 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hiya
A few weeks ago i got absolutely shitfaced and lost my beloved Dynaster Sultan skis. They were an old mid-fat/all mountain ski from maybe 2009 but i loved them and was absolutely gutted to lose them 
But - today on a local trading platform I have found some (not mine!) my old ones were 172cm. These are 178cm. Im about 174 *tall*.
Im just wondering how different these would feel to my old 172s? Probably less nimble for short turns but generally i ski at a fair old pace and like big turns.
Any feedback appreciated!
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
A Longer Ski generally has the following characteristics:
- More stable at speed
- Better edge grip
- Longer turn radius
- Feels stiffer
- Has a larger surface area
But
- Less manoeuvrable
- Can be harder in Moguls
- More work in short turns
- Can be too demanding for weight/ability
Should you get them?
- Probably not if they are a decade or more old, where they could be clapped out and the Bindings could be out of indemnity
- In order to know what length you should be on depends on Your Weight; Your Standard; Your preference; Your Aggressiveness and The Terrain where you ski ie. percentage of time away from the Piste. Height is a factor, but a less important one (imo)
- The construction of the ski ie How Stiff; How much Rocker (Front? Back?) will affect the length you can go for
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Sat 18-03-23 11:14; edited 2 times 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?
|
How does one “lose” one's skis, if the excuse isn't a deep powder day?!!
I would savour your precious memories of your favourite skis, accept that these skis are getting on a bit, and move on to newer and better things. There are loads of great skis around now, and even if you buy a used pair, your 140€ should get you a fair bit closer to the modern day than 2009!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
What @OFB said about age and maneouverability, what @Scarlet, said in general 
Skis don't know how tall you are - what do you weigh? For reference, I'm 60kgs and my daily drivers are Blizzard Bonafide in 173 - I tried the 180s but they didn't add anything and were just a bit less nimble and harder work. (The Bonafides anyway need a good grip on their collar to get the best out of them).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
 Well, for 25€, you aren't really losing anything, so may as well have a go (incidentally, someone is selling those same skis, same length, for 140€, which is where that came from. I think they're having a laugh, but whatever, good luck to 'em).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@shiva_71, what are the bindings? If they’re largely metal they may be fine, largely plastic I’d be looking to replace.
Also get pics of edges and edge thickness - no point spending even £25 if they’re shot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
A Longer Ski generally has the following characteristics:
- More stable at speed
- Better edge grip
|
A longer ski is unlikely to have better edge grip, the weight of the skier is spread over a greater length, hence less likely to penetrate harder surfaces.
I took my Head iRally 76mm/170cm and my new Nordica enforcer110 /177cm on my last trip, the Enforcers have a front & rear rocker, so the edge contact is probably 20cm shorter than the i Rallys. When carving turns on hard pistes, the enforcers blew the iRallys into the ground for edge 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.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
A Longer Ski generally has the following characteristics:
- More stable at speed
- Better edge grip
|
A longer ski is unlikely to have better edge grip, the weight of the skier is spread over a greater length, hence less likely to penetrate harder surfaces.
I took my Head iRally 76mm/170cm and my new Nordica enforcer110 /177cm on my last trip, the Enforcers have a front & rear rocker, so the edge contact is probably 20cm shorter than the i Rallys. When carving turns on hard pistes, the enforcers blew the iRallys into the ground for edge grip. |
My own experience, is More edge = More Grip
This assessment agrees: https://newtoski.com/short-vs-long-skis/
Reasons To Have Longer Skis
Speed enthusiasts: If you love the adrenaline rush of skiing at high speeds, longer skis are the way to go. Their increased stability and better edge grip make them a top choice for those who prioritize velocity on the slopes.
Ski Length and Carving Performance
Carving is a crucial aspect of skiing, and ski length can significantly impact your ability to carve smoothly and effectively. Longer skis typically provide better edge grip and energy transfer, allowing for smoother, more controlled turns. Their increased stability also makes them well-suited for high-speed carving.
Construction and Design play a big part - so it depends on all things being reasonably equal (including the Tune).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, given two skis with same rocker and camber, the longer ski will have more edge contact and better grip on ice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Hmmmm. My daughter often skis in FIS slalom skis. Edge grip on a different scale. I don’t at all think longer equals more edge grip, but it does normally mean a wider radius. Which may be more forgiving. Not many can actually carve on ice, so I suspect the feeling of more edge grip from longer skis on ice is more to do with them being easier to scarve. For sure racers have no problem carving on steep hard pistes, on very short skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I see it as @tangowaggon, has described.
Thinking the confusion comes from using "grip" as an overall controlling descriptor. It should have "potential" added to it.
A ski doesn't grip ice, it cuts it to form a geometric support angle within the ice face, then it won't slip under load. If you just increase edge length, without more loading, the ability to cut is reduced.
Take ice slates for example, on solid ice ! You wouldn't run a ski successfully on such a surface, shorter will improve "grip" in that circumstance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
A Longer Ski generally has the following characteristics:
- More stable at speed
- Better edge grip
|
A longer ski is unlikely to have better edge grip, the weight of the skier is spread over a greater length, hence less likely to penetrate harder surfaces.
I took my Head iRally 76mm/170cm and my new Nordica enforcer110 /177cm on my last trip, the Enforcers have a front & rear rocker, so the edge contact is probably 20cm shorter than the i Rallys. When carving turns on hard pistes, the enforcers blew the iRallys into the ground for edge grip. |
My own experience, is More edge = More Grip
|
I agree with @Old Fartbag - I went 5cm shorter on some new Nordica Enforcers which is fairly negligible, but the lesser edge grip on-piste compared to my old Sentinels was noticeable
This photo shows how the "effective" edge length due to the rocker is reduced by maybe 20cm (they were ace off-piste however where all the base is in use)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
From what I can work out, if you can load the ski to its optimum weight then you will get the benefit of the effective length. I have piste skis which are great if I ski "properly" i.e. load them as they need to be, but are somewhat indifferent if I ski lazily. I've been advised they are too long for me by modern standards. My AM skis are probably a better length for me and much more fun even thought they are nigh on 2cm wider - and they are helping me love the spring snow. You can see the difference in this pic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@zikomo, I think you missed where I said, "Construction and Design play a big part - so it depends on all things being reasonably equal (including the Tune)".
....FIS Skis are certainly not keeping things reasonably equal. Length on its own does not guarantee better grip - In fact, a lot of the time - we are actually comparing the tune of the skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| motyl wrote: |
| From what I can work out, if you can load the ski to its optimum weight then you will get the benefit of the effective length. |
Exactly - "All things being reasonably equal", also includes being able to effectively use all the available edge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
It makes none but now that they have gone and your preused ski won't keep you warm tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| geoffers wrote: |
| This photo shows how the "effective" edge length due to the rocker is reduced by maybe 20cm ... |
Actually that may be misinterpreting how rocker works.
The entire point of modern "rockered" (decambered) noses is that when the ski is loaded, the edge supports equal pressure all the way along the edge. By design. Traditional "turned up" noses were designed instead to simply ride over lumps in the snow, so they would break away under load either at the tips/ tail or at the midpoint, because the pressure at those places was different. Decambering is an attempt to load all of the edge with the same pressure. So your effective edge is all of it, and it doesn't always break away in the place where more load happens to be. There are patents where that's explained in more detail.
=> nose/ tail "rocker" increases the effective edge, it doesn't reduce it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ski3 wrote: |
Thinking the confusion comes from using "grip" as an overall controlling descriptor. It should have "potential" added to it.
|
No problem with that.
Looking about for a definition of "Grip", I found this:
Edge Grip
When we say 'edge grip' we mean the contact that the ski has with the snow in relation to the length of the ski. The shorter the ski, the less contact there is with the snow from tip to tail; the longer the ski the more stable and control the ski will have, thus improving the overall edge grip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| phil_w wrote: |
| geoffers wrote: |
| This photo shows how the "effective" edge length due to the rocker is reduced by maybe 20cm ... |
Actually that may be misinterpreting how rocker works.
The entire point of modern "rockered" (decambered) noses is that when the ski is loaded, the edge supports equal pressure all the way along the edge. By design. Traditional "turned up" noses were designed instead to simply ride over lumps in the snow, so they would break away under load either at the tips/ tail or at the midpoint, because the pressure at those places was different. Decambering is an attempt to load all of the edge with the same pressure. So your effective edge is all of it, and it doesn't always break away in the place where more load happens to be. There are patents where that's explained in more detail.
=> nose/ tail "rocker" increases the effective edge, it doesn't reduce it! |
While it seems plausible, are you sure this isn’t just manufacturer marketing fluff (I must admit I’ve never read it before, from your background I’m assuming this is in the context of snowboards)? I’m sure Head have patents for EMC …
I would have thought if this was the case we’d have seen it become standard for carving skis as it would give you the best of both worlds of high load stability + lower load manourverbility? Shouldn’t we all be scooting around on rockered skis by now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Pejoli wrote: |
| phil_w wrote: |
| geoffers wrote: |
| This photo shows how the "effective" edge length due to the rocker is reduced by maybe 20cm ... |
Actually that may be misinterpreting how rocker works.
The entire point of modern "rockered" (decambered) noses is that when the ski is loaded, the edge supports equal pressure all the way along the edge. By design. Traditional "turned up" noses were designed instead to simply ride over lumps in the snow, so they would break away under load either at the tips/ tail or at the midpoint, because the pressure at those places was different. Decambering is an attempt to load all of the edge with the same pressure. So your effective edge is all of it, and it doesn't always break away in the place where more load happens to be. There are patents where that's explained in more detail.
=> nose/ tail "rocker" increases the effective edge, it doesn't reduce it! |
While it seems plausible, are you sure this isn’t just manufacturer marketing fluff (I must admit I’ve never read it before, from your background I’m assuming this is in the context of snowboards)? I’m sure Head have patents for EMC …
I would have thought if this was the case we’d have seen it become standard for carving skis as it would give you the best of both worlds of high load stability + lower load manourverbility? Shouldn’t we all be scooting around on rockered skis by now? |
I agree.
My understanding, is that skis with a significant Rocker, ski short On Piste - but you have the full length when skiing Off Piste. I have often heard the advice to go longer than you might otherwise have done, when using them On Piste.
Blister Info on Ski Length: "In general, a rockered ski will behave like a shorter ski on hard snow compared to a non-rockered ski of the same length, because you are skiing on a shorter edge as if you were on a shorter ski. So if you’re used to skiing a fully cambered ski that is, for example, 178 cm long, but the new very-rockered ski you’re looking at comes in a 178 cm length and a 184 cm length, you’re probably going to be better off going with the longer 184 cm length. The 184s will feel more like your old 178s on snow, given their reduced running length".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ski3 wrote: |
I see it as @tangowaggon, has described.
Thinking the confusion comes from using "grip" as an overall controlling descriptor. It should have "potential" added to it.
A ski doesn't grip ice, it cuts it to form a geometric support angle within the ice face, then it won't slip under load. If you just increase edge length, without more loading, the ability to cut is reduced.
Take ice slates for example, on solid ice ! You wouldn't run a ski successfully on such a surface, shorter will improve "grip" in that circumstance. |
At least someone understands, I get the theory of the rocker actually meaning more of the edge is in contact with the snow but the bottom line is that, if you were to edge my 177 enforcers on a flat bit of icy snow, they would have much shorter edge touching the snow than my 170cm iRallys
The iRallys are old but recently serviced and would start breaking away if I pushed them too hard on hard piste, the enforcers held their edge even when I pushed them as hard as my leg strength would allow.
Shorter edge means more pressure per cm = more grip when carving and I do mean carving, not what some people seem to think is carving but is actually a smeared turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
It takes a bit more strength to maneuver if they are longer. If they are wider, this can make them maneuver poorly in some spots. I think you will be fine with the difference you are looking at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just googled the Dynastar Sultans, they are a 16m turn radius @172cm which is about the same as the enforcers @177 this is about as big as you need to go if you like carving big turns on piste without going at warp speed. Any bigger than 16m and you need to be going seriously fast / race speeds to achieve a satisfying carve angle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@tangowaggon, Not true. Mrs U and her sister (mine till I fecked my knee) have Movement Go 98s with 20.5m radii and they're perfectly manageable.
My old Rossi 9SKs had about a 60m radius and I could carve my way thru butter like it was ice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@under a new name, but what would you choose when pistes are hard? I know the answer. FIS slalom skis. We discussed this before re artificial snow in Monterosa. If you want to carve ice, that is the tool for the job no question. Because you can indeed get more force per cm, so can more easily/effectively carve on hard pack/ice. The reason that longer skis sometimes work for some people on hard pack or “ice” (note it is very rarely actually ice) is because it is easier to control the side slip with a longer edge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| zikomo wrote: |
| @under a new name, but what would you choose when pistes are hard? I know the answer. FIS slalom skis. We discussed this before re artificial snow in Monterosa. If you want to carve ice, that is the tool for the job no question. Because you can indeed get more force per cm, so can more easily/effectively carve on hard pack/ice. The reason that longer skis sometimes work for some people on hard pack or “ice” (note it is very rarely actually ice) is because it is easier to control the side slip with a longer edge. |
Are you saying that FIS Slalom Skis grip better on ice than FIS GS skis?....that isn't meant to sound argumentative as I'm genuinely interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@zikomo, hee hee, I'm not quite sure what your question is, caller, but in the end it's all about torsional rigidity (I think we came to that conclusion before ?) I don't think its the length for side slipping but the less outrageous side cut.
@Old Fartbag, without a doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@Old Fartbag, without a doubt. |
I have a doubt - but as I haven't been on any FIS skis - I don't know for sure.
What I would say, is that for a very decent recreational skier, the SLs would be a more suitable choice, given the constraints of resort Piste skiing.
IMO. Any lack of edge force/pressure on the longer ski, is more than offset by the speeds you are able to ski it at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| ... My understanding, is that skis with a significant Rocker, ski short On Piste - but you have the full length when skiing Off Piste. ... |
Perhaps one needs to be careful not to confuse "rocker" (Reverse Camber) with "rocker" (decambered tip and tail). The illustration posted showed the latter, which is what I responded to. "decambered" for tips and trails and "reverse camber" for the other bit seem easier.
Off piste... rather a different problem I think, as edge pressure isn't important.
Those attempting to snowplough a traverse run-out may find that they don't have the full edge length available for that 
The patent I'm familiar with was Kessler's - he uses precisely the same clothoide rocker for his skis and snowboards: the physics is the same in respect of the edge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| phil_w wrote: |
Off piste... rather a different problem I think, as edge pressure isn't important.
|
The description by Blister that I quoted above, aligns with my understanding. Edge pressure Off Piste isn't as important - but surface area is - That is why the full length of a Rockered Ski is available Off Piste, but it skis like a shorter ski On Piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Just for clarity, when I talk about carving turns, I mean skiing in such a fashion that the tracks left by the skis are two very sharp, continuous, S shaped, parallel lines left in the snow with zero side slip.
My instructors in the 1980s had us carving the old 2m, massive turn radius skis but this was doing three or four turns on the entire length of the piste or a quick, side slipped turn at the edge of the piste, followed by an almost straight carve across the piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
Just for clarity, when I talk about carving turns, I mean skiing in such a fashion that the tracks left by the skis are two very sharp, continuous, S shaped, parallel lines left in the snow with zero side slip.
My instructors in the 1980s had us carving the old 2m, massive turn radius skis but this was doing three or four turns on the entire length of the piste or a quick, side slipped turn at the edge of the piste, followed by an almost straight carve across the piste. |
Just for clarity, why would you? A carve's a carve, a skid's a skid. What hard to understand? Why do we need clarity?
And why do we always need to reference the 80s and straight skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| .... Edge pressure Off Piste isn't as important - but surface area is - That is why the full length of a Rockered Ski is available Off Piste, but it skis like a shorter ski On Piste. |
Excellent @Old Fartbag - Spot on : this is exactly what I experienced with my new "shorter" Enforcers
| Quote: |
... I went 5cm shorter on some new Nordica Enforcers which is fairly negligible, but the lesser edge grip on-piste compared to my old Sentinels was noticeable...
...the "effective" edge length due to the rocker is reduced by maybe 20cm (they were ace off-piste however where all the base is in use)
|
Should have gone for longer Enforcers, to benefit from increased base surface area for flotation off-piste, without increasing the effective edge length on hard-pack
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Whitegoldsbrother wrote: |
| tangowaggon wrote: |
Just for clarity, when I talk about carving turns, I mean skiing in such a fashion that the tracks left by the skis are two very sharp, continuous, S shaped, parallel lines left in the snow with zero side slip.
My instructors in the 1980s had us carving the old 2m, massive turn radius skis but this was doing three or four turns on the entire length of the piste or a quick, side slipped turn at the edge of the piste, followed by an almost straight carve across the piste. |
Just for clarity, why would you? A carve's a carve, a skid's a skid. What hard to understand? Why do we need clarity?
And why do we always need to reference the 80s and straight skis? |
Why do you make a pastiche of another forum poster ? Why do you feel you bring some level of humour, satire or anything else you seem to think that someone else on here would want to read ?
Why can't you even think of something original in your forum name ? What are you here for ? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Haven't seen taper mentioned which is something that should also be considered with what is being discussed I would have thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
definitely.
they will feel slightly more unwealdy (is that a real word ? ) being longer, but your body recognition in response/cadence etc will soon adopt the new ones.
