Does skiing with short poles "help you get your weight forward"... Do they get you in a "better carving position"
Traditionally the "correct" length of pole was one that held upside down by the basket and in a skiing stance the top of the handle should touch the ground. Is this correct with modern shaped carving skis?
If your poles are too long by say 5 or 10 cm what happens.....
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
watching this with interest as I changed to a shorter pole last year and found it much better for me.....
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?
It's a good question, poles that are a little long help with pole planting, basically you plant slightly sooner, poles that are a little short would have the opposite effect, i.e you would plant them much later and so they would have less beneficial effect, in addition a pole that was much too long or short might make you alter your stance to a detrimental effect, the only advantage I can think of for having a shorter pole is that they would get in the way less when walking, but I don't trip[ over my poles normally so I'm not worried.
In fact thinking about it the longer pole means that you will be p[lanting them sooner, thus reaching foward earlier, so in reallity it may well be that a longer pole actually helps to get the weight foward, someone really needs to do an experiment to check this out, maybe with a video
Traditionally the "correct" length of pole was one that held upside down by the basket and in a skiing stance the top of the handle should touch the ground. Is this correct with modern shaped carving skis?
I don't think that ski shape matters as much as the fact that current boots and bindings lift you much further from the snow than they used to.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I suppose it makes sense to have adjustable poles, as for walking - for steep descents, maybe you need slightly longer ones?
skimottaret, don't think it would necessarily help with fore/aft posture per se, Too short & i find i miss pole plants which throws me off, too long & the tips get caught as I bring the pole tip through in prep for next pole plant, with effects on rhythm/fluidity. And yes its a PITA as I generally end up buying 135s and cutting 2.5cm off them - 130 just ain't long enough, 135 feels unwieldy.
All of this offset by the different boot/plate/riser combos among my various skis...
Wouldn't trust adjustable poles not to collapse at a critical moment (ie mid-jump turn on a steep slope..)
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I personally think going short causes more problems than it solves, i am just curious what others think... I have heard a few 's comment that they have been advised to go shorter to "get forward" which i cant see being the case. I could of course be wrong but am curious.
as rjs and offpisteskiing, say if your skis have riser plates and/or integral bindings with additional lift it seems to me that longer than normal may be neccessary but on the other hand with carving skis people seem to angulate/incline more easily and with a lower stance shorter may be okay for skiing on piste.
as Philbo said on another thread most racers in SL and GS go longer and they are angulating and inclining a lot more than us mere mortals.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Tue 2-09-08 16:23; edited 1 time in total
After all it is free
After all it is free
Length is everything.
Except for poles.
And skis.
Shorter is better (but not too short).
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 also wonder what affect your type of plant as well as the snow you ski has on the pole length.
ie I flick my pole and tap the snow with the tip, whereas I've seen others have a firmer pole plant.
Also when skiing powder, if my skis are under the snow I prefer a shorter pole....
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
skimottaret wrote:
as rjs and offpisteskiing, say if your skis have riser plates and/or integral bindings with additional lift it seems to me that longer than normal may be neccessary but on the other hand with carving skis people seem to angulate/incline more easily and shorter may be okay for skiing on piste.
Don't forget boots, they can have another 5cm underfoot.
I use 130cm poles that I bought when I used straight skis and they still feel fine. I guess I could go up 5cm though, particularly as replacement baskets are starting to be hard to find.
Quote:
as Philbo said on another thread most racers in SL and GS go longer and they are angulating and inclining a lot more than us mere mortals.
I agree that racers are not using short poles, but I'm not convinced that they will measure up to collar bone level in a shop. Not all SL skiers are pixies, Bode is similar in height to us. The Swix poles he is holding seem to have 135cm as the longest size.
Racers will gain some effective length as the poles won't sink into "race snow".
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
skimottaret wrote:
if your skis have riser plates
Im glad that came up.
What purpose do these serve?
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.
I have shorter poles than would be standaras I like to ski with a low stance. I have found that if I forget to shorten my poles after skinning up my technique goes to pot, though I don't always realise, it just doesn't feel right.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Some days I think /feel my poles are too long other days I wonder if short poles would be better, sometimes I'am told the way I ski the pole length will make no difference
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
127cms for me.... and I am in the poles-do-not-need-to-be-too short camp. And since poles seem to come in 5cms graduated lenghts there are going to be quite a few peeps on stock poles with the incorrect lenght, IMO.
I would think this is something that an instructor could try and install in their lessons... as in 'this is your basic stance' just like they do with a golf swing set-up. You have moving parts through the turn/swing and you need a reference to return to. IMV.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
adjustable poles currently - but usually set at 123cm.
And I don't vary them according to if I am skiing on riser plates.
Probably quite short which encourages downhill body progression when doing steeps I suppose.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
stoatsbrother,
Quote:
adjustable poles
Do they stay adjusted - see offpisteskiing's comment above? I've got a quite high spec walking pole, admittedly fairly old and beaten up now, which does indeed collapse at the most inopportune moments.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Hurtle, Quite a few of us tested BD carbon adjustables and bought them because they do stay fixed and are easy to tighten.
I've had mine over a year now and they do exactly what they need to do..... which is steeps, pole long traverses etc etc..
The semi basket arrangement is good as is the hammer/screw fit of replacemnts.. And you can easily get/carry spares which I have in my pack 24/7
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?
I've always used 125's but last season bought a pair of 120's to try as I was starting to think that the 125's were too long. Took both lengths to the EoSB to play with & the 120's were too short in most places although they were great in bumps. I sold the 120's to a fellow snowHead who was no taller than me & was using 135's (you know who you are ). The 125's did feel a tad long so they're now 123's.
JT, quanto costa? I'm tempted, not least because it would enable me to experiment a bit with length. (But I just bought myself a new pair of bog standard poles earlier this year, because my previous, decades old, ones fell to bits. Would be a terrible extravagance to buy another new pair so soon. )
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Hurtle, Well I would think you could be buying far more expensive things - treat yourself and get the buying bug out of your system before its new skis that you are considering!!
I skied with 130cm for years, ended up chopping a bit off them, then I bought some 125cm. They feel so much better to use, the longer ones seemed to hook up and drag occasionally. Worth experimenting with lengths.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads on Wed 3-09-08 8:24; edited 1 time in total
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Interesting that most seem to say they are around the "standard" method length give or take a few cm's depending on personal preference and the type of skiing done...
Say you are fairly happy with the length of your normal poles but your skiing at times feels like you are in the back seat. Would switching to 5 or 10 cm shorter poles get you forward and out of the back seat? If so why?
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.
What about those poles with a stopper in the top that you can fill with your fauvorite tipple. I suppose that they are heavier than my lightweight Scott poles, but once there empty they would be about the same.
Serious question, where can I buy some of those from.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
skimottaret, I don't think so. In a "normal" (T&C apply) stance you aren't dragging them on the floor anyway.
On the subject of technique instruction, I'm trying to get myself to ski taller anyway - in bumps/gates/tricky stuff I have a tendancy not to recover correctly between turns and end up just getting more and more crouched (good for comic effect) so shorter poles probably wouldn't help too much with that.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Quote:
shorter poles probably wouldn't help too much with that.
exactly...
Renry, RISER PLATE - aka, Binding lifters or plates. Flate plates which are mounted between the top of the skis and the bindings. Riser plates have two functions, one is to transmit the load from the skiers boot more evenly, producing a more consistent flex pattern within the ski.
Secondly when a ski is tipped onto one edge the point of contact with the snow is off centre with with relation to the centre of the skiers ankle within the boot. By increasing the distance of the skiers ankle from the snow with a riser when the ski is tipped onto one edge the line of force transmitted from the ankle through to the surface is nearer to the edge of the ski in contact with the snow the thereby making the ski hold it edge more effectively.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Bearing in mind that I'm not pole planting properly (if at all yet - at least not that I notice me doing it) and they are mainly there for balance and to help get to the ski lift don't think I'd notice if my poles were different lengths. I've got a set of 115's and a set of 120's but haven't tried the longer ones yet. However, when next in a snow dome I'm going to try a couple of different lengths and see if the difference is really noticable at my level. Can 5cm make that much difference? I'm amazed at folks above with differences of 2cm that they say has made a diffference to them - surely the snow quality could make that much difference?
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
I ski a 125 cm pole and destroyed one on my last day away. Came back from my happy holidays in Canada and had a spur of the moment venture to Nevis with my old 120cm poles and it does completely make a massive difference. If you take the difference in hip bend in the 5cm difference in ski pole lengths it is a substantial angle that I spent so much time trying to perfect and a 5cm difference in pole length can ruin that.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Kel, Not sure if you can still get them but the ones I had were called "Piste Poles" Beware when almost empty on a -15 deg day, a slug of brandy at that temp travelling a metre down the pole gains quite some speed and makes your teeth rattle.
The circuit mogul bashers use cut down poles of about 100cm
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've been told by a number of ski coaches that 2cm length of poles does make a big difference when you're a decent intermediate and above. A friend of mine was skiing at the Chill Factore and was advised by an instructor to get them shortened by 3cm. The Snow and Rock next door then cut them down. May be worthwhile getting an instructor/ski coach you trust to watch you ski?
skimottaret, as for your opening question, I normally use 125s, which is the "classic" recipe for me, or possibly a cm or 2 longer, and pretty much always ski on lifted bindings (either Fritchis or with a race plate). I'm 181cm tall. I had one day last year with 130cm poles, and it was horrible. Every time I went to plant the contact with the snow happened way too early and surprised me. Probably I then ended up shying back etc. etc.. The problem probably wan't that the extra 5cm was too long, but that it was 5cm longer than I was used to. So I've probably got a reasonable feeling for where the surface is going to be, given any particular inclination/angulation, and if it ain't there it's going to unbalance me. With a bit of familiarisation I'm sure the 130cm would have ben fine, I'd just have adjusted by using more bend at the elbows.
For the supplementary, I think you're far better off working out how you get into the back seat to start with, rather than worrying about pole height to start with, and then working out if the poles are appropriate once you've sorted out where your stance should be. I do quite a bit without poles, hands on hips or behind back etc working on sorting out those reflexes. Of course it is quite a bit simpler to dump/refetch poles at will when you're only at max 100m of Dendix away from them .
I really don't buy D G Orf's logic. If you have a longer pole, then the contact will happen earlier for the same arm movement, so that would then encourage you to make later movements - which will almost always be bad. I'm also not convinced about whether the actual contact with the surface in a carved turn is of any real significance - other than maybe a confirmation that it's still there. The point of the plant in that case for me is almost entirely as an initiation trigger to start the body movements required to switch edges. So as far as I'm concerned pole length within gates is fairly irrelevant. The longer poles are probably though of most use at the start where you can get an extra few cm push and get up to speed quicker - and I do sometimes miss a plant on my second push. On steeps I find that the pole length I use does encourage me to get into a more dynamic flexed body position when going for a jump turn etc. - remember your "goalkeeper", and how he'll prepare for a leap to the corner of the goal - and really flexing to reach down the hill seems pretty good to me. And with all due respect to offpisteskiing (you don't say how tall you are), ISTM that anything that keeps you upright in that preparation phase is again going to be largely bad. If I have non-powder baskets though, the pole will frequently dig in another 10cm (and yet another when you actually push hard on the pole) and then it does all go to pot.
I would also have thought that longer poles in moguls are a recipe for disaster:- you want to be fully extended when in the trough but then fairly compressed at the peak, to keep a level path for the hips, but you plant on the peak so the pole is effectively longer than "normal" anyway. So I'm not at all surprised by what Dypcdiver says. When touring I still use 125, but do find I often have my palms on the top of the pole handle when pushing uphill. Interesting point from parlor, about telemarking. That one time we attempted to use poles I picked up my usual 125cm and they felt dreadful - way too long - so his example certainly makes sense.
So, even with fairly high bindings, I go with the "classic" recipe.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
GrahamN wrote:
On steeps I find that the pole length I use does encourage me to get into a more dynamic flexed body position when going for a jump turn etc. - remember your "goalkeeper", and how he'll prepare for a leap to the corner of the goal - and really flexing to reach down the hill seems pretty good to me.
But tiring. The shorter the pole on steeps, the more the shoulders and head have to move to achieve contact.
All this is of doubtful necessity IMO if the person has the stiff boots and upper body mass (or the plantar flexion range from "neutral balance") to pressure the ski tips to the snow on a steep run without this hyperactive reaching business.
Thus the long-pole person saves energy by keeping the upper body closer to neutral on the ski.
GrahamN wrote:
I would also have thought that longer poles in moguls are a recipe for disaster:- you want to be fully extended when in the trough but then fairly compressed at the peak, to keep a level path for the hips, but you plant on the peak so the pole is effectively longer than "normal" anyway.
Agreed.
In fact, I use the reverse as a mental trigger or suggestion for someone who doesn't absorb properly: they usually drop their hands in front and stop absorbing as soon as the pole touches.
The cue is to hold the regular-length poles level with the shoulders and absorb until they touch the snow, reaching forward but never dropping the hand -down-.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Nope, sorry, I don't think it makes a blind bit of difference.
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.
But of course, we all know the usage of pole straps makes all the difference, regardless of pole lengtth.................
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
's comment that they have been advised to go shorter to "get forward" which i cant see being the case. I could of course be wrong but am curious.
). The 125's did feel a tad long so they're now 123's.
