 Poster: A snowHead
|
| SPP wrote: |
I've come to the conclusion that I shouldn't buy any ski in any length.
I've been away from the slopes for far too long and agree that I need to test as many skis as possible (length, width, brand) and then I'll hopefully be able to narrow things down a bit more and find my personal preference, especially in todays market.
I've found a shop that will hopefully help me in someway to achieving this. |
If that is what you took from the advice above....then this thread has achieved its goal.
There is no single, correct answer that can be given over a forum....all we can do is give "Food for thought".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@SPP, Wise move, good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| CH2O wrote: |
| .. May I ask what is the reason any ski manufacturer makes a particular model of ski, in a variety of lengths. Can you list the variables, considerations in a heiracal order please, assuming the ski model has been chosen already. |
yes, you may.
Burton's Fish snowboard was originally produced in one single size : one "length" but with two different stiffness constructions.
But it confuses people, so they later switched to a more conventional approach, which makes retail and customer selection easier, at the cost of this type of confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
@CH2O, you've obviously not met many Snowheads if you think the average mass is at the shoulders
|
I met plenty, and plenty is the word i'd best use to describe them. Exception must be the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I've come to the conclusion that I shouldn't buy any ski in any length.
|
that sounds good. And lose some weight. And take some more lessons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
The center of mass is influenced not just by the mass of each segment but also by how high that mass is located above the ground:
|
What you're referring to is the centre of mass equivalent, for rotation about a point at the base of your feet (i.e. on the ground, whilst standing up). This is necessarily dependent on the choice of point of rotation; you get a different answer if you choose the centre of mass equivalent about a different point, e.g. the top of your head, or your back bottom, or your elbow.
I can see that choosing to focus on the centre of mass equivalent, for rotation about a point at the base of your feet, has some relevance when determining ski length, but I only see it as particularly significant if you're thinking mostly about rotating the ski (and let's not get into the which axis of rotation). To me, for competent skiers using an appropriate ski in the way it is intended, the skier is mostly weighting the ski, rather than rotating it, so the most significant factor affecting choice of ski length is the force put through the ski, not some measure of length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@SnoodyMcFlude, I know, seems as though I've stirred something up 
@Origen, Couldn't agree with you more in regards to lessons. Already booked. Looking to learn and improve!
In regards to weight loss, this is very dependent on the individual in question, but I agree it can be beneficial if that loss is occurring through excess fat.
@Old Fartbag, "food for thought" is a good way to describe this thread for me.
I initially wanted to buy a ski to avoid the hassle in rental shops with limited choice and shoddy equipment. I settled on the Rossi 82 purely through on-line reviews and what I thought I might want (a bit more versatility with more width underfoot without going to far the other end of the spectrum to a width that would be detrimental to on piste ability). And I came asking advice about length.
But the truth is I've never even skied anything wider than a 76.
Would an 82 make that much difference? Maybe an 88, which to me seems ridiculously wide, might be what I enjoy most, even when weighing up any trade offs. Who knows, I might even end up preferring a 110 like @tangowaggon. And this is only taking into consideration width without factoring in all of the other considerations!
The thread made me reflect on my original decision and made me realise there was more than the question of length involved.
The fact is I won't know the answers to any of this until I've spent (a) more time on the snow and (b) tested different options.
So yes, food for thought indeed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@SPP,
Tbf, the 110s were a very strange beast when I first got on them, if I'd hired them for 1 day, I might not have liked them, it took 3 days to really tune myself into them, but once I'd adjusted to the way they respond, my skiing took a step change.
My early tests of wide skis were brief tests of skis very much wider than my own and it put me off completely. I was skiing the whole mountain on 67s but heavier offpiste was a struggle so I got some 95s which were better, but would still submarine in the deep n heavy stuff, so I tried 110 as something that was enough to make a difference without being silly wide.
But each to their own, a ski needs to deliver in the area of skiing that you enjoy
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| SPP wrote: |
But the truth is I've never even skied anything wider than a 76.
Would an 82 make that much difference? Maybe an 88, which to me seems ridiculously wide, might be what I enjoy most, even when weighing up any trade offs. |
The widest ski underfoot I had owned before getting some Scott "The Ski" @ 92, was 70mm - in fact most had been in the 60s. I did notice a difference in the time it took to go from edge to edge. I found that I had to allow a little longer at transition, going from one turn to another...so an adjustment to timing was needed. Short turns are harder work.
I doubt that going from 76 to 82 would make much difference. Even 86 would be very minor.
Personally, I would not go wider than 86 - unless spending quite a lot of time Off Piste.....but it is certainly worth trying different widths to find where your preference/preferred comprise lies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@SPP, in the scheme of things the rental hassle isn't a massive offset from the travel hassle of carrying your own skis (unless you drive/live in the area).
I have two main pairs of skis, a 106 and a 71. If I know it's going to be fairly solid all day then the 106 will work but the 71 will be better. If there's any chance of soft then the 106 is just a more fun ski to be on...of course it's ski dependent, a different ski of the same width could be completely different. So I definitely think that more skiing on more types of skis is the best route to take for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| SPP wrote: |
| Would an 82 make that much difference? Maybe an 88, which to me seems ridiculously wide, might be what I enjoy most, even when weighing up any trade offs. |
88 isn't particularly wide for an all mountain ski. And that is really just the question - do you want/need an AM ski. And if so, more piste orientated or off piste orientated. As others have said other (design and materials) factors come into play but in general terms the wider the waist the more float - hence it depends if your off piste is more than half the use as to whether you go up to the around 100 range. 88 would be fine if you dabble off piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I actually think a wider ski works very well on-piste in the spring snow conditions we see more of the time, these days. Slush is just more fun on a bigger, floatier ski. I used a Whitedot Preacher on such days (114 underfoot), and the ability to drift them at speed on an uneven surface added a brilliant element to piste skiing in slush. They died, so their replacement is a Line Blade Optic, also in 114 width, which adds a load of rocker and a super-stiff midsection to the party. It's a brilliant piste ski, for soft conditions, as it can also be laid over and carved on short turns in a way that the old Preacher didn't particularly excel at - its extraordinarily torsionally stiff under the boot and so very resposive and fast edge to edge, yet soft and rockered in the tips so makes uneven, chopped-up surfaces a doddle. I ski them long at 185cm (I'm 175cm tall, but 85kgs and I ski fairly aggressively), so this works for me.
So ski design and materials mean that it's hard to just pick a length or width, I think: and them you have to add your own style of skii g to the equation. Sure, my 68mm underfoot, 165cm long SL skis are the best for icy mornings. But we see a lot of variety in snow surface these days: and for the ever-present slush, go big!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Sorry for the late reply after your name check!
We are pretty much mirror stats wise (although I'm probably better looking) although at the grand old age of 53 I'm probably not as fit as when I was 45 and a tad lardier . .
I've been through several iterations of the Experience Range (84s/86) and as an easy going / do it all ski they def tick the boxes - although ALL the blurb says I should be on 185s I've always plumped for the shorter one down (176/178) based on short turn preference / flick-ability / smear-ability rather than outright carving performance.
If you smash miles at speed with large arcs then maybe the longer ones are a better bet - I def don't do this so have taken the view that my mixed turn shapes / bumps / dodgy tree skiing preferences mean a shorter ski is the way . . . . and I don't actually care if the purists say this is wrong!
Currently on Head Kore 87s (177cms) but seriously considering ditching these for the new BC Octos . . . 179.3cm heresy! Good luck 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Always difficult. I returned to skiing 3 yrs ago after 12 yrs off. Ski have changed so much, anyway. I bought some Rossignol escapers in 164 sidecut 92 , I am 167 toll and about 70Kg. Very easy to ski but was worried about going up to 172. I still use these as they are relatively light and good for short walks.
I then tried Salomon QST106 in 174 totally different type of ski love them and are my go to ski.
so my advice is try to hire ski you may buy. See what length works for you. The Rossignol's in 172 may have been fine I will never know.
good luck and have fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| CH2O wrote: |
The center of mass is influenced not just by the mass of each segment but also by how high that mass is located above the ground:
Head and Neck: Light but high up, contributing to the center of mass due to height.
Upper Torso/Chest (segment 2 and 3): Significant mass located around the chest and upper torso, contributing strongly due to its height and mass.
Lower Torso/Abdomen: Significant mass, but lower height compared to the chest.
Pelvic Region: Dense and heavy but closer to the ground, contributing less to raising the center of mass.
Upper Thighs: Heavy, but again, closer to the ground.
Lower Thighs/Knees: Less significant due to mass and lower height.
Calves/Lower Legs: Less mass, even closer to the ground.
Feet: Lightest and at the lowest point.
Conclusion: The Upper Torso/Chest
Given that the upper torso/chest area (segments 2 and 3) has a significant amount of mass (due to muscle, bones like the ribcage, and internal organs like the lungs) and is relatively high from the ground, it contributes the most to the body's overall center of mass when standing.
Thus, segments 2 and 3 (upper torso and chest) have the highest influence on the body's center of mass, combining both significant weight and a higher vertical position. This region is typically where the center of mass for a standing male is concentrated, roughly around the chest or slightly lower depending on individual proportions.
For a female, the distribution of mass and the center of mass differ slightly from that of a male due to variations in body composition, such as differences in fat distribution, muscle mass, and bone structure. Generally, females tend to have a lower center of mass compared to males, often located around the hips or lower torso.
Let's go through the same analysis for a female body divided into 10 segments of 20 cm each:
Head and Neck: Light with minimal mass contribution but positioned high.
Upper Torso/Chest: Less muscular mass compared to males, but the presence of breast tissue and upper body organs adds weight.
Lower Torso/Abdomen: Contains vital organs and contributes significantly to overall mass, similar to males.
Pelvic Region: More pronounced in females due to wider hips and denser pelvic bones, contributing heavily to mass.
Upper Thighs: Similar to males, large muscle groups like the quadriceps and hamstrings contribute significantly to mass.
Lower Thighs/Knees: Continues to contribute, but less so than the upper thighs.
Calves/Lower Legs: Muscular but less mass compared to the thighs.
Lower Calves/Ankles: Minimal mass contribution.
Feet: The lightest part, primarily bones and tendons.
Consideration of the Center of Mass
In females, the center of mass is typically lower than in males, often closer to the pelvic region. However, we still need to consider the impact of height and mass distribution:
Upper Torso/Chest (Segments 2 and 3): Although less muscular than in males, the presence of breast tissue and organs still makes this region significant, especially given its height above the ground.
Lower Torso/Pelvic Region (Segments 4 and 5): This area is more prominent in females due to wider hips and a greater proportion of body fat. While closer to the ground, the mass in this region is substantial, contributing to a lower center of mass.
Conclusion: Pelvic Region and Lower Torso
For a female, segments 4 and 5 (the pelvic region and lower torso) likely contribute the most to the overall center of mass, considering both the significant mass in this area and the characteristic lower center of mass in females. Although this area is closer to the ground, its considerable mass in relation to the rest of the body shifts the center of mass lower compared to males.
However, if we focus strictly on the segment with the highest center of mass contribution in terms of height, segments 3 and 4 (lower torso and upper pelvis) are crucial. The upper torso (including chest) still plays a significant role, but for females, the mass in the pelvic region has a more pronounced effect on the overall center of mass.
So, while the pelvic region and upper thighs are the heaviest, the combination of mass and height suggests that the lower torso and upper pelvis (segments 3 and 4) are the most influential in determining the center of mass in a standing female. |
That is a very long winded explanation with no data. Everything I've read suggests it is between the sternum and the belly button. You are way off with shoulders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember, decades ago, being shown an interesting difference in body mass between the sexes.
If you place a standard dining chair against a wall, then stand in front of it one arm’s length from the wall. Lean forward so your forehead is resting on the wall, reach down and pick up the chair. Then try to stand up again.
Females will stand up easily, males remain stuck with their head on the wall. This is because of the difference in body masses (males = shoulders, females = waist). When pivoted at the waist the males are too top heavy to be able to stand back up.
Not sure how that relates to skiing right enough?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve embarrassed a few muscle heads at parties with “I bet wee lass can stand up with a chair and you can’t” over the years since
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| dode wrote: |
I remember, decades ago, being shown an interesting difference in body mass between the sexes...
Females will stand up easily... When pivoted at the waist the males are too top heavy to be able to stand back up. ... |
Yeah except it's not actually true. Just as well we don't attend the same parties.
If you accept the generally repeated rationale for thing you're describing, if you also google down the variance of the ratio of height to centre of mass location... that seems to be incorrect also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@phil_w, Try it when you get home. I’ve done a LOT of runs of this over the years, with lots of different folk.
Every female stands up easily. Only a couple of blokes (from well over 100) have huffed and puffed to manage it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
You're average male's center of mass is the shoulders,
|
No. Imagine lying on a bar with your shoulders on the bar. You would fall very quickly. Now try the same experiment with your waist on the bar. With a little adjustment you would balance. This is the centre of mass about a horizontal axis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@SPP, I must admit I have not read the thread. If it was not mentioned already, buy the skis in the resort. There are shops that let you rent different skis and then refund the rental if you end up buying a pair from them. The only trouble is that any particular shop only has a limited range. Anyway, the competition is such that they don't make many bad skis these days.
Just wanted to add that I bought the Experience 82 last year and was very happy with them. They are nice piste skis with a nod to those days when there is an inch or two of fresh powder. They were fine in the slush too. I think you might be happier with the 86 if you have advanced skills. A 105 is not considered particularly wide these days given the technology.
Overall, I love the forgiveness of this ski. Since I'm just competing with myself, it suited me very well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rent for a week or two with model change. Particularly early in the season when most of the equipment is new.
I’m 178 and roughly 80 kg on piste. I have a pair of Rossy Hero Elite ST @167cm which are great for me as short radius, slalom / mogul skis. They can also manage nice long carved turns and our stable up to 100kph (haven’t tried any faster). When I’ve chosen MT skis I’ve tried about 175s. so I would suggest about 10 cm shorter than your height for slalom / short radius skis and roughly your height or just under for giant slalom or medium radius.
I wouldn’t worry about falling it over the front of your skis however short. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a British skier doing this.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I'd say it's not a bad choice to try out a few different options before settling on a ski you want to buy, or at least what type of ski
