Are wider skis uncomfortable?

[cantunamunch]

That's a static balance default. Inside shoulder droppers with flexible hips can be on monstrously wide skis with no knee issues.

 

[markojp]

Would anyone like to chime in with the other elephant in the room?

Two pages of back and forth and no one has pointed out that wide skis take more hip extension to tip, but actually take less angulation to balance the GRF.

What is hip extension? Sounds hip dumpy, but what do I know?

 

[Ross Biff]

How wide were they, actually? I switch between my 72mm and 90mm skis pretty frequently, and don't notice any particular boot or leverage difference with the 90mm.

I was switching from my 68 mm Fischer World Cup GS - old 21+ meter daily driver to a 92 mm Movement Gambler--16 meter radius. As per some previous comments, if you get get the edge significantly into the surface, say at least half the skis width, they still feel fine but my experience on the same day from 2 to 3 feet deep, light powder to solid hardpack really showed the difference. I did try modifying the tune with little effect. The feel of the extra leverage was still unpleasant on the groomers.

 

[Tom K.]

Would anyone like to chime in with the other elephant in the room?

Two pages of back and forth and no one has pointed out that wide skis take more hip extension to tip, but actually take less angulation to balance the GRF.

How darn much extension DOES it take to tip and elephant, anyway?!

Seriously, John Seifert at MSU and ??? at the U of Ottawa have this pretty well documented and explained.

With physics and stuff, even!

 

[Doug Briggs]

I can be really happy on wide skis on groomers. I just don't expect or try to get them to ski like skinny skis. I brush the turns, don't try to get them to grip and certainly don't expect massive carves. I'm also skiing softer than most groomer snow (CO snow). They are comfortable given that I'm not trying to ski them like I would carvers.

 

[DocGKR]

It appears these folks using "wider" 98mm or so skis are able to do fine on Utah groomers:

 

[Doug Briggs]

It appears these folks using "wider" 98mm or so skis are able to do fine on Utah groomers:

Yes, but are they 'comfortable'?

 

[DocGKR]

Heck--I am more than willing to tolerate a bit of discomfort if I could shred like Marcus Caston!

 

[rocdoc]

Now I really want to know if Ice Babe ever called

 

[karlo]

trying to keep them gliding flat and preventing the inside edges from angling in is a little uncomfortable. Moreover, they have a tendency to clack together

I had a problem being inside edge heavy after having riser plates installed on my boots. Since they were a few years old, the bootfitter planes the soles before installation. That messed things up. Skied with @Erik Timmerman and he put shims on one side of boot, under the glide plate. Made a big difference. Ultimately the bootfitter, another one, fixed it with some adjustments from inside the boot (I forget what). The point is, it may be lateral alignment of boot, not you.

As for the clacking, just wider stance. But, in powder, I think everyone would instinctively assume a wider stance, and the powder itself would help prevent skis from hitting each other. Do you have clacking in powder?

 

[Josh Matta]

why would you ski with a wider stance in powder?

 

[Rod9301]

why would you ski with a wider stance in powder?

Exactly.

You need a fairly narrow stance in powder.

 

[nesneros]

I can be really happy on wide skis on groomers. I just don't expect or try to get them to ski like skinny skis. I brush the turns, don't try to get them to grip and certainly don't expect massive carves. I'm also skiing softer than most groomer snow (CO snow). They are comfortable given that I'm not trying to ski them like I would carvers.

This is what I was going to say. Granted, I’m fairly new at skiing, but when I went from 90s to 124s on a powder day last year it really taught me a lot about edge control, and that carried back to my 90s. It has given me more tools to handle turns and terrain in different ways.

I tend to slarve my turns and slide my hockey stops on the fat skis, it’s fun and more natural than trying to get it up on edge and carve. That said, camber/rocker plays into it as well, as I find rocker skis incredibly unstable on piste. My 124s ski pretty naturally for me because of their slight camber.

All this said, it sounds like the question is more about a middle road, all mountain width as opposed to truly fat skis. I find the above still holds true, they’re going to be a bit harder to get on edge and probably not great for a truly groomer day unless you modify your edge control a bit and let some slip happen... it’s about what you want to optimize for.

 

[James]

It appears these folks using "wider" 98mm or so skis are able to do fine on Utah groomers:

It was pretty soft snow. Spring.

 

[Doug Briggs]

It was pretty soft snow. Spring.

That is the point.

(One of them at least.)

 

[Viking9]

I think it’s a BIG mistake to show a professional like that.
Think professional Taiwanese ping pong player.
Yeah....No....

 

[Henry]

How do you find comfort on your wider skis?

Skid a lot. A few very good skiers can run a nice carve with wide skis on packed snow, but that's a lot of stress on the knees.

Here's the 2015 Slovenian technical paper that measures the effects of ski width:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4541126/
They used 65mm, 88mm, and 110mm wide skis for the testing. In many cases the 88 & 110 performed similarly with the 65 standing alone.
Conclusion: "The changed biomechanical conditions that occurred in the transition to a different ski width caused a change in the knee joint kinematics, and it appears that two different motion strategies were formed depending on the ski width. The strategy using narrow skis was a more pronounced knee abduction, while using medium and wider skis caused progressively increased knee external rotation (less internal). Both of these strategies most probably occurred due to the changed point of application of the ground reaction force. Furthermore, based on the results of the current study, it can be plausibly argued that the use of wider skis or, in particular, skis with a large waist width, on a hard or frozen surface as was the case in this study, could force the knee joint closer to the end of range of motion in transversal and frontal planes. In addition, using wider skis on a hard frozen snow may increase the potential risk of degenerative knee injuries; however the latter needs further justification. Such hard snow conditions are characteristic for most prepared ski slopes, especially in recent times when natural snow is lacking and has to be substituted with considerably more compact artificial snow. Finally, the overall results of the abduction and internal rotation in respect to turn radii and ground reaction forces indicated that the knee joint movements are likely one of the key points in alpine skiing technique."

Here is the presentation from the Montana State prof:

 

[Ross Biff]

Exactly.

You need a fairly narrow stance in powder.

One side effect I noticed with wide skis in powder was my tendency to be using a little more independent leg action. I put this down to the greater float of the wider skis and less need to keep a narrower pair of skis closer together for a better platform and more float. This isn't something I was intentionally doing, but rather seemed to be an artifact of the greater ski width. Anyways, no clacking!

 

[Rod9301]

One side effect I noticed with wide skis in powder was my tendency to be using a little more independent leg action. I put this down to the greater float of the wider skis and less need to keep a narrower pair of skis closer together for a better platform and more float. This isn't something I was intentionally doing, but rather seemed to be an artifact of the greater ski width. Anyways, no clacking!

I didn't mean skis locked together, of course independent ski action and still more right on the outside ski, but certainly not far apart. Which would promote weight on the inside ski and who knows what direction each ski would take

 

[Wendy]

What is not also addressed here is the ski and camber/rocker/flex profile. I was talking to an "expert" woman over the weekend that swore up and down that her friend who she came to help buy skis needed a much wider ski "all mountain" ski for powder than her 88mm wide skis. Now, she was 5'3" and maybe 115-120lb, you would think an 88 would give a good amount of float but not when that ski was a early generation Rossignol Temptation 88 in a 154. That Rossi is a very stiff uncompromising ski with a ton of shape and no way good in softer snow. I was suggesting the Nordica Astral 84 as an option and explained because of the tip rise, shape and flex of the ski would make it a much better soft snow ski...even though it was narrower. So, yes theoretically a wider ski will produce more stress, but some are worse than others when all of the design attributes are taken into consideration

This. When people come in to buy skis, I like to emphasize the shape and construction of the ski according to the customer’s stats and intended use.

In my own personal experience, my Hart F17’s are fun in soft spring snow, even though they are only 64mm underfoot, This ski doesn’t have much sidecut and is fairly soft. I personally tend to gravitate towards skis with less sidecut no matter the width.

(The Z90 is the exception though...I find this ski really fun in soft snow despite its more pronounced sidecut....probably due to its construction).

But this begs the question: When I look at a lot of the new skis on the wall, a lot have those big fat flared tips that pull one into the turn, even on some 80+mm skis. Is only ease of turning the goal, not versatility in varied snow conditions? Many people only buy one ski.