 Poster: A snowHead
|
Not getting into the weight, height, nose/chin/forehead debate please - but there should be a way of finding a 'recommended' starting length for a given make and model, shouldn't there? I know for instance that I have 14 cm of technical difference between my AM set with rocker tip and tail and the shorter older piste carver types.
Been looking at buying various new or used skis again recently, but in makes which I don't know, or in newer designs/shapes, so I'm not sure what length to go for and I can't find any helpful sites by Googling it; can't even get links to manufacturer's sites where they give this.
Any pointers? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
But if you’re not getting into the height/weight etc. debate, then what parameters are you using to work out the length? There are many variables, in people and skis, so I think you just have to look at the ski you’re interested in – piste ski, go shorter, big rocker, go longer.
I’ve seen various guides and calculators online, but in my experience they tend towards shorter lengths and don’t take the rocker into account. Personal choice comes into it too, and the type of terrain you like to ski.
I guess if you have a specific model in mind, the forum collective might be able to provide insight on whether it skis short or long, but you’ll still need to take into account your own size, ability and preferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
and then add in the extra confusion that within a range of skis e.g Rossignol Pursuit the models have differing constructions and then each model will have different turn radii according to their length. Lots of good ski reviews online. Work out what you want from a ski and then Google is your friend. The answers are out ther you just have to ask the right question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Many skis come in a small number of length options, typically 3 different lengths, rarely more than 4. Choose the ski that you want, based on the category it falls in and preferably a bit of first hand testing. Then if you are average height/weight go for the middle size ski, if you are light go for the smaller length, if you are heavier/taller than average go for the longer version. If you are a cautious skier maybe drop down a size from what your height/weight might indicate, and if you are a charger go up a size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Scarlet - yes, valid points, and I didn't mean that I won't take all those parameters into account: just that I don't want to start the old "debate" going on those specific factors per se.
My problem is that it's seemingly very difficult to get any idea of how much rocker or not there is, or about any other factors which would influence my application of those parameters into my choice and decision. Lots of reviews but often really not much technical specification...
Only one manufacturer (and their UK supplier) gives any easy stated online guidance (which I can find) as to what adjustment to make to 'usual' piste ski height (which for instance works out about 158 to eyebrow for me, and on their chart I'm 152, and they say 0 to -10 adjust).
On a traditional cambered piste carver I'm currently skiing 152 (correct for weight/height and make), 155 on my 'race SLs' (but that's just because they came in at that and also near-enoguh correct for me). I also generally like skiing shorter skis (for agility and ease rather than outright speed - though stability at a reasonable speeds is important.) I know that my 166 Scotts are adjusted for being pretty rockered at tip and tail, but other skis I'm looking at, though stating that they have some rocker, don't say how much, so it's a big guess and I can't go and look at them all (or probably any) in person. I'm not going to be in a position to test before I buy either; probably won't be skiing this year anywhere that I can test, so really I'm just looking at buying some cheap skis to see what I like - though hoping that some will be good enough and liked enough to serve me as either my prime piste pair or as turf/rock hoppers.
It would just be nice if I knew that I was buying in around the right ballpark, especially if I do get something with some rocker, as many have now; or else I guess that I just go for the manufacturer/UK supplier who can be bothered to give me the information.
Oh well, was worth asking, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Grizzler, when I’ve looked for skis myself, I’ve usually managed to find a graphic showing the rocker profile. Manufacturers like Atomic provide this on their website. If you can find the same for the skis you own, then you can compare (if not, put them on a flat surface and take a photo from the side).
If there’s something you’re interested in, we might be able to help if you provide details?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As above - Atomic provide a profile for the ski. Mine are 15% rocker at the tip and 10% at the tail for example.
It's easy to buy skis too short when they have a lot of rocker - I went for 176 but probably should have bought the next size up. It's not the end of the world though - the skis are still great fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Grizzler, I’m pretty sure every mfr site I’ve looked at has size guides?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Although, the current site might not list the models that are being sold cheap, for whatever reason...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use the manufacturer online calculators when they exist. Then call the manufacturer, give them your stats and skiing preferences and get their advice. I’ve got rockered skis from 179 to 193. Every ski is different and there is no hard and fast rule. You might be between 2 lengths and choosing shorter vs longer would be based on your preference between nimble vs stability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Ekosport has recommended size e.g. 0 to 15 less, on their website for all skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
> Ekosport has recommended size e.g. 0 to 15 less, on their website for all skis.
yes, none of the Ekosport sizing makes sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
You might be between 2 lengths and choosing shorter vs longer would be based on your preference between nimble vs stability.
|
As @BobinCH suggests, I'm lightweight and fell between 173 and 180 for the Bonafides. I am in the fortunate position to be able to test both (and other models) and the 180s didn't add anything to the experience, other than an oil tanker like turn-in...
Extra length doesn't always add very much to the experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
Extra length doesn't always add very much to the experience. |
*don't say it don't say it don't say it*
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@clarky999, Honestly. It's all about the width.
My 107s are way better in powder than my 84s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
