 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
so i get you need a surface area for float, and presumably you wouldnt want to go to the extremes (although Icelantic seem to have other ideas). So, say is there any pros / cons of say a 150 length with 90 underfoot vs 155 with 80 underfoot. I havent done the maths, but reckon they have a similar surface area. I get you need edge for ice, but not often smooth ice off piste from my small experience. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
width underfoot makes more difference than at the ends of the ski which is why dedicated powder skis don't have much sidecut or even are wider in the middle than at the tips
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Is the question about short fat or long thin legs ? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Width (especially underfoot) for float, length for fore/aft balance & long sidecut for stability. Long & fat is therefore best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I go with spyderjon, long and wide is the way to go. Remember off piste may have very changeable conditions so you need a ski that is good for more than just the deep powder. The dedicated deep powder skis are very much a specialist tool and are crap in other conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bitoffluff, 150 vs 155 is an almost completely insignificant difference, especially when talking about skis that are _not_ the same make and model.
If I were to say "long and fat is therefore best for off-piste" for someone your size I'd be referring to 175-180cm powder skis.
If you are having trouble with your current skis, can you describe the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.....as long and as fat as you can get ( that sounds like a request from my girlfriend)....dont ever, ever, use the word "thin" around here again........
okbye
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
snowpatrol, naughty boy 
comprex, this is going to sound like i havent a clue how to ski, but i cant get the weight on the tips enough to make them track parallel round turns. i know, sounds like a beginner problem but ive tried dynamic weight shifts, hips forward, bending at knees and relaxing ankles etc. last year i was blitzing the blacks all over espace killy and portes de soleil, well ok icy swiss wall had me on my a**e but apart from that was looking and feeling like i knew what i was doing, and playing off the edge of the piste. now i look like a tit on the blues at cairngorm, boo hoo! my boots are the same. i guess swapping from twin to semi will make a small difference to effective edge, but youre right, cant be much more than 10cm difference max. any suggestions would be greatly appreciated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150 -v- 155 is comparing short -v- short. To compare short -v- long you need to be considering 150 -v- 210.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Adrian, now that would certainly give people a laugh if i rocked up with 210s ie 50cm above my head. guess i was thinking in terms of relatives rather than absolutes 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
If you're seriously good (and from the wording . . . ) long(er) and stiffer. Otherwise short (forgiving = slopyish) and fat. The problem is, can you cope with short and fat on-piste because that is where we all spend a reasonable amount of time.
In my experience Icelandic will murder off-piste but on-piste . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bitoffluff, I would sugget you compare where the bindings are positioned on your new skis compared to old, and the ramp (difference in height between toe and heel of binding). That may have the effect you are talking about, i.e skiing has become difficult.,
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
bitoffluff, longer skis are unwieldy. Whatever you choose is always a compromise in some respect. If you want big mountain then as long and fat as you can put up with when not in deep snow (and I wager this is the large majority of the time - if people are honest with themselves, when added up not that much time is spent in deep snow (as opp to snow just a few cm to a hard base) in Europe in the average week). Unless you intend to attack off-piste in a big way this season (going to Utah, season consisting of week long off-piste courses only etc) IMO for now you only want an all mountain ski.
For your weight, the area of a 155cm 80mm ski is akin to an 80kg man skiing a 187cm 100mm ski, in other words a seriously off-piste ski already if not actually big big mountain. I don't think you need worry about getting anything of bigger area, but I tend to think of piste skis as shorter than height, all mountain as being of same length as height and off piste as longer than height, with width increasing proportionately but the range of width for each category for any individual being dependent on their weight. A deep snow width for a slight person isn't the same as for a lardy person. Only problem is that ski manufacturers understandably make skis of certain widths for certain purposes (materials, weights, flex patterns, ski radius, profile, camber, contact points etc etc) and try to cater for different weight people simply by making different lengths. Of course this isn't ideal, and actually some manufacturers have varied widths up/down with the lengths in the past to compensate.
If I were you I'd just ski the skis some more and see if you get used to them. If you want to change them, have a careful think about how much floatation you want and how much piste performance you're willing to compromise against how much deep snow help you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I noticed you said you are having trouble on blues at Cairngorm. In my opinion you have to forget the slope gradings in Scotland as there are so many other things that affect the difficulty of a slope. Most of the slopes here aren't as nicely groomed as you will find in Europe, they are usually narrower, quite often off camber and twist and turn a lot more so a blue here, on certain days, can be harder than a nicely groomed, wide black somewhere else. Its not just the steppness that makes a slope difficult to ski. the first time I skied in Scotland, having skied reds on holiday, I spend all day falling over on a green because it was just so bumpy 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
The flotation factor (FF) of a 150 x 90 ski is 13,500.
For a 190 x 80 ski, it is 15,200.
If you have a good technique, it is perfectly fine to ski offpiste on a slalom ski of, say, 180 x 70 (12,600).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| bitoffluff wrote: |
comprex, this is going to sound like i havent a clue how to ski, but i cant get the weight on the tips enough to make them track parallel round turns. i know, sounds like a beginner problem but ive tried dynamic weight shifts, hips forward, bending at knees and relaxing ankles etc. last year i was blitzing the blacks all over espace killy and portes de soleil, well ok icy swiss wall had me on my a**e but apart from that was looking and feeling like i knew what i was doing, and playing off the edge of the piste. now i look like a booby on the blues at cairngorm, boo hoo! my boots are the same. i guess swapping from twin to semi will make a small difference to effective edge, but youre right, cant be much more than 10cm difference max. any suggestions would be greatly appreciated |
Let me make sure I understand this: You went from a ('8/09 season) 150 cm S3 Pommier to a 155 SC 80? And had essentially no trouble on the S3 Pommier?
IMO, the twin tips/semi twin have nothing to do with it. Mounting point and ski flex have everything to do with it. The SC80 is simply a ski with significantly less carving performance than the 08/09 S3 Pommier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
bitoffluff, the S3 was floatier in raw surface area and you had no significant problems with it. The SC80 is -too soft- (and not floaty enough).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
bitoffluff, well I'm not necessarily suggesting you go shorter (remember there are advantages to length other than area: fore-aft support, stability at speed, speed itself etc etc), just that you don't need any more area per se. If I were you and buying skis, having decided what category of ski I wanted, say female all mountain, I'd then test the narrower skis in that category say mid70s to around 80 mm, in an appropriate length, say length aroundabout height for all mountain. If looking for female off piste, say late 80s mm to mid 90 mm and...probably the shortest length they do it in!  It would seem to me that most (?all) skis on the market will offer you ample floatation for their intended function, so you don't need to worry about area, but more about whether they're intended for your purpose, they do an appropriate length for you and if you like how they handle in your chosen length.
Still, if I were you I'd persevere with what you have, as they're probably an ok category/width/length for you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
See if you can move your boot forward relative to the ski. Do you have adjustable bindings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
666, "In my experience Icelandic will murder off-piste but on-piste . . . "
I found the exact opposite. Bought a pair of Icelantic Shamans off Kiwi1 this year.
The website bumph says that the are great for carving the piste as well as off piste.
While I knew from the shape and dimensions that they'd be good off piste,
I figured that they'd be pretty sloppy on the hard piste.
I used them in November in Valthorens and was shocked at how well they carve on piste.
I normally ski on Head Supershapes and the Shamans held an edge just as well and never once chattered no matter how hard I forced them.
I assumed it was BS marketing but was delighted with their piste performance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I got the longer ones cos the instrcutors on a course i went on said i needed to use longer one, bummer. maybe my new babies will have to go on ebay 
