• Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.

The effect of wide skis on knees

contesstant

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
@BlizzardBabe. I’m curious, what length do you usually ski that you dropped to 152 for moguls work? I’m 5’4 and often will get on BP88 in 161 out west. The 82 will be available to me in 159, but I’m always interested in others opinions/suggestions.
Both are 159. For your height, I wouldn't go shorter than that, even for moguls.
 

BlizzardBabe

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
@BlizzardBabe. I’m curious, what length do you usually ski that you dropped to 152 for moguls work? I’m 5’4 and often will get on BP88 in 161 out west. The 82 will be available to me in 159, but I’m always interested in others opinions/suggestions.

Hi @bsskier . I've been on relatively "short" skis for several years (since age 54 or 55). When shaped skis first came out I dropped from a 190 (straight ski) to about a 172 (K2-4). I've gone steadily shorter since then, although when I consult "the charts" I'm still in the recommended range for my weight/height/age/ability, albeit at the lower end. That is a matter of preference. I no longer have a need for speed and I love doing short radius turns. Accordingly, I prefer the shorter turn radius on a shorter ski.

Specifically, I'm about 5'6" 1/2, 153lbs., age 60, lower advanced and (now :wink:) non-aggressive skier - a typical "Type II." I'm working diligently on bumps to up my game to a solid "advanced." My BP88s are a 159. I dropped to the 152 for moguls largely b/c I was so comfortable on a shorter ski when I did the Bumps for Boomers clinic last month. After working w/me for 2 days, my B4B "coach" recommended a 154 in the Volkl Kenja (I ended up on the Yumi, however, b/c the Kenja wasn't available), but the BP82 choices for me were either 152 or 159. Since my coach himself only skis a 163 in bumps, I opted for the 152. My coach was in his late 60's, about 6'2", 190lbs, and has been racing and instructing professionally since age 14. He understandably goes longer when he's venturing into side and backcountry. Frankly, he could probably ski bumps beautifully on a surfboard.

So that's my rationale - a mix of factors with a heavy dose of preference thrown in. I think it pays to experiment and demo and I'll continue to do that. Plus, we all know skiers -- 2 skiers = 3 opinions. :wink:
 

kiki

Angel Diva
I spent the last 3 days comparing my Hell's Belles (92 waist), my Renoun Z90s, and my Volkl 90eights. Hands down the 90eights are the easiest to ski. Of the three, they are the most versatile and able in all terrain and all conditions - they just do everything well. (Note: this is west coast so no real ice just super firm groomers). I moved the bindings on my Renouns forward a notch and they skied much better. However, they are less forgiving than either the 90eights or the Hell's Belles. I think of them as "good for me" skis as they are pretty demanding in terms of technique. As for knees, I don't notice any difference between the three, but I have good knees.
Interesting —i will have to eventually try more skiis. I am 5’2, 140 lbs and have three sets of skiis. I mainly skii whistler so the west coast conditions require slightly wider skiis than back east. Of the three i have—one set is 81 wide (volk flairs), i have the renoun 90s, and then some wide 112 powder skis, but i pretty much always use the renouns. My knees like those best, they are more shock absorbing than the volks so i feel less impact on my knees, less chatter. The 112s are very hard to get on edge but nice is spring slush when you can’t really edge anyway.
I think there are so many factors to finding what works for our bodies and the situations.
 

aurafan

Certified Ski Diva
Today I demoed DPS Zelda, Elan ripstick 102, Scott slight 93 and scott scrapper 95. Loved the scott scrapper 95--felt like part of my body, instead of something long and stiff on my feet! Felt free to let them go!
A further update, posted here as this thread influenced my decision to go ahead and BUY the Scott skis that had a narrower waist (95). Was thinking about what was said here about narrower skis being easier on the knees...
So now, having just skied 3 days on Scott Scrapper 95 (168 length):
They are extremely easy to turn whenever one wishes, with whatever type of turn one wishes.
Stable to let them run straight.
They go what for me is fast enough, but it's clear that some skis (I assume longer and with metal) are faster. But I no longer want 'faster'; I want agile, fun, and stable.
After skiing more than most days, and two days straight--my knees feel better than usual!
If you see them and have similar taste in skis (agile, fun, and stable; able to shift from short to long turns whenever! and perhaps you too love the Volkl Kiku)--try these if you see them. They are quite rare out here at Squaw. I believe they are sold more widely in the UK and Europe.
 

WaterGirl

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Im confused. What was the scientific research she refers to in the second video?

The first video doesn't really speak to narrow skis other than if "racer kids" free ski fatter skis at a developmental stage, it messes with their training and their performance on the race hill.

I was looking for something more than her opinion - scientific study? That speaks to narrow skis not just for training race kids?
 

marzNC

Angel Diva
Im confused. What was the scientific research she refers to in the second video?
See Posts #22-23 of this thread.

The second video is for adult recreational skiers, especially those who stay on groomers most of the time. I found that one more relevant. Dog is cute too. The comments on YouTube are pretty interesting since Deb answers most of them.
 

VickiK

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Deb Armstrong was referring to Heidi Nunnikhoven's masters thesis in both videos. I think the title of the paper is "The Influence of Ski Width on Muscle Activity, Performance, and Self-Efficacy in Young Alpine Ski Racers".

by the way, Posts #22-23 and the earlier conversation on this thread tie into yesterday/today's posts--same group of people involved, Deb Armstrong and the University of Montana people.

p.s. Heidi is a former U.S. Ski Team member.
 
Last edited:

Jilly

Moderator
Staff member
The second video is trying to relate the thesis with recreational skiing. And I think it does. A racer at 12 years old is still learning how to carve and get skis on edge. There are a lot of recreational skiers that are in the same spot. So how does a wider ski affect that learning process.

It most certainly does. And as an older skier that has an instructor certification, I can attest to the forces on the knees with a wider ski on groomers. Getting rid of the 95's and going to a 82 as a daily driver for western skiing. My daily driver here in the east is 68mm under foot. I can carver trenches with that ski.
 

liquidfeet

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
This last season I spent several weeks skiing on 78mm waisted skis (Kastlel MX78s). Several weeks for me means about 20 days of skiing. I got used to these stiff, short, narrow-ISH skis.

One day I chose to ski on my beloved Kastle FX84s, which had served as my daily drivers for several years (84mm waists).
That's 6mm of difference. 6mm is not much. 6mm is 0.23 of an inch!

The difference on my knees was HUGE. I felt it immediately. These skis had never felt sluggish or difficult to get up on edge like this before. That tiny width difference, which should have hardly hit my radar, made me put away the FX84s and go back to the 78s after only two runs.

In addition, in case someone is thinking it might be differences in the length or the stiffness between the two skis or the tune causing my dislike of my 84s, each of those differences should have made the second pair of skis easier to ski. Nope.

I haven't spent weeks exclusively skiing my FIS slaloms (Atomic Redsters FIS SL), which have a waist in the 60s. So I haven't gotten used to using them on all terrain and in all conditions like I did last season with the 78s. I keep those stiff race skis for shiny ice days. But maybe I should give them a try the next season I am able to get back on snow. I've always thought they were too stiff for daily use by me given the fact that I teach and spend a lot of time skiing slowly in front of cautious students, but maybe I'm wrong.
 

elemmac

Angel Diva
The first video doesn't really speak to narrow skis other than if "racer kids" free ski fatter skis at a developmental stage, it messes with their training and their performance on the race hill.

I was looking for something more than her opinion - scientific study? That speaks to narrow skis not just for training race kids?

Exactly what I was waiting for. Although, in the second video she states at the end, "this is just my opinion", which I thought was good to add.

To summarize what I got out of the first video though: Race kids that free ski on race skis are more comfortable, feel quicker and are more confident in the race course than race kids that free ski on wide skis.

I'm sorry...but isn't that pretty obvious? Race car drivers would feel less confident on the course if they mainly practiced in a Honda Civic.
 

BlizzardBabe

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Excellent video (per usual w/Deb). I can feel a difference b/w my 82s and 85s. Next year it'll be time to pull out my 78s.
 

marzNC

Angel Diva
Excellent video (per usual w/Deb). I can feel a difference b/w my 82s and 85s. Next year it'll be time to pull out my 78s.
But length isn't the only difference between those skis, right? Lots of variables besides length come into play when skis are the same length or within a few cm.

I think the narrowest skis I've been on in the last decade were Volkl carvers that were standard rentals from Plymouth Ski & Sport for $20 that I used at Tenney for a few hours. I think they were around 67 underfoot. I didn't make a note of width or length. Certainly worked fine on the narrow old-style New England trails at Tenney. Nothing was groomed that day in early March.

I find my Stöckli Stormrider 85s good in a variety of conditions out west. But prefer my 78mm Absolut Joys for east coast skiing. Less work since they are both narrower and shorter.
 

BlizzardBabe

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
@BlizzardBabe wow, that's such a small difference, 3mm, amazing you can feel it.

But length isn't the only difference between those skis, right? Lots of variables besides length come into play when skis are the same length or within a few cm.

The 2 skis I was specifically referring to were my Black Pearl 82 and Black Pearl 88, which is, obviously, a larger width difference. My fault for confusing the width on my Stöckli's (85) with the BP88.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
26,237
Messages
497,685
Members
8,503
Latest member
MermaidKelly
Top