EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Pole length, have you gone shorter?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pole length, have you gone shorter? - Page 2

post #31 of 59

Timely

Wow.

Timely posting given that one of my 48" poles now has some cool racing curves in it. I backed over it today.......:

http://www.wiredsupport.biz/images/Bent-Pole.jpg

I used the "upside down grab the basket" method when buying these. Should I try knocking the next pair down a couple of inches?
post #32 of 59
Because they don't get in your way as much

Seriously what's with all the pole plant stuff anyway? :
post #33 of 59
I actually had to go from 48cm to 52 because of the new skis. I have so much more lift now with plates and risers. Way more than with straight skis, where I had no plates or riser to speak of.
So sorry, I have to digress here. I really had to move up a few cm.
I too, also agree with BetaRacer. I can ski all day and only just use the poles to stop me as I am loading up on the chair. I really don't need to pole plant at all. Sometimes I do, though, but in nostalgia of the 80's with a real tight stance. I like the rythym.
For backcountry I use adjustable poles, so I just go with what feels good on the snow.
Deeper, steeper = longer pole for better control too.
post #34 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomic World
I actually had to go from 48cm to 52 because of the new skis. I have so much more lift now with plates and risers. Way more than with straight skis, where I had no plates or riser to speak of.
So sorry, I have to digress here. I really had to move up a few cm.
I too, also agree with BetaRacer. I can ski all day and only just use the poles to stop me as I am loading up on the chair. I really don't need to pole plant at all. Sometimes I do, though, but in nostalgia of the 80's with a real tight stance. I like the rythym.
For backcountry I use adjustable poles, so I just go with what feels good on the snow.
Deeper, steeper = longer pole for better control too.
Poles just for the lift line? You don't ski bump, trees or powder do you?
post #35 of 59
Amazing thread!

Doesn't anyone use poles for subtle balance corrections? Not as crutches, but as interesting tools for added range in a variety of terrains/modes, as it were?
post #36 of 59
I use an active pole plant only in steeps or bumps. in both situations, I'm generally lower (at greater angles) and therefore need a shorter pole than I would using the old school measurement method of holding beneath the basket (upside down pole) and seeking a 90deg angle at the elbow.

poles have much more utility if you ski lots of backcountry, or off-piste, especially where long steep traverses might be an issue. in these traverse conditions an adjustable pole is even more helpful, since your uphill hand always will be needing a shorter pole.

ps to Phil P - Phil, I ski lots of trees at Snowbowl and don't use many pole plants -- I visualize my lines early and treat the trees as gates. and, I don't pole plant much in powder unless it's really steep.
post #37 of 59
I also thought I was alone here.

I ski the with the same length pole as my wife. She is 5'2" and I am 6'. We both use 46" poles.

I think it is a preference thing, but I made the change 5+ years ago. I like bumps and love trees, but I use these everywhere except very steep and deep. There I go long.
post #38 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
ps to Phil P - Phil, I ski lots of trees at Snowbowl and don't use many pole plants -- I visualize my lines early and treat the trees as gates. and, I don't pole plant much in powder unless it's really steep.
With due respect, skiing trees out there is usually, though not always, like running down a nice nature trail. Its wonderful skiing, but you can usually make full beautiful turns and plan your line in advance. You can ski pretty.

My "favorite" (aka, available) tree skiing is the kind that can only be described as a chess game. The kind of skiing that isn't so much about turning as it is about finding the least ugly route of making your skis fit through dense forest, and just exactly how to air that shelf without hipchecking to avoid the maple directly below it. It is at its best when there is sufficient rock and root showing to not only damage your skis, but pose a serious impediment to sliding down the hill.

I really miss good western tree skiing, but eating bark around here is a good mental workout, an excellent excuse to burn ptex candles, and certainly a good reason to have solid longer poles to pivot your body around.
post #39 of 59
The ‘old’ rule about the 90° angle of the arm regarding pole length is still valid in my opinion. The problem I am seeing on a daily basis with my clients is the angle the pole gets ‘planted’. (I personally like the ‘pole touch’ approach better.)

Phil, if your 51" pole was originally conforming to the ‘90°’ rule, and now you feel better (quieter?) with 4" shorter poles, you might let the pole touch the ground in an angle that works against you (and your hand and shoulder).

Go on a catwalk and try out different angles of pole swings and touches. Let the pole swing forward way passed vertical, touch the ground and feel the yank through your elbow into your shoulder. Then try to ONLY swing the pole to a vertical position and let it touch. Your hand can come with you downhill without any excess motion.

I know a lot of you will now say: but I do a reaching pole touch. That reaching idea is OK as long you let your body go with the swing and the reach. If you only reach with your pole tip downhill for the sake of the tip being there but by doing so you drop the hip up the hill (and therefore putting the skis back on edge) the reaching pole touch actually will not help you to start a turn.

See you on the slopes,

Little Bear


post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
Poles just for the lift line? You don't ski bump, trees or powder do you?
No I do not.
I live in PA so that rules out powder.
I hate doctors and orthopods so don't ski bumps.
I do like tree skiing, but this is usually located 3000 miles away from my house. Oh, wait, I can ski down the stump farm along the lift towers. Does that count?

I thought that poles was mostly a fashion statement. Am I missing something. I have a wider stance now, was I supposed to continue pole planting???
That went out with the 80's
post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
Betaracer, true about the pole plant. I have to admit that i dont really plant a pole ever. But, it is useful to have them not hit to snow, or have to adjust your arm position a lot while carving. Otherwise you get some sort of arm flailing acrobatic manuver, instead of a solid carve. How tall are you by the way?
Later
GREG
As far as I'm concerned, pole plant is far from gone. I use it all the time in freeskiing, and usually in gates, except on flats and transitions to flats. There is no other way to recenter yourself into the new turn other than with a good plant. That is one of my main focal points with the 11-12 yr old kids I coach.

My poles have gone shorter as well, mainly so that I can get more forward in transition.
post #42 of 59

poles!!!

Thanks to this post I am really frustrated. After reading all of this stuff you folks have posted above I decided to give it a try.

But ....... I'VE CUT MY POLES DOWN THREE TIMES AND THEY ARE STILL TOO SHORT! What now?
post #43 of 59
Next time there is a slalom on OLN watch Bode - I swear his poles are a mile long. It's actually quite noticeable when HE DOES PLANT his poles because his hands look like they're above his head ... moreso than many others. He touches out to the sides more than a firm plant most of the time, but he does throw in firm plants.

While freeskiing I don't plant much because I make more GS type turns, but I do "touch" out to the side now and then. In sphincter-puckering steeps I plant ... a lot.
post #44 of 59
I went longer when I stopped racing, then picked up a shorter pair this year and realized that everything else in my technique was getting lower so the poles should too.

Stats: 6', alpine pole just went from 50 to 48 skating pole still 165, classic pole 155 back country touring 145-155. I might have jumped units there, but it should make sense to anyone who actually gives a hoot.
post #45 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiingman
I'd love to see a good skier ski without any bending at the waist. Surely there can be too much, but the logic you've heard sounds suspect.

I haven't shortened my poles Phil, but my poles have gone from being nearly vertical in the view from the front to being quite horizontal. Especially in the middle of the turn.

Me too. If I am carving hard and getting low I keep my poles out to my sides and give them more of a tap than a plant. I like poles the traditional length for trecking out and hikes on powder days. Also, with all the lift skis and bindings have now, traditional length poles are effectively shorter.

Doug
post #46 of 59
Thread Starter 
Powder day today...I went a little longer..added an inch and a half to the adjustables.
post #47 of 59
Skied my whole adult life on 48" poles. Two years ago I changed to 50" Leki with the trigger. I preferr the longer pole - but I am older now. I also find that I do not rely on them as I did in the past. I think its the skiis.
post #48 of 59
I drag my knuckles when I walk so I never need poles.







I'm 6' 2" and use 50 or 52 inch poles; keep my elbow at a right angle when I grab under basket.
post #49 of 59
for bumping go short!
post #50 of 59
Just went back up to 50" from 46.5" but changed the hands so they stick out sideways.
post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
But try to ski bumps or trees without them, it can get ugly .
That's where I ran into my problems. I even bought 2 sets of Leki adjustable length poles to try to figure this out for myself. When I tried to go shorter I just kept missing pole plants in moguls. Maybe I just didn't give it enough time though to get used to it. I have the feeling that I should just go shorter right now since I've been off the mountain for 2 years and use it as an opportunity to "fix" this issue. I know someone my height (5' 7") should be using poles shorter than 48".
post #52 of 59
Noodler, I'm 5'9" and am real comfortable with 48's. You may want to go with 46's but I wouldn't go shorter than that. I don't use my poles much unless i'm in bumps or powder. They very rarely touch the snow when I'm carving.
post #53 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
Yes, with high amounts of angulation obtained by shorter shape skis it is almost completely necessary. I use a 48 for slalom, 47 for free skiing, and a 46 in giant slalom.
That's interesting. I would have thought that the SL poles would be (much) shorter (as compared to GS) because of the fore-aft body position when you pole plant in SL and the push off at the start during GS. Kinda similar to this chart: http://www.the-raceplace.com/poles_sizechart.html.

I do understand you angulation reasoning though.

BTW, Greg, you are back at Greek this season?
post #54 of 59
What's up with resurrecting all of the old threads?
post #55 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post
What's up with resurrecting all of the old threads?
Blame Cirque.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpinord View Post
Regarding Wikis, I suggest that everyone starts thinking about helpful posts from the past, repetitive questions, images and resources that you have found useful and could be for others. Often they get lost in the volume of content. They can be easily converted to Wikis and with search and group editing capabilities, these can find a home and get 'sharpened and polished' by the community.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post

In the current forum that capability is in the Thread Tools menu, and lets you subscribe or unsubscribe without posting. This lets you easily find and return to threads, even if there has been no activity by checking your subscriptions in your UserCP. Click on that link. Its amazing, I am subscribed to 5036 threads here, and can search or look up any of them fairly quickly.
post #56 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by chanwmr View Post
That's interesting. I would have thought that the SL poles would be (much) shorter (as compared to GS) because of the fore-aft body position when you pole plant in SL and the push off at the start during GS. Kinda similar to this chart: http://www.the-raceplace.com/poles_sizechart.html.

I do understand you angulation reasoning though.

BTW, Greg, you are back at Greek this season?
Since 2004 I have actually upgraded to a 50" GS/SG pole and am still using the 48" SL and free skiing poles.

I'm still at Greek on and off. I saw you a few weekends ago in the lift line with the kids.
post #57 of 59
Quote:
Pole length, have you gone shorter?
Well, I've heard that happens as you get older...
post #58 of 59
For all of you that have gone to a shorter pole...

If you're just standing with socks on, no shoes, and you do the whole "gripping the upside-down pole under the basket" routine, are your arms at a right angle?

Or are you saying that with just socks on, your arms/elbows are already past 90 degrees (more "obtuse")?
post #59 of 59
I like a slightly shorter pole, on the other hand nothing is nicer then a tall blond sweed.
Ohhh ski poles ya I like mine shorter then taller. most of the time I seem to use it more for timeing, not sure if I plant them really unless Im in the bumps. Im 5'7" and use 120cm poles (you do the conversion from metric)
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 › Pole length, have you gone shorter?