Monium, because you ski very fast and aggressively, and prefer a longer turn. So yeah, you're totally right, imo. Don't see the point in going parlor long unless you're skiing in AK a lot, or really do charge everything. Rocker obviously means/requires a longer ski, but in general...
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote:
Put simply, you'll buy new skis earlier if you buy short and...worth it in the long run.
Absolutely, couldn't agree more. I bought skis, bought them too short/put on weight so I bought another pair. Now I have one pair of skis ideal for blasting around the place failing to ski powder and A-framing my way down the groomers and another the ideal length to stick my 270 spins in the park on. If I'd bought longer in the first place I'd only have one pair and only be throwing 230s. That 40 degrees brings me 15% closer to awesome.
Anyway, you're a fine one to talk, you're in France, the spiritual home of Skis For Dwarves.
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?
Cunners wrote:
.......Anyway, you're a fine one to talk, you're in France, the spiritual home of Skis For Dwarves.
Monium, because you ski very fast and aggressively, and prefer a longer turn. So yeah, you're totally right, imo. Don't see the point in going parlor long unless you're skiing in AK a lot, or really do charge everything. Rocker obviously means/requires a longer ski, but in general...
I can get big wide sweeping turns on my short skis, I just don't lean as hard on them - they can carve big wide turns if I want them to. Conversely, I can't get a longer ski and make it pull a nice tight turn in the same way.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Quote:
5'11" 100kg+ and skiing 167s. And loving it. Short skis are the future. Fat skis are the future. People who ski too long are just living in the 80s, when even people like me were using 190+ straight skis... No idea why anyone would go for massively long skis - they're harder to turn, if you need stability at speed get a stiffer ski, if you need float in powder go wider.
When will people realise that its total surface area, not just width, that results in greater floatation ?
Buying off-piste skis short is like putting go faster strips and furry dice on a ferrari.
If your a bigger dude (like 5"10 or above) then you should *always* be buying the longest available length that any ski comes in. Doesnt matter if its a 165cm slalomn race ski, 195cm freeride ski or a 183cm all mountain ski.
In simple terms ski designers make each model in different lengths so they can be skied to their full potential by people of different heights. Going short (realtive to your height) almost certainly means you arent using a ski to its full potential. Only reason ever to go 10cm shorter is for touring (kick turns on >180cm-ish suck).
Longer length = Speed, stability, landings, more edge length, less tip dive, forces spread over longer area (yadder yadder)
In simple terms ski designers make each model in different lengths so they can be skied to their full potential by people of different heights. Going short (realtive to your height) almost certainly means you arent using a ski to its full potential.
99% of the skiers on the mountain aren't using their skis to their full potential. Most aren't even close. I agree with the rest of your post though. But I don't need or really want the benefits that come from longer skis. The downsides mean it's not worth it for me.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Haggis_Trap, the above would make sense if the surface area of a short, fat ski wasn't sufficient, but it is. You can choose length depending on how you want your ski to perform, and I don't see what benefit the majority of holiday skiers would have from extra stability at speed. Extra floatation is already provided by the width, longer just makes them less manageable at speed. All this "long skis are better for everyone" is poorly informed willy waving. I like my 196's, but I really wouldn't recommend them to most instructors I work with, nevermind an average snowhead.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Having seen the "go fat" movement of the last few years - which does make a fair amount of sense (achieving float without some of the constraints of extra length) - it was only a matter of time before the fashion-blighted ski industry started saying "go long".
Most people who ski - probably 90% - are out for a nice pootle - they want easy controllability without having to be the boss of a pair of skis which are pushing them. They don't want to huck, land stuff, go near powder or even ski decent bumps. For them it is a leisure activity. This may not be as easily discernible in Cham, Scotland, or any of the places where the "real" skiers hang out.
Some of those of us who remember the competitive ski length snobbery of 20 years ago (still got some 203cms at home ) would not like to see it repeated.
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.
when did Haggis_Trap become the voice of reason (as in the actual voice of reason not the poster of that name) on this site?
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Monium wrote:
No idea why anyone would go for massively long skis - they're harder to turn, if you need stability at speed get a stiffer ski, if you need float in powder go wider.
Surely more stability comes from a more minimal sidecut - something that is inherent in 90% of longer skis?
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Often longer skis of the same model are made stiffer so I don't believe it's just a question of skier height v ski length. I'm 172cm tall and once tried a twintip in three different lengths (166, 176 and 186cm). The 166 was too short, the 176 was just right but on the 186 I was knackered after a couple of hours. The 166 was like driving a Ford Ka and the 186 was like driving a truck. I can see how the reverse camber skis could help as the running length on piste is a lot shorter but surface area higher for offpiste.
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.
Was nosing at a handful of manufacturer sites last night, and using their online ski recommendation widgets. Interestingly, none took both skier height and skier weight/mass as input, but only height OR weight/mass. And I can't "go longer", because the length I've been skiing is the longest anyway (for the type of skiing I do).
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Hurtle, same here, recommends a full 8cm shorter than I have. One thing to consider with modern skis (he says, as if he's got a clue what he's on about) is the tip and tail are raised more than they used to be, so the tip to tail measurement is longer than the ski contact with snow.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
I still don't see what height has got to do with it, really. Weight I understand, but other than looking super gnar if you're short and your skis are 205 and 125mm underfoot, surely it's your body mass spread over the surface area of the ski in contact with snow that makes the difference?
Also, a person of weight x might well ski a 195cm noodle easily, but a 195cm stiff-as-you-like my-nuts-are-like-coconuts plank might be really hard work.
FWIW, I'm c.175lbs (i.e. too heavy by 2 stone) and hit the soaring heights of 5'6" (and a bit) in my socks. I own too many skis, but enjoy my Redeemers @ 190cm, my old Motherships (noodles) @ 192cm but also my Icelantic nomads @ 156cm (parlor will now claim I am a nancy).
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
zammo,
Read that a taller person of the same weight normally has a higher centre of gravity and a longer ski generally helps fore/aft balance for such people.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
**bollix mode on**
From a physics point of view height could affects the amount of force applied as the lever is longer.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Quote:
All this long skis are better for everyone is poorly informed willy waving.
For sure.
It totally depends on what the skis are for - right tools for the job and all that.
For example a 6ft guy might use a 165cm slalomn ski, a 190m freeride ski and a 180cm piste ski.
Skis come in different lengths specifically so people of different height, and to lesser extent weight, can use them.
HOWEVER... if you need to go fatter for improved off-piste performance then you usually need to go longer as well.
For this type of ski and terrain then long (as well as wide) is simply better.
As very rough rule of thumb, and assuming ski comes in 3 lengths.
> 5.10 - get the longest ski in the range
5.5 to 5.10 - probably get the middle length ski
< 5.5 - maybe look at the shortest ski
This applies to all types of ski.
If you need to go down a length (relative to your height) then your almost certainly using the wrong ski for your ability / type of skiing in the first place ?
There is a very good reason I do not ski XXLs
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?
There are 2 + 1 gay benefit to shorter skis.
1) The tip-waist-tail dimensions are closer together this effects the turn radius and there are therefore easier to carve in a hard surface (a la slalom skis) so, if you want to learn how to use a ski edge and carve, then great.
2) The swing weight will be easier to control if your boots don't fit properly due to torque forces. Therefore if you got badly fitted boots then perfect.
+1) To help DaveC ski in the trees.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 16-09-10 12:33; edited 1 time in total
I'm with the 'go longer' brigade. I also feel height should be taken into account as an equal to weight. The extra leverage gained from their height and extra length in the legs deserves a longer ski.
Imagine two skiers. Skier A who is 5ft and 16st riding a set of 195s. Skier B who is 6ft 5" and 16st also riding a set of 195s. Skier B would clearly be much more able to move his weight around and control the ski. Lets see them both do a little ollie or a dolphin turn or similar. Skier B has more leverage(not sure if that is the correct term to use) and can move much further in the fore/aft plane.
The ski also has to fit the purpose, two people of same height/weight might want the same ski but use it very differently, the first one scoring serious gnar points over cliffs and shredding the backcountry at mach 10. The other looking good in lift queues and gently nipping a couple of metres off the piste every now and then. They would need two different lengths of ski to get the best out of it.
On a personal note, me being skier B at 6'5 and 16st, when will manufacturers MAKE SOME LONGER SKIS! I ride relatively hard and wish more skis were available over 200cm.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
SMALLZOOKEEPER, the swing weight will be less cumbersome if your boots fit? Trees have snow around them too? Easier to pivot is pretty relevant to the majority of people's skiing, especially in powder or variable snow. I had to borrow a buddy's 160 fischer rx8s this season on a pow day, and they were really fun. I had to alter my style and tone down aggression, but I could ski them just fine at 6'4 and 230lbs (my general ski is a 178 dynastar contact). I totally disagree that "if you're tall, buy the biggest ski possible", it just isn't optimal for at least a reasonable % of skier. If you don't know what length suits how you ski, I'd just worry about technique rather than gear. Obviously that's much more work and not particularly visible in a lift line or on the internet...
DaveC, Take a ski, and a boot that's too big, put them together and get someone to twist and turn the skis, the bigger the ski the more quickly it will twist the boot around the foot until it don't turn no more, simple stuff. No body I think, has said if tou are tall buy the biggest ski possible, however I would image a taller persons center of gravity is higher and therefore the arc of control could make skiing a shorter ski in deep snow a bit more tricky, dunno, i'm only 178cm myself.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote:
DaveC, Take a ski, and a boot that's too big, put them together and get someone to twist and turn the skis, the bigger the ski the more quickly it will twist the boot around the foot until it don't turn no more, simple stuff.
and if the boot fit is accurate, the more effort it takes to turn the ski...
SMALLZOOKEEPER wrote:
No body I think, has said if tou are tall buy the biggest ski possible, however I would image a taller persons center of gravity is higher and therefore the arc of control could make skiing a shorter ski in deep snow a bit more tricky, dunno, i'm only 178cm myself.
Haggis_Trap wrote:
> 5.10 - get the longest ski in the range
After all it is free
After all it is free
If the boot fit is accurate, the more effort it takes to turn the ski?? I guess that's why the pros take so much time and care to get the boots fitted precisely, they have effort in spades to spare.
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.
SMALLZOOKEEPER, I'm assuming you're just fishing now, accurate fit or not is totally irrelevant but somehow made it into your "reasons to have a short ski", longer skis are obviously more effort to pivot than shorter ones.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
No i'm not fishing, simply pointing out the reasons a short ski might be needed. I'll add a 3rd, "To enable DaveC to ski in the trees."
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Quote:
longer skis are obviously more effort to pivot than shorter ones.
^ which is why slalom skis are shorter, but still come in a variety of lengths (150cm to 175cm).
If you need to go down a ski length (obviously relative to your height / weight) then your probably using the wrong ski for your ability / type of skiing / terrain in the first place ?
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 have to agree that loose boot fit makes skiing longer skis more difficult.
In my case, it turned me into a day 1 beginner when I tried something longer than my Pilgrims. The skis jiggled around and practically swam from side to side, often with the backs or tips crossing. Additionally, they were stiffer than my Pilgrims and bounced me around enough to make my teeth rattle!
I skied those same skis after getting new, smaller, tighter boots and apart from the first few hours learning to adjust for the higher level of control the boots provided, all the swinging and crossing ceased. The damned things still bounced me around though, so I believe I had neither the body mass nor the strength to ski something that stiff and heavy.
Which brings me to the conclusion that mass, strength, boot fit and skill level are more important factors than height. But that would be bucking an entire industry's wisdom, so what do I know?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Monium, not really harder to turn, just a different turn shape/size.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Haggis_Trap, I don't think many slalom racers plan on pivoting. They're shorter so they can have a tight radius, and not rip people's knees off with the force generated. That's why GS skis are so much longer (longer radius).
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
mmmm wonder how much of this is down to the shops being left with long skis on the racks at the end of the season and therfore buying the shorter "more saleable " lengths, as SMALLZOOKEEPER said 10-12 years ago this trend came along when rossignol had the T power skis (basically slalom skis in recreational guise) they were short biggest they made in most models was 167
there for years was a trend to buy shaped skis too long then everyone jumped on the go really short band wagon, i think what we are seeing now is the remnents of this and notioriously shops will buy what sells out, so if you are left with some long skis one season you don't buy long skis the next season... which makes the longest ski on the rack shorter than it should be and then the process repeats itself
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
DaveC wrote:
Haggis_Trap, I don't think many slalom racers plan on pivoting.
There seems to be a fair bit of pivoting/rotary steering going on here.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Dave C - saying 'going shorter makes it easier to turn' is like saying 'leaning back helps you in powder'
(note the term 'shorter' is always relative to the type of ski and also the skiers height!)
Quote:
10-12 years ago this trend came along....
Yup, CEM / SZK are right. Around 2000/2001 most people still skied on 190/200cm straight skis. Then the 'carving' revolution came along, and the marketing men told us that we all need to be on new 160cm/170cm pisten carver skis because 'short skis were better for everything' (similar to how they are now telling us now that rocker is better for everything, when it reality its principally a soft snow tool!)
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Sat 18-09-10 10:52; edited 1 time in total
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?
maybe those of who like long skis are our own worst enemies. I love my 194 XXLs* but I got them from steep and cheap for less than 50% of RRP (if memory serves). I reckon you would struggle to find anyone who paid full retail for them or a similar pair of skis from a mainstream manufacturer (it's harder to get deals on indie mfrs' offerings). I guess the people who know they want skis 190cm+ in length also know and use every trick in the book to pay substantially less than retail, so where's the incentive for mfrs to make them and shops to stock them?
(*i am probably too much of a gaper for them in truth but for the one or two runs a season where i really nail it with them, they are amazing)
10-12 years ago this trend came along when rossignol had the T power skis (basically slalom skis in recreational guise) they were short biggest they made in most models was 167
That'll be the ski that took me from hopeless to able to get down a steepish red. I remember resting the tails on top of my boots when queuing for gondola etc. so it looked like they came up to my nose rather than chin. T-power cobra? Really light, really easy to turn iirc. (at least compared to those 195 Elans I had in Lech).
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
sloop wrote:
limegreen1, has she tried twin tips?
No but she took the "preacher" with the huge tip and lots of width in the back country after a big dump she said "it stretched her"
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sat 18-09-10 12:28; edited 1 time in total
I took some 191 skis to the snowdome last week,they weren't too long but my technique was so poo-poo that I'd definitely had more fun on something shorter and turnier. OTOH they were perfect for lots of tree skiing last winter.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Miss my Teal Blue 205 Rossi slalom skis
After all it is free
After all it is free
horses for courses, if you are a non racer primarily on piste a short turny ski is lots of fun... if you want to ski deep powder then longer and fatter is good Haggis_Trap, talks a lot of sense
but the opening post indicates you should go longer as a general rule of thumb which i dont think is right. Im 6 ' 4" and my all rounders are 177 and are the longest in the range...
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.
skimottaret, It wasn't supposed to sound like that, more that for the most part people seem to be buying or rather IMO being sold skis that are too short.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
skimottaret wrote:
but the opening post indicates you should go longer as a general rule of thumb which i dont think is right. Im 6 ' 4" and my all rounders are 177 and are the longest in the range...
Going back to CEM's point - is this because the manufacturers won't press stuff longer than 177 as it won't sell or that they truly believe 177 is the optimum length for your size - surely it would be twitchier in funky snow, at speed etc.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
) would not like to see it repeated. 
she said "it stretched her" 