or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski lengths aren't what they seem...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski lengths aren't what they seem...

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

I'm trying to determine what size Soul 7's to get.  I'm a 5'8", 155lbs, 50 yr. old "finesse" expert rider and want them for 80% powder, 20% groomed.  Last week I visited a local store who had them in a 180cm.  Expecting the 180cm Souls to raise above my head by 7cm I was surprised they stopped at the top of my head.  I had 2-3cm dress shoes on and perhaps the unscientific method of holding my hand on the top of my head to the ski created a 2cm error potential either way.

 

Visited the local store today with a tape measure.  With the tape running from tip to tail "through the air" the 180cm Souls are 177cm.  If I press the tape down to the ski the whole length is 178.5cm tip to tail.  

 

An Armada Al Dente 178cm was 180cm from tip to tail "through the air".

 

SO skis are measured differently it seems.  

 

So when a person is considering ski length vis a vis their weight/height/ability shouldn't we get a "true" reading that every company follows?

 

I know the answer to this is "Demo every ski before buying" but it's not possible where I live.   

 

Couldn't we have 2 readings?  One tip to tail "through the air" and another its whole length that plans on contacting the snow.  Some kind of "useable" surface measurement...

 

Granted some skis have a seemingly short running length.  These Souls have an early rise that makes it look like the front 10'' of ski never really make contact with the ground, especially if you look at the contact points when pressing the skis together.

 

But some of that 10" honeycomb tip will play a role in contact with deep powder.  So this may be hard to figure out but shouldn't there be a standard measurement(s)?

post #2 of 17

yea, I agree its kind of crazy stupid. The same thing been going on forever. I remember my old straights (which I only now joined the shape ski party lol) use to be the same way. Same size skis and 4 diffrerent brands would be all different lengths.

 

It is very stupid there isn't a simple standard but on the other hand its not that big a deal imo.  Give or take a handful cm's (or inch or two) I don't think is something of any concern. Besides many brands don't all make the same lengths anyway if there there was a standard. 

 

One looks for certain skis and size and the similar skis from different brands is all over the place size wise. One makes a 177 and 184 while another makes a 174, 181 while another  172, and 180 and then while they measure differently you might find the same size skis yet marked different.    Two brands of 177's might be different but then another brand 180 matches the others 177. Go figure, who knows?  But as I eluded to before - give or take a little shouldn't be of any real concern imo.

post #3 of 17

Yes, ski companies should be much more transparent about all of the measurable characteristics of every product they make, if not consumers can be deceived... just like Bridger Bowl and their deceptive transceiver policy.

post #4 of 17
While at it they should also provide weight for each model as well as stiffness reference data as per boots. They certainly don't make life easy for their potential customers .... It's a jungle out there!
post #5 of 17
The first world is a rough and tumble place.
post #6 of 17

you haven't brought up the exact same physical ski for mens/womens using different length numbers to sell to each gender.

 

Chemtrails I tell you...

post #7 of 17

Ski length is absolutely irrelevant when taking effective length, sidecut, materials in to account etc...

 

Try before you buy always.  

post #8 of 17

Some review sites will list the actual tip-to-tail length of the ski they reviewed as determined by a tape measure pull.  Blister Gear Reviews comes to mind as an example.  Of course, they only get the actual measurement on the one ski they tested out of the various lengths for that model, but there ya go.

 

I see this marks my 1,300th post.  I do hope it's sufficiently worthy of such a milestone.

post #9 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollin View Post
 

yea, I agree its kind of crazy stupid. The same thing been going on forever. I remember my old straights (which I only now joined the shape ski party lol) use to be the same way. Same size skis and 4 diffrerent brands would be all different lengths.

 

It is very stupid there isn't a simple standard but on the other hand its not that big a deal imo.  Give or take a handful cm's (or inch or two) I don't think is something of any concern. Besides many brands don't all make the same lengths anyway if there there was a standard. 

 

One looks for certain skis and size and the similar skis from different brands is all over the place size wise. One makes a 177 and 184 while another makes a 174, 181 while another  172, and 180 and then while they measure differently you might find the same size skis yet marked different.    Two brands of 177's might be different but then another brand 180 matches the others 177. Go figure, who knows?  But as I eluded to before - give or take a little shouldn't be of any real concern imo.

 

Rollin - Let's say there is a 180cm Soul and a 175cm Soul - that's 2 inches (an amount that you think is of no concern) - would you just close your eyes and pick one?  Or would you begin to analyze the merits of picking one over the other?  To the most discerning rider this is a huge difference...

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiatus View Post

While at it they should also provide weight for each model as well as stiffness reference data as per boots. They certainly don't make life easy for their potential customers .... It's a jungle out there!

 

Totally agree!

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytseng View Post
 

you haven't brought up the exact same physical ski for mens/womens using different length numbers to sell to each gender.

 

Chemtrails I tell you...

 

Maybe the women want it to be longer... 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iceage View Post
 

Ski length is absolutely irrelevant when taking effective length, sidecut, materials in to account etc...

 

Try before you buy always.  

 

Agree to line #1.  In theory line #2 is correct but in some cases you gotta move fast if the ski is at a ridiculous price and pretty much universally acclaimed for lightweight riders…  I can sort of use the "there are no powder demos in my area" argument since 500 vertical foot runs over boiler plate is the norm.  However if I wanted to demo 2 sizes of the Soul I could find that on my next trip to Vermont or out West...

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skierish View Post
 

Some review sites will list the actual tip-to-tail length of the ski they reviewed as determined by a tape measure pull.  Blister Gear Reviews comes to mind as an example.  Of course, they only get the actual measurement on the one ski they tested out of the various lengths for that model, but there ya go.

 

I see this marks my 1,300th post.  I do hope it's sufficiently worthy of such a milestone.

 

Blister Gear said the 188 Soul is actually a 186.7 Soul.  They also said one ski is 2000 grams and the other is 2012 grams.  How would that affect my turns?  #1300 is worthy!

post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegrapeguy View Post
 

 

Rollin - Let's say there is a 180cm Soul and a 175cm Soul - that's 2 inches (an amount that you think is of no concern) - would you just close your eyes and pick one?  Or would you begin to analyze the merits of picking one over the other?  To the most discerning rider this is a huge difference...

 

Yea, I here ya.  If I wanted a sole in 180 I would look for the 180 (not the 175 of course) But if another brand was a good viable option that also came in 180 but was (in reality) a tad longer/shorter than the sole 180 I may just way the price so long as I also really liked that ski too. But I understand, it does hold meaning and I guess it just depends how the individual skier feels about it.

I just boight the Blizzard xpower 810's in 181. I was deciding between those and the k2 A.R. 82xti's which came in184. Not to get into the reasons for my end decision but those skis should be only a tad over an inch difference. However if one of those brands runs shorter or longer than the other that difference just might be a bit more than that. But not enough to really bother me, however it certainly may bother you or another. It would bother me if the difference was 3 or 4 inches.

 

I did mention that it is kind of stupid that they don't have a standard size. Even with rocker and/or camber or a combo etc,,, imo they should give skis a standard. Perhaps just a bottom to top height regardless of shapes and curves. if a ski stands at 178cm tall from tail to tip than it should be marked 178. That would be pretty simple imo.

post #11 of 17

Small, Medium, Large, XL.  pick the ski that matches your body shape.  Hasn't it always been this anyway? I pick 2nd from smallest.

post #12 of 17

side cut and rocker are much more significant than ski length in this day and age

post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post
 

Small, Medium, Large, XL.  pick the ski that matches your body shape.  Hasn't it always been this anyway? I pick 2nd from smallest.


Agree on this.  I find 2nd from largest usually fits me. 

I still think the manufacturers should learn to use a tape measure and stop exagerating.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegrapeguy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollin View Post
 

yea, I agree its kind of crazy stupid. The same thing been going on forever. I remember my old straights (which I only now joined the shape ski party lol) use to be the same way. Same size skis and 4 diffrerent brands would be all different lengths.

 

It is very stupid there isn't a simple standard but on the other hand its not that big a deal imo.  Give or take a handful cm's (or inch or two) I don't think is something of any concern. Besides many brands don't all make the same lengths anyway if there there was a standard. 

 

One looks for certain skis and size and the similar skis from different brands is all over the place size wise. One makes a 177 and 184 while another makes a 174, 181 while another  172, and 180 and then while they measure differently you might find the same size skis yet marked different.    Two brands of 177's might be different but then another brand 180 matches the others 177. Go figure, who knows?  But as I eluded to before - give or take a little shouldn't be of any real concern imo.

 

Rollin - Let's say there is a 180cm Soul and a 175cm Soul - that's 2 inches (an amount that you think is of no concern) - would you just close your eyes and pick one?  Or would you begin to analyze the merits of picking one over the other?  To the most discerning rider this is a huge difference...

The next one down is 172 cm (exagerated length).

 

They must have made the women's version in shorter lengths and forgot to change the top sheets ;)

post #14 of 17

Yeah, why NOT a standard method of measuring length?

 

It's not like everybody uses a different method of measuring waist widths, right?

 

It can be debated that length may no longer be the most important criteria in choosing a ski, but I think it is still crucial when attempting to evaluate one ski against another.

 

And it's been awhile, but I once skied the Atomic Nomad Savage in 186 and 180 (ish) back to back, and any expert could EASILY tell the difference between the two with a blindfold on.

post #15 of 17

The metric system is a subjective unit of measurement so don't get hung up on the numbers. It comes down to are you a PR6, PR7 or PR8? 

post #16 of 17

^^^ And whether you prefer S1, S2, or S3 skis.

 

Holy crap, that's a blast from the past!

post #17 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRPufnStf View Post
 

^^^ And whether you prefer 1S, 2S, or 3S skis.

 

Holy crap, that's a blast from the past!

Fixed it for ya. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski lengths aren't what they seem...