In defence of narrow skis

[François Pugh]

^^^How did you do that without dislocating your elbow???

I didn't notice what was behind the doorway until after I posted. I'm just lucky I remembered to flush.

 

[cantunamunch]

Even if you turn entirely from your hips, the carving edge of the ski is still not under your foot creating loads your anatomy is not designed for.

Sure it is - if I have a 65mm waisted ski it fits completely under my 98mm wide foot. So does my 45mm waist ski and my 77 and my 88...

The wider the ski, the more exacerbated the force.

Certainly. And if we can get skis that are not wider than our tibias, that would be better yet. Which has been my point for years - the lower limit of 'narrow' is not 60mmish and there is a lot of skiable design to be done below that.

Technique and balancing pressure across both skis might change the dynamic, but it doesn't eliminate it.

Technique should be able to get our dynamics to where we have no more problem skiing than we have climbing up or down stairs with our 90+mm wide feet. Which brings us to @Lorenzzo 's thoughts about what the real problem is.

 

[JFB]

@crgildart

Do monoskis hurt the knees more?

@cantunamunch I love a ski that turns quickly and easily. Not all narrow skis do and not all wide skis don't.

Eric

n=1, but I rode a chair yesterday with a guy riding a mono because he had one knee replaced. He swore by the mono for making it easier for him.

 

[crgildart]

n=1, but I rode a chair yesterday with a guy riding a mono because he had one knee replaced. He swore by the mono for making it easier for him.

Yep, like tying your legs together when one is injured.. You could theoretically mono ski with one leg. But that would be very hard on that one knee... Makes sense for someone with a very weak leg to buckle both legs together like that..

 

[karlo]

Narrow skis are the best.​

 

[OldJeep]

n=1, but I rode a chair yesterday with a guy riding a mono because he had one knee replaced. He swore by the mono for making it easier for him.

And it is true in that regard, it was actually one reason I started monoskiing in the early 90's and had them on and off since then. The issue that I've had over the years with my monoskis is that my knees don't necessarily work at 90 degrees or exactly the same on both legs. So you can get a lot of pain in the sides of your knees from not allowing them to work a little independently. Also likely has to do with our conditions here. You can use them on ice with no problem but you do get a lot of chatter even with some of the carver boards.

 

[jzmtl]

Narrow ski rules in the east, today was wet snow at Tremblant and tons of people came with 85+ skis, I was on my 71mm GS ski and had no desire for wider. For the two or three days we actually get any significant snow, my 80mm is plenty (and if it wasn't it's because of my technique).

 

[crgildart]

Narrow ski rules in the east, today was wet snow at Tremblant and tons of people came with 85+ skis, I was on my 71mm GS ski and had no desire for wider. For the two or three days we actually get any significant snow, my 80mm is plenty (and if it wasn't it's because of my technique).

I don't go by how fresh or how much recent snow the place got as much as how SOFT or how FIRM the conditions are. For wet snow or slush I'm rocking something in the 80s most likely. For fluffier stuff with less buoyancy I then go a little wider. For stuff that's actually FROZEN and HARD I'm going with something 80 or less, probably something in the 60s.. It's the cold icy morning and warm slushy afternoon or slushy afternoon in to a cold re frozen night session where sacrifices/compromises or gear changes must be made to get through that kind of day.

 

[trailtrimmer]

Sure it is - if I have a 65mm waisted ski it fits completely under my 98mm wide foot. So does my 45mm waist ski and my 77 and my 88...

Certainly. And if we can get skis that are not wider than our tibias, that would be better yet. Which has been my point for years - the lower limit of 'narrow' is not 60mmish and there is a lot of skiable design to be done below that.

Technique should be able to get our dynamics to where we have no more problem skiing than we have climbing up or down stairs with our 90+mm wide feet. Which brings us to @Lorenzzo 's thoughts about what the real problem is.

Even with a 98mm wide or even 104mm wide foot, you don't walk or run on the edges of them. Runners who put in lots of time on overly cambered road sides often develop knee and hip issues just from minor differences in height and pressure.

When you stand, walk, run, skip, etc. you distribute the pressure across the entire foot aside from the arch. A slackliner or rope walker uses mostly the center of the foot, not the edge. When you walk of stairs, you are not doing it sideways using only the edge of the foot, you are still putting pressure across the entire thing.

While form may change or reduce the impact, the underlying problem is still there, we simply aren't designed to run around on the edges of our feet. It's also why skinny skis excel on hardpack, it's less force to overcome to achieve the proper angle.

 

[tromano]

Surprised anyone needs to defend skinny skis. The performance on the frontside has been proven.

 

[OldJeep]

These seem plenty wide.

 

[Eleeski]

We aren't designed to last as long as many of the people who are claiming to be injured by a specific type of ski. I'm certainly well past my expiration date. Biologically I should have had kids and helped raise grandkids and assured my lineage by now. I'm just dead weight, biologically at my age.

So if I struggle to move my legs to protect my knees, it's not because my skis are too wide. My body is too weak, tight and damaged to get the most out of the skis. The titanium in my hip, the yoga and PT, the medicines and the technology in the equipment all make me able keep up with the youngsters (who are not complaining about the width of their skis here). All the fancy stick figure models and partial physics fail when the kid zooms by making sweet arcs on fat skis in the ice.

I like my skinny skis because they are well designed skis and they work well for the conditions I when I choose them. If I choose a ski that is "too wide" for the day, I will survive with intact knees.

The real risk to my knees is the idiot snowboarder who runs into me. I'm going to do some wall sits and quad tighteners to protect my knees.

Eric

 

[François Pugh]

Surprised anyone needs to defend skinny skis. The performance on the frontside has been proven.

Ski company marketing efforts need to be counter balanced with something. Just look at all the wide skis on hard-packed groomers in the east.

 

[Rod9301]

From someone who shuttle 112 metal skis. narrow, good, slalom skis are a lot more fun on the icy groomers.

If I knew that I will ski groomers only, slalom skis.

If there's even a small chance of off piste, wide skis.

And for the knee pain, just go to the gym and lift heavy.

 

[cantunamunch]

Even with a 98mm wide or even 104mm wide foot, you don't walk or run on the edges of them. Runners who put in lots of time on overly cambered road sides often develop knee and hip issues just from minor differences in height and pressure.

When you stand, walk, run, skip, etc. you distribute the pressure across the entire foot aside from the arch. A slackliner or rope walker uses mostly the center of the foot, not the edge. When you walk of stairs, you are not doing it sideways using only the edge of the foot, you are still putting pressure across the entire thing.

While form may change or reduce the impact, the underlying problem is still there, we simply aren't designed to run around on the edges of our feet. It's also why skinny skis excel on hardpack, it's less force to overcome to achieve the proper angle.

And now you understand why I am already talking about having skis no wider than our tibias. 65mm is already too wide. Which is why one of the current projects is a 50-55mm waist city SL

Surprised anyone needs to defend skinny skis. The performance on the frontside has been proven.

Every one of the ones named is still too wide.

 

[trailtrimmer]

I'd love to try a 55mm ski on blue snow or an injected surface. Half ski, half skate!

 

[Philpug]

I'd love to try a 55mm ski on blue snow or an injected surface. Half ski, half skate!

I had the 45mm Elan Stealths on some boiler plate...I will say there is a reason that there aren't skis below 60mm...two words diminishing returns.

 

[Andy Mink]

I notice a difference in turn transition between wide and narrow skis. Whether or not that hurts my knees I don't know. I do know that packing around an extra 30 or 40 pounds doesn't help. The physics makes perfect sense but there are so many other variables that it's hard to blame one thing.

 

[Jilly]

I had my Atomic Vantage 95's out Christmas day. Stayed on the runs that were groomed and didn't have any ice. My first thought is "where's the edge, where's the edge...oh, there it is!" But the 95's were all that I remembered them to be when I had them out at WB. But the knees were not happy about them. So not my daily driver here in the east. I'll keep the 68mm Hero's.

 

[Lauren]

Skinny or fat; it doesn't matter, it's what's inside that counts. At least that's what my mother always told me.

But seriously, there are so many more properties to a ski than just the width. All of those properties (materials, length, radius, etc.) matter just as much, in regards to the stresses that are put on your body. Just my 2 cents.