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... - Page 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by nochaser

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 tool you want to play with is Physicsman's side cut calculator :

Notice that it has a total area calculation

Quote:
Originally Posted by nochaser

The 3cm length question came from a practical situation, where one's ideal length falls inbetween sizes for skis offered in 6cm length increments.

Well in that case!

IMHO experience, yes, 6cm does make a difference. Some skis, both the longer and shorter lengths have problematic issues, and neither length of a well regarded ski is as good as 'the right' length in another ski model. Mileage will vary greatly according to weight, ability, and venue.

Since for me, the "ideal" length is going to vary based on application, amount of rise, width measurements, radius, stiffness, etc., every ski I own is a different "actual" length. How are you coming up with this "ideal" if you haven't demoed the ski in the length that interests you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky

Since for me, the "ideal" length is going to vary based on application, amount of rise, stiffness, etc., every ski I own is a different "actual" length. How are you coming up with this "ideal" if you haven't demoed the ski in the length that interests you?

Platonically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

I've never demo'd the same ski in different lengths.  I would like to, but it is hard to use up a rare demo opportunity for a science experiment.  I have had the opposite problem, where comparing different skis in the same family is confused because they were available to demo in different lengths.  Was it the model or the length?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky

Since for me, the "ideal" length is going to vary based on application, amount of rise, stiffness, etc., every ski I own is a different "actual" length. How are you coming up with this "ideal" if you haven't demoed the ski in the length that interests you?

Platonically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

Not going to read all that, but I'm don't have the ability to read a bunch of numbers, materials lists, etc. and know that I need a 173, when all that's available is a 170 or a 177. I know that the KNOWLEDGE of the length (or the radius or the width) has a big influence on my perception of the ski. But I've never had unmarked skis to demo to eliminate that information from my consciousness. I'm pretty sure it would be a better way of evaluating skis, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf

I've never demo'd the same ski in different lengths.  I would like to, but it is hard to use up a rare demo opportunity for a science experiment.  I have had the opposite problem, where comparing different skis in the same family is confused because they were available to demo in different lengths.  Was it the model or the length?

I have, several times, and formed conclusions based on that. But would I have formed the same conclusions if they just threw a ski at me that was unmarked? I don't know. Certainly my expected differences were confirmed when I demoed different lengths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky

Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky

Since for me, the "ideal" length is going to vary based on application, amount of rise, stiffness, etc., every ski I own is a different "actual" length. How are you coming up with this "ideal" if you haven't demoed the ski in the length that interests you?

Platonically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

Not going to read all that,

Too bad, it makes for a pretty good nested pun/joke.

Quote:

Not going to read all that, but I'm don't have the ability to read a bunch of numbers, materials lists, etc. and know that I need a 173, when all that's available is a 170 or a 177.

And it also speaks to the human ability to perceive, intuit or imagine the essential "substance" of a thing (e.g. ski) beyond what might be perceived through observation of existing examples of things (e.g. skis) through the senses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf

I've never demo'd the same ski in different lengths.  I would like to, but it is hard to use up a rare demo opportunity for a science experiment.  I have had the opposite problem, where comparing different skis in the same family is confused because they were available to demo in different lengths.  Was it the model or the length?

I was able to demo the same model ski in different lengths, by renting them from the store with the rental fee going towards the purchase price.

Our demo day here every season has demos for free all day long, so I've not only demoed in different lengths, but also same length from different shops. The different tune of the same length is just as big a deal as a different length, and especially when interpolating that to a 3 cm length difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

I was able to demo the same model ski in different lengths, by renting them from the store with the rental fee going towards the purchase price.

It's great that you went to the trouble and all.... and?

IMH experience, I've demoed a few skis in different lengths when I jump on one that just doesn't feel quite right. Usually I'll try shorter first and go longer if necessary. In every case, the length makes a significant difference. In some cases, so much so that I really dislike one length, and the other skis terrifically. Sometimes both lengths have significant short comings for a particular sized/ability skier, that though a nice ski for many, just won't fly for the guy/gal between lengths. This seems to happen with the Kastles a fair amount, and for me, it's problematic with some of the Head big mountain skis. In both cases, each is 10cm different.

The example that really stands out for me are the 177 and 184 Head Rev 85 Pro. Huge difference. The 177 for a strong 200# skier is sort of squirrelly, wiggly fun with a clear and low speed limit. The 184 is a smooth, well rounded quarter horse of a ski that is stable at speed and just does everything well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

I was able to demo the same model ski in different lengths, by renting them from the store with the rental fee going towards the purchase price.

It's great that you went to the trouble and all.... and?

They didn't have a 204, so he passed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch

And it also speaks to the human ability to perceive, intuit or imagine the essential "substance" of a thing (e.g. ski) beyond what might be perceived through observation of existing examples of things (e.g. skis) through the senses.

What some of us - right, @bounceswoosh? - call a class. See my sig.

There are skis like the new Enforcer that I like in two lengths, the 177 and 184 and skis like the MX88 which the 178 is perfect and the 188 is completely wrong. Other skis like the new Pinnacle 95 which is way to short for me in the 177 and a ton of fun in the 184. What does all this say? Length is only PART of the equation of what is the best choice for each skier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug

There are skis like the new Enforcer that I like in two lengths, the 177 and 184 and skis like the MX88 which the 178 is perfect and the 188 is completely wrong. Other skis like the new Pinnacle 95 which is way to short for me in the 177 and a ton of fun in the 184. What does all this say? Length is only PART of the equation of what is the best choice for each skier.

Exactly!
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe

What some of us - right, @bounceswoosh? - call a class. See my sig.

But what about when the class is an instance of a class?

^^^

Fair enough, but this is where my head starts to hurt. I can get that at work.

The class of classes is a self-propogating form.  Just let it go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe

What some of us - right, @bounceswoosh? - call a class. See my sig.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost

The class of classes is a self-propogating form.  Just let it go.

Gotta love a place that manages turn radii, a Cormac McCarthy quote, and some logic debate all in the same thread. I'll toss in the obligatory Men In Black universe-within-lockers ref since a new one's coming out, and it sneaks some cosmology into the logic...

I'll also note the utter arbitrariness of length or width cuts for particular models. Not, uh, natural classes...

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe

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.

You don't say?

(I've been saying that since I started posting here in 2005, nice to see reality is starting to break through for some. Kudos.)

Width has greater impact than length.  Many people however are still gunning for skis that are too short for them abilitywise once rocker and other "new" profile jiggery pokery are taken into account, particularly if they aren't going to be pure groomer skiers.  That said people obsess too much about minor technical deltas, I jumped on a pair of 151cm skis last week and had a hoot (admittedly using them as snowlerblades with full jazz hands)

Thanks to all! I picked up a few things I haven't thought about before.

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...