Ski Width and Certification Exams

[jimtransition]

I didn't watch the video, but it really stands to reason when what the exams are measuring are things best done by a thinner ski. If the tasks included a more freeride element requiring people to get air, or go fast in off piste terrain, then you would see fatter skis getting better scores. I am very surprised someone showed up to a level 3 on a 110mm ski, it's just making it hard on yourself, sure Marcus skis great on those bonafides, but he is on another level than even the very best instructors.

 

[fatbob]

What's the wider takeaway here?

- skiing a piste biased ski makes it easier to pass predominantly piste based exam tasks

- skiing a "fat" ski on piste involves making some compromises

Neither of those are exactly news though maybe nice to "prove it"

What's the wider agenda? Further grist for the "fat skis suck" mill? How does it help instructors in the field when their students show up on fatter skis than ideal? Or just more of the self aggrandising - look the best skiers ski a skinny ski everywhere stuff?

What

 

[Mike King]

What's the wider takeaway here?

- skiing a piste biased ski makes it easier to pass predominantly piste based exam tasks

- skiing a "fat" ski on piste involves making some compromises

Neither of those are exactly news though maybe nice to "prove it"

What's the wider agenda? Further grist for the "fat skis suck" mill? How does it help instructors in the field when their students show up on fatter skis than ideal? Or just more of the self aggrandising - look the best skiers ski a skinny ski everywhere stuff?

What

Nope. I don't think the researcher would refer to the skis as piste biased and off piste biased. His research involves looking at biomechanics and turn shape of narrow and wide skis both on groomers and in untracked powder. The research shows that there is less muscle effort on wide skis in the powder, but there is also a different distribution of effort amongst the phases of the turn. On a wide ski, the highest effort is in the finish and initiation of the turn, while the shaping phase of the turn has the lowest effort. These observations also showed a difference in the turn shape where the skiers, all very high level skiers, would push the skis in the finish of the turn then have to make a big move to initiate a new turn. The narrow skis, by contrast, showed that the highest muscle activity was in the shaping phase of the turn, while the turn shapes were round.

So, what's the takeaway? Here's what it means to me:

• The choice of ski width will affect your biomechanics.
• Wide skis exert higher forces on your knees and put your knees in more vulnerable positions.
• Turn shape and ski performance will differ depending on your choice of tool.
• Perhaps as instructors we should be coaching based on the tool.

Mike

 

[Kneale Brownson]

We certainly should consider client equipment.

 

[fatbob]

So, what's the takeaway? Here's what it means to me:

• The choice of ski width will affect your biomechanics.
• Wide skis exert higher forces on your knees and put your knees in more vulnerable positions.
• Turn shape and ski performance will differ depending on your choice of tool.
• Perhaps as instructors we should be coaching based on the tool.

Mike

Thanks - didn't really have the time to plow through the whole lecture. They look like sensible conclusions to me.

The latter being perhaps the biggest challenge - all very well saying that the client should be on something which will best facilitate their learning but what if they are not. What does a good or great groomer turn look like on a 100mm+ ski (assuming you don't have a Caston in your pocket to roll out?

 

[Kneale Brownson]

What does a good or great groomer turn look like on a 100mm+ ski (assuming you don't have a Caston in your pocket to roll out?

Bookmark the video of Gaston on your smart phone and you'll always have him around.

 

[François Pugh]

The skis on our feet influence how we ski. Back in the day, I skied SG skis and I developed into a skier who just made, and only wanted to make, SG turns down the fall line. I got a pair of SL skis and became a short turn carving addict. Having the benefit of skiing both race skis on very hard snow and ice and fat rockered skis in deep snow, I can see the benefit of both types of skis (when used in their proper environment). There is a big difference in what type of turn each ski is best suited for. As skiers, we adapt and make the best use of the tools on our feet. In a sense, we become the tools of our tools. Smeared pivot initiated turns in deep snow in tight trees is best learned on a fat rockered ski. Railing high g turns on hard-packed snow and ice is best learned with skinny cambered skis.

 

[Kneale Brownson]

So getting back to the subject, it is important for the exam candidate to know where the exam will be, what conditions might exist there AND how to use appropriate skis for those circumstances. I'd think a LIII candidate would have such preparation. If not, no pin.

 

[Seldomski]

Does the presentation address differences/injury rates for narrow skis in crud/powder vs fat skis? I understand the idea of repeated use of fat skis possibly leading to chronic knee pain, but not sure that really matters for an 8 day per year skier. Maybe the 8 day per year skier is worried more about torquing a knee in crud/chop vs. arcing turns on groomers.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

So getting back to the subject, it is important for the exam candidate to know where the exam will be, what conditions might exist there AND how to use appropriate skis for those circumstances. I'd think a LIII candidate would have such preparation. If not, no pin.

That's true, but you should also be good at using the tool you have.

 

[Jilly]

Does the presentation address differences/injury rates for narrow skis in crud/powder vs fat skis? I understand the idea of repeated use of fat skis possibly leading to chronic knee pain, but not sure that really matters for an 8 day per year skier. Maybe the 8 day per year skier is worried more about torquing a knee in crud/chop vs. arcing turns on groomers.

My knees hurt on 1 day on the 95C's on hard snow. On my skinny 68's never unless there are too many bumps.

I think this research correlated well when you take into consideration where the exam is being taken. I probably wouldn't use my tuned down slalom's for an exam in WB. But yes to Tremblant.

 

[raytseng]

Does the presentation address differences/injury rates for narrow skis in crud/powder vs fat skis? I understand the idea of repeated use of fat skis possibly leading to chronic knee pain, but not sure that really matters for an 8 day per year skier. Maybe the 8 day per year skier is worried more about torquing a knee in crud/chop vs. arcing turns on groomers.

Lol, I don't think the 8day a year skier thinks about injuries directly but more about just plain fatigue or difficulty in getting beat up by black diamond runs they want to ski and having to quit by lunch because it's too difficult or tiring before the knees become the limiting factor.

The findings don't really talk about the dimension of fatigue/energy required to get "down" the hill even with bad technique, as that is so subjective and hard to measure. Perhaps if they did a second analysis on Ski Patrol candidates/rookies with their choice of ski widths and somehow measuring fatigue, and if they wash out of the program due to fatigue, there would also be the opposite correlation favoring fatter skis.

 

[markojp]

What's the wider takeaway here?

- skiing a piste biased ski makes it easier to pass predominantly piste based exam tasks

- skiing a "fat" ski on piste involves making some compromises

Neither of those are exactly news though maybe nice to "prove it"

What's the wider agenda? Further grist for the "fat skis suck" mill? How does it help instructors in the field when their students show up on fatter skis than ideal? Or just more of the self aggrandising - look the best skiers ski a skinny ski everywhere stuff?

What

Nice troll.

FW I personally what I think IW, It's much easier to ski a narrow ski on piste and a bit wider ski off piste in an exam situation, but we don't get to go run for the quiver when the exam shifts gears. In the PNW, for L3 exams, 80-90 is the norm for ski width. L2, a solid candidate can probably ski to standard on both narrower and wider. L1 doesn't really matter. There is no 'fat skis suck' conspiracy. There is no 'race skis rule' thing either. I did my L3 on a Head Titan. Off piste would have been much easier on a 100 width ski, but skiing the Titan (80mm) about 90% of my ski days that year, doing all the exam prep on them, etc... was money. The conditions didn't really matter. I'd skied them in pretty much everything that season, so there were ZERO surprizes, and that's the key. The Titans rocked for tasks, teaching, etc... The off piste segment, I didn't ski quite as fast or aggressively as I might have another ski, but I figure if the examiners want to see faster (if they have any doubts/questions), they'd ask. I was still skiing fast relative to the group.

If we have to go into the weeds to 'prove' it's easier to do tasks on narrower skis, I doubt if you've spent much (or any?) time actually trying to ski accurately on one ski, which is were the narrower ski has the performance advantage in spades above even a 100mm ski. Examiners are looking first and foremost on snow/ski interaction. For most of us mere mortals doing the exams, we choose the ONE PAIR of skis that we can ski to exam standards. If one were taking an exam in the midwest, I can't imagine NOT doing it on an SL ski. .

... and the 'self-agrandizing' suggestion. That's simply a load of . We've all taught on days when we wish we might have brought a different ski. You just deal with it. Had a nice powder day advanced/expert private session this season and was on my Monster 88's. It'd have been nicer on something wider, but whatever. My clients were on 105's that I had infact recommended to them for the day. The big difference skiing narrower skis off piste is that tactics might have to change. As it was, we were skiing pretty steep, relatively 'turny' terrain, so the 88's worked for what I needed. Conversely, I've taught carving sessions on 88's when I'd rather have had a 68-70 and made it work. How many lesson days did I actually trade skis during a lesson? One. The tune on a new pair was jacked and they just weren't skiable. Thankfully it took none of my clients' time to swap out. Sooooooooo.... the simple answer for L3 is to ski the narrowest ski you can deal with off piste for the conditions of a given day.

NoooOOOOOOooowww after all that was said, one of my mentors had this advice to say about preparing for divisional staff trials: "Ski a whole bunch of different skis and ski widths. Ski them outside of their design perameters. Matter of fact, think of a way you can make any run more challenging for yourself. To cliff note it, find your '11'. AaannnnNNN D for W little iW, I've skied on everything from 118 to 67 underfoot this season, taught on 67-105,and even got three telemark days in. All said and done, it's sort of a big 'whatever' sandwich, but it's summer I suppose.

 

[geepers]

Does the presentation address differences/injury rates for narrow skis in crud/powder vs fat skis? I understand the idea of repeated use of fat skis possibly leading to chronic knee pain, but not sure that really matters for an 8 day per year skier. Maybe the 8 day per year skier is worried more about torquing a knee in crud/chop vs. arcing turns on groomers.

No it didn't have any info on injury rates. It would be interesting to find out if there has been any change in ankle/knee/hip injury stats with the increased usage of wide skis, especially used outside their intended zone (i.e. on groomers).

The presenter does point out that skiers adopt different stances (more upright) and techniques (more skidding) for coping with the increased stresses of using wider skis on groomers.

I'm quite puzzled why so many intermediate skiers use wide skis when they seldom (never?) venture off piste. It's like choosing a Mack truck for your daily commute. I'm wondering if this will be a fashion thing and we'll see a swing back to more appropriate widths for the job.

As for instructors choosing equipment to match their clients.... I do recall a group of us once sending our instructor back to get narrower skis. It was a pow day in a week long series of lessons. Collectively we were all on mid-wide skis (~90mm) and the instructor turned up on gigantic fats. They were probably a good choice for the conditions but we were having none of that and he duly re-appeared on his daily narrows which he used to great effect.

 

[Jilly]

I'm quite puzzled why so many intermediate skiers use wide skis when they seldom (never?) venture off piste. It's like choosing a Mack truck for your daily commute. I'm wondering if this will be a fashion thing and we'll see a swing back to more appropriate widths for the job.

From the perspective of our local ski shop, that caters to beginner-intermediates, they profess that a wider ski is more stable. As an instructor, I don't agree. They are selling a lot of 84-90mm women's skis to intermediates to ski eastern ice...Mostly the colours are pretty.

 

[raytseng]

I'm quite puzzled why so many intermediate skiers use wide skis when they seldom (never?) venture off piste. It's like choosing a Mack truck for your daily commute. I'm wondering if this will be a fashion thing and we'll see a swing back to more appropriate widths for the job.

There is a pretty good parallel market on how crossover/CUVs are going gangbusters in the US right now, I'm sure there is some of the same reasoning applies both to the ski and vehicle choices.

 

[fatbob]

Nice troll.

You know we basically align despite appearances? One man's trolling is another's rebuttable hypothesis to get clarity on the analysis/opinion. I was just trying to head off the inevitable "back in the day we used to ski 20ft overhead pow on our GS skis and we were awesome at it - today's young punks and their 120mm clownshoes aren't real skiers"

& I'm sorry I wasn't clear when talking about proof. I was saying Kipp's thorough work was a nice proof of theories and stuff that people "know".

But you're dead right about me and 1 footed drills. Why would I want to do them if I'm not an instructor and want to preserve what's left of my knee ligaments? I understand the physics and when I'm on an SL ski I'm not bad at getting performance out of them but I don't have a lot in my quiver then til we hit top 80s. Demo level skill -nope. intend to race - nope.

 

[fatbob]

There is a pretty good parallel market on how crossover/CUVs are going gangbusters in the US right now, I'm sure there is some of the same reasoning applies both to the ski and vehicle choices.

Fatter skis have cooler graphics* and more real estate on which to display them. Racer chic and go faster lines not so attractive any more.


*Obviously I'm referring to the Clown vomit and the like. Which is fundamental to attracting in the soccer mom demographics.

 

[Steve]

Would you rather be stuck in chopped up powder and crud on an FIS SL ski, or be stuck on icy hardpack on an 80-90 ski with some rocker?

I think this goes to why mid-fat skis are the "norm" for intermediates. They're easier to ski poorly on. They're harder to ski with high performance, but schmearing, twisting, releasing from one turn to the other is easier. If you ski a flat ski with very little edge angle you're going to have an easier time getting out of one turn and into the other.

Don't get me wrong, if someone asks me what kind of ski to use to improve their skiing, I'll always suggest a narrow carve oriented ski, but if developing skill isn't your thing, you're going to be steered to a wider ski.

 

[Mike King]

Would you rather be stuck in chopped up powder and crud on an FIS SL ski, or be stuck on icy hardpack on an 80-90 ski with some rocker?

I think this goes to why mid-fat skis are the "norm" for intermediates. They're easier to ski poorly on. They're harder to ski with high performance, but schmearing, twisting, releasing from one turn to the other is easier. If you ski a flat ski with very little edge angle you're going to have an easier time getting out of one turn and into the other.

Don't get me wrong, if someone asks me what kind of ski to use to improve their skiing, I'll always suggest a narrow carve oriented ski, but if developing skill isn't your thing, you're going to be steered to a wider ski.

An implication of the presentation is that wider skis facilitate skiing with a skid -- that is, with the snow going across the width of the ski rather than along the length. So, this may be an easier style of skiing for beginners and intermediates, and may also be attuned to their desire to control speed. A further implication maybe that if your clients show up on fat skis, it is probably best to focus on teaching drifting turns that are more focused on rotary skills rather than pressure and edge.

Mike