 Poster: A snowHead
|
As a general rule, can one go down in length when moving onto a wider ski ?
In particular I'm thinking about stability at speed. If I move from a 170 with a 66mm waist, to a 165 with a 78mm waist would I get the same stability, all other things being equal ?
Just as a general rule don't forget.
Mick
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
no
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 nearly said no. But I think it depends.
At slower speeds, in deeper snow, wider would probably feel more stable than longer as you get more float.
As you get faster though, shorter will feel less stable.
Go long, twin tipped and fat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
micky, If I want to go from a thinner ski (for me typically 70-something-mm) to a wider ski (upwards of 90mm in waist anything up to 120...) I tend to go up in length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Yup wider and longer for me as well
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I am 6' tall, weigh 76kg (skinny) and I am an intermediate (can get down black runs but cautiously not quickly - I won't let rip until I am near the bottom).
So if I get a Dyanastar Trouble Maker (twin tip), what length should I be on ?
I'm thinking 175, or, less likely, 170.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bigger, longer, faster, stronger. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mosha Marc wrote: |
At slower speeds, in deeper snow, wider would probably feel more stable than longer as you get more float.
|
Depends on the flex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
micky, my TM's were 175. Not much good for anything but the park, a real big compromise everywhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
This is very easy:
Short = bad.
Long = good.
Narrow = hard / fun.
Fat = easy / fun / fun / fun.
Take snowblades for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
parlor, You take Snowblades, where the sun don't shine, so i've heard. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
micky, for stability at speed you want long and less curvy. Think about (don't buy!!) GS, Super G, Downhill skis. For most people the advantage of wider skis is increased area for support underfoot in soft snow. Reducing length would reduce the gain in area and because most are actually trying to maximize area, for most the wider the ski the longer they buy. Length does make the ski less manoeuverable though and some manufacturers are promoting the use of extra wide but short skis. I don't think they'd give you good stability at speed though, or World Cup skiers would be using them. NB usual caveats apply - all imho, I'm not a ski pro, no interests to declare, E&OE, etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| micky wrote: |
I am 6' tall, weigh 76kg (skinny) and I am an intermediate (can get down black runs but cautiously not quickly - I won't let rip until I am near the bottom).
So if I get a Dyanastar Trouble Maker (twin tip), what length should I be on ?
I'm thinking 175, or, less likely, 170. |
I'm 75kg, 5'10", not getting too bad on the blacks, love off piste and generally playing on varying terrain. I wouldn't ski a twin tip under 180cm. I've demo'd quite a few now around that length and they don't seem long... remember, without the extra tip the base length would equate to about a 175.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
SMALLZOOKEEPER, only when I'm Fear & Loathing in Las Chamanas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
parlor, at least you are not Fear and Loathing in Las Palmas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Scarpa wrote: |
I'm 75kg, 5'10", not getting too bad on the blacks, love off piste and generally playing on varying terrain. I wouldn't ski a twin tip under 180cm. . |
Sugar Daddy, Titan Argos, Enforcer, Zero could all work really well for you shorter than 180cm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
comprex, Arggghhh!!! I hadn't tried any of those. Damn you and you evil recommendations. Now I have more to try 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
BTW - I'm on the market for new skis... after 13 weeks use my old B2's have finally fallen apart *cue sounds of wailing and gnashing of teeth*
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Scarpa wrote: |
| BTW - I'm on the market for new skis... <snip> B2's |
If you like the battleship graphic, try a Stockli TT 177
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
micky,
why would you want to?
If you want a TT...get one as tall as you, so 180 plus, IMV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
comprex, fair point. Back to a question I posed elsewhere about why there does not seem to be an accepted widely used index of ski flex/stiffness?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
stoatsbrother,
Don't know how they would quantify that.
When people say a ski is stiff...stiff, where..? tip, tail, torsional. Sounds like too many variables to me to make any real sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
JT, I think it is a generally stiffness but within that you can specify, very stiff under foot, soft tip and soft tail. Something to that effect...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
There are 2 reasons why I am thinking about Trouble Makers.
Firstly my son has a pair and he has progressed quicker than me, though when I change my 165cms for 170s I can keep up with him.
Secondly, we are spending about 20% of our time in the park, just on little kickers at the moment but I would like to perfect these and get onto bigger ones.
Oh, there is third reason, I have seem the TMs going very cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
micky, they are good skis. Fit for purpose (ie. Park), you will see a lot of the famous park skiers on TM's. They hold a reasonable edge on piste but a decent All Mountain Ski would progress your skiing far quicker (exc Park). He is progressing quicker as he has youth on his side 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
micky, I'm thinking 175 Big Troubles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I never thought about that, as comprex says. There are a few similar skis out there as well if you fancy something a bit different depending how fat/thin you want to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
comprex, yes - but even in the weather we can get near a description saying it is raining or not... Of course you are not going to get a full and accurate representation - but some index of tortional flex, and of flex at tip, mid and tail is surely possible and possible useful and as useful as most other ski parameters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| micky wrote: |
There are 2 reasons why I am thinking about Trouble Makers.
Firstly my son has a pair and he has progressed quicker than me, though when I change my 165cms for 170s I can keep up with him.
Secondly, we are spending about 20% of our time in the park, just on little kickers at the moment but I would like to perfect these and get onto bigger ones.
Oh, there is third reason, I have seem the TMs going very cheap. |
Do you think that 5cm makes that much difference? Do you not think that it's 'ALL IN YOU MIND'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
As a general rule, can one go down in length when moving onto a wider ski ?
In particular I'm thinking about stability at speed. If I move from a 170 with a 66mm waist, to a 165 with a 78mm waist would I get the same stability, all other things being equal ?
Just as a general rule don't forget.
Mick
|
Nope ! You get stability by skiing properly - not from the skis you use. A ski with a 66mm waist is likely piste specific ski, designed for harder snow, 78mm waist probably designed for softer snow. Both will be stable, when used correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
stoatsbrother, if I tell you that someone is 5'11", 170lbs, with a 108/61 pulse and a 51bpm resting heart rate, how fast will that person run the army ten miler?
Downhill ski flex numbers -were- occasionally published by ski magazines, if you will cast your mind to back to the early '90s and earlier, before other ski parameters took over in overall significance to the end result. The most amazing thing about waist and published radius was they were so -directly and simply- correlated to the end performance as opposed to the flex data that had been reported before. All of a sudden, numerical data actually conveyed something to the consumer mind, for good or ill, because it could be fitted into simplistic models and mostly come out correctly. In contrast to the previously published flex.
So, no, I do not think a numerically expressed ski flex index is going to be remotely useful to a general readership. It might be of some use to computationally aware readers, but we are not all Physicsman. It is of drastic importance when other variables are held steady, but beyond competition and XC, who cares?
The only thing published numbers do is atomize experience-based intuitive processing into data points that still require intuitive, experienced processing to acquire meaning.
As to general, verbal indication that would correspond to 'raining' or 'not raining', that is already being done. Every day. The moment a ski is categorised into "Big Mountain Twins" instead of "Powder Twins" or "Fat Park Twin", they are telling you about the flex and what it is best for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| ski wrote: |
| Both will be stable, when used correctly. |
This is circular logic.
Of course both will be stable when used 'correctly' because 'correctly' is defined in very great part by the stability of the ski in use.
It doesn't actually convey perceptive difference to the reader, who may find it more or less difficult to use any given ski 'correctly'.
Is that what you were trying to say? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
The 5cms does make a big difference to me - it may be in my mind but I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
micky, I what i'm getting at it that it isn't 5cm of extra ski that enables you to keep up with your son.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find that skis with that extra 5 cms seem to run straighter at speed and I am confident to go fast, without those 5cms the front end twitches and I cannot go fast.
I first became aware of this after my first 3 weeks skiing when I was on rental Salomon Verse skis, as soon as I went from 165 to 170 I made an immediate improvement. Now I notice it with my 165 RX8's, as soon as I go onto a suitable rental ski at 170 I go faser.
Though it doesn't work with every 170 rental ski, for instance the Salomon X-Wing didn't work, whilst the Rossignol ???? 7R carbon did (I've got the full details written down somewhere).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
comprex,
| Quote: |
Is that what you were trying to say
|
Sorry. What I meant was, each ski will be stable when used in a technically correct manner, in the conditions for which it was designed. The narrow ski is going to be better on harder snow, for example. BUT (IMV) the way the the ski is used (technique) will have a bigger impact than the conditions the ski is used in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| micky wrote: |
| I find that skis with that extra 5 cms seem to run straighter at speed and I am confident to go fast, without those 5cms the front end twitches and I cannot go fast. |
SZK's point is made for him. I think part of ski's might be that an improvement is measured by the shape of the turn first, and by the speed last.
| Quote: |
I first became aware of this after my first 3 weeks skiing when I was on rental Salomon Verse skis, as soon as I went from 165 to 170 I made an immediate improvement. Now I notice it with my 165 RX8's, as soon as I go onto a suitable rental ski at 170 I go faser.
|
"faster than a laser, not as phat as Captain Kirk."
| Quote: |
Though it doesn't work with every 170 rental ski, for instance the Salomon X-Wing didn't work, whilst the Rossignol ???? 7R carbon did (I've got the full details written down somewhere). |
X-wings increase the tip width in longer ski lengths to keep the published radius mostly the same. The difference between you and your son is that you're engaging the ski tips more, with some combination (intentional or otherwise) of pressure on the ski tips and tipping of the ski.
If you and he were to hold the skis perfectly level to the average plane of the piste, and stay balanced on them, he might beat you in powder but you'd be faster on hardpack.
An RX8 to a Trouble Maker is quite a downgrade, imo, anywhere but the park.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
brains start exploding when debating DIN numbers, can you imagine giving them one of 