or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Length vs Weight

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
I hate to raise this issue and was going to comment on the midfat length thread but my points or questions were too general for that. Is it now the general consenus that it is ability and weight vs ski length? If that is true then the same level of skiers the ratio of their weights should be the ratio of their ski lengths. So a 150lb level 8 skiing a 175cm should correspond to a 205 lb skier skiing a 240cm. Hmmmm doesn't work. It should work for floatation in powder- weight / area of ski , should be simple. But I see people posting the length of skis they ride and weight and when i ratio it out I should be on 250s.
Ok on hard pack it should maybe be a force available rather than weight only thing. Force per lineral inch of edge. very hard to estimate but a good skier packing an extra 30 lbs should ski on the same ski as someone 30 lbs lighter.
Is there still so much carry over from straight skis when all good skiers were on 190-201s that the size issue is still in flux?

Me - skiing 198s, weight range ~200lbs in good shape, 215 max in poor
also have a pair of 181 midfats haven't skied on yet
was on a pair of 203 SL straights, loved them
post #2 of 8
...or would a "point of diminishing 'returns' " apply, where the increased length (using your formula) becomes too unwieldy. and don't you think there's simple subjectivity involved? f'rinstance, as an upper-intermediate of 6'1", 190, i could PROBABLY go with the 193 SCREAM 9 but choose the 187 for a couple reasons: ONE, my present ability level, and, TWO, i want a shorter (easier to manuever) ski because short turns and moguls (and iffy terrain) are where my weaknesses are most pronounced, so that's where i want to "work."
when i get my next pair of skis in four or five years, i WILL get bigger skis, longer and wider, but can't see (given what little i know now) why i'd want anything over 200 cm.

sorry if i've misread your post.
post #3 of 8
One variable you forgot: SKI STIFFNESS.

Advanced skiers tend to ski on stiffer skis.

Also, weight in skiing does not mean much; how one applies it - does.

post #4 of 8
Hey Doug, what are you talkin about you haven't tried you new skis yet. I know it's not great around here right now but I've got 29 days in and a few nicks that I had to clean up . Get on them boards man , the groomed runs are ok , just stay out of my powder.
post #5 of 8
Thread Starter 
oh I've been out lots , well not 29 but around 15. Had to take 3 weeks off after blowing out my kneee at fernie at xmas. Ripped the crap out of my el caminos at kimberly about 5 core shots. Going to try the x-14 at castle this weekend.

Length thing: Agree totally. Now if there was a perfect length per formula then you'd take that length and add or subtract on perference/ terran/ ski. Oh well ski what you comfortable with.
post #6 of 8
This is something I've been thinking about as well.

My first skis were Olin Super DTSL's (200cm), the pair I have now are Axendo
9's (191) and the pair I have to pick up this Friday are Mod-X's (181)

I was, and still am to some degree, concerned about my weight and how it
will affect the ski. I'm a 5'9" 215 lb. upper level intermediate/advanced
skier... so my technique isn't perfect, but is a lot better than many of the
other sliders on the hill. (No,I'm not a butterball , I spend a fair
amount of time doing weightlifting/powerlifting)

I demoed the Mod-X and think they are wonderful, but have read, in this
forum and in magazines, that the Mod-X pro is a MUCH stiffer ski designed
for "heavy skiers or experts". I haven't seen a lot of heavier skiers in
this forum talking about purchasing the Mod-X's, (or the PROS's for that
matter) and this is where my concern arises.

On the other hand, with the way skis are constructed now (and I'm no
engineer) is it possible that the different design techniques now have
reduced the need for the length necessary in the past to provide stability
to the heavier skier on hard snow.

Are the concerns of the past in reference to weight (or ability) relative
to ski length still affecting the consumers purchase of new skis now, and
should it?

It has been my understanding that getting a ski to decamber correctly is
more a function of skier technique than sheer weight. Is this a
misunderstanding on my part?

Remember, I read a description of the MOD-X PRO as being designed for the
"heavy skier or the agressive expert". Does this mean that a heavy beginner
has as much right to be on the PRO as an expert?

What weight is considered heavy for a skier?
post #7 of 8
Firedrake- I hope this sets your mind at ease. I am 220# and only 5'4". Not a butterball but getting there! (and hope not to!) <G> I ski the MOd X as well. They are only 174cm. I don't sink in the crud or powder. I could have gone 181's to pick up a bit more speed, but I like the short turns as well as carves, and I love the control.

The Mod X pros have two titanium sheets. The Mod X doesn't have any metal. The extra stiffness would have been nice but I didn't have the extra money. As it is, my Mods Don't shake, rattle or roll even at higher speeds.

During a turn the forward knee pressure makes the shovel or tip dig into the snow. During knee over and edging decampers the ski into a curve enabling you to turn. The shaped ski 'aks' you to use far less knee forward pressure. Also the skis are already in a curved shape. This allows you to use 66% less energy than with the straight ski. This is a hard core fact about the shaped ski. They allow you to do what you know how to do with far less energy expended.

Weight? Some may argue correctly that a heavier skier on a softer ski or shorter ski might flatten the ski out causing less control over the tips. Again, with my weight, shortness, and ski level I am not having any problems at all. If I were racing I might opt for the Pros.

what I like about K2 is (and there are many fine ski vendors out there) they tell you what kind of wood is in their skis - fir and spruce. The former for strength, the latter for flexibility and lightness. Other vendors just say 'wood'. I don't like that. Also the ACX unit is an electronic shock absorber. It takes mechanical energy, changes it to elctronic energy, and dissipates it throughout the ski as heat and light. As the ambient temperature drops, they do not lose efficiency whereas others' mechanical dampeners do! i.e. Salomon's rods, and rosignol's V.A.S. I've done a lot fo research on all this. One fellow I worked with thought the ACX unit was a joke. I wrote o ACX. They wrote back and told me to tell that guy to go jump in the lake! In fact, the first units they sent to K2- K2 sent them back saying to tone them down a bit. They were taking out too much vibrations! K2 uses these to take out the secondary harmonic vibrations, leaving in the high speed vibrations which is good for edge control. How's that for technology?

Life's a pain... then you nap. Cat philosphy<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by jyarddog (edited April 09, 2001).]</FONT>
post #8 of 8
Thread Starter 
Forgotten about this thread. I would have to say that for me my X-14 at 181 are too short. (me 205 lbs 6ft) Maybe its my centre of mass compared to the length of the ski but I don't feel I have a lot of fore /aft stabiltiy. As in I go from powder to tracked to powder and very lttle margin of error I get launched head first. In powder the 181 are alittle easier than my 198s but in chop I like the 198 better. So going to use X-14 as next years rocks skis (or sell) and my powder ski will be my new Fischer Mnt. X at 191
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion