Member of the Month

JalmarKalmar
April, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Fat skis harming our knees?

profile picture
FreedGucci
Posts: 454 - Karma: 3,192
http://m.montanakaimin.com/mobile/news/article_b73f0f3a-b0ba-11e4-9f66-fb3b2e4b192c.html

Interesting, but skiing is already bad for the knees so I wonder how much worse using wider skis actually is...
Feb 18 2015 1:54PM
116 11
profile picture
TurquoiseGrizzly
Posts: 1819 - Karma: 13,149
Build up your leg strength? Come on, White.
Feb 18 2015 2:11PM
11 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61155 - Karma: 118,814
You're a god damn pussy if the different in torsional pressure from a 80mm ski to a 100mm ski makes you sore.

This article is relevant only if you get a sr discount at the mountain.
Feb 18 2015 2:27PM
34 2
profile picture
FreedGucci
Posts: 454 - Karma: 3,192
pussyfooterYou're a god damn pussy if the different in torsional pressure from a 80mm ski to a 100mm ski makes you sore.

This article is relevant only if you get a sr discount at the mountain.


That's what I was thinking.. My knees have never been sore from skiing my jjs and I pretty much ride those every day now
Feb 18 2015 3:03PM
2 0
profile picture
steezburgereddie
Posts: 1059 - Karma: 1,944
Wouldnt turning for longer be more affected by the sidecut radius? Alot of powder skis have a wider sidecut radius than skis meant for groomers and park.
Feb 18 2015 3:16PM
0 0
profile picture
slim.chino
Posts: 19 - Karma: 29
To be honest, if you're skiing a 122 as your everyday ski then it's probably time to rethink your ski of choice anyway.

That being said, stomping jumps and rails can't be any better for your knees either. I can't think of any aspect of skiing that isn't detrimental to your knees.
Feb 18 2015 4:59PM
6 2
profile picture
BlackcountryBill
Posts: 955 - Karma: 576
I think this topic has scope, would the added waist width of a big ski, apply side to side shear to ones knee?
The wider the waist, my dinner party's ate 140, the further the fulcrum from the plane of your lower leg, the greater this shear force will be the knee.
Feb 18 2015 5:43PM
0 0
profile picture
k-rob
Posts: 14217 - Karma: 2,891
yeah dropping cliffs and shit isn't good for your knees, but in my experience a fatter ski is better for such things, more surface area, softer landing, right? idk, i have raging knee issues from skiing and rugby and the only thing that really hurts when i'm skiing is landings, and i find a bigger ski = a softer landing usually.
Feb 18 2015 6:17PM
2 0
profile picture
k-rob
Posts: 14217 - Karma: 2,891
"right now we have data in the theoretical sense" is a great quote from this article with a bold statement in the headline.
Feb 18 2015 6:34PM
9 0
profile picture
GayWolf420
Posts: 36720 - Karma: 111,001
k-robyeah dropping cliffs and shit isn't good for your knees, but in my experience a fatter ski is better for such things, more surface area, softer landing, right? idk, i have raging knee issues from skiing and rugby and the only thing that really hurts when i'm skiing is landings, and i find a bigger ski = a softer landing usually.


definitely easier to stomp a 30footer on fatties then it would be to do it on skinny-ass park skis, i feel like. fat skis also let you ski and charge waaaaaaaay harder in any snow condition, and give you a lot more control + stability when you're doing real skiing. Obviously riding 120+ skis as a daily driver might be a bit excessive, but I get the notion that the authors legs really arent strong enough to whip around fat skis.
Feb 18 2015 6:42PM
3 0
profile picture
Pac2
Posts: 794 - Karma: 2,859
I've never gotten sore knees or ankles skiing before it's more like shin bang from boots every now and then and some upper body soreness but honestly with all the insane research nowadays everything you do that's athletic makes some part of your body, mainly your joints, weaker\ more sore so really I don't think its that big of a deal.
Feb 18 2015 8:16PM
1 0
profile picture
steeze_pizza
Posts: 124 - Karma: 151
slim.chinoTo be honest, if you're skiing a 122 as your everyday ski then it's probably time to rethink your ski of choice anyway.

To be honest, I think you need to rethink where you ski.
Feb 18 2015 9:23PM
9 2
profile picture
SofaKingSick
Posts: 8943 - Karma: 57,643
k-robyeah dropping cliffs and shit isn't good for your knees, but in my experience a fatter ski is better for such things, more surface area, softer landing, right? idk, i have raging knee issues from skiing and rugby and the only thing that really hurts when i'm skiing is landings, and i find a bigger ski = a softer landing usually.


i think the answer to that question is a bell curve, that is, i think the fatter the ski the softer the landing to a point, then after that point they get less and less soft because the ski is fat enough that you don't sink as far into the landing as much, therefore speeding up the deceleration? no idea what width that change happens at, and also im sure there are other variables, most obviously the makeup of the landing.

im pretty sure ive read things where that is mentioned as one of the reasons we slowed down with making skis fatter and fatter and fatter

hopefully someone can chime in on this and qualify/correct what i said
Feb 18 2015 9:30PM
2 0
profile picture
Peter.
Posts: 23796 - Karma: 13,012
k-rob"right now we have data in the theoretical sense" is a great quote from this article with a bold statement in the headline.


came here to post this. skimmed through the article and saw this and laughed
Feb 18 2015 10:05PM
1 0
profile picture
Edward.
Posts: 9366 - Karma: 445
yeah we need some raw data first with some more input on how the person went about accounting for any differences between each individual, their skis, and what type of skiing they were even doing. so far it just seems like a proposal for a potential study
Feb 18 2015 11:06PM
0 0
profile picture
brov1
Posts: 1826 - Karma: 8,837
pussyfooterYou're a god damn pussy if the different in torsional pressure from a 80mm ski to a 100mm ski makes you sore.

This article is relevant only if you get a sr discount at the mountain.


yeah fuck you slazer!!!!! yeah... yeah.
Feb 18 2015 11:57PM
0 0
profile picture
FreedGucci
Posts: 454 - Karma: 3,192
brov1yeah fuck you slazer!!!!! yeah... yeah.


Haha I don't think that was directed at me being that I never said I was personally having problems Douchenhaus
Feb 19 2015 9:08AM
0 0
profile picture
Dobber
Posts: 1698 - Karma: 9,834
Fat skis will harm your anus.
Feb 19 2015 9:18AM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8496 - Karma: 4,090
BlackcountryBillI think this topic has scope, would the added waist width of a big ski, apply side to side shear to ones knee?
The wider the waist, my dinner party's ate 140, the further the fulcrum from the plane of your lower leg, the greater this shear force will be the knee.


I like how everyone is talking about the author being weak, or how fat skis are dropping cliffs. But what you posted is what is about. Doesn't matter how strong you are, how good a skier you are, science is science.

Now are the increased forces enough to kill? We can only hope.
Feb 19 2015 9:22AM
1 0
profile picture
t-the-east
Posts: 131 - Karma: 219
BlackcountryBillmy dinner party's ate 140.

So much goodness hidden in this one small statement.
Feb 19 2015 9:30AM
1 0
profile picture
Bagels
Posts: 1022 - Karma: 1,306
They need to dig deeper on the research.. Hey bro, what's yer DIN at? 16? On a FKS? that's it?
Feb 19 2015 9:44AM
0 0
profile picture
snomaster
Posts: 3338 - Karma: 5,686
I agree with what evan says. and nerds will be nerds. fuck this noise.

This article is all about skiing hardpack on fatter skis and assumes perfect carve turns completely on edge. I ski a 122 most days (90% backcountry) and when I'm at the resort I go down to 110 because anything smaller feels too different from my standard tool.
Ima do me how I do.

Also, the width of a skier's stance will also effect the angulation of your knee. We adjust naturally. Basically, this guy is a pussy.
Feb 19 2015 10:38AM
0 0
profile picture
Elg
Posts: 2998 - Karma: 3,880
slim.chinoTo be honest, if you're skiing a 122 as your everyday ski then it's probably time to rethink your ski of choice anyway.


Why?
Feb 19 2015 11:34AM
1 1
profile picture
smuggs
Posts: 6561 - Karma: 1,373
fat skis are bad for your knees, and bad for the powder because every joey in america can now ski your line. thanks for nothing ski industry.
Feb 19 2015 11:41AM
3 1
profile picture
smuggs
Posts: 6561 - Karma: 1,373
^the good thing is that everyone is so fuckin cool now tho and skis backcountry with their sweet gear leaving sidecountry almost untracked vs a completely tracked out backcountry before the sun comes up.
Feb 19 2015 11:42AM
1 0
profile picture
Hackster
Posts: 145 - Karma: -11
Reading thru the article I concurr the author is a pussy.

Even for a old fart like myself at least 100 mm underfoot is the standard on hardpack. to be fair I found some REALLY stiff 124 mm planks being harder on the knees indeed when rocking them in boilerplate condition however overall I felt the flex has a greater impact than width.

But going from 80 - 100 mm? If that creates issues then you should think about swapping skiing in favor of biking.
Feb 19 2015 11:44AM
0 0
profile picture
snomaster
Posts: 3338 - Karma: 5,686
HacksterBut going from 80 - 100 mm? If that creates issues then you should think about swapping skiing in favor of biking.


or sitting down to pee.
Feb 19 2015 11:46AM
7 0
profile picture
YUNG_milksteAk
Posts: 1437 - Karma: 4,328
I'm on 105 under foot skis everyday, on ice, with almost no edge left.
Feb 19 2015 11:59AM
1 0
profile picture
BlackcountryBill
Posts: 955 - Karma: 576
t-the-eastmy dinner party's ate 140.

So much goodness hidden in this one small statement.



Yeah, oops.
Feb 19 2015 12:33PM
0 0
profile picture
SEABURN
Posts: 4859 - Karma: 2,751
This guy has quotes but no sources, and I've never heard of montanakaimin.com

... this is just one nerds opinion.

100mm+ skis 4lyfe
Feb 19 2015 1:08PM
1 0
profile picture
slim.chino
Posts: 19 - Karma: 29
ElgWhy?


I'm sure most of us don't live with the luxury of a foot of new snow every night.

A 122 wide is purely a different application to hard pack and is just inefficient. Most fat ski profiles don't offer much of a sidecut and while camber pressure gives you some edge grip, why not use something that is just generally better suited to the conditions?
Mar 5 2015 8:24PM
1 0
profile picture
veng_m
Posts: 1267 - Karma: 2,720
slim.chinoI'm sure most of us don't live with the luxury of a foot of new snow every night.

A 122 wide is purely a different application to hard pack and is just inefficient. Most fat ski profiles don't offer much of a sidecut and while camber pressure gives you some edge grip, why not use something that is just generally better suited to the conditions?


big fuckers are fun
Mar 5 2015 8:26PM
3 1
profile picture
Squirrel_Murphy
Posts: 2195 - Karma: 1,165
That's like saying giving blow jobs are bad for your knees but we all know there's more than one way to suck a dick
Mar 6 2015 1:01AM
3 0
profile picture
Elg
Posts: 2998 - Karma: 3,880
slim.chinoI'm sure most of us don't live with the luxury of a foot of new snow every night.

A 122 wide is purely a different application to hard pack and is just inefficient. Most fat ski profiles don't offer much of a sidecut and while camber pressure gives you some edge grip, why not use something that is just generally better suited to the conditions?


i've been on 189 k2 pettitors for 3 seasons now, 120mm under foot. Off course not every day has been a powder day, but they still hold up surprisingly well on all conditions. I'm no park rat anymore, and i like to go fast and lay down some sweet gs turns on fresh groomers. Why use something better suited you say? For just cruising, a pair of gs skis would set you back anywhere from 500-1000 bucks. I don't want another pair of skis just for groomers. And i bet i have more fun skiing fat skis on groomers than skiing gs skis in powder.
Mar 6 2015 8:01AM
3 1
profile picture
slim.chino
Posts: 19 - Karma: 29
Elgi've been on 189 k2 pettitors for 3 seasons now, 120mm under foot. Off course not every day has been a powder day, but they still hold up surprisingly well on all conditions. I'm no park rat anymore, and i like to go fast and lay down some sweet gs turns on fresh groomers. Why use something better suited you say? For just cruising, a pair of gs skis would set you back anywhere from 500-1000 bucks. I don't want another pair of skis just for groomers. And i bet i have more fun skiing fat skis on groomers than skiing gs skis in powder.


I don't doubt you there man. GS are the most non-versatile skis out and can be super expensive. So if you're going for that 1 do-it-all quiver, why not meet the middle ground? I ski a pair of Dynastar Slicers that are a 98 under as my everything ski but I also own a pair of Rocker 122's for when it dumps (sad to say Whistler has not delivered there this year). If I had to pick just 1 it would be the Slicers any day because they're built to handle anything the mountain can throw at them. Something with a similar profile is better in powder than a fat ski is on hard pack.
Mar 6 2015 11:45AM
0 0
profile picture
Forum182
Posts: 19 - Karma: 17
Anyone considering that when you ski fat skis on choppier snow it's a larger more stable platform? I would think that would make the skis easier on your knees, rather than getting overly bounced around.. It's truly case dependent on what you ski
Mar 6 2015 12:32PM
1 0
profile picture
iLLbiLLy
Posts: 2865 - Karma: 2,631
totally depends on how you ski your fat skis too... I take my 126X194 surfaces out on the groomers some times and just surf around. They skid around so much its not the same as traditional skiing. Also, when you do hold an edge, they are so wonkey that its like skiing a 170 effective edge.

There are so many different variables that this guys research is full of shit IMO.
Mar 6 2015 3:07PM
0 0
profile picture
lwgp
Posts: 167 - Karma: 325
Last time I checked, skiing deeper snow on my park skis fucking kills my legs. What kind of person thinks huge jump turns cause less stress than relaxed surfy turns.
Mar 9 2015 11:50AM
2 0
profile picture
AwR
Posts: 5147 - Karma: 1,878
I dont know a lot of things but I do know that paper is poorly written and false.
Mar 9 2015 4:43PM
0 1
All times are Eastern (-4)