 Poster: A snowHead
|
| SPP wrote: |
I've come to the conclusion that I shouldn't buy any ski in any length.
I've been away from the slopes for far too long and agree that I need to test as many skis as possible (length, width, brand) and then I'll hopefully be able to narrow things down a bit more and find my personal preference, especially in todays market.
I've found a shop that will hopefully help me in someway to achieving this. |
If that is what you took from the advice above....then this thread has achieved its goal.
There is no single, correct answer that can be given over a forum....all we can do is give "Food for thought".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@SPP, Wise move, good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| CH2O wrote: |
| .. May I ask what is the reason any ski manufacturer makes a particular model of ski, in a variety of lengths. Can you list the variables, considerations in a heiracal order please, assuming the ski model has been chosen already. |
yes, you may.
Burton's Fish snowboard was originally produced in one single size : one "length" but with two different stiffness constructions.
But it confuses people, so they later switched to a more conventional approach, which makes retail and customer selection easier, at the cost of this type of confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
@CH2O, you've obviously not met many Snowheads if you think the average mass is at the shoulders
|
I met plenty, and plenty is the word i'd best use to describe them. Exception must be the rule.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I've come to the conclusion that I shouldn't buy any ski in any length.
|
that sounds good. And lose some weight. And take some more lessons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
The center of mass is influenced not just by the mass of each segment but also by how high that mass is located above the ground:
|
What you're referring to is the centre of mass equivalent, for rotation about a point at the base of your feet (i.e. on the ground, whilst standing up). This is necessarily dependent on the choice of point of rotation; you get a different answer if you choose the centre of mass equivalent about a different point, e.g. the top of your head, or your back bottom, or your elbow.
I can see that choosing to focus on the centre of mass equivalent, for rotation about a point at the base of your feet, has some relevance when determining ski length, but I only see it as particularly significant if you're thinking mostly about rotating the ski (and let's not get into the which axis of rotation). To me, for competent skiers using an appropriate ski in the way it is intended, the skier is mostly weighting the ski, rather than rotating it, so the most significant factor affecting choice of ski length is the force put through the ski, not some measure of length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@SnoodyMcFlude, I know, seems as though I've stirred something up 
@Origen, Couldn't agree with you more in regards to lessons. Already booked. Looking to learn and improve!
In regards to weight loss, this is very dependent on the individual in question, but I agree it can be beneficial if that loss is occurring through excess fat.
@Old Fartbag, "food for thought" is a good way to describe this thread for me.
I initially wanted to buy a ski to avoid the hassle in rental shops with limited choice and shoddy equipment. I settled on the Rossi 82 purely through on-line reviews and what I thought I might want (a bit more versatility with more width underfoot without going to far the other end of the spectrum to a width that would be detrimental to on piste ability). And I came asking advice about length.
But the truth is I've never even skied anything wider than a 76.
Would an 82 make that much difference? Maybe an 88, which to me seems ridiculously wide, might be what I enjoy most, even when weighing up any trade offs. Who knows, I might even end up preferring a 110 like @tangowaggon. And this is only taking into consideration width without factoring in all of the other considerations!
The thread made me reflect on my original decision and made me realise there was more than the question of length involved.
The fact is I won't know the answers to any of this until I've spent (a) more time on the snow and (b) tested different options.
So yes, food for thought indeed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@SPP,
Tbf, the 110s were a very strange beast when I first got on them, if I'd hired them for 1 day, I might not have liked them, it took 3 days to really tune myself into them, but once I'd adjusted to the way they respond, my skiing took a step change.
My early tests of wide skis were brief tests of skis very much wider than my own and it put me off completely. I was skiing the whole mountain on 67s but heavier offpiste was a struggle so I got some 95s which were better, but would still submarine in the deep n heavy stuff, so I tried 110 as something that was enough to make a difference without being silly wide.
But each to their own, a ski needs to deliver in the area of skiing that you enjoy
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| SPP wrote: |
But the truth is I've never even skied anything wider than a 76.
Would an 82 make that much difference? Maybe an 88, which to me seems ridiculously wide, might be what I enjoy most, even when weighing up any trade offs. |
The widest ski underfoot I had owned before getting some Scott "The Ski" @ 92, was 70mm - in fact most had been in the 60s. I did notice a difference in the time it took to go from edge to edge. I found that I had to allow a little longer at transition, going from one turn to another...so an adjustment to timing was needed. Short turns are harder work.
I doubt that going from 76 to 82 would make much difference. Even 86 would be very minor.
Personally, I would not go wider than 86 - unless spending quite a lot of time Off Piste.....but it is certainly worth trying different widths to find where your preference/preferred comprise lies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@SPP, in the scheme of things the rental hassle isn't a massive offset from the travel hassle of carrying your own skis (unless you drive/live in the area).
I have two main pairs of skis, a 106 and a 71. If I know it's going to be fairly solid all day then the 106 will work but the 71 will be better. If there's any chance of soft then the 106 is just a more fun ski to be on...of course it's ski dependent, a different ski of the same width could be completely different. So I definitely think that more skiing on more types of skis is the best route to take for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| SPP wrote: |
| Would an 82 make that much difference? Maybe an 88, which to me seems ridiculously wide, might be what I enjoy most, even when weighing up any trade offs. |
88 isn't particularly wide for an all mountain ski. And that is really just the question - do you want/need an AM ski. And if so, more piste orientated or off piste orientated. As others have said other (design and materials) factors come into play but in general terms the wider the waist the more float - hence it depends if your off piste is more than half the use as to whether you go up to the around 100 range. 88 would be fine if you dabble off piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I actually think a wider ski works very well on-piste in the spring snow conditions we see more of the time, these days. Slush is just more fun on a bigger, floatier ski. I used a Whitedot Preacher on such days (114 underfoot), and the ability to drift them at speed on an uneven surface added a brilliant element to piste skiing in slush. They died, so their replacement is a Line Blade Optic, also in 114 width, which adds a load of rocker and a super-stiff midsection to the party. It's a brilliant piste ski, for soft conditions, as it can also be laid over and carved on short turns in a way that the old Preacher didn't particularly excel at - its extraordinarily torsionally stiff under the boot and so very resposive and fast edge to edge, yet soft and rockered in the tips so makes uneven, chopped-up surfaces a doddle. I ski them long at 185cm (I'm 175cm tall, but 85kgs and I ski fairly aggressively), so this works for me.
So ski design and materials mean that it's hard to just pick a length or width, I think: and them you have to add your own style of skii g to the equation. Sure, my 68mm underfoot, 165cm long SL skis are the best for icy mornings. But we see a lot of variety in snow surface these days: and for the ever-present slush, go big!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I'd say it's not a bad choice to try out a few different options before settling on a ski you want to buy, or at least what type of ski
