lightweight side of things. Sadly, the top of ski has the funny indentations that will fill with ice and add weight during nearly any tour. BD needs to get off their kick of having that type of top-skin geometry. It’s not appropriate for human powered skiing. Otherwise, am looking forward to getting out on these as by all reports they’re good skis. 122/95/109 is the sidecut. Lou
Revised weight for Voile V8 176 due to prototypes being too heavy. They weighed a random selection of production retail skis at Voile in Salt Lake City :
1 – 1677g
2 – 1614g
3 – 1616g
4 – 1596g
I changed average weight used in chart to 1626, which is excellent!
1626±38 g ! Thanks for providing Lou with a distribution of masses, Voile!
( divided the standard deviation by 0.92 to unbias things, if you’re checking the math )
Just added Black Diamond Current 175 3013/14, average weight, skis very nice, if you’re looking for something in the proverbial “87 underfoot” range this will be a good option to look for next winter.
Ooooo baby, this is almost as good as ***.
Hagan Wai Flow arrived yesterday. Weigh in:
Unrolled length 172.5, 1164 grams!
Dynafit Cho has slightly better (still our best) surface/weight score due to it not having a pintail like the Wai (99 mm tail), but Cho weighs a few grams more at 1178 grams for a 173.4 cm unrolled.
Wai has a length/weight score of 6.75, Cho scores 6.79 (lower is lighter). Dead heat!! Both are easily some of the lightest full-function backcountry skis due for the 2013/14 season.
This, folks is the WAR for the ONE KILO ski mountaineering ski, and is shifting the whole picture of what we get to enjoy in the backcountry.
I added Wai to the weight chart, testing to commence. Pray they ski ok, I’m not inspired by the tiny tail and lack of rocker for western North America conditions… but with a huge tip and 86 at the waist they’ve got something going on. We shall see.
Lou
The Shaman is coming home to roost, in a roundabout way.
Added Black Diamond Convert 180 cm, good surface/weight ratio. Testing will commence. Lou
Just got my hands on a test pair of next seasons Scott Rock’Air skis. They are shockingly light. At 137-105-127 in a 183 they weigh 1570 grams each (6.9# for the pair). I’m not aware of too many other 105 waisted skis that are sub 7#. My old Stokes were 7.25# in a 182.
They have mild tip rocker, straight tail and just the right amount of camber. Maybe a bit too much sidecut for my taste. Apparently they’re built with a pauwlonia core with carbon stringers. Looking forward to testing!
Chris, that sounds like an excellent weight, let’s hope they ski good. The samples I saw at OR show were all heavy so we didn’t pay much attention, sounds like we should revisit. Lou
Just now got around to weighing some more of our Ski Trab testers. Folks, we have the legendary ONE KILO ski on our hands! 171 Magico pair averages exactly 1,000 grams each ski! They get best score in both weight/surface and weight/length. They also ski just fine, durability unknown. They’re a carbon ski, obviously. Review coming. Lou
Hey Lou
I know you are busy.
I will test those Magicos for you.
Lou,
Brilliant!
Could you add waist to you chart?
Terrance, yes, I want to get waist in there, just trying to figure out how to fit it without jumbling things up.
Ok Lou, now we need to measure the torsional rigidity and flex patterns and durability. ie the test of time versus pop.
Any thoughts?
Sorry Lou, to be more accurate, days skied versus pop to spaghettiometer.
LOL. Not going there! I’ll probably add some other charts that just sort things differently.