or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Q for gear gurus and aficionados...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Q for gear gurus and aficionados...

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 

With all else held constant, what would the following will add to and/or take away from the performance of a ski in real life, if anything noticeable?

 

1) 5 mms of width

2) 3 cms of length

post #2 of 53
1, firm snow. Harder/slower to get up on edge. Ultimately more exhausting.
1, soft snow. More float. Allowing more speed. Possibly less exhausting depending on snow depth, density.

2) firm snow. More stability at the cost of a longer natural radius turn. Sort of depends on whether you're skiing open bowls or trees which you prefer.
2) soft snow. More float. Less maneuverability. Once again, depends on your circumstances which is better.

I'm not going to obsess over 3 cm of length.

Edited to fix measurement unit.
Edited by sibhusky - 5/3/15 at 1:51pm
post #3 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

1, firm snow. Harder/slower to get up on edge. Ultimately more exhausting.
1, soft snow. More float. Allowing more speed. Possibly less exhausting depending on snow depth, density.

2) firm snow. More stability at the cost of a longer natural radius turn. Sort of depends on whether you're skiing open bowls or trees which you prefer.
2) soft snow. More float. Less maneuverability. Once again, depends on your circumstances which is better.

I'm not going to obsess over 3 mm (cm) of length.

FIFY!

 

By the way 3 cms is 1.18" No need to obsess over 3 cm. either

post #4 of 53
Thread Starter 
Perhaps I should rephrase my question -- with everything else held constant, what's the width/length threshold over which it starts making a meaningful, noticeable difference for skiers in the snow?
post #5 of 53

In my experience, back to back testing reveals that a 5 cm in length does make a meaningful difference.  I have not tested skis with solely a width difference back to back.  I'm guessing 5 mm in width would make a significant difference, just based on skiing many different skis. 

post #6 of 53

I would say very little other than fine tuning for a particular skier/ability/style.  By this I mean that the any skier that notices a difference will likely be at the better end to start with as it will either enhance or degrade the "FEEL" of the ski, without really hindering performance.

 

The guide that sibhusky provided is likely a good starting point, but again as these are small differences, it may be more of a feel thing and more individual skier "Feel" based.

 

Larger differences such as at the extremes of the limits (ie 10mm w and 6cm+ L) would definitely be noticed in performance, how again depends more on the skier.

 

IMO I think that how the latest top end skis are built, torsional and longitudinal flex patterns along with cut and early rise/chamber have changed the game is they greatly influence the "Feel" and extremely small changes here likely have a bigger influence.

post #7 of 53

For what it's worth, when I bother to rent skis for a powder day out west (8+ inches new snow), I want something that is at least 10mm wider than my all-mountain skis (Black Pearl, 88mm underfoot).  For length, I'm open to skis that are up to 10cm longer since fatter skis tend to have more rocker.

 

At the other end of the spectrum, at a demo day in the Mid-Atlantic I like to try out carvers that are 10-15mm narrower.  Usually 5-10cm shorter.  When trying something that is within 5mm of my normal skis, always more differences in design and materials than just the width underfoot.  So hard to say what's the most significant factor that leads to a different feel.

post #8 of 53
Plus, even though you want to, to simplify your analysis, in the real world you can't actually assume everything else is held constant. For example, some mfrs change flex pattern with different size skis within the same model, to allow for different size skiers. So if brand A has a 160 that is their shortest length in a model, and brand B has a 163 that is their SECOND shortest length in a similar model, the B ski may target a different size skier. Tons of variables with this stuff. Fortunately we are great adapters and can figure out how to make anything within reason work okay.
post #9 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by nochaser View Post
 

With all else held constant, what would the following will add to and/or take away from the performance of a ski in real life, if anything noticeable?

 

1) 5 mms of width

2) 3 cms of length

I think the width would be more noticeable than the length. You will feel the 5mm edge to edge difference before the 3cm in length. 

post #10 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by nochaser View Post
 

With all else held constant, what would the following will add to and/or take away from the performance of a ski in real life, if anything noticeable?

 

1) 5 mms of width

2) 3 cms of length


I'll bite. Depends on total size, since your numbers are necessarily a percentage of total. So difference between 65 and 70 mm is substantial. Between 100 and 105, not so much. Length, same issue. 185 vs 182? Meh. 165 vs 168 in a SL design? For sure. 

 

But in an average all-mountain, say 80 mm, I'd say that the length will affect stability more than the width will impact flotation or edge to edge. 

 

And frankly, IME, dimensions in general are a lot less significant to handling than flex pattern, camber, and sidecut. 

post #11 of 53
I don't know any skis that are sold in 3cm increments, so there are bound to be some difference if we're talking different skis.
post #12 of 53

Now that you mention 3 cm increments, I do recall a difference between the 205 cm and the 208 cm Kästle SGs; having imho (it might have been lack of operator skill) exceeded the speed limit on the 205s but only approached it on the 208s at Mt. Tremblant (the 213 s were more stable than the 208s, but damn they were a ton of work in moguls!).

post #13 of 53

... 20-25 year old skis are relevant.... how? 

post #14 of 53

@MarkoThey are the same model, but 3 cm apart in length.

They are a wood core metal ski.

The difference is noticeable, suggesting it could be noticeable in other skis.

post #15 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 

... 20-25 year old skis are relevant.... how? 


The HEAD MOJO 103 and MOJO 105 were vastly different skis.  One had a sidewall, and one was a monoblock.

 

The length width differences would be negligable, but a difference in sidecut would be very noticeable.

post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

@MarkoThey are the same model, but 3 cm apart in length.

They are a wood core metal ski.

The difference is noticeable, suggesting it could be noticeable in other skis.

 

 

:rolleyes  They're. 25. (Explicative-ing). Year. Old. SG. Skis. There. Are. No. Skis. Made. In. 3. cm. Increments. Anymore. Rossi. Used. To. Make. The. ST. In. 200. 203. And. 207. Lengths. Not. Relevant. In. Today's. Ski. Market.

 

( Do you think you could make it through a thread without mentioning what you ski on? )

post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian View Post
 


The HEAD MOJO 103 and MOJO 105 were vastly different skis.  One had a sidewall, and one was a monoblock.

 

The length width differences would be negligable, but a difference in sidecut would be very noticeable.

 

Exactly what I'm saying. The two Mojo's are very different skis. The OP was wonder if ALL things were equal, what would 3cm of length and 5mm of width make? To the best of my knowledge, there are no skis of the same model offered in actual 3cm differences. The closest thing is the Blizzard WRC/Nordica Doberman cheaters @ 180 and 184... Different side cuts, so,they do indeed ski very differently, but I don't know that's what the OP's asking as he isn't being more specific. 

post #18 of 53

Seems to me the OP is trying to isolate the influence of length, and given that it has an influence how small a difference would still be noticeable.  The skis I mentioned, although antique, are very similar construction, without much difference except for length and in my testing, the 3 cm made a noticeable and significant difference. 

 

The difference was the longer ski was more stable, but less easy to push around and redirect quickly while in the air. 

 

I have also noted however, while testing less stable skis (Rossie Bandits)  that adding an extra 5 cm did not change the skis speed limit, but did make the ski more difficult to control when pushed past that speed limit; there was just more tip flopping around to wrestle with.

 

So the difference of length alone also depends on the ski.

post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

Seems to me the OP is trying to isolate the influence of length, and given that it has an influence how small a difference would still be noticeable.  The skis I mentioned, although antique, are very similar construction, without much difference except for length and in my testing, the 3 cm made a noticeable and significant difference. 

 

Would you stop? There AREN'T any current ski models that one is likely to see in a shop that are sold in 3cm increments. Our experiences of 25-35 years ago AREN'T relevant unless the focus is about us. It's not. Knock it off and start demoing/talking about skis made this century, then have at it. 


Edited by markojp - 5/5/15 at 4:06pm
post #20 of 53

Just because   Even if nobody were to make skis with a 3 cm difference today  we should still try to answer his question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nochaser View Post
 

With all else held constant, what would the following will add to and/or take away from the performance of a ski in real life, if anything noticeable?

 

1) 5 mms of width

2) 3 cms of length

EDIT: 2015 Fischer WC GS Masters comes in 188 and 191.  A 3 cm difference:eek.

2015 Fischer RC4 WC SL Women's comes in 155 and 158.  A 3 cm difference :eek.


Edited by Ghost - 5/5/15 at 2:10pm
post #21 of 53
Don't you think if the OP was asking about race skis, he'd have said so?

Anyhow...
post #22 of 53
Both are at the lowest possible edge of being even discernable, giving the nod to width as being a bigger % of the dimension, therefore a bigger impact. I.E., a 170 vs. 173 cm length is 98.2%; whereas a 100 vs 105 mm width is 95%, or, a bigger difference from 100% (5% vs. 1.8%).

If skis were squarer, then the width impact would be smaller.
post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Don't you think if the OP was asking about race skis, he'd have said so? Or is this about you?

I think your trying to make it about you getting my goat.  Not gonna work. 

OP asked if 3 cm of ski length made a difference and it does.  End of story. 

post #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

Don't you think if the OP was asking about race skis, he'd have said so? Or is this about you?
I think your trying to make it about you getting my goat.  Not gonna work. 
OP asked if 3 cm of ski length made a difference and it does.  End of story. 

Data? Different turn radii? Something?
post #25 of 53

I think that the OP is talking 'theoretical' here, more of a thought experiment than 'real world'. There are no skis that I can think of that are sold with a 3cm length difference, and precious few that are 5mm width (and otherwise the same). That doesn't mean we can't say what the difference would feel like by extrapolating experiences with other skis. 

 

Let's imagine Kastle built four very special skis to test the OP's parameters, based on the venerable MX88. All built to have identical flex patterns and turn radius (which takes some effort when you vary the width and length).

 

we will name them A, B, C and D

 

Ski A- 175cm 88mm waist 17.5m Tr

Ski B- 178cm 88mm waist 17.5m Tr

Ski C- 175cm 83mm waist 17.5m Tr

Ski D- 178cm 83mm waist 17.5m Tr

 

It seems fairly obvious that the longer wider ski (B) and the shorter narrower ski (C) will feel different, the longer wider ski will be more stable, better in softer snow and slower edge to edge and a bit more ski to turn. The shorter narrower ski will feel quicker and more nimble with quicker edge engagement and a more solid feel on very hard snow.

 

What do you all suppose would be the differences between ski A and ski D? Things would start to get pretty blurry here.

post #26 of 53
I think they are going to be blurry between a and b if the tester didn't know.
Edited by sibhusky - 5/5/15 at 3:45pm
post #27 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

OP asked if 3 cm of ski length made a difference and it does. 

See how much more to the point and effective it is when you stop talking about yourself?
post #28 of 53

5mm in width or 3cm in length would be tough to discern individually, all other things being equal. Less than a quarter inch wider and just over an inch longer...few skiers would feel that.

post #29 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I think they are going to be blurry between a and d if the tester didn't know.

 

Which was @beyond's point when he said,

 

Quote:
 And frankly, IME, dimensions in general are a lot less significant to handling than flex pattern, camber, and sidecut. 

 

So, Whiteroom, yes, the OP was wanting to be theoretical, but we all know that people ask these questions because they want to apply that theoretical knowledge to choosing a ski. And as soon as you try to do that you immediately run into the fact that it's more likely to mis-lead than to lead. Now, when you are talking big differences, the theory can help more. (Do I want the 155 or the 165 in what is otherwise the exact same SL ski? Okay, that's a real choice with an answer that can be predicted reasonably well, in broad terms, without having to demo.)

post #30 of 53
Thread Starter 
The 3cm length question came from a practical situation, where one's ideal length falls inbetween sizes for skis offered in 6cm length increments. The same goes for 5mm.
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 › Q for gear gurus and aficionados...