EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Do wide skis hurt your knees?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do wide skis hurt your knees? - Page 2

post #31 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
Hey Splitter, nice trolling post. you must be a boarder.
Well, I figured the smilies would demonstrate good natured ribbin'
but
since you asked...

I have a telemark rig, an AT rig, a lift riding ski, a splitboard, a solid snowboard, and fish-scaled metal edge XC skis with Dynafits on 'em.

So yeah, I ride a snowboard.

post #32 of 52
The more you use your hips for edging and your knees and ankles for fine tuning the less your knees will hurt regardless of the width.
post #33 of 52

knee pain...

Hey,
I experienced one season of knee pain....it was with a relatively thin-waisted ski with pretty wide shovels(for the mid-90s), however what I was doing was pressuring the front portion of the ski while it was in Any old position....most of the time...it was relatively Flat! Can you say shin to knee pain!!....but obviously it was from a pretty deranged mindset of technique.
*With some fatter skis being described as a ski to "be driven"...you are looking at a fair amount of material Mass!...and if pressured downward while relatively flat, INTO the snow...I think one's tibia/knees are going to feel something...

$.005
another..Steve
post #34 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter View Post
Well, I figured the smilies would demonstrate good natured ribbin'
but
since you asked...

I have a telemark rig, an AT rig, a lift riding ski, a splitboard, a solid snowboard, and fish-scaled metal edge XC skis with Dynafits on 'em.

So yeah, I ride a snowboard.


Good on ya' Free-heelers are awesome and I have no issues with anyone who can ride or ski well.
post #35 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
Good on ya' Free-heelers are awesome and I have no issues with anyone who can ride or ski well.
it's all cool
post #36 of 52
just a guess. i wouldn;t know unless I watched you ski but perhaps the knee pain is being caused by a combo of heavier skis, wider waisted skis plus over-rotation of hips due to the skis needing extra effort to be put on edge due to the wider waist.

I was going crazy for a period in making short, tight turns and my knees started to ache.
post #37 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter View Post
fat skis are for pow.
if you only have one pair of skis they shouldn't be
over 80 underfoot
over 90 underfoot is really a pow specific ski.
pow isn't bad on the knees
therefore
fat skis shouldn't be hard on the knees.

don't get fat skis if you mostly ride lifts and groomers
and have one pair of skis.

get around 75mm

if you have money for pow skis (which isn't hard if you really like pow) or need a backcountry ski, hit the 90-95-ish range.

if you have lots of money and get pow no matter what, including quitting jobs for 3 foot days,

anything over a hundo should do just fine

really.

if you decide you love pow, move to utah, jackson, or mammoth, put some 95's underfoot, put dynafits on 'em, and hike. Get some Karhu PFDs, 110 underfoot, and ride lifts. But keep them 75's around for spring lift riding and groomers
I've said this before, but I see absolutly no benifit to skis less than 90mm underfoot on most days if you are doing anything else besides railing groomers. Fat skis bust through crud, chop, slush, and corn way better than skinny skis, and are far more stable to boot.

95mm underfoot are my skiniest skis, 106mm are my everyday skis. 100mm is a midfat these days.

What do you not like about wider skis? I'm curious, since you obviously have some reason for not liking them on most days.
post #38 of 52
How bout makin' a few turnz?
post #39 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE View Post
How bout makin' a few turnz?
This is a valid point. Cranking out a bazillion turns down a hard-packed 500 foot high hill in Ontario to get the most out of your high priced lift ticket makes a lot of sense. None of the fat skis I own (or have tried) are that good at really short radius turns on groomers. Of course out here that's really not the objective.
post #40 of 52
In the soft , mush or mank the fats can turn. The less compact snow creates opportunities to reduce their turn radius. Yep , some skidding , slipping and a bit of sliding. I like they way they open up the mountain for us. Less concentration on a two footed stance you need to ski on skinnier skis and more just plain skiing. Why carve or worry about high edge engagement when you can use them for the purposes they are best suited for ?
If I wanna carve I got my Allstars or SX-11's on hard or compact surfaces They don't hurt my knees (much ) either.
post #41 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
. I see absolutly no benifit to skis less than 90mm underfoot on most days if you are doing anything else besides railing groomers.

What do you not like about wider skis? I'm curious, since you obviously have some reason for not liking them on most days.
Yesterday I was skiing off piste in two inches of new dense powder over some mixed partially frozen corn. I was on a pair of 171's 74 mm waist, 13.5 m radius.

I was playing with a cross under type skiing where one allows the legs to relax and the body move downhill at the end of a turn. Instead of falling on your face, the skis would whip around back under you before you could even feel out of balance. There was a section with little buried tree tops, and I had a good time playing tree slalom with them, extending way out to the side to shin some of them. The firm but smooth surface allowed outrageous body positions seen in world cup slaloms.

Man, was it fun! a real roller coaster ride. I couldn't do that on a long fat straight ski. Would hardly call it just railing groomers.
post #42 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
I've said this before, but I see absolutly no benifit to skis less than 90mm underfoot on most days if you are doing anything else besides railing groomers. Fat skis bust through crud, chop, slush, and corn way better than skinny skis, and are far more stable to boot.

95mm underfoot are my skiniest skis, 106mm are my everyday skis. 100mm is a midfat these days.

What do you not like about wider skis? I'm curious, since you obviously have some reason for not liking them on most days.
I don't believe I said anything about not liking wider skis. I believe I said if you usually just ride lifts and have one pair of skis, go about 75 under. If you only ride lifts, more often than not, you're riding a fair amount of groomers.

I also said if you really like pow, or would like a good bc ski, to get 90-95.
Plenty of float and a good all around size for corn, boilerplate, and pow. It also isn't wicked heavy for hiking a long ways. I also said for lift riding powder, something in the 110 area would be good.

I do think that over 105 is a lot of ski to lug around on a long hike when 95's float pretty well. And they aren't awesome for traversing ice on spring mornings, kinda the same as splitties. Ski crampons can help, but last I checked, not a ton of people make ski cramps much fatter'n 105. But if you are just riding lifts (or helis), by all means get something fat, or crazy fat, and reverse camber.

I still say that 90 underfoot for riding groomers at resorts is overkill.

But I don't have anything against wide skis.

my tele rig is 98 under (scotty bob fat bastards)
my AT rig is 93 under (g3 revs)
I do have some old whatevers, probably around 75 under for messing around on lifts in spring
I do have some karhu guide metal edged fish scale XC's. They are 75 under. They are really nice with dynafits for big spring days and multi day tours.

But I usually ride my splitboard or snowboard on pow days anyway.

Talk about wide underfoot.

Don't read too much into a post fueled mostly by beer and boredom.

I'm glad you like your wide skis. I like mine too. I do like my snowboard better on pow days
post #43 of 52
I went from my 162 b5's to 167 phat luvs 2 weeks ago and i feel fine..Knees are not an issue.Not a good choice on hard snow"early in morning" but working out great for anything else so far.
post #44 of 52
From what I experienced wider skis on their own did NOT cause me any knee pain.

What caused me knee pain and how I fixed it:

- too soft of a boot shell with too much front lean => stiffer boots (ridding bang on lower legs too) and adjustment to a more upright stance (easier on knees)
- riding boards with either too stiff of a flex or not enough mass/weight to really flex the ski => get some boards with a moderate flex suiting my weight and rid the 'the stiffer the better' macho attitude
- simply insufficient shape => seriously picked up on road and mountain biking to strengthen the whole leg and knee portion

==> bye bye knee pain!
post #45 of 52
Since I started using my Capital G-Funkensteins on the slalom course my times have gotten worse. :
post #46 of 52

fatties and knees

My findings,,,,
Mount fatties [80+] flat for sure., Narrow your stance appropriately for the stated conditions. Roll your boots to the outside so as to beg off some edge in the completion phase of the turn. And, elloquent smeared turns are not heresy,,and OH, stay out of any slalom courses.
When it hurts,,listen and make adjustments,,otherwise you'll pay big later on.
post #47 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter View Post
I don't believe I said anything about not liking wider skis. I believe I said if you usually just ride lifts and have one pair of skis, go about 75 under. If you only ride lifts, more often than not, you're riding a fair amount of groomers.
Er, not likely. I only ride lifts, and I barely ever ride groomers unless I really need to At Alpental there really are only like 2 groomers out of a ton of runs. Same thing with Stevens backside, Anything near the top of Crystal, etc. And when I ride a groomer it's usually 50% of my time switch, 25% straightline runout, and 25% carving. So it doesn't really matter on carving ability for me.
post #48 of 52

[Was going to start my own thread on this topic but did a quick search and found this.]

 

I bought a pair of Rossignol S-3's and that was my primary ski last season. They are 98 underfoot I think, so not even that fat. Anyway the inside of my left knee (medial side) would often hurt after skiing. Nothing too serious but a little bit of pain, a little bit of tenderness.

 

This is speculation, but I am wondering if I was using extra knee angulation to get the wider ski up on its edge and that caused the pain. It wasn't a problem on the powder days but if the snow was firm and I was using excessive knee angulation (as opposed to hip angulation) and trying to carve arcs, it would be worse. I can't think of anything else that changed. I haven't been in any accidents, I am in roughly the same shape.The main thing that changed was a move to a wider ski.

 

The obvious criticism of this theory is: why didn't my right knee hurt? And the answer would be that I just didn't use as much knee angulation on that side. Perhaps the muscles are stronger on my right side and able to hold the ski on edge without as much angulation. Who knows. 

 

So:

Does anyone else get medial knee pain from angulation?

Do fat skis make this worse?

Any drills or exercises to strengthen or train my knee not to angulate as much?

Or just use different skis when the snow is firm?

 

Thanks.

post #49 of 52
My old Volant Chubbs, at 90 mm underfoot were hard on the knees on firm surfaces. My current everyday skis, being Dynastar Mythic Riders, at 88 mm underfoot, are not any harder on my knees than skinny skis are. That actuaaly was a surprise to me. So, it seems that ski design has an influence, and not just ski width.
post #50 of 52
Interestingly, IME it's been stiff skis - not wide - that made my knees hurt. Softer wide skis, no problem - stiff, narrower skis, ouch. Anyone else find this?
post #51 of 52
Yep. Messed up knees, more issues w rutty GS courses than carving on 115 moderate flexes. Think the mechanical inefficiency of a softer ski means less F directly to knee. (Also like a softer flex in pow, but that's another story.)
post #52 of 52

I experienced knee pain one day when I got stupid.  It was a groomer day, but I love my Auras, so I decided to see how well they could carve if I worked them.  The result - Auras? surprisingly well; 53 old knees? not so much. Back to the carvers on groomer days.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Do wide skis hurt your knees?