Poster: A snowHead
|
I'm 180cm tall, 93kg and perfectly happy on 177cm piste skis. A friend I'm skiing with this week is 160cm tall and weighs 88kg. The hire shop initially offered her 145cm skis. She took a 150cm pair then changed them for 155cm which she felt was an improvement. I feel sure she'd be better off on longer skis but all the online info and rental shops seem to go by height rather than weight. Why is that? I get that taller people will be able to apply more leverage to a ski but to me the weight is a more obvious factor. Any views?
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
At 173cm, I'm supposed to be on 165cm skis. I am heavier than your friend, too! But as an intermediate skier I am very happy on my 160cm skis as I feel I have more control than on longer skis. I know that doesn't answer your question, but I thought I'd just throw that in there
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@Valkyrie, far easier to compare how tall someone is vs a pair of skis than guess their weight esp. in ski kit and then remember the formula...
And it is far from an exact science.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Wow - for your friend's height, never mind weight, that seems a very short ski (same height as me, more weight) - though I don't know what type of ski, nor radius.
TBH a subject which still confuses me as an average Jo(ette) skier. It used traditionally to be done on height (pre carving ski days?) but these days there does seem to be a stress on weight as you say.
I presume that weight is important in terms of how much force is applied to the ski in a turn - i.e. how much it can be bent (assuming a cambered/carving type ski) - too little or too much will both not be good. However, it always occurs to me that a strong, fit and powerfully-muscled skier at a given weight will surely be very different to someone who isn't so powerful but could be heavier... How much it really matters in terms of absolute weight doesn't seems to make too much sense to me as long as one isn't looking at extremes - i.e. a very light person on a very long ski or heavy on very short - unless it's a super-stiff (e.g. performance/race) or super soft ski.
I started on older style piste carvers at 144 and 10.5m radius, which were great for many years; now ski 152s @11.8m (which is the manufacturer's specified length for my height and weight and ability). Full race-type slalom skis for me would be around 151-155 max and my Scotts are 166 (but that's with twin rocker tips).
To me, however, it's all just a starting point, depending on personal preference, skiing style, agressiveness and ability level, ski radius and type, ski construction, stiffness and waist/sidecut, snow conditions, desired speed and stability and everything else.
I presume that you can only check each manufacturer's recommended lengths if they're available (e.g. Google) and go from tere, trial and error and personal feedback and feeling.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
A ski does not know how tall your are, but it does know how much you weigh..... the manufacturers' tables all suggest that you may want longer or shorter according to weight, experience etc... Rental shops will happily change skis if you want. Roughly speaking shorter = lighter, easier to turn, more difficult to balance on; Longer = heavier, slower (more difficult to turn), bit easier to balance on (for the same make/model of ski).
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
There are quite a few factors that effect length:
- Preference
- Weight
- Height (more leverage)
- Ability
- Ski Construction/Design
- Speed
- Terrain
- Turn size
IMO. The only way to know for sure is lots of trial and error.
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^^Agreed. To the previous point a ski doesn't know how tall you are....nor does it know how much you weigh... it feels how much force you exert on them which comes as a function of weight, speed etc...
As an 65kg intermediate, skiing pistes and tight woods in New England I skied ~165cm skis. Now typically skiing in the alps with more off piste and more aggression my usual skis are ~180cm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: |
Height (more leverage)
|
Not an enormous factor compared to any of the others.
@BenA, weight is a direct factor, speed is not if you know what I mean (f=mdv/dt and all that...)
@ski, I don't get how my 204 SGs are perceptibly easier to "balance" on than my 165 SLs
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
under a new name wrote: |
Quote: |
Height (more leverage)
|
Not an enormous factor compared to any of the others.
|
Agreed. I was simply listing everything in no particular order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fairynuff @Old Fartbag,
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Also take a tape measure, you will find most ski lengths never actually tally with what's on the top sheet... A lot of skis come up short and that combined with marketing rocker does have an effect on how they ski compared with even a full camber shaped ski.
Core construction is one of the things I look at next, a light ski isn't always bad or soft. A heavy ski with metal can be easier to flex than a non-mental ski. I found my FX98's far softer than my Watea 84's and my Stiff Bro's, neither of which contain metal. While my MX88's are near race stock stiffness, what made the difference? The cores rather than the metal. Metal is in a ski to damp it more than add stiffness.
Most people also fixate on the flex they can see, i.e the floor test. its flawed as it gives no indication of lateral stiffness, my Watea 84's hand flexed the same as my Liibery Morphics, yet the Moprhics were far less latterly stiff due to the core construction. Lateral stiffness is what actually really matters for most people as it is ultimately what allows your ski to grip, my mophics weren't meant for skiiing hard snow so it didn't matter, when they hit hard snow they would not engage the edge in the same way as my Wateas, which in turn would suck on boilerplate ice, but then I would crack out my GS skis which due to having even more latteral stiffness would grip.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@lordf, No need to descend to my level.
I thought it might be risky to Google "TITANAL" but it told me it was one of the top high strength alloys in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
With the thickness used in consumer skis about or >.5mm it will do nothing but dampen the ski / aid binding retention. The Super G skis I sectioned had about 3mm in the top sheet.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
lordf wrote: |
The Super G skis I sectioned had about 3mm in the top sheet. |
They must have been totally mental to need sectioning.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Fri 6-01-17 15:44; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Iirc my old Mantras had three layers of metal...
On length, I thought I was going to prefer the 180 vs the 173 Bonafides but the added length just added sliggishness without adding grip or upping the speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I like a ski to bend and pop but want edge grip on ice, is this compatible
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Lechbob, FIS slalom. Any of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@lordf,
Totally agree that lateral/torsional stiffness is what gives you grip but it is longtitudinal stiffness that determines what shape the ski arcs into for a given pressure (skier weight and speed). What this means is that for the same sidecut a stiffer ski will carve a wider arc than a soft ski. As sidecuts tend to get less pronounced with ski length (some skis are designed with constant sidecut/radius across the size range but it's rare) heavier or faster skiers will generally ski a longer ski to achieve the same carving "turniness" (you can see I'm an expert from my technical terminology )
So both torsional and longtitudinal stiffness matter but for different reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@jedster, going to disagree, it's a factor but torsional stiffness important atbthe same time...
|
|
|
|
|
|
@under a new name,
I had a feeling you be along to say that
Of course it is more complicated - twisting will have an impact on the arc shape as well as bending - think that is what you mean?
But my point about longtitudinal stiffness remains right - why else is there ANY relationship between ski length and weight for a piste ski (float not important)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
@jedster, exactly, it's a 3D arc. I would of course otherwise agree, but I currently suspect torsional rigidity the dominant factor...
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Just to expand, consider how much force you don't need to use to bend the skis by hand vs the force you do need to twist them in your hand...
|
|
|
|
|
|
@under a new name,
Quote: |
ki, I don't get how my 204 SGs are perceptibly easier to "balance" on than my 165 SL
|
What I meant was that with a longer ski you will find it a little easier to stay in the middle of the ski (because of more length behind the heel). For the same model of ski.
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Quote: |
Just to expand, consider how much force you don't need to use to bend the skis by hand vs the force you do need to twist them in your hand...
|
Yes but the contribution to the total deflection is also much smaller - a ski that will twist easily is not going to change the total radius by all that much (it will lose edge grip significantly more quickly though)
|
|
|
|
|
|