Do wider skis make a difference on knee impact?

Skiblade420

Skiblade420

Active member
Curious what people’s thoughts are from their own experience of riding multiple waist widths in the park. Do wider skis seem like they would lead to more acl injuries or heavier impact on landings?

What about having a heavier setup in general? Do you think that creates more impact on landings?

Also here’s a scenario. Say you have two different skis, one has full camber and a supportive tail, and say the other is rockered and soft like a Vishnu wet.

let’s say you landed just as backseat on both of these skis.

would it actually be better on your knees in theory for your skis to fully flex out and take it to the side (like what a wet would do). Or have a stiff ski that can support you and let you ride it out easier.

I’m aware you’re not scientists but I’m interested in your opinions.

Also I’m getting tired of people saying things like “this has been talked about before” and then link to some janky ass thread where all the comments just say “pee in her butt” and don’t really have any legit answers.
 
what i noticed about wide skis is that they can power through tougher terrain with more ease

than thin skis
 
14269186:Jems said:
what i noticed about wide skis is that they can power through tougher terrain with more ease

than thin skis
Click to expand...

In mogulled up runs wide skis get in their own way alot tho.

but op, all other things being equal, ski width wont affect impact force on your knee
 
Yes a wider ski are more stress for the knee. The way back from edge to flat it’s way longer and that can force more Energy to the knee. Henrik is riding the ARV 86 in 177cm Right now at Laax.

also Woodsy made the decision to not ski wider then 90 because of the knee.

i am over 40 and I feel huge difference between my ARV86 and a recorner 102

hope that helps
 
I like to think softer skis are easier on the knee since they give more if i land backseat and I usually just dump to the side at that point instead of trying to ride it out.
 
i think there is some sweet spot for most of these things

wider skis are smoother to ski in variable stuff because they have more width to bridge the gap over uneven shit and let you just ride over it

but edge to edge and edge to flat is a bigger difference the wider the ski is, and it seems like people have started to decide that that can be worse on your knees if that's an issue

also impact on wider skis seems to be rougher sometimes. when you hit the landing and sink less onto it, it's going to be a rougher landing. henrik has started talking about this lately so it's more on people's radar now but it's been being noticed for a while. i remember people talking about feeling more impact in certain situations landing big shit on crazy wide skis like hellbents because they didn't sink into the snow as much

so this is all a little bro science-y and subjective but in my mind, 80s-90s range is the sweet spot. clear advantages over the old skinny skis but not so extreme that you're starting to get other negative effects. depends where you ski too of course
 
i like wider skis more even though my knee is not that good. they make me do more mellow moves edge to edge, on narrower skis i get a stinging pain cause the move is faster. also i don’t like stiff tails cause when i land backseat the hard ski doesn’t flex and the force goes to my knee, i rather have the ski flex a bit more.
 
Think of contact point distance from middle of foot as a lever trying to bend the knee sideways a little
 
I found ski width does have an effect on knee pain. But not as much in the park.

In the park, wide skis (95 and over) makes the ski heavier and bad landings harder on the body.

Where the biggest difference occurs is in the all mountain. Fat skis on ice chatter like crazy and costs a lot of energy to hold the edge on stops and turns. That ruins my back, shoulders and knees. But a 95 in chattery, icy bumps makes for a smooth and more controled ride.

But in OP example; stiff, light camber and about 90mm underfoot is the best ski. Stiff for pop, camber for better support and low width for weight and control.
 
Yes but I think it depends on the makeup of the ski too. I tend to prefer skinnier in the park but I’m on some 95mm underfoot Chronics right now. They feel pretty narrow to be honest. Feels like a nice sweet spot.

My 107 underfoots def feel like a boat when it’s super hard out.

With the whole wide ski landing on harder snow - I always think about a boogie board in a pool. Have you ever tried jumping on one? I imagine the forces at work on your knees are similar

I remember I had some 108 underfoot k2s with Adrenalins (attack frame binding) on them. I went through a baby stash park and sent it way bigger on a jump than I expected. Straight to flat. I remember the noise and impact was so loud from the weight of the bindings and width of the ski (also, the tip rocker probably slapped too). Really surprised me

**This post was edited on Apr 1st 2021 at 10:05:55am
 
My brain science tells me that the ski is pretty much torqueing your leg towards the opposite edge that is on - wider ski = larger level more force.

Plus an older shop guy told me wider skis are harder on the knees and there's actual studies about it.

14269247:b0ss said:
Think of contact point distance from middle of foot as a lever trying to bend the knee sideways a little
Click to expand...
 
i find wider skiers to have worse landings imo

probably no difference in terms of like acl tears, that comes from twisting not brute force
 
Someone should actually do a study or at least write a paper on how the physics related to ski forces should impact joints in theory.

For everyone bigger/wider/larger surface area skis increase impact force while this may be true in powder or soft snow where there is 'give' I don't think the same can be said on hardpack. Source: I've hit jumps and drops on ski boards.
 
Challenging these assumptions.

As I sit here doing computer work in my imaginary squat chair bouncing/leaning edge to edge like im carving, one thing becomes apparent...it's less strain when my feet are further apart. Lightbulb moment. With skinny skis, your feet are closer together to that dynamic puts more strain on knees when carving. With wider skis, your feet are further apart, even if the skis are nearly touching, still further than skinny skis, so less strain.

Google directed me here lol.

I'm not referring to any mechanic other than carving, but makes sense.
 
14541388:Turd__Authority said:
Challenging these assumptions.

As I sit here doing computer work in my imaginary squat chair bouncing/leaning edge to edge like im carving, one thing becomes apparent...it's less strain when my feet are further apart. Lightbulb moment. With skinny skis, your feet are closer together to that dynamic puts more strain on knees when carving. With wider skis, your feet are further apart, even if the skis are nearly touching, still further than skinny skis, so less strain.

Google directed me here lol.

I'm not referring to any mechanic other than carving, but makes sense.
Click to expand...

As someone who rides wets and JJs, I think this is only true to an extent, and might also depend on the skier. I definitely land with my skis closer together with skinnier skis but I think that I tend to carve with a similar stance regardless of what width I'm riding. I think the main difference would be how the impact is distributed on landings but I don't have good enough physics knowledge to speak on that.
 
You dorks should be carving with a wider stance regardless of width lmao

14541388:Turd__Authority said:
Challenging these assumptions.

As I sit here doing computer work in my imaginary squat chair bouncing/leaning edge to edge like im carving, one thing becomes apparent...it's less strain when my feet are further apart. Lightbulb moment. With skinny skis, your feet are closer together to that dynamic puts more strain on knees when carving. With wider skis, your feet are further apart, even if the skis are nearly touching, still further than skinny skis, so less strain.

Google directed me here lol.

I'm not referring to any mechanic other than carving, but makes sense.
Click to expand...

14541410:Christian_Bale said:
As someone who rides wets and JJs, I think this is only true to an extent, and might also depend on the skier. I definitely land with my skis closer together with skinnier skis but I think that I tend to carve with a similar stance regardless of what width I'm riding. I think the main difference would be how the impact is distributed on landings but I don't have good enough physics knowledge to speak on that.
Click to expand...
 
all depends on the scenario in which you fall..... wide/heavy set ups have more swing weight and torque on knees, also easier to catch an edge and twist yo shit
 
14541513:CT_CREW said:
all depends on the scenario in which you fall..... wide/heavy set ups have more swing weight and torque on knees, also easier to catch an edge and twist yo shit
Click to expand...

Wider skis are not inherently heavier than narrow skis though, often the opposite is true because of the skis intended purposes.
 
14541675:Non_State_Actor said:
Wider skis are not inherently heavier than narrow skis though, often the opposite is true because of the skis intended purposes.
Click to expand...

maybe if you are comparing a race ski to a powder touring ski....which would be dumb.

if you are comparing skis that make sense the wider ones are pretty much heavier...

for example, looking at the ARV model skis on Armadas website...

ARV 116 JJ @175cm = 2125 grams

ARV 86 @177cm = 1675 grams
 
in my personal experience which has largely involved skiing on heavy fat skis. Yes, the fatter a ski is, the more torque it puts on your knee when you carve a turn. However, there are other factors like the weight of the ski, as well as how you ski it. When I rode the Magic J for a long time, my knee would hurt more, but I now realize that was because I was often a bit backseat on it, and the softer tails made me put more weight back which was not good for knees. Since I started riding the Revolt 114 as my daily in February, there was some knee pain, but not near as much which I attributed to my skiing in a better position since I couldn't ski from the backseat, and it went away as the year went on.
 
I ski DPS lotus 126... with a mwerks12: light AF and fat AF.

of course I ski these mainly in soft pow, hunting pillows. Soft pow is what fat skis are meant for, and 5 dimension skis in pow are way easier on my 42 yr old knees than anything else.

At the resort I ski 100 underfoot DPS foundation with tyrolia attack 14. These actually aren't very light, but feel as skinny as I dare to ski because it's all about perspective. 100 underfoot is the smallest ski I've been on since like 2007!

for the record I'm still wondering how I ended up with 2x pairs of DPS. The truth is that after many years, they came to me. (got lotus over 50% off randomly, and foundations came via my work branded "sunrun x dps")
 
14541991:snomaster said:
I ski DPS lotus 126... with a mwerks12: light AF and fat AF.

of course I ski these mainly in soft pow, hunting pillows. Soft pow is what fat skis are meant for, and 5 dimension skis in pow are way easier on my 42 yr old knees than anything else.

At the resort I ski 100 underfoot DPS foundation with tyrolia attack 14. These actually aren't very light, but feel as skinny as I dare to ski because it's all about perspective. 100 underfoot is the smallest ski I've been on since like 2007!

for the record I'm still wondering how I ended up with 2x pairs of DPS. The truth is that after many years, they came to me. (got lotus over 50% off randomly, and foundations came via my work branded "sunrun x dps")
Click to expand...

I have never been able to bring myself to ride DPS, mainly due to all the pounders from Denver that douche around in them. However, I put hands on a pair of the Lotus in a shop last winter, and I'll have to say they felt/looked so fun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top