New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wide Skis and Injury Stats - Page 2

post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklskier1 View Post
Regardless of what the doctor says, the width of skis has gotten silly. The fact is that all of the lines that are being skied now were skied in the past on skinny GS skis! DO you really need a ski fatter than 85mm under foot to ski powder? Especially in Utah!!! Consumers have been taken in by the manufacturers and hype. A quiver like this is just silly: 105mm,94mm,85mm

uhhhhhnn...thanks for the wierd rant??


As for the OP - I've found it's safest just to stay on the couch.
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulR View Post
According to his advice, the potential for jnjury from tendon tears and fractures rises signifgiantly the longer, wider, and stiffer the skis is. His information was wider and longer = greater stress and torque on knees and body parts, espcially when falling down.
Since when are fat skis stiffer than a typical front side, mid 60's low 70's ski? flawed statement. Dr, sounds like a Groomer Gaper to me.

Quote:
He stated emphatically specialists are seeing an increase in injuriesof the tendons because people are riding on the popular wide all mountain skis when they simply don't need them for the condtions they ski in. His concern is skis are becoming much too wide and stiff for the average Joe Q Skier out East and everyone is buying them.
Hmm, yes and no, yes, Right tool for the job again. You will use more force to get a wider (80 mm plus) ski on edge on hardpack but again, I don't necessarilly agree with the stiffer thing with advanced/expert skis.
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklskier1 View Post
DO you really need a ski fatter than 85mm under foot to ski powder?
no, but is a hell of lot more fun and easier. More pow runs @ less work= more .....
post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklskier1 View Post
Regardless of what the doctor says, the length of skis has gotten silly. The fact is that all of the lines that are being skied now were skied in the past on long GS skis! DO you really need a ski shorter than 220cm in length to ski powder? Especially in Utah!!! Consumers have been taken in by the manufacturers and hype. A quiver like this is just silly: 155, 165, 175cm
Fixed it for ya. :
post #35 of 47
I agree that longer, wider skis greate more leverage on your body than a narrow ski. Thats just physics.

The increase in injuries...I would say that has more to do with the increase in park and pipe, freestyle, cliff hucks, going big, whatever you want to call it.

Motorcycle injuries are up also. I believe it is more because of the popularity of the sport, than the equipment, in either case.

Backcountry and climbing deaths and injuries are up.

FWIW- I just got my 85mm waist PE's mounted up at a local shop. Everyone eyes got big; 'you going to go ski some powder?!' So here, what would be considered a skinny ski for some, to others is fat. The shop owner was complaining that he was going to have to get a wider jig?!
post #36 of 47
Johhny, interesting point about the park related injuries, I wonder if thats included? FWIW, I had less pain in my knees after a day of skiing on wide (89mm) skis. Maybe beacuse I wasn't arcing them as deeply but I had just as much fun. I could also relax on them which i know helped to conserve energy and required less muscle strenght to balance and such.
post #37 of 47
People talking about things as serious as injury rates with respect to ski design really need to quit stoking the needs-no-stoke skiing wives tale mill unless they are throwing down data and conclusions reviewed by peers and published.

At the very least, anyone making this argument should have the expertise to put forth a valid mechanical explanation for why wider skis could possibly do this. This would require a fairly solid understanding of biomechanics and the dynamics of the ski/binding/boot/skier system.

This is an an intriguing topic. I look forward to posts on it that aren't pure conjecture.
post #38 of 47
Likewise regarding the so-called "increase" in injury rates. Everything credible I have read an heard seems to indicate a drop in injury rates in recent times. I'm certainly open to believing this is not the case, but I'd sure like one semi-credible source for that information.
post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post

This is an an intriguing topic. I look forward to posts on it that aren't pure conjecture.
Well, don't get too excited! I seriously doubt there are such studies that delineate injury by not only ski width but where they were being used. The stats for injuries in park are very high: that i know, but to extrapolate that to being caused by wider skis is nonsense.
post #40 of 47
i can buy into the wide ski-more likely to do damage. bigger ski, more to move around/place pressure on legs and joints.

as said, more likely for hardpack/mixed conditions. then again, a powder ski in powder is probably gonna be easier on the joints than pencils in big bumps, or a shapely GS ski in high G turns for that matter. be in shape, have strong muscles and good dynamics/agility.

skiing's an impact sport. injury happens. if you worry about injury, you're gonna buzz kill your skiing. golf is for that kinda mindset...
post #41 of 47
The exact same principle that makes it harder to set an edge with a wide ski means that wider skis *will* put higher loads and demands on the body. How that translates into injuries is beyond my expertise, but the basic fundamental idea is true. Anybody who has tried out a range of skis is well aware that the narrow ones make it easy to edge and the wider ones take more effort.
post #42 of 47
well, a wide ski being put on edge happens- but the days where one is using a wide ski should be relatively soft, powder days.

i think what it comes down to is twofold:

1. skiing is inherently risky, and skiing aggressively can result in injury. anytime anywhere. you gotta accept this, and put it in the back of your mind while skiing within your ability level and with good judgement.

2. fat skis are meant for soft snow and powder. if you're putting a wide ski on edge alot (i.e. skiing groomers/hardpack) then you should probably have a different ski under you. a one-ski quiver really doesn't exist anymore, if it ever did. i have an 81mm underfoot all-mountain ski, and an 90mm underfoot powder ski (which i am looking to upgrade to 100mm someday, but that's a different story). i should probably have a more GS-oriented ski (narrower underfoot than 80mm) for pure groomer/hardpack days- we get those in the east some times. i think most dedicated skiers should probably have 2-3 pairs of regular use skis to match such conditions (for me, i see 3 pairs- carving skis, on/off trail/all-mt skis, and powder skis- plus a couple pairs of retired rock skis seem to be what is necessary for the sport in New England)


my rant is over.
post #43 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by ono View Post
well, a wide ski being put on edge happens- but the days where one is using a wide ski should be relatively soft, powder days.
O RLY?
post #44 of 47
Id like to add my 2 cents.

I think the Dr. has a point for 2 reasons:

1- Shaped skis are giving less skilled skiers, confidence to do things they may not be ready to do. Beginners taking on intermediate slopes they are not ready for, or intermediates jumping on to black diamonds they should not be on. This leads to injury.

2- Having young children, and a wife who are new skiers, I do notice that with shaped skis, when a beginner skier loses control of a ski, the shaped ski tends to take off on a much more dramatic course, at times a complete 90 degree turn on 1 leg. There is no doubt that the torque is much greater and quicker, even if only for a moment, at loss of control of a single ski, then if the beginner skier was on a pair of straight skis.


Now that being said; could it not also be argued that shaped skis have allowed lower skilled skiers to make better, and therefore safer turns? Allowing also for a better overall control of speed and direction?

So it can go both ways I guess.
post #45 of 47
It comes down to using the proper tool for the proper situation..properly!. If you try to turn a 20M radius ski (no matter what the width), you are going to create torque. When you let the ski react the way it was designed to ski, it will not create undo torque.
post #46 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by pattongb View Post
Id like to add my 2 cents.

I think the Dr. has a point for 2 reasons:

1- Shaped skis are giving less skilled skiers, confidence to do things they may not be ready to do. Beginners taking on intermediate slopes they are not ready for, or intermediates jumping on to black diamonds they should not be on. This leads to injury.

2- Having young children, and a wife who are new skiers, I do notice that with shaped skis, when a beginner skier loses control of a ski, the shaped ski tends to take off on a much more dramatic course, at times a complete 90 degree turn on 1 leg. There is no doubt that the torque is much greater and quicker, even if only for a moment, at loss of control of a single ski, then if the beginner skier was on a pair of straight skis.
The Doctor is talking about w-i-d-e skis, not shaped skis. Wide skis almost always have much much less sidecut than modern 'front side' skis, so you really aren't agreeing with him at all. Your observation is contrary to what this quack is saying.
post #47 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
The Doctor is talking about w-i-d-e skis, not shaped skis. Wide skis almost always have much much less side cut than modern 'front side' skis, so you really aren't agreeing with him at all. Your observation is contrary to what this quack is saying.
^^^ Oh lol! Im sorry im not real big on all the modern ski terminology. When you guys say "wide" i guess you mean "fat" ??? Cuss we always called wide skis fat skis in my day.

Well on a separate note then, and going along with what I was saying OT, there was coincidently an article in my local paper today from a Ski Patroller who works our local mountain here in Wausau. She said this:

"As equipment has improved, snowboarders and skiers are looking for faster and more difficult ways to get down the hill. Injuries are becoming more dramatic. I am seeing more and more back and head injuries."

So I guess this particular ski patroller anyways, agrees with my assumption that shaped skis are making less capable skiers take chances they wouldn't have taken on longer, straighter skis.

LOL but of course that is OT.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: