New Voile XCD skis

[Rodbelan]

I tend to stay away from Rossi's and Fischer's for the reason you mentionned. But it is a complex issue: depending on year & model, some fisher's have less camber... So, since I am not sure, I (will) stick to Madshus with their 1 1/2 camber...

[MikeK]

I don't think I measured the difference between the Epoch and the S98 stiffness, but if I did, I'll repost it, if not, I will at some point.

At any rate, if you had a chance to try a pair... like Johnny's, I'd give it a go. If you like the way they go down, I guarantee you'll like the way they go up better.

[STG]

LoveJohnny:

Agree that the Guide is/was a great backcounty powder ski. I found it to be a go anywhere powder ski; especially steep, powder, tree-runs. The new Voile looks like it would be an effortless turning ski. The width of the skis may be a problem? A researcher from Montana State University published (2015?) some research/data about knee problems when skis are too wide: http://www.seeker.com/fat-skis-may-hurt ... 81070.html

[MikeK]

STG - that info is not really news to me. It seems fairly obvious that if you need stiffer, higher cuff boots to be able to roll the skis on edge, then the next weakest link in the chain is the old knee.

They make the comment which I've also always thought was fairly obvious but that skiing on piste was going to cause a lot more damage with wider skis than skiing in soft snow. Simply put, it takes a lot more torque to hold your edge on hard snow than it does on soft snow.

These Voile shouldn't be an issue for most users as they will be predominantly be skiing in soft snows with the occasional and unwanted crust. If you take them to the resort and ski cord with them with stiff, high cuff boots, then yeah, it's not really what skis like this were ever intended for.

Also I'd speculate that shaped skis may have contributed the whole phenomenon as well in that most people can more easily do a carved, or nearly carved turn, which puts A LOT more stress on the body. Knees and lower back especially. My speculation is shaped skis make skiing a lot easier for most people, but most people didn't have the physical fitness to be able to handle skiing with that much g load. For a ski racer, it's not a big step. For the average gaper who was skidding around with straight skis, it was a big change.

The one other thing I think that could possibly be a contributor is high speed lifts, at least on the smaller mountains. A friend of mine easily got 60k of vert in one day on a 1200' hill here!!! He did it as a personal challenge, but fuck that's a lot of turns!

[Rodbelan]

Thanks STG... I already knew that from experience. It's about time for docs to react to that fat ski fashion... We see quite a few guys skiing on ice with huge boards. For what purpose? It is just a fashion thing, brought up to open new markets... Fat boards are for powder days, which aren't that many in the east...

[connyro]

LoveJohnny:

Agree that the Guide is/was a great backcounty powder ski. I found it to be a go anywhere powder ski; especially steep, powder, tree-runs...The width of the skis may be a problem?

Guides: 109-78-95
Objectives: 117-84-102

Those are pretty similar (narrow) dimensions. If you can ski the Guides without damaging your knees due to their width, then I seriously doubt skiing the Objectives would cause harm.

[MikeK]

Guides: 109-78-95
Objectives: 117-84-102

Those are pretty similar (narrow) dimensions. If you can ski the Guides without damaging your knees due to their width, then I seriously doubt skiing the Objectives would cause harm.

Pretty sure all this applies to situations where you could actually generate enough edge load to really hurt your knees. Guides are so noodley I doubt you'd be even to get them to pull any significant g's on hardpack. No idea about those Objectives but I'd guess they'd be optimized more for BC (soft snow) conditions.

Now you take a pair of those 90-100mm underfoot all mountain skis (which have enough torsional and bending stiffness) and crank some high g turns with them and you are going to put some serious stress on the knees.

[connyro]

...Now you take a pair of those 90-100mm underfoot all mountain skis (which have enough torsional and bending stiffness) and crank some high g turns with them and you are going to put some serious stress on the knees.

I'm not sure I agree. When I ski groomed snow/hardpack on skis in the 90-100mm underfoot range, I feel more stress on my ankles than knees. I think that if you have the muscle strength and technique to 'crank high g turns', your knees will be able to easily handle the stress. In other words, if you are skiing properly, your knees are not going to blow out due to a little extra width underfoot.

That being said,

It is just a fashion thing, brought up to open new markets... Fat boards are for powder days...

I have to agree with this statement. While skiing at Ajax last year, I noticed that the standard rental skis not only have tip rocker, but also are mostly in the 100mm underfoot range. Ajax is known far and wide for their legendary grooming, yet they rent fat rockered skis to the gaper rental community. Go figure...

[Rodbelan]

The article STG mentioned doesn't state that a 84 mm width ski is problematic; it says that beyond 85-90 mm, the problem starts to happen... In the beginning of the article, they refer to 80-90 mm waist ski as «normal width»... 100 to 115 mm as fat freeride skis. Anyway, I have a pair of 88 mm waist skis... when I use them on ice, I feel a lot more fatigue on my knees. (I usually don't use them in such conditions...)

[MikeK]

I'm not sure I agree. When I ski groomed snow/hardpack on skis in the 90-100mm underfoot range, I feel more stress on my ankles than knees. I think that if you have the muscle strength and technique to 'crank high g turns', your knees will be able to easily handle the stress. In other words, if you are skiing properly, your knees are not going to blow out due to a little extra width underfoot.

I'm sure you have much more experience with this than I do, but in a stiff boot, my ankle is well supported. My knees OTOH are completely free. I also tend to think for those kind of turns the knee strain would all be in the initation (at least for Alpine, tele seems like it would load the knee all the time) in initially edging the ski.

Also I agree on the muscle strength part, but a new skier could technically learn to make high speed large radius turns before their muscles are developed... or perhaps an out of shape skier making the switch

The one thing I also think about is all the shoulder and elbow issues I had when I was karting. I have relatively big arm and shoulder build naturally and was in a lot better physical condition in that area back then, but the constant strain of the unsupported part of my body under high g-load caused me to develop bursitis. In kart you are supported from the armpit down to the hip and thigh by the seat and we had to wear neck braces which helped support your neck (which would still get damn sore).

I was able to fix the issue through physical therapy. It really was strain aggravating my joints but I also had a big difference in muscle strength that caused me to exacerbate the situation. If I had been an "athlete" that had trained for this type of stress, I probably wouldn't have had much issue, but I obviously had the muscle strength and skill (and believe me, it takes a lot of both for karts - it ain't like driving a car) to hurt myself.