or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › SL:11 Owners - A Final call to action!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SL:11 Owners - A Final call to action!

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
To avoid being undestandably ignored, I must start just one final follow-up thread in search of an answer to something which was still in dispute during THIS thread. The question I have is: Did Atomic produce some World Cup SL:11's which were marked as 164's but are actually 160's?

Logruve was the person who first pointed this out, but there were others who said there was no such animal as a 160 SL:11.

Who's right? I have to go with Logruve at this point because I just went and bought a nice metric tape ruler, and measured my SL:11's at their longest possible length - along the bottom surface from the end of the tail to the very tip of the plastic tip protector.

The result >> 161cm. exactly.

So is that Atomic's measurement on all 164's? Or do I have the elusive 160's??: :

Please, kind friends, I beg of you one last favor! Go to your skis and measure them. Not just for me, but for all of us. Then come here and post your measurements of this "unwound length."

BTW - my sidecut is still 111-63-98, but my B.A.C. is .069% and rising.
post #2 of 12
My 155cm SL11s are 153.6cm. That's measuring in a straight line without bending the ruler from tip deflector to tail.
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the valuable data, Mike.

Using your method -i.e. ski tip against the wall, and measuring length along the floor, I lose 1.5cm for a 159.5. Looks like I've got ~6cm. more than your 155 cm. World Cup skis.

I'd say that makes my SL:11's the 160cm. version, and not 164 as marked. : WTF? Looks like Logruve was correct.

Anybody have some data from their own 164's or 165's?
post #4 of 12
My wife's store retail SL11's 157cm measure out at 156.5cm using Alaska Mike's straight line method (Tip deflector to tail). These are definitely NOT race or world cup model
post #5 of 12
You gotta understand Logruve is the Eastern Tech Rep for Atomic USA. He knows exactly what he is saying!
post #6 of 12
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by Atomicman
You gotta understand Logruve is the Eastern Tech Rep for Atomic USA. He knows exactly what he is saying!
I was unaware of that, thanks. Since another knowledgeable guy strongly disputed the existence of 160's in the previous thread, I wanted to try and verify it. It's obvious that Logruve is correct, I was just hoping to back it up with data showing that not all skis marked 164 are the same lenghts.
post #7 of 12
SL11 owners, if you will indulge me for a slight hijack here but since you are all measuring lengths (of skis I should add quickly!) and a previous post failed to elicit a response.

Can one of the racers among you provide some guidance on the FIS and USSA length rules. i.e the ski length can have a tolerance of +-1cm on the minimum length (I think that should be -1 cm, since additional length is not really an issue) but the ski length must also be marked on the ski ----- does this mean that the length marked must also correspond to the minimum length requirement for the class ? i.e If a SL ski is marked say, 160, but actually measures 165 is this legal? My initial assumption is that it would be as the verification would be by measurement. Similarly a 165 marked ski that actually measures 160 would, by my reckoning, clearly be illegal.

So does the marked length have any real validity apart from providing a casual inspection?

I must say I would be kinda bummed if I had bought a ski which was marked as class legal but came up short when measured. Fortunately it is not a real issue for Masters racing but I always like to properly understand the rules.

Also where the ski has an extended race tip, does this count towards the unwound length?

Atomicman? Alaska Mike? any thoughts?
post #8 of 12
A few things:

- Not what you asked, but my understanding is: if the ski is marked 164 and measures 164, it is not legal. The 1 cm tolerance is a measurement tolerance.

- But: A ski marked 165 that measures 164 would be legal (that's the measurement tolerance). While, as you note, a ski marked 165 that measures 160 (or 163, for that matter) would not be legal.

- It would seem to follow that a ski marked 160 (or 164) that measures 165 is also not legal. I would think this should be sort of an academic question, since a manufacturer should be trying avoide disqualifying its skis, except:

- I don't think you can alter your skis yourself to try to bring them into compliance, e.g. take a 160-cm ski and tape a 5-cm tip extension on to it. On the other hand, it seems that what's on the ski as manufactured does count. One example: the semi-transparent plastic tip on Atomic slalom skis. Also, it's been mentioned (whether it's true or not) that Fischer brought some skis into compliance simply by adding a tip extension.

- On the other hand (and now I'm speculating): if a manufacturer started going nuts with this, I've got to figure that FIS would crack down on it. It's reasonably easy to regulate, since you can count the number of ski manufacturers of any significance on a hand or two. Incidentally, if a ski-maker wanted to get cute, they could do it not only with length restrictions, but radius as well. Given the way the FIS regs say to measure radius, if you hang a long enough narrow tip extension on your ski, you can make the radius anything you want.
post #9 of 12
Thanks for that. I had not really thought about being so creative as adding extra long tip extensions but it is an interesting point!.

I would agree that the manufacturer would not be trying to disqualify itself by putting a length that was too short. It will be interesting to see what the measurement lengths are on the 165's that started this thread and how many of them actually comply!!
post #10 of 12
Thread Starter 
There must be a half dozen skiers with those Cupolo 165 WC skis here.
Who's going to join the party and pony up some vital stats here?

Do you wany Ullr to bless you with a powder day, or not? :
post #11 of 12
Sorry my skis are in a box to be sent back.
post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
Originally Posted by Scalce
Sorry my skis are in a box to be sent back.
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 › SL:11 Owners - A Final call to action!