 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi,
I'm looking to buy some skis and would appreciate advice on ski length.
I am: 98kg / 1m 85cm / 45yrs old / Athletic build + fit / Ski Aggressive
Skiing: Alps, Mixture on piste, between piste and moguls
Advanced level / 600+ days ski but 1st time back after a 25 year hiatus!!
Did a couple of weeks at the beginning of 2024 - Took lessons to get back into the swing of things and learn new techniques as parabolic skiis were only starting to become 'standard' in my last years.
(I know that the best thing for me would be to try / demo different models and lengths but there hasn't been a great variety of choice, even in the more 'premium' rental shops.)
I'm looking at the Rossignol Experience 82 ti but trying to figure out if I should go with the 176 or 184
This season I started off on a pair of Head 177cm - (not sure which model but had a traditional camber and tip rocker) I returned them after the 1st day as they just felt too short. However, when I say 'feel' I think that it was more psychological and visual; I used to ski 2m skiis, so looking down and seeing 177 made me think I was unstable and might tip over the front as to that actually being the case. I didn't think of this at the time so couldn't actually test my theory.
I swapped them in for a pair of Rossignol Hero Elite MT CAM 183cm (these were also given to me by a different rental shop in a different resort a month later, so seems to be the go-to 'long' piste ski)
I liked the length and stability on groomers and also when bombing straight down and they just felt right. However on steep icey piste, narrow corridors or moguls they felt a touch too long and cumbersome.
So, the Rossi Experience 82 ti 176 or 184?
(based on info from soothski.com and some calculations)
Both have a short running length due to the rockers
EXP176 - 132cm
EXP183 - 138cm
Hero - 160cm
(and what I can work out they are also shorter than the Head 177)
BUT
they have a high sidecut length
EXP176 - 160.3cm
EXP183 - 167.6cm
Hero - 168cm
They are also both heavier than the Hero
EXP176 - 5.96kg
EXP183 - 6.16kg
Hero - 5.53kg
Torsional stiffness in both is also greater than the hero and bend stiffness is comparable.
Turn Radius
EXP176 - 16m
EXP183 - 17m
Hero - 16m
The 176 has the same turn radius as the Hero, weighs more, and is as stiff and has a relatively long sidecut length so thinking the stability should also be comparable in the turns. The overall length would also help in those tighter spots. But with such a short running length is it that going to be stable flying down in a straight line? And is that going to 'feel' ultra short?
(I think with both 176 and 183 the running length is a bit of a worry)
I know the best way is to try them but It would be great if people could weigh in and give me their feedback.
From searching the forum I think-
@Belch owned a pair of older Experience models and @Old Fartbag mentioned them a few times
Anyway, any advice from anyone is much appreciated.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
At your stats just choose your make/model of ski and buy it in the longest length they do!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
The skis you are looking at are AM, with a strong piste bias. If you want a little more versatility, look at the 86Ti - though you will lose a little edge to edge quickness.
Strictly speaking, looking at the stats you've given above, it should be the longer length....which would also give extra surface area, helping with float.
If you spend most of the time On Piste and want a shorter turn radius, then the 176 might work for you....but it is on the short side for a heavier, advanced aggressive skier.
I have skied on Rossignol skis in the past, but not on these so can't give direct feedback....which wouldn't be much use anyway, as I'm 66kg. The assessment by Ski Essentials is worth checking out.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Sun 25-08-24 19:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
This is from Ski magazine.
Testers also identified a speed limit. “Those who want to push a ski to the extreme should know this one has a much lower ceiling,” said Otto Gibbons, a 5-foot-6 tester who works as a hardgoods supervisor.
Maybe its less stable at high speeds. (bombing) Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@SPP, I’m 60kgs and mostly run +/- 175cms … I can’t believe at 98kgs you wouldn’t want the longest you could get.
That said, length doesn’t always have quality of its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Buy a mid 90's twin-tip in your height as length. Job done
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback. It makes sense. And naturally that's where I feel most comfortable.
I think I'm doubting the length 'cause the 2nd time out this year we went in March and in the afternoon it was slush central and I was having a hard time manoeuvring (especially in the moguls and tighter corridors). Whereas the instructor that I was with was skiing an 85mm underfoot in a 170 (same height but 70ish Kgs) and having an easy time of it. But he was also destroying it higher up on the 'better' snow and going at speed.
So i was looking at the shorter 176 in the hopes it would give me that versatility whilst still allowing me to push hard on the groomers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@SPP, I know the feeling, personally in such conditions i use a 108mm Twin then the slushy bumps no longer exist, I ski like Candide on that set up, his words, not mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I find ski length over rated, a longer ski might be a bit more stable at speed and give a little more float in the softer snow but they are a disadvantage everywhere else.
It all depends on how YOU like to ski and what puts a smile on your face.
This could be
Pootling along looking at the scenery
High speed schussing
Big GS turns
Carving as hard & low as possible
Moguls
Offpiste
Etc
All of the above
My choice of ski was influenced for too many years by what other people said I should be skiing on. It was only when I tried different skis that a whole new level of enjoyment was found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@tangowaggon, Indeed, it's all in your minds!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
As tangowaggon says, "...when I tried different skis". You really need to trial a whole load of different 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.
|
The rule is, “203 for slalom, 207 for GS (and powder)”
‘Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone seems obsessed with long skis, I find that skis one or two sizes below what is "recommended " for my height & weight, a lot more fun, more responsive & quicker to turn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| tangowaggon wrote: |
| Everyone seems obsessed with long skis, I find that skis one or two sizes below what is "recommended " for my height & weight, a lot more fun, more responsive & quicker to turn. |
I'm with you on the shorter ski.
I took a view several years ago that the chances of getting powder days on my one or two weeks per year away were slim, and that as I was also getting older, sticking to the piste was more where I was at. Not being able to afford more than one pair, I basically made the decision to buy a piste-based ski with a tight radius, taking the view that in most circumstances it would be more fun than a longer ski. My take on things, you can easily open up a tight radius ski to make wider turns, and being honest with myself, the days of banzi speed are behind me, but if the skis get a bit twitchy I can always put a bit more edge in.
This was some years ago and I've stuck with it as it has suited me. Treated myself to a new set of skis in the sale at the end of last season (Atomic Redster S9, 160 - I'm 176 and 90kg (I like beer!)) which suit where I am at. This is just my view of course so I caveat my comment with that, not saying I'm right and anyone else is wrong etc. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@Boofont, I went short n fat, I looked for a 110mm ski with the shortest turn radius & came up with the Nordica Enforcer 110, about 190 length was recommended for me 185cm/90kg but I chose the 177 for the shorter turn radius and lower swing weight/inertia.
I find them as close to a one ski quiver as I can get, really good at carving, even on quite hard piste, and really responsive offpiste & moguls.
The first time I tried wide skis was White dot preachers at the Oktobertest, 190cm length, wrong length in the wrong place, they put me off wide skis completely, trying a shorter Preacher on the mountain would have been a different outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Just a note on the ski length thing - in my view the _only_ way to get the right length of any given ski is to test test and test. Start with the length that's 'obviously' too short, then push the envelope until you find its limitations, go up a size and repeat. Doing it on different skis will just confuse the issue, this needs to be done with the same ski in different sizes.
Now I realise that this is impractical for most holiday skiers, but think of it in that way: If you can't find a problem with a shorter ski, don't look for a longer one.
I tend to ski longer than some may suggest, as it happens, even my slalom skis are 172cm. (I'm ~183cm these days, 85kg). But that's my preference based on how I ski and how I feel when on shorter skis, and I would not recommend that someone should automatically go long just because of their height or weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
If someone asks, "What length of ski should I buy" - the starting point is putting forward the "Recommended" length.
That is certainly not written in stone....and as others have said, ideally figured out by trial and error.
Things that can influence the decision are:
- Personal preference
- Turn radius
- Terrain skied
- Construction of ski
- Skill of skier
- Weight of skier
- Aggression
- Decision as to what compromises to make - as there is no such thing as the perfect ski
This makes suggestions on here nothing more than how to go about making the decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Old Fartbag, Height of skier is the principal, second intended use and variables
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Chaletbeauroc wrote: |
| Just a note on the ski length thing - in my view the _only_ way to get the right length of any given ski is to test test and test. |
I agree with regards to testing, you really should try a ski before buying, and indeed, before buying the Redster's I tried them and a couple of other skis. It can be tricky though. Most of us go away for a week or so, maybe hire some skis and change them each day. Often, the snow is different day to day, weather can soften it or harden it as we know, you might not ski the same runs etc. So a like for like comparison can be hard. Unless you can get to a proper test session and swap skis run after run then for most of us it's a bit 'finger in the air'.
Appreciate the comments aren't really helping the original question so apologies for drifting (or should it be a stivoting lol) off topic! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| CH2O wrote: |
| @Old Fartbag, Height of skier is the principal, second intended use and variables |
Is weight not a greater factor than height - as surely that has a bigger impact on your ability to bend the ski? eg. I'm 179 cm tall and 66kg....so would someone of the same height (and ability/aggressiveness) but 85kg not potentially look at something longer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Old Fartbag, Well possibly, you don't want a soft ski for sure, however i would imagine, once we're at choosing the length of a particular ski we have already chosen what it's made of and now finding it's optimum length. If we start out choosing a ski based on length we'll still pretty much have the whole range of skis to choose from. I'm of the thinking that even light skiers can bend the stiffest ski, stiff means stiffer than soft, not so stiff as the weight of one leg can't camber it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CH2O wrote: |
| @Old Fartbag, Well possibly, you don't want a soft ski for sure, however i would imagine, once we're at choosing the length of a particular ski we have already chosen what it's made of and now finding it's optimum length. If we start out choosing a ski based on length we'll still pretty much have the whole range of skis to choose from. I'm of the thinking that even light skiers can bend the stiffest ski, stiff means stiffer than soft, not so stiff as the weight of one leg can't camber it. |
As someone who has been between 60 - 66kg for most of my adult life....I pay particular attention to how stiff and damp the ski is. I currently ski on Scott The Ski in a 180....but that is a playful, rather than a damp, stiff ski. I would not consider a Blizzard Brahma or Bonafide in that length.
As I am a holiday skier, I want something reasonably forgiving (but not soft). As someone who came from 2m Straight skis....I am comfortable on something a little longer. If I get on something very stiff/damp, I find that I have to go too fast for comfort/safety on crowded pistes.....but my ability will also have a bearing.
I know what I like, including the brands that suit me and make life easier. I have got on well with Volkl, Atomic, Head, Salomon, Dynastar and Rossignol....Blizzard less so. I like a degree of playfulness, rather than an outright charger.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Tue 27-08-24 12:51; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CH2O wrote: |
| @Old Fartbag, Height of skier is the principal, second intended use and variables |
Height was long regarded as the main, indeed the only criterion for ski length, back in the day when the formula was length=yourheight+30cm. That was based on the idea that longer ski=more control=higher max controllable speed (often misunderstood to mean longer skis were in themselves faster) but is of much less significance these ays with much more tortionally-rigid ski construction. The height element was assuming that taller=longer legs=more leverage to control the skis.
There were a number of other flaws in that logic anyway, not least perhaps that it doesn't take into account the weight of the skier, which of course directly defines the forces the ski has to deal with. Also of course that formula was intended for ski racers, with the assumption that everybody else wanted to be a ski racer too and would therefore follow the same logic.
There may still be a maximum length of ski for short individuals, but in no way should a taller but lightweight person be fooled into thinking that they should automatically go for a longer ski by default.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| CH2O wrote: |
| @Old Fartbag, Height of skier is the principal, second intended use and variables |
I've often wondered about this. Surely weight, skill level and type of skier all have a greater bearing than something as simple as height?
I can't see that a 185cm 120kg skier would be recommended the same length ski as a 185cm 70kg skier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@CH2O, how does the ski know how tall you are 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
I can't see that a 185cm 120kg skier would be recommended the same length ski as a 185cm 70kg skier.
|
That is about ski selection, not length. You're average male's center of mass is the shoulders, these are at a defined height per skier. That moves forwards and backwards as we compress and ski, often too if we ski badly or have poor balance fore/aft, a bad boot set up, limited ROM in the ankle or "false" binding delta. Ideally speaking, generally, we don't want our shoulders to be infront of our tips or behind our tails, ever. A ski that is longer than you are tall will allow this to happen more easily without the ski, skiing out from underneath you, or you going over the handlebars. Now if we take the exception we look at Slalom skis. The principal factor in their short length is to reduce radius, coupled with a shorter physical length means they turn and pivot more quickly given the rapidity of the approaching gates. This is compensated for by making Slalom skis "stiffer" not ridgid, to help reduce the tipping factor fore and aft. However, GS the gates are spread out more and we can allow the ski to be longer helping us to carry speed, speed being the main variable when turning a ski, coupled indeed with the weight of the skier and their effect on it. A longer ski, should be able to be more stable at higher speeds and carry that speed further. Whilst weight is a factor, that can be more easily offset with a different lay up/construction. Height is static, theoretically however we do get taller and shorter as we compress. That max stand height is very important for balance. For this reason, we first choose the type of ski we want, where we use it, and what we want it to do. That means we choose a structure, width and theoretical radius first based on our weight and discipline. Then we use our height to help us get the length correct. All of the factors are in play, there is just an order of play. Length is the last choice if you like, as first we need to have chosen the ski we want and need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
@CH2O, how does the ski know how tall you are
|
Stand on the floor, clip into your skis, now lean all the way forwards until you fall on your nose. Or backwards until you smack the back of your head. This will happen much easier and more quickly if the skis are too short, try it with snowblades if you don't believe me. XX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@CH2O, The fore-and-aft "tipping factor" that you describe is completely irrelevant. Yes, you can do it on Snowblades if you try hard enough, but good skiing is all about keeping the weight centred so that it's as close as possible directly above the feet at all times. (For values of "above" that take into account the various forces involved, not just gravity). If you're really getting your body weight that far forwards or backwards you've already got a far bigger problem than just the wrong length ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@CH2O, I don’t often disagree with you but what I think you’re trying to say, feels very wrong …
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Case in point:
I was very comfortable on my 203 Völkl SGs but deeply unhappy on my mates 203 Nordicas +/- identical (for homologation reasons, obvs) geometries. (Different structures I have to imagine).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| under a new name wrote: |
Case in point:
I was very comfortable on my 203 Völkl SGs but deeply unhappy on my mates 203 Nordicas +/- identical (for homologation reasons, obvs) geometries. (Different structures I have to imagine). |
Similar experience: Deeply unhappy with 195 Lange SLS; loved 195 Volkl Renntiger...also no problem with 2m Volkl VP19 SLX and 201 Salomon Force 9 3S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
@CH2O, I don’t often disagree with you but what I think you’re trying to say, feels very wrong …
|
That's fine buddy, but you'd best address your disagreement with a greek dude, rather than with me. there is a process, a hierarchy, you're welcome to move your preferences up and down that scale, however weight and speed are variables that need bilateral consideration. Max height vs max length seem pretty static so we're able to be much more precise with our choices. Indeed, again, once model is chosen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
You're average male's center of mass is the shoulders
|
@CH2O,
How are you calculating CoM ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
How are you calculating CoM ?
|
Comparing the distribution of weight between a biological Female and a Male.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Chaletbeauroc, Lay on your back, let's assume you're 200cm tall, (long now). Now divide your body into 10ths, 20cm increments. Which part to you think weighs the most?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
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:
Head and Neck: Light but high up, contributing to the center of mass due to height.
Upper Torso/Chest (segment 2 and 3): Significant mass located around the chest and upper torso, contributing strongly due to its height and mass.
Lower Torso/Abdomen: Significant mass, but lower height compared to the chest.
Pelvic Region: Dense and heavy but closer to the ground, contributing less to raising the center of mass.
Upper Thighs: Heavy, but again, closer to the ground.
Lower Thighs/Knees: Less significant due to mass and lower height.
Calves/Lower Legs: Less mass, even closer to the ground.
Feet: Lightest and at the lowest point.
Conclusion: The Upper Torso/Chest
Given that the upper torso/chest area (segments 2 and 3) has a significant amount of mass (due to muscle, bones like the ribcage, and internal organs like the lungs) and is relatively high from the ground, it contributes the most to the body's overall center of mass when standing.
Thus, segments 2 and 3 (upper torso and chest) have the highest influence on the body's center of mass, combining both significant weight and a higher vertical position. This region is typically where the center of mass for a standing male is concentrated, roughly around the chest or slightly lower depending on individual proportions.
For a female, the distribution of mass and the center of mass differ slightly from that of a male due to variations in body composition, such as differences in fat distribution, muscle mass, and bone structure. Generally, females tend to have a lower center of mass compared to males, often located around the hips or lower torso.
Let's go through the same analysis for a female body divided into 10 segments of 20 cm each:
Head and Neck: Light with minimal mass contribution but positioned high.
Upper Torso/Chest: Less muscular mass compared to males, but the presence of breast tissue and upper body organs adds weight.
Lower Torso/Abdomen: Contains vital organs and contributes significantly to overall mass, similar to males.
Pelvic Region: More pronounced in females due to wider hips and denser pelvic bones, contributing heavily to mass.
Upper Thighs: Similar to males, large muscle groups like the quadriceps and hamstrings contribute significantly to mass.
Lower Thighs/Knees: Continues to contribute, but less so than the upper thighs.
Calves/Lower Legs: Muscular but less mass compared to the thighs.
Lower Calves/Ankles: Minimal mass contribution.
Feet: The lightest part, primarily bones and tendons.
Consideration of the Center of Mass
In females, the center of mass is typically lower than in males, often closer to the pelvic region. However, we still need to consider the impact of height and mass distribution:
Upper Torso/Chest (Segments 2 and 3): Although less muscular than in males, the presence of breast tissue and organs still makes this region significant, especially given its height above the ground.
Lower Torso/Pelvic Region (Segments 4 and 5): This area is more prominent in females due to wider hips and a greater proportion of body fat. While closer to the ground, the mass in this region is substantial, contributing to a lower center of mass.
Conclusion: Pelvic Region and Lower Torso
For a female, segments 4 and 5 (the pelvic region and lower torso) likely contribute the most to the overall center of mass, considering both the significant mass in this area and the characteristic lower center of mass in females. Although this area is closer to the ground, its considerable mass in relation to the rest of the body shifts the center of mass lower compared to males.
However, if we focus strictly on the segment with the highest center of mass contribution in terms of height, segments 3 and 4 (lower torso and upper pelvis) are crucial. The upper torso (including chest) still plays a significant role, but for females, the mass in the pelvic region has a more pronounced effect on the overall center of mass.
So, while the pelvic region and upper thighs are the heaviest, the combination of mass and height suggests that the lower torso and upper pelvis (segments 3 and 4) are the most influential in determining the center of mass in a standing female.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, thanks to everyone for your advice. It's interesting to see how opinions differ and the role that personal preference plays in such a matter.
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.
thanks again gents!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
