I am done with super fats unless I am cat skiing.

[martyg]

Swing weight can be important when you are turning your skis with rotary movements as you have to overcome more resistance to rotation. Swing weight is a lot less important when you are letting the shape of the ski (side cut and camber) turn the ski based on tipping and balance.

Overall weight is certainly a factor, but unless you are constantly getting air between your skis and the snow, it isn't a huge factor in the skiability of a ski. It is a big factor for touring and for riding the lift.

Yes!

 

[Rod9301]

FAT skis kill my knees. They always have. Not so much in deep snow, but once I get on groomed runs or the firm, I'm crippled after four 3000' vert laps. Having a big quiver of skis to fall back on is great if you have the "means". However, in the modern world of resort skiing, getting back-up skis from the car to the slopeside rack is brutal. (Locking them up is always risky too. Will they still be there when you need to switch em out?)

The "one ski quiver" concept makes sense for the majority of the skiing public. Skis and binders are expensive and if you get that average of 5.2 days per season, then owning a full quiver is cost prohibitive. The Kastle MX 89 is one of my favorite, working well in all but chest deep conditions. And how ovten do we see snow that deep these days?

Back to my personal problems: Much of this knee pain is a result of my stance. I do my best to keep my feet apart, but to no avail. Many a full-rockered ski with camber under foot has helped alleviate the strain, I simply had to stop skiing them from tip-to-tail and get used to skiing the 140cm under foot with less focus on completing the turn and taking things down to a minimal turn shape. It also reduces the tip and tail "flutter" which drives me nutz!!!

There was a time, so long ago.... when a RS/GS ski was perfect for me when skiing powder. Thankfully, FAT skis came on the scene, along with other great inventions like the Internet, smart phones, flush toilets and cable TV. Nonetheless, I do often wonder if I could strap-on a skinny ski and make it work in snow over my boot tops as I once did?

No reason at all to keep your feet apart.

 

[martyg]

No reason at all to keep your feet apart.

How about so that you can access range of motion and independent leg action?

 

[Rod9301]

How about so that you can access range of motion and independent leg action?

You can have all that with no horizontal separation between your feet.
Harb explains it better than I can

 

[Doug Briggs]

Stance width, while often dictated (both narrow and wide), should be something that an individual skier finds through trial and error. It has a lot more to do with physiology than 'proper' stance.

I usually keep my skis close together (not feet) when skiing deep snow. This helps with maintaining flotation and 'oneness' of the skis which is usually desirable in 3D snow. While I'm not trying to mimic a monoboard, I do have a pretty narrow stance in powder, skis permitting, of course.

The biggest problem people seem to have skiing powder is keeping their skis going the same direction. A wide stance encourages the skis to act independently longitudinally (divergent or convergent). Independent leg action is not nearly as critical when skiing powder as the softness of the snow 'normalizes' the terrain to a degree where your skis can act as one unit. So a relatively narrow stance in 3D snow is optimal.

Firm snow (exepting moguls) is just the opposite where you need to permit vertical variations in the snow to be moderated by the legs acting as 'levelers' or 'springs/shock absorbers'. Mogul skiers take the approach that the closer together the feet are the more similar the terrain their feet/skis pass over and the lower body can act as one unit instead of two independent units.

The greater your edge angles and the harder the snow gets, the more you require independence in foot/ski positioning.

In a nutshell, stance width is a product of terrain, snow condition and desired effects.

 

[Doug Briggs]

You can have all that with no horizontal separation between your feet.
Harb explains it better than I can

[ quoting @Philpug ] "sniffs bait and swims away..." [ /quoting @Philpug ]

 

[martyg]

You can have all that with no horizontal separation between your feet.
Harb explains it better than I can

You can, if your physiology allows for it. IME very few individuals can access that range of motion once they get much beyond 40 years of age. I see it all of the time in guys who spend most of their time in the park.

 

[Monique]

Just a point of clarification, because I really don't care how anyone separates their feet -

Does horizontal refer to the space between your ankles, or does it refer to one tip being forward of the other?

I think the first, but just for clarity.

 

[Wolfski]

[ quoting @Philpug ] "sniffs bait and swims away..." [ /quoting @Philpug ]

Thanks, needed that one

 

[François Pugh]

Just a point of clarification, because I really don't care how anyone separates their feet -

Does horizontal refer to the space between your ankles, or does it refer to one tip being forward of the other?

I think the first, but just for clarity.

Horizontal means the distance between the skis/feet, not counting any difference in elevation (height, vertical dstance), i.e. if you look down from above and take a photo and then measure the distance with ruler and scale it.

BTW, imho any deliberate attempt to alter your horizontal separation (e.g. ski with feet farther apart or closer together) is only worth doing as an exercise to see what it feels like, or (closer) to make your first day learning to ski powder with skinny skis easier.

Your body will naturally adopt the best width.

 

[Rod9301]

You can, if your physiology allows for it. IME very few individuals can access that range of motion once they get much beyond 40 years of age. I see it all of the time in guys who spend most of their time in the park.

Not sure I understand how the range of motion would prevent skiing with feet close together in a horizontal plane. You can get plenty of vertical separation, even if you are not that flexible.
Most people, if not all can stand on 45 degrees stairs, one foot in one stair, straight, and the other one on the stair just above it, bent.
Or stand in the floor, and out one for on a chair beside it. That's more than 45 degrees

 

[crgildart]

Not sure I understand how the range of motion would prevent skiing with feet close together in a horizontal plane. You can get plenty of vertical separation, even if you are not that flexible.
Most people, if not all can stand on 45 degrees stairs, one foot in one stair, straight, and the other one on the stair just above it, bent.
Or stand in the floor, and out one for on a chair beside it. That's more than 45 degrees

That would be banking turns, Try doing it with your shoulders parallel to the slope of the stairs like your shoulders would be parallel to the horizon on a high angle turn. The less parallel your shoulders are to the horizon the more you are banking the turns... which equates to your stair analogy. When you are bending at the core and hips to square up your shoulders and upper body with the horizon that is where the flexibility and leg separation without it comes in to play.

Tell me this skier should have his feet closer together.. See how the shoulders are squared up to the horizon??

 

[Rod9301]

That would be banking turns, Try doing it with your shoulders parallel to the slope of the stairs like your shoulders would be parallel to the horizon on a high angle turn. The less parallel your shoulders are to the horizon the more you are banking the turns... which equates to your stair analogy. When you are bending at the core and hips to square up your shoulders and upper body with the horizon that is where the flexibility and leg separation without it comes in to play.

Tell me this skier should have his feet closer together.. See how the shoulders are squared up to the horizon??

His boots are pretty close together in a horizontal plane, they just look far apart because of the vertical separation.

 

[crgildart]

His boots are pretty close together in a horizontal plane, they just look far apart because of the vertical separation.

I see HOROZONTAL separation, i.e. big gap left to right, i.e. across... but less VERTICAL..i.e. up and down (AKA stacked) still about a foot there if you measure the gap and angle between the right boot cuff and snow then add that to the gap between the left ski and right knee.

 

[slowrider]

 

[Rod9301]

I see HOROZONTAL separation, i.e. big gap left to right, i.e. across... but less VERTICAL..i.e. up and down (AKA stacked) still about a foot there if you measure the gap and angle between the right boot cuff and snow then add that to the gap between the left ski and right knee.

We must see different things. Look at the picture rotated 90 degrees, and tell me if you still see a lot of horizontal separation. I sure don't see much at all.

But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, just not to their own set of facts.

 

[François Pugh]

A little bit of a misnomer, that horizontal separation. We aren't really concerned with the separation in a true horizontal plane. What we are really concerned about is separation in a plane that isn't really horizontal but is perpendicular to the sum of the centrifugal force and gravity taken together, i.e. separation in a plane that is perpendicular to the body forces felt by the skier. Just like if you stand on the floor it is parallel to the force of gravity pulling you down, but if you are going around a curve in a car you feel pulled down by gravity and pulled into the door by the centrifugal force. The "horizontal" separation we need is the one in the plane perpendicular to the force we feel, almost like the horizontal separation in @slowrider's tilted picture (I would have tilted it just a little bit less, so a straight line from cm going straight down the page would go through edge of outside ski).

 

[crgildart]

We must see different things. Look at the picture rotated 90 degrees, and tell me if you still see a lot of horizontal separation. I sure don't see much at all.

But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, just not to their own set of facts.

But we're not talking about rotating the earth 90 degrees. If the skier stands upright the skis will be very far separated.. They are separated period!
So if I'm standing straight up skiing on one ski with my other ski up off the snow pulled up but tight against the inside knee of my plant foot that counts as skiing with my feet close together?? Got it!

 

[François Pugh]

Yes. Not how far one foot is from the other foot, but how far the upper foot is from the other leg.

Horizontal means the distance between the skis/feet, not counting any difference in elevation (height, vertical dstance), i.e. if you look down from above and take a photo and then measure the distance with ruler and scale it.

BTW, imho any deliberate attempt to alter your horizontal separation (e.g. ski with feet farther apart or closer together) is only worth doing as an exercise to see what it feels like, or (closer) to make your first day learning to ski powder with skinny skis easier.

Your body will naturally adopt the best width.

Realized I was not quite correct in talking about horizontal separation. The plane isn't exactly the one that is flat on the ground, although that is the definition of horizontal. It is the plane that is perpendicular to the net body force felt by the skier, shifting the "horizontal" with your angle of inclination. In other words it is the separation distance of your upper foot from your other leg.

 

[DaveM]

Paul - good on you. If you look at the skiers who are technically proficient (PSIA D Team, former US Team Members, coaches, etc) no one is rocking anything over 100 underfoot in powder. That is unless they are receiving a sponsor check.

I don't know where you are in the spectrum but would advise that you take a few day clinic that will drill basics, then look at ski choices. Get wrapped up in efficient movement patters before you get wrapped up in equipment. I don't know if he is teaching, but look up John Egan. He may be able to recommend a path.

John Seifert at University of Montana has been studying the effect of wide skis for years. His findings are that anything over 80 and you start to torque the shit out of your knees. Based on my experience (and assuming that you have been on wide skis for a while) you probably have exceptional rotary movements, but edging and is pressure control needs to be developed. Once you develop those assets you will likely gravitate towards a narrower ski. Part of that will also likley be yoga - and increasing range of motion in your lower core.

BTW... I live out west. We used to live at / teach at Baker and now live in Durango, where I teach at Purgatory. My skis are 73, 78 ad 82 underfoot. 95 for touring and trips to Silverton.

Enjoy!

MartyG, thanks for your comment. I enjoy technical things, so I'll try to check out some of John Seifert's research. It makes sense - the greater the surface area, well, more interaction. I still consider myself relatively "new" to skiing, so I enjoy learning from others with far more experience than me.