 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi,
I'm about to pull the trigger on a pair of Salomon Q98. I'm just wondering what size should I go with. I'm 6 foot tall, 190lbs, advanced skier, 90% east coast, mostly groomed but want to enjoy the occasional powder day and off piste. If I take a look at the Salomon's chart, 188 is my recommended size, but damn those are LOOONG. My other choice is the 180cm. Any recommandation??
Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
How rockered are they?
What length are your other skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Rocker/Camber/Rocker
Rocker shape 335. I don't know what does that mean. But I'm currently skiing with a pair of old Salomon Crossmax 175cm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I would guess that the 188 might be a bit long *but the 180s may be a teeny bit small. I recently got some similar skis (ladies, 98mm, rockered) and looked around and I think Salomon recommend longer than other companies. Google a few ski length guides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Its the age old rocker means you can ski a longer ski argument
I would think hard about this. I fell for it when I bought My Ricktors and the bottom line is that yes a longer ski will ski shorter with a rocker in terms of turn shape. However when you are in a mogul field/tress a longer ski is going to be harder to turn period, because even though the radius might be smaller, you still have to get that length round before you hit the next mogul/tree. There are still physically a longer item, I guess you have to think about this in 3d. On a piste they ski shorter and the extra length makes no difference because on a perfectly flat surface the rocker means the extra length sits up enough to be out of the way. In 3d terrain ie off-piste, trees, cut up piste, moguls, this no longer holds true and while they will be more maneuverable than a non rockered ski of the same length in certain circumstances you are going to have problems. Finally longer skis add to the swing weight (see the current fad to honeycomb the shovel on the S7 adn q98) so this also makes it harder to turn the ski (honeycomb notwithstanding). Not a bad thing necessarily but its something to be aware of.
I would say ski the length closest to what you would always have skied and enjoy the additional maneuverability that the slightly smaller turn radius will give you.
This is my own personal opinion and experience and does tend to fly in the face of 'expert' advice which is to go long. Although the advice to go long I suspect it to increase your surface area and therefore lift in powder.
So actually a better answer is this.
If you a) spend most of your time banging down pistes really fast and or in knee deep powder go long.
If you b) spend most of your time in trees and moguls don't might not going mach 5 on a piste and accept the fact that once the powder gets knee deep you are probably not going to be surfing the pow and still skiing it, then get a shorter ski.
in teh above examples the shorter ski will do everything, the longer one may limit you so I think a shorter ski is more versatile. YMMV
G
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
If you ski well go 188 unless you like tiny little wiggly turns all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ this....
I'm 5'7", 154 lbs, good skier, I have the Q105 in 181cm and definitely wouldn't want them any shorter, they are very lively and easy to make short turn shapes with!
The rocker makes them ski a lot shorter than the length would suggest.........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm 5'9" and have bought the rocker 2 in 108 guise.... I have got 190's
After having skied the bent chetler which also has a rocker as I think rockered skis ski v short, so my advice would be to go on the long side
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
It would be nice if people could remove the ego from this and try and describe things as in personal preference rather than. IF YOU ARE A GOOD SKIER YOU MUST GO LONG. Simply not true, its about personal preference, style of skiing and terrain you prefer being on, and picking the ski or quiver that is going to give you the most flexibility. To someone who does not know I would always recommend shorter rather than longer, because the bottom line is too long a ski is going to make their time miserable. Too short you might be frustrated because you can't go quite as fast or because they are too turny (you can combat that with technique) but it not going to stop you skiing.
I sometimes wonder if the whole longer fatter thing is the skiing equivalent of driving a Ferrari when your worried about your trouser contents 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@gordonrussell76, hey gordon, no ego here, i can't see anyone saying you must go long..... my piste ski's are 175 as they are traditional camber on them so they ski longer, a rockered ski will ski a lot shorter (depending on the amount of rocker in the tip and tail it could be up to 30% shorter) hence my own advice would be to go on the side of longer...... its horses for courses.....
clearly the best way to do it would be to try both and see which you prefer..... but as you can see the advice / opinion from people who have skied this type of rockered ski is that the ski shorter than the length they are.... have you ever skied a ski with a big rocker on it? if so did you think that it skied short or just the same as a traditional camber....
right just popping out to shine the ferrari! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
2 posts above yours "If you ski WELL go 188" but its okay I am beign sligthly toungue in cheek, I just think given how expensive ski's are there are a lot of people giving out advice that could prove wrong. As you stated quite rightly best thing to do is when you have narrowed down to a ski you like to try it in a few lengths to see what you prefer. I would add make sure you try those lengths in varied conditions and terrain to be certain.
Yup I have skied longer rockered skis and I agree 100% that on 2d terrain they ski shorter. But as soon as terrain gets 3d that advantage can get lost. Ie yes you have a shorter turning circle but its does not mean you are going to clear everything.
Actually ironically the Ferrari is a good analogy or at least cars are. If you had 3 cars
Car 1 6ft Long the wheels are an inch back from the bumper front and back
Car 2 6ft long wheels were 5 inches away from the bumpers
Car 3 5ft car with wheels an inch back from bumper.
Car 1 is going to have the worse turning circle, but when you are parallel parking you know the front bumper is not going to hit the back of the car in front as you swing in.
Car 3 has a turning circle as good as car 2 but again you will not be worried about hitting a car when turning because the extremities of the car are not that far from the wheels.
Car 2, has a great turning circle, but its is a pain to park because the amount of car sticking out from the wheels will make judging the distances harder, also bottom line is that car 2 will not be able to park in as small a space as car 3
A long rocker-ed ski is like car 2, the turning circle is indeed fantastic but in certain circumstances you just can't take advantage of it.
Now on piste and in a powder field this is not a problem, in moguls or tress it can be, unless you have mastered jump turns.
Ps this is just my opinion for consideration I am not saying I am right to the exclusoin of all other points of view. Its just that its becoming accepted canon that longer is better, and I just think its worth considerign from another point of view.
G
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
i would agree with everything that gordon says above..... as we all know there is never going to be a one ski quiver killer, i used to love my chetlers because great off piste and not too shabby on piste on big GS turns but i wouldnt have wanted to get in a mogul field with them lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want them to be one ski quiver go for 180 if you are more off piste orientated go for 188.And trust me lenght is scary just in your head, it just +8 to your height.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| gordonrussell76 wrote: |
| 2 posts above yours "If you ski WELL go 188" but its okay I am beign sligthly toungue in cheek, I just think given how expensive ski's are there are a lot of people giving out advice that could prove wrong. |
With the caveat 'unless you like making small turns all the time.'
| gordonrussell76 wrote: |
A long rocker-ed ski is like car 2, the turning circle is indeed fantastic but in certain circumstances you just can't take advantage of it.
Now on piste and in a powder field this is not a problem, in moguls or tress it can be, unless you have mastered jump turns. |
Wrong, that's what pivot turns are for. And is someone who hasn't 'mastered' jump and pivot turns a good skier? No, so clearly the advice wouldn't apply.
Simple fact is if you're a good skier with solid then a few cms extra length makes basically no difference to how easy a ski is to turn, while it does make a difference to how stable they are at speed and how much they get deflected in crud. Even if you want to ski tight trees fast then longer is better than shorter - especially with an appropriate rocker/sidecut profile.
And no, the advantage of longer rocker skis does NOT get lost in 3D snow - half of the point of rocker is that it makes skis easier to pivot nomatter the conditions. This applies equally in moguls too - there's absolutely no reason why the Bentchetlers mentioned above would be a liability in moguls. I say that having skied plenty of moguls on skis ranging from 92mm underfoot 176 long to 135mm underfoot and 194 long. FWIW at 5 foot 9 and 68-70kg 190 is about the perfect length for me nomatter what or where I'm skiing (apart from uphill!).
As you say, conventional wisdom says that longer is better for good skiers. If you (general, not you specifically!) can't easily turn a long ski at will then you aren't a good skier/don't have good technique then that obviously doesn't apply.
If you're a good skier who prefers to make short wiggly turns everywhere (or are buying a touring specific ski), then equally it doesn't apply; go short. But in modern times that would make you the exception rather than the general rule.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Thu 20-11-14 16:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I am off now to practice my hips movements ready for my girly wiggle turns
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
