 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Looking at 2nd hand skis at the moment and after reading many forums I believe that rocker skis need to be sized a bit longer. I'm 5'10 just over 12 stone intermediate doing mainly piste but like venturing off the sides. I also stay out till last lift usually nearest the bars or runs down to resort which always seem to be really chopped up and cruddy. I've varied what I've hired before between 163 and 170 lengths piste skis with no problems on the longer. Would a k2 impact with rocker be too long at 174cm, its a bit wider under foot than I'm used to but think that may help with crud etc ? Or any other rocker ski of that length? Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Whitty, don't know if you can extrapolate for larger dimensions, but I was advised, when buying my first pair of rockered skis, to go from my usual 152 to 158. No idea whether that advice was actually correct, but I have never been conscious of the extra length (except when carrying them!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
For a rockered all-mountain ski, take them at body length (if you're not seriously over or under weight, which you're not). If it is a more piste-oriented ski, take them around 7 cm shorter than body length. In your case, 174 is fine. The length shorter than that (167) will definately be too short.
Don't know your budget, but there are some great deals to be had in German webshops: new ski's from the 2013-2014 and the current season dor as little as 250 euro (excl. shipping). Have a look at xspo.de
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Whitty, When you hire your next skis do the hire so you can swap skis and try different lengths. For example sitting next to my desk is a pair of rossi s3's which are labelled as 178cm and a pair of k2 obesthed which are labelled as 179cm. There is 8cm difference in their actual length if you measure them................
Wait and try before you buy
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@landlockedpirate, S3's and obesthed are both rockered twins!!
I think what @Dove, is suggesting, if you actually read it, is that length is rather subjective considering that manufacturers measuring depends on which version of the "tape measure" you have.
Using the example of an s3, the 178cm s3 has a longer running length than the 186cm s3, the 186cm just has a much larger rocker.
so yes a rockered ski can be skied longer, but it depends on lots of other factors as well.
try before you buy!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im 5'8 , 13 st and ski on 169 vicious on piste , bumps and in waist deep snow.. I bought the 179 obsethed which has roughly the same contact length and measures more like 183. Hardly ski on them as they seem unnecessarily long .. ie, do not need rocker ...
Try before you buy ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm your weight and height and my all mountain skis are 188. They are the Rossi S7 which is admittedly a twintip with huge tips and a lot of rocker. But the K2 Impact in174 is definitely not too long and if anything sounds a bit short to me. You would get more stability in chopped up snow with a longer ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
On another note I have measured most of my skis with a tape measure and always found the stated length and width specification pretty accurate. So I'm surprised to hear reports of wildly inaccurate lengths where skis are concerned....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that the point of "piste" rocker is to shorten the effective length it seems a little counter-productive to then just go and buy longer skis 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Bottom line is that the K2 impact in 174 is a pretty short ski for a guy weighing 12 stone and given the sort of skiing OP wants to do.
Shortening the effective length with a rocker has to do with world cup racing where there are minimum length regulations and skiers want to carve as tight turns as humanly possible. But for a discussion concerning skiing chopped up snow and ventures nto into side country, it's not a very useful way of looking at things. It's better to think in terms of the rocker giving you more length when the going gets tougher.
If I was buying a pair of K2 Impacts I would take them in 181.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@hyperkub, on WC skis yes. For Joe Punter and a Joe Punter piste ski it's all about making the skis easier to turn, on piste. Not chop or side piste.
e.g. from the marketing puff:-
Rossignol, "subtle Power Turn Rocker tip engages quickly, encouraging playful, effortless carving" (Pursuit series, "get back to the hardpack" ...  )
Atomic, "Thanks to the All Mountain Rocker turn initiation becomes effortless" (Nomad Colt Black "most suited to on piste")
K2 (courtesy of Edge and Wax), "K2 developed Catch Free Rocker a couple of seasons ago. They realised early on, that for a beginner, having some rocker in the tip and the tail made the ski easier to start to turn and release from turns, inspiring confidence. With Catch Free Rocker, 20% of the tip has rocker, and a small increase at the tail, so the ski also skis a little shorter, further inspiring confidence for the beginner."
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Fri 20-02-15 9:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@hyperkub,
| Quote: |
On another note I have measured most of my skis with a tape measure and always found the stated length and width specification pretty accurate. So I'm surprised to hear reports of wildly inaccurate lengths where skis are concerned....
|
Just measured my 188cm s7's and they measure 184cm, which seems pretty inaccurate to me, my 178cm s3's measure 174cm, seems the rossi measuring stick is a bit optimistic.
The OP needs to try some rockered piste skis before buying them, as they feel rather different to normal fully cambered, the ones i have tried i didn't like at all, and so my piste skis are normal camber, but everyone is different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@Zorrac, it's an interesting point. Back in the day (at least as far as I was ever told) the ski length was measured from tippety tip to tail.
Rossignol made much of the "reduced swing weight" of the 7S on launch because they'd cut 2cm off the tip (making them aesthetically much more balanced and elegant to my eye when riding a chairlift) so the 201cm 7S was the same running length as, say, the Atomic ARC Bionic 203cm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Ski length is measured according to "unwound length". I.e. with a flexible tape measure tip to tail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
To the OP - I am a middle of the road skier 5'8" / 150lbs and I typically ski 175-180. 174 is not going to be too much for you at all. You could ski mid 180's at your weight / height.
Also the K2 Impact is not wide enough if you want to venture off piste... Everyone has their own view on ski width which tends to vary depending on their balance of piste to off piste, but if you want to ski any amount of off piste then you should be looking at >90mm underfoot. Personally I find that I'm perfectly happy on piste with skis below about 110. I may not be able to carve trenches in the same way as a 70mm underfoot ski, but you can still ride the sidecut cleanly and that's good enough for me. From 110 up I find that I have to work very hard to hold the edge and not spend all my time side slipping around the resort, so if I turned up to a resort with no fresh snow then I'd be less happy on a ski that large.
You should buy my Black Crows Atris 
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@hyperkub, good - I was right then!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| Given that the point of "piste" rocker is to shorten the effective length it seems a little counter-productive to then just go and buy longer skis |
What you say is correct - rocker shortens the effective edge on piste as you say. But the point of this is not that you want a ski with shorter effective edge - it is that for a ski with the same effective edge (and hence same on piste handling) you can take more overall length and float for when you go off piste.
Bottom line - you should pick something 5-10cm longer in a rockered ski than you would normally take as a piste only ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@BenA, I think you're missing the nuance of my point.
OP is skiing mainly on piste and specifically looking for something to "help with crud". If he wanted a more off piste oriented ski, yes, maybe (but not necessarily given how infrequently truly deep powder arrives in EU) go longer, but "mainly on piste" and "crud" will not be made any easier with extra length, particularly when the rocker was introduced to make the skis effectively shorter when not on edge in the first place...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I think the point that we diverge on is that I think that extra length helps with skiing crud whether rockered or not. Longer skis smooth out the ride due to the longer running length and increased moment of inertia which reduces the extent to which they get knocked about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@BenA, aah, I see where you're coming from.
I'm unconvinced about the rotational momentum because skis don't really weigh that much and even leveraged, an additional 5 or so cms I don't think will make a lot of difference. (Unlike comparing, f'ristance 165 SLs with radical sidecut vs 203 SGs with virtually none, where the difference is quite obvious).
Again, going up a size isn't going to contribute so much in terms of smoothness (although I'll totally take your point - seems plausible to me - just not one size difference).
And setting what I think would be fairly small improvements against the likelihood that a shorter ski will (even if not by that much) be generally easier to handle in most things most of the time...
I'd stay shorter.
And going back to OP - his original suggestion is that rocker skis "should" be skied longer. I think we're both in agreement that they can be skied longer, I'm only suggesting that tfor the OP the extra length won't bring any/much advantage and would probably be a modest disadvantage.
Mind you, at 5'10" and 12st, 163 is pretty short!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am 6' and a little under 12st. I recently spent a week skiing on-piste on a pair of hired Atomic Redsters ("piste Rocker", apparently) in 163cm - and I was reasonably happy with them.
Without going into the technicalities of rocker / camber, etc what would I expect to gain by using skis 15 - 20 cm longer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Red Leon, precious little, IMV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It depends what you are considering to be a big effect. The moment of inertia goes with the cube of length (assuming weight increases proportionally with the length, which is probably an underestimate), so a 180cm ski will have about 42% greater moment of inertia than the same ski in a 160. Coupled with the greater 'bridging effect' of the longer running surface in crud, the overall feel can be quite pronounced.
42% is a big difference. If you consider that most people would say that light touring versions of skis tend to suck in crud and get kicked around. What weights are they? I'd say typically the difference is at most - 3.5kg vs say 4kg for a typical resort ski? So that's a reduction of moment of inertia of 12%...
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| hyperkub wrote: |
| Ski length is measured according to "unwound length". I.e. with a flexible tape measure tip to tail. |
Some yes, some no. There's no official guide to this but we use the material length, ie exactly as you describe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@BenA, crikey, you wouldn't guess I had an honours degree in physics would you? It's been a long, long time since I had to consider angular momentum in any rigourous fashion.
Interesting.
Although I think the talk is of a difference between 170 and 174. So not quite 42%
I'm a little unconvinced by the touring skis getting kicked around as that's not my experience. But then, I believe I'm quite a "committed" skier - by which I mean, my body momentum ought to be overwhelming anything my skis are thinking of doing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have floppy heels. Skis can do what they want. I have to keep up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Red Leon wrote: |
I am 6' and a little under 12st. I recently spent a week skiing on-piste on a pair of hired Atomic Redsters ("piste Rocker", apparently) in 163cm - and I was reasonably happy with them.
Without going into the technicalities of rocker / camber, etc what would I expect to gain by using skis 15 - 20 cm longer? |
If you tried a GS-type ski in about 180 you would notice a world of difference. You might or might not enjoy it more, it's partly a question of taste. I like having lots of pairs of skis simply because it gives variety. I can have just as much fun on a 165 SL ski as on a 188 all mountain rocker ski or a 2m plus SG ski. It all depends on what mood I'm in and prevailing skiing conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@hyperkub, me too. Or even my 177 mantras which are my usual weapon of choice.
It is amusing going up the top bin at the Grands Montets with 203 SGs though... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I think it's fair to say that the shortest ski that gives you the performance you require will be the best choice, unless having an extra 20cm confers bragging rights, eh? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Whitty, I tried some K2 impact 174cm and found them great, but I am 6'2" and about 100kg's. Also tried K2 rictors in 184cm that day and they were superb.
It's tricky buying second hand because you don't have so much choice length wise, you have what is available, But if you can find some rictors at 177cm or 170cm I would strongly recommend.
Check ski barn, they usually have plenty of decent second hand skis. I bought mine from them and they are great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Well guys, thanks for the opinions. Just needed to know I wasn't making a big mistake. I've won a pair of 174 k2 impact I was asking about on ebay Mayrhofen with fresh snow awaits on Saturday so I will let you know how I get on. Can't wait!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Well I'm back in UK fully intact First of all when clicking in on the snow for the first time I instantly noticed the extra length 'behind' me. Clicking my heals just shuffling about. First run was a fairly easy red. I immediately thought 'oh no, what have I done?'. I was skiing with my legs akimbo and probably looked like I had never skied before. Think that may have been the extra with, not the length (these are 80mm and my racetigers are 65mm)Slowly but surely it started to come together though. I seem to have lost some finesse but seem to be able to ski faster. I tackled my nemesis from last visit to mayrhofen, Devil's run, bottom section of which I went down on my back twice last time. Had no issues what so ever! On third day also managed Harakiri, it was tricky and icy but got down without to much drama (don't get me wrong, it wasn't pretty but I did turns and not just side slipped like half the people on it). So all in all I'm quite chuffed with my purchase. Just nend to tidy my skiing up and keep practicing. I think the extra length has helped not hindered as I never felt stable at higher speed before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
