EpicSki  ›  The Barking Bear Forums  ›  Skiing Forums  ›  Ski Gear Discussion  ›  Informal Poll: Ski Length Options
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

Informal Poll: Ski Length Options

#31
Rating: 0
6/24/09 at 3:36am
  • Joined: October 2006
  • Location: Poland, Maine/Rochester, NY
  • Post Count: 2,120

Pilote Custom Skis. Skis for you.

Export to Wiki
#32
Rating: 0
6/24/09 at 4:22am
  • Joined: October 2003
  • Post Count: 10,814

scotty?

Now on Mondays.

Export to Wiki
#33
Rating: 0
6/24/09 at 1:15pm
  • Joined: November 2007
  • Location: Collingwood
  • Post Count: 365

 

Originally Posted by comprex View Post

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)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by comprex View Post

 

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.    

 


 

 

I find the stiffness of the ski more important than nominal turning radius.

 

Using SL skis (12-13 m radius) and GS skis (21-27 m radius) as examples, a 5 cm difference is significant in both cases.

 

For softer skis, a 10 cm difference will usually provide a reasonable transition.

Export to Wiki
#34
Rating: 0
6/24/09 at 1:50pm
  • Joined: April 2009
  • Location: PGA National
  • Post Count: 95

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

Most manufacturers are going 7-8cm, that should tell you something.  



 

Ditto, though the 5cm seemed to be the benchmark for my 30+ years of skiing.

Now, I find that there IS a difference when I try two lengths of the same skis.

For me though, I only buy their longest plank in a line.

Export to Wiki
#35
Rating: 0
6/26/09 at 9:36am
  • Joined: October 2005
  • Post Count: 3,090
If you are building custom... why does it matter at all?
skiershop.com
Export to Wiki
#36
Rating: 0
6/26/09 at 11:41am
  • Joined: October 2006
  • Location: Poland, Maine/Rochester, NY
  • Post Count: 2,120

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post

If you are building custom... why does it matter at all?

Because the size of the ski dictates the mold. Setting up molds in 5cm increments gives some flexibility on the length, and saves setup time.


Pilote Custom Skis. Skis for you.

Export to Wiki
#37
Rating: 0
6/27/09 at 6:23am
  • Joined: October 2005
  • Post Count: 3,090
-
skiershop.com
Export to Wiki
#38
Rating: 0
6/27/09 at 6:58am
  • Joined: August 2008
  • Location: Albany, NY
  • Post Count: 164

I'd prefer 5cm increments.  Makes it more likely I can find something in the mid 160's, which tends to be the ski length I prefer (for eastern carvers, and "skinny" midfats and TTs).  Increments could be larger (say 7cm) once you get to the mid 170's.  No idea whether or not what I want is practical from a manufacturers perspective.

STE

Export to Wiki
#39
Rating: 0
6/28/09 at 8:36pm
  • Joined: October 2003
  • Post Count: 10,814

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ski the East View Post

I'd prefer 5cm increments.  Makes it more likely I can find something in the mid 160's, which tends to be the ski length I prefer (for eastern carvers, and "skinny" midfats and TTs).  Increments could be larger (say 7cm) once you get to the mid 170's.  No idea whether or not what I want is practical from a manufacturers perspective.

STE


Imagine solving all that with flex and taper.    So that a 140 lber's 166cm ski is completely different than a 180 lber's 166cm than a 210 lber's 166cm.       Much like Odyssey skis used to do with their 177cm ski lengths.

Now on Mondays.

Export to Wiki
#40
Rating: 0
6/29/09 at 5:22am
  • Joined: September 2000
  • Location: NTS, PA
  • Post Count: 21,815
A ski that is advertised with a 15M sidecut should have a 15M sidecut through the line. So the 170 is 15M with dims of (example, I don't know if this IS 15M but for example sake) 125/75/110, the 163 should be proportionally smaller (and softer) at 122/73/107 and the 177 larger at 127/77/112 to keep the same characteristics of the initial design. 

Salomon kinda tried a variation of this years ago when they first came out with their skis and used a PR (PowerRating), a PR8 was a different length in different models depending on that persons PR. Example:

PR8 
9000 1S (GS) 212cm
9000 2S (SL) 205cm
9000 3S (Rapid SL) 202cm
Force 9 2s 201cm
Force 9 3S 198cm

All of these skis were designed to be skied by the same skier

*I am recalling cm lengths from memory, I might be off a cm one way or the other. 
Click. Point. Chute.  
Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread