 Poster: A snowHead
|
In the buy and sell thread I've picked up on Linds burnin luvs which at 153cm are only 7cm shorter than my new ones - OK so I'm a beginner (5'9") and mine stop about level with the tip of my nose. When I bought mine someone in the know actually told me that most average folk could ski on a 160cm anyway which was quite reassuring for a 'blind' punt.
Often we see threads where we tell folks to buy a ski at chin height, nose height, eye height etc. Now most features on your face aren't actually that far apart and then onto this we add the height of a pair of ski boots and bindings - which is yet more x cm's. How much difference makes a critical difference, and when we tell folks to measure to point x,y,z on the face should that be bare footed or in ski boots?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Megamum, they will be fine. The boss is gnats tadger off 6ft and skis 160cm an loves 'em.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Its weight more than height that matters, so if your a bit on the tubby side go for eyebrows however if you are a bit of a bean pole then the chin it. To complicate things if you always ski hard you effectively exert more weight so you could be heading back north.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Megamum, IMO 5cm doesnt make a lot of difference unless you are skiing very fast on piste, or, skiing a lot off piste. More of a difference for on piste skiing is how stiff or soft the ski is.
I am just packing some skis for a trip tomorrow that dont reach my chin 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Frosty the Snowman, In actual fact this wasn't a dig at 'will my skis be wonderful' (though thanks for the comment). I'm genuinely interested in all this hoohar over the odd 5-10cm here and there is it just a technicality for technicalities sake or is 5cm on skis that noticeable assuming the other dimensions keep the turning circle about the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
10 cm I really notice in terms of handling - 5cm makes a differernce to speed and chuckability, but it's hard to spot. I went deliberately 5cm short on my last pair so I could let the skis run or muck about with turns and bumps a bit more when cruising around, more sociable, slightly less rocketing off into the distance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Talk about smut-creep! Oh, I see this is a discussion about ski length. So sorry.  For what it's worth, I agree with Cunners and can feel the difference with 10cm more or less, but not 5cm, even though I'm a pixie. (That's skiing fairly fast on piste, including bumps.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I bought some skis last winter, in 153cm length, i skied the same ones earlier in the season in 160cm length. There was a noticeable difference in the handling of the ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
You tend to ntice the extra length in bumps and short turns
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megamum, That wasn't a reply to Frosty the Snowman, worthy of you.
His point was that 'relative' length of ski isn't a big deal per se .. and his wife is more able than you or I; my Better Half skis better than I and she couldn't give a damn about length of ski ... just how the whole package works. What does matter is how 'the ski' works for you.
While your question is ( I suspect, but what would I know) valid for very advanced skiers; for you and I it's just a question of 'whatever works' and taking the best advice we can find.
Fair?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Megamum wrote: |
| What difference does the odd 5cm make? |
At the risk of upsetting hurtle, I'll offer to forward you the contents of my SPAM box.....they seem to think it makes the world of difference 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Hmm I seem to recall that in the days when I skied on 205's (what a man!) the"length" quoted depended on the manufacturer and between which points on the ski they had decided to measure the "length" - eg is it the bit between where the pointy end turns up and the tail turns up slightly, or is it overall, or what? Try measuring your "153's" and see what answer you come up with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Yoda, I asked once where the skis are from and to and got a similar answer - i.e. it depends on manufacturer. Given how much of the ski actually 'bends' at the tips (esp. on these twin tipped skis some folks seem to have) it could be quite a number of centimetres difference - this again seems to suggest that estimates of required ski length for height, are exactly that, i.e. only estimates. I'm off to measure mine to see where their 160cm is taken from (good excuse to go and look at them )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Does an odd 5cm make much difference in the park, out of curiosity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Weight, flex, sidecut. I am really surprised to see you and Linds on the same skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
comprex, But we're not 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Megamum, my misunderstanding then, I though the OP was an indication that you'd purchased them. Apologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
I am really surprised to see you and Linds on the same skis
|
I'm sure they have a pair each!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
comprex, No not purchased them - it was just the thread with the advert for them started me thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Megamum, A 44 B cup and a 36 DD might use the same amount of fabric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprex, Somehow I'm not surprised to see you knowing a bit about ladies underwear
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprex, But I do understand what you mean - i.e. length is not the only thing that determines suitability, Yes?
FWIW My Elans seem to be measured from end to the end of the ski tip. So they've got less than that on the snow - however, if differnet manufacturers measure to different points it means you have to be familiar with the way each one records its length to know if two ski types being discussed in a thread are the same or different lengths though both types might report to be 160cm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Megamum, highly trained release testing technicians. Fully calibrated tooling. 24hr turnaround.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slalom skis seem to be short, but having seen pro slalom skiers race training, they go faster than I do straight lining it
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Yes, ELAN measure that way, it makes sense for twintips in particular. You may remember I originally thought a 176cm would do nicely for you, that was part of the calculation.
The bigger difference, as pointed out above, will be flex and sidecut. A very stiff, highly sidecut ski might fit extremely well in a 155cm whereas a 95mm-waist 35m-ski might fit nicely in 190cm.
The logical error in quite a few posts above is comparing Ski A in Length 1 to Ski B in Length 2.
I think even you'll find it very easy to tell the difference between Ski A in length 1 and Ski A in Length 2, even if the difference is only 5cm, patricularly as stiffness increases, as published radius gets shorter, and as the taper geometry changes from what works with your physique.
To me, that is the only comparison that makes any sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For your weight, aggressiveness, ability etc etc you will have an "optimum" length for a particular ski model, but most would do perfectly alright one size down. So no I don't think 5cms does make a huge difference. comprex is dead right tho, that only has real relevance when looking at the same skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
In the Dacathlon brochure. they helpfully put what size ski they think you should go for for each model (ie chin height, 10cm above head height etc).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
comprex, I think I'm still glad I went a fair bit shorter than that. A 176cm would have been v. near the top of my head. Seeing as I have only skied something chin height up until now I think I would have found the extra 20cm or so too difficult to manipulate. Still I get a chance to play with them next week and can report back on how I found them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Megamum, I think we're talking past each other here: if neither the ELAN tip nor tail are on the snow, what difference does it make how far it reaches when stood on end?
The effective edge-contact chord length for a 176cm is still only barely 160cm, poss. even shorter on a true twintip?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Yes, but the skis I was looking at were not twin tips (I don't know if the M666 were).
Maybe its been a while since you were one, but I think for a beginer its about more than the length of ski on the snow (other beginers can chip in here is they disagree) - I know technically that might be the case, but its also down to the physical size of them in terms of moving the length around on the snow, tripping over the tips and tails etc. I think this is why beginers get on better with short skis much more so than the physical nature of how much ski is regularly in contact with the snow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Megamum, I understand your point, but then it becomes about the physical size of the beginner, no? When making a snowplough open to say 30-60-90 degrees as viewed from above the larger or wider-hipped beginner will naturally be able to have wider apart feet?
The reverse of the shorter=easier coin is that difficult conditions become more difficult. Ice, crust, very soft snow, uncohering snow, sticky snow. By your argument, the beginner who buys shorter skis for ease regardless of size or weight is banking on having perfect snow where everyone is a ski hero at each outing, and on getting rid of the skis before difficult snow conditions are encountered? Sure, I can even see it make sense in a snowdome.
Oh, and the M666 has a turned-up tail that isn't quite a tip, that's what the above calculation was for, the corresponding TT equivalent MO2 would be even shorter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Megamum, I agree there. A nice short ski to learn how to execute turns correctly, keep control and gain confidence is essential. I know the ski will not be that stable at speed but that's not what an improver is looking for, it's competence. Once you have things together the longer lengths will help with stability at higher speed and differing types and depths of snow. I should be on about a 180's or more but at present I don't want to go much higher than a 160's as I know control may be difficult for me and I will spend more time on my ass the longer the ski consequently the confidence will go out the window.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
comprex, On the other hand the beginner who does use short skis like myself, or someone like Headplant, who still uses them for the confidence they give does push on and use them in adverse conditions. In theory if we learn to ski on something which may not be the ideal and suceed with this endeavour then we might actually learn more than on skis that make things easy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Megamum, can't help but thinking you worry too much about these things, ski length is only one of the variables to consider when choosing your equipment - this is said with up most sincerity and not meant to hijack your thread.
As a general rule of thumb, go on the short side for your weight/height when starting out to help turning, get the feel of balance and edge hold/the ski hooking up. From what you describe your skis will serve you well, you will have great fun and improve with slope time. You will know when you have out grown your skis, as when you push them or travel away from the groomed stuff, they will either break loose or nose dive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hofmeister, In actual fact I'm not actually worried my own skis at all - from all the help I had when I bought them I'm sure they will be fine - this thread has gone sideways as so often happens.
I was merely trying to get to the bottom of this preoccupation with such precise lengths. The description for example of something like a 153cm ski as a pixie ski - OK in jest I know, but suggestive that such a ski is considered on the short side, something that I think my own 160cm ones would not be described as. Yet from the responses above the 7cm difference is probably barely discernable unless you are capable of skiing the bases off them. So many people post things such as "I'm 6'2" and a good intermediate skiers what ski length would be best" and loads of people respond with just ski length. As comprex, points out there is actually more to it than just length, and the more I read the more unimportant the actual length 'statistic' appears to become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Megamum, I think you confusing the issue slightly. Length is important, you just can't necessarily compare across skis. So when I bought mine, I demo'd the 166 and the 174. The 8 cm made a massive difference, and I decided that I preferred the 166. I'm sure that any level skier would be able to tell the difference. However if I bought a different ski, I may go for the 174 as that would be more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I just didn't want folks to feel I was clamouring for attention. I was just using my skis as an example of how close to each other some of these measurements appear to me.
