As with the Wet the edge wrap is neither full nor 4-piece.
Instead, the edge is in two pieces, meeting both in the tip and the tail.
On the Wide, the two pieces meet at the point of both the tip and the tail.
The rocker profile is also borrowed from the Wet but looks less extreme on a wider ski.
In a 183, the turn radius is longer at 20m.
They are however softer overall than skis like the Marksman, ARV, etc.
Its a nice rounded flex though with no obvious hinge points.
In pow, the Wide is actually pretty good too as long as the snow isnt too heavy.
I skied some steep-ish lines in medium amounts of fresh and they got me down pretty nicely.
More generally, its mixed/marginal conditions where the Wide lacks.
On hard groomers, they are a bit more torsionally stable than the Wet and so feel better.
In crud, they are simply softer than most of the competition and therefore less efficient at busting through.
They are also pretty light which contributes to them getting bounced around.
But ultimately the Wide is a fat Wet, a fat park ski.
They do offer enough all-mountain chops to be a viable one ski quiver for a jibby skier.
Park/Playfulness:
And in the park, the Wide makes much more sense to me.
They are also snappy enough to give you energy on the exit of butters.
At the same time, the added width gives you a significant amount more stability in all situations.
But really enjoyed them as a rail ski and I didnt have major problems getting anything I tried around.
However, by day 7 I was starting to see the beginnings of tip delamination on one ski.
Conclusion:
In todays marketplace, the Wide is a unique ski.
At 106mm it is by a margin, the widest park ski since the Line Elizabeth.
So if youre primarily looking for all-mountain ski, then personally, I think there are better options.
The Wide ticks that box with aplomb.
Park is certainly the focus, but they do handle mid-depths of pow pretty well.
