Also, what is all this Metron stuff people keep referring to? Is there some kind of argument raging about this particular ski? If so, why?
post #31 of 45
4/16/06 at 8:03am
Originally Posted by bruceacim
i'm amazed at how frequently this topic comes up & how little most 'skiers' understand just what it entails...it drives me crazy (and it's a really short trip).:
my rule of thumb to gauge length (for you knee jerkers, please refer to statement above, thank you) for skis for my region/conditions (check details in my profile) is: no shorter than your chin, no longer than the tip of your nose.
Originally Posted by skugrud
OK - True different skiers skiing different conditions and looking for different characteristics in a ski means that there is no one best length and/or stiffness for everyone.
But to simplify, is it true that if comparing different lengths of the same model, the shortest one will carve shorter turns easier and the longest will be more stable at faster speeds. (Assuming the stiffness is appropiate for the skier)
|don't be bullied into a short ski. the short ski craze is a silly little fad that hopefully goes away before long... i've seen more skiers suckered into 161's and 165's by well-meaning salespeople and "experts" who would and end up being MUCH happier with something a little bit longer and more appropriate to their skill level and style....
not to say that short skis don't have their place, they do, but a graph of ideal ski length (x axis) in relation to ability (y axis) is NOT a straight line or even a curve, it's more like a parabola. At your size skiing a 161 or 165 in anything but a slalom ski that You Know How To Use is just as silly as skiing a 195 or 200. go demo a 174 or even 180 in an all-mountain ski, like a dynastar 4800, the rossi b1 already mentioned, or that fischer or nordica. if you can't lay down dual trenches with that 165 you're missing the point of 'em.
a long ski may be a little more work to turn, but not by THAT much. it will, however, be a lot more forgiving and confidence inspiring. technique/ability has a much, much bigger impact on your ease and ability to turn.
longer will make you stronger, and it won't hold you back like a short ski will. short skis, for many here, seems to almost be reverse compensation ("see, i'm secure, i ski 160's.").
Originally Posted by PRC
I tried the Atomic SX10s at 170 for 3 days in total. The second morning I also had my Dynastars Intutiv 74s at 182 at the bottom of the slope so I spent a couple of hours doing one run and swapping. The run had groomed snow, shortcuts with 12" of fresh snow and steep, hard packed 'rat runs', a bit of everything really, and a nice, fast 6 seater chair lift. I'd say that the Atomics were as good as the Dynastars in the fresh snow but felt quicker and easier to turn due to their shorter length. In all other aspects they were better. I ski pretty fast, when I want to, and at no time did I feel they performed any worse that my longer skis.