Please respond with the letter corresponding to your choice only, unless choosing "Other".
A) 10cm Increments
B) 5cm Increments
C) 3cm Increments
D) 3cm Increments in sizes 155-175, then 5cm increments
E) Other, please specify
Pilote Custom Skis. Skis for you.
E - 7mm seems to work well
E - 7mm seems to work well
That is crazy talk.... 8cm.
3 (max4) skis in a series should suffice too.
A, 10cm is fine, no need to go less.
Ideally for the customer ? D. Lots of choices for those that feel torn between lengths and longer I like more options than a 7 or 8 cm jump.
For myself I would demo a 175, 180 and 185 to feel which I would prefer depending on ski type and application. I ski in this range mostly topping out at 188
I'll go with 3 cm.
5cm increments.
The skis I'm looking at are only available in 175 and 185 and if I had my choice it would be a 180.
10 cm is too much, and 5 cm in not enough to make a significant difference. 7cm seems to give the best incremental steps from my experience, once you get to longer lengths. I don't know about 175 and shorter.
I can recall testing skis and finding the 205s a little unstable at high speed, the 211s a little too hard to manage in tight places, and the 208s just right.
i may be in the minority but i think that 3cm and 5cm increments are the way to go...particularly on ec hard snow skis....but thats just me...
10cm on a nominal 180cm ski is what 5% difference in running surface?
I agree with Philpug that 3, maybe 4 sizes in a series is plenty.
You guys that want these smaller increments, I think some of it is a mental thing. I'd
love to see a blind test of 3cm increase or decrease in ski length. I don't think most skiers
would be able to tell the difference (or ski blind either!)
E) Depends on the sidecut.
Under 20m sidecut - 10 or 12 cm increments (so a size break would be 143-155 - 167-179).
Over 20m sidecut - 8 cm increments (176, 184, 192)
Now on Mondays.
B) 5cm for race skis (SL or GS), stiff high performance skis.
A) 10cm for others, back to 5cm if you notice a very big difference.
10cm on a nominal 180cm ski is what 5% difference in running surface?
I agree with Philpug that 3, maybe 4 sizes in a series is plenty.
You guys that want these smaller increments, I think some of it is a mental thing. I'd
love to see a blind test of 3cm increase or decrease in ski length. I don't think most skiers
would be able to tell the difference (or ski blind either!)
I agree with this, 5cm=2in (roughly). I think I would likely notice the difference in length before even skiing them, but I don't know that I would while actually skiing.
E) Depends on the sidecut.
Under 20m sidecut - 10 or 12 cm increments (so a size break would be 143-155 - 167-179).
Over 20m sidecut - 8 cm increments (176, 184, 192)
comprex, could you elaborate on the thoughts behind this?
B) 5cm for race skis (SL or GS), stiff high performance skis.
A) 10cm for others, back to 5cm if you notice a very big difference.
Initially my gut instinct was that 5cm was about the magic number. Anything less would not be noticeable (other then a number printed on a ski) to most, and anything more would be leaving gaps that skiers wouldn't fit into.
Keep it up guys, this is really helpfull 
Pilote Custom Skis. Skis for you.
B; (5cm). Too many gaps at 10cm increments. In the past, I have purchased other skis (manufacturers please take note) rather than go up/down 10cm.
B, just like the "good old days"
Smell that? Winter's coming!
Most manufacturers are going 7-8cm, that should tell you something.
Most manufacturers are going 7-8cm, that should tell you something.
Yep, it's cheaper to make fewer versions, a lot cheaper.
Smell that? Winter's coming!
Yep, it's cheaper to make fewer versions, a lot cheaper.
About 33%. What is also less expensive in the amount of lengths needed, 3-4 lengths compared to 7-8 lengths in a model line.
E) Depends on the sidecut.
Under 20m sidecut - 10 or 12 cm increments (so a size break would be 143-155 - 167-179).
Over 20m sidecut - 8 cm increments (176, 184, 192)
comprex, could you elaborate on the thoughts behind this?
No problem, it's fairly simple:
First, the smaller the published radius, the greater the maximal edging angles *possible* (let's call it MEAP) and the greater the maximal edging angles *comfortably achieved* (MEACA) by the likes of intermediates and stuff.
Greater MEAP and MEACA at any given speed = greater variation in turn shape possible at that speed by variation in edge angle. So you need less variation in ski *length* to achieve a similar spread of possible turn shapes.
Second, at the shorter lengths (which is what your short published radius skis will be) you will need finer-grained control of flex to give the skier optimal or desired front to back balance and edge engagement behavior. So fewer lengths on offer means far fewer flex +length+sidecut profile combinations to test/model/compute/make sure are viable.
Now on Mondays.
7-8 BUT a lot of it is mental. 168 sounds so much shorter than a 170 and a 180 is so much longer than a 179 :)
Yep, it's cheaper to make fewer versions, a lot cheaper.
About 33%. What is also less expensive in the amount of lengths needed, 3-4 lengths compared to 7-8 lengths in a model line.
The fewer lengths a vendor offers in each model the more they save on set up costs between runs, inventory management costs, distribution issues, not to mention less complicated product forecasting i.e. figuring out just how many of each length/model to make. If you only offer 3 sizes instead of 6 you are less likely to miss the mark by a lot. However, if you have gaps/white spaces that other vendors don't -someone offers a similar ski in a 195 where you offer it in 190 and shorter, you could lose some sales. But, it might actually cost you more to offer the 195 (additional set up, distro, SG&E, etc) than the lost sales profit generated. I'll save the calculus for Comprex.. Anyway they try to measure demand , costs, revenues, and profits using just about every product mix scenario and determined that they make more money producing skis 7 cm apart instead if 5 as they did in the past.
Smell that? Winter's coming!
The fewer lengths a vendor offers in each model the more they save on set up costs between runs, inventory management costs, distribution issues, not to mention less complicated product forecasting i.e. figuring out just how many of each length/model to make. If you only offer 3 sizes instead of 6 you are less likely to miss the mark by a lot. However, if you have gaps/white spaces that other vendors don't -someone offers a similar ski in a 195 where you offer it in 190 and shorter, you could lose some sales. But, it might actually cost you more to offer the 195 (additional set up, distro, SG&E, etc) than the lost sales profit generated. I'll save the calculus for Comprex.. Anyway they try to measure demand , costs, revenues, and profits using just about every product mix scenario and determined that they loose less money producing skis 7 cm apart instead if 5 as they did in the past.
Fixed it for ya ;)
7-8 Would be long enough increments to make a noticeable difference in the skis characteristics.
Would also make it economically practical for manufacturers models verses just lengths and shops to carry the lengths in reasonable numbers. Finndog is on the button with psychology aspect a 178 sounds much more macho than a 175 but couldn't ever tell it.
Oh ya, agree with all that stuff that Comprex said too what ever it was. Engineers we love you and need you.
Growing old is mandatory. Growing up is optional.
I just wish there was a uniform standard for measuring length. Two skis with the same shadow length can have advertised lengths up to 4 or 5 cm different, depending on how the manufacturer measures the ski.
If you can't ski, do tricks!
Fixed it for ya ;)
Boy did you!
Smell that? Winter's coming!
In my world:
All powder skis would be available in 190 and 195 cm.
Bump skis would be available in 180 and 190 CM
SLs and GS would be the shortest FES allows and 5 cm longer.
Frontside carvers would be available in 175, 185, and 195
Park skis would be available in 160 and 170
Knock off 20 cm for the junior version and 10 fer wimmens
Smell that? Winter's coming!
7-8 BUT a lot of it is mental. 168 sounds so much shorter than a 170 and a 180 is so much longer than a 179 :)
Yep, as 168 is still in the 160's but 170 is 170. Kind of like stores always selling things for $19.whatever, it's really $20 but it sounds cheaper to you...
Maybe skis should come with stick on numbers so the user can make their own length?
I just wish there was a uniform standard for measuring length. Two skis with the same shadow length can have advertised lengths up to 4 or 5 cm different, depending on how the manufacturer measures the ski.
This is also a huge issue, i have done quite a bit of measuring on my own and some companies push this to ridiculous extremes, I've measured a few pairs that come out to a max of 175 when they are sold as 178 (for example). That is with a flexible tape to hit all the curves too.
Pilote Custom Skis. Skis for you.
B
So I heard you like Mudkips...
E. 7-8
There are times when I've had a mental block with a 10cm jump. You know, the "oh, i couldn't go to something that long/short" thought. Even if that mindset is totally wrong, I know from reading other peoples' comments on here that I'm not alone in feeling that way sometimes. 5cm and 3cm seem like you'd end up with a lot of sizes and just make the size choice harder for most people, since most people would be well served by several of your sizes.
I think the 7-8cm range gives a happy medium.
