New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

bump ski length?

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Is shorter better for a bumpski? How short is too short? As I am filling my quiver I want to get a dedicated bump ski. I know from other threads that the Axis X and maybe the Apache X seemed to be favored by some. I picked up a pair of Apache X's 160 very cheap (<$100) but maybe too short? So before I mount any bindings I want to hear your opinions. I also have tried the Bandit B1 (2004/2005) in hardpack conditions and really enjoyed it. For my build - 5'10" and 155 lbs, level 8, what size would y'all recommend? 160,167,170,174? Is sidecut or radius more important? This ski won't be my everyday ski, although I will probably use it a lot depending on snow conditions.

I think I have that Phil Syndrome Disease - only had bought one ski in the past five years until last month, now I have three and going for more

Rossi B2 (2005/2006) 174 with axial 120 bindings, not yet mounted (will be my everyday ski)
Apache X (2004/2005) 160 not mounted (possible my bump ski)
Public Enemy (2004/2005) 169 with old S912 bindings (rock ski)
next ski? (powder ski)
yet another ski??

nothing to exciting to many of you, but I'm having fun and like all these skis thus far.:
post #2 of 28
Do you want a real mogul ski or a ski that skis well in moguls? Full blown bump skis (Dragonslayers, Twisters, Cabrawlers, etc.) are virtually skinny straight skis and ski like skinnny straight skis. They come in two lengths, around 180 (men) and 170 (women). Sometimes there's a 160'ish junior size also.

To answer your original question, 160 is short. Before inverted aerials were allowed, most of the men were skiing 190+; and the skis and technique really haven't changed since then.

Of course this all refers to running the zipper line. If that's not how you intend to ski bumps, ignore what I said and listen to somebody else.
post #3 of 28
Thread Starter 
I've tried the full blown bump skis and didn't really like them, so I guess a ski that skis well in moguls. Why is 160 too short in your opinion or from any physics involved? I try to ski zipper line when I can, which is more often as I improve.
post #4 of 28
The main trouble with short skis in bumps is you won't get as much speed control from skidding as you would with longer skis. In certain situations, this results in more speed than you may be comfortable with.
post #5 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by real9999
Do you want a real mogul ski or a ski that skis well in moguls? Full blown bump skis (Dragonslayers, Twisters, Cabrawlers, etc.) are virtually skinny straight skis and ski like skinnny straight skis. They come in two lengths, around 180 (men) and 170 (women). Sometimes there's a 160'ish junior size also.
To answer your original question, 160 is short. Before inverted aerials were allowed, most of the men were skiing 190+; and the skis and technique really haven't changed since then.
Of course this all refers to running the zipper line. If that's not how you intend to ski bumps, ignore what I said and listen to somebody else.
Shorter is better... Skis and technique have come a long, long way since we were skiing bumps on 190s. Yes, the optimal ski we were skiing bumps on was 195-200, then it went to 185-190, now its 170-180s, with a lot of non-pros "cheating" with 165s, good women bump skiers are on 150s. Nobody any good, unless they're retro holdbacks, skis bumps on 190cm+... Now that the bumps are getting shaped by snowboarders and shorter skis, the bump lines are much tighter. I think 160s for you're ht & wt is a little short since I like a little shovel to absorb the bump, but I wouldn't go much longer than 170.
A true bump ski is straight and narrrow, but they suck getting to and from the bumps, so I go with a good all mountain ski. My bump ski is a 176mm B1, and in hindsight, I wish I got a 170mm.
post #6 of 28
Bumpdad, a 174 or even a 181 modx axis x would work fine for you. It all depends on what you like.
post #7 of 28
Thread Starter 
I'va always liked shorter in the bumps. I haven't found that they go faster (or maybe I haven't really been paying attention). When I've tried longer skis in the bumps, I find it hard to stay in the zipper line, then I get in the back seat and it's all over for that line.
I seem to like shorter skis then most on this site. In powder, I like longer, but when I've tried 180 or slightly longer, I seem to get too tentative and therfore ski worse. 174 -176 is getting as long as I like, but I'm also light 150-155 lbs.

I haven't been able to find the axis x in a size other than 181.
I have the apache x standing right next to me, but in size 160, unused/unmounted. Cetainly could try to sell as they were cheap.

I am tempted to buy the old 2004 Bandit B1. Beyond and 2-turn liked the Bandit in another thread. 2-turn, do you feel, as Beyond does, that the 2004 was superior to the newer model?
post #8 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2-turn
Shorter is better... Skis and technique have come a long, long way since we were skiing bumps on 190s. Yes, the optimal ski we were skiing bumps on was 195-200, then it went to 185-190, now its 170-180s, with a lot of non-pros "cheating" with 165s, good women bump skiers are on 150s. Nobody any good, unless they're retro holdbacks, skis bumps on 190cm+... Now that the bumps are getting shaped by snowboarders and shorter skis, the bump lines are much tighter. I think 160s for you're ht & wt is a little short since I like a little shovel to absorb the bump, but I wouldn't go much longer than 170.
What kind of bump comps are going to? Did you watch moguls at the Torino Olympics?

There hasn't been any shaped ski revolution in moguls like there was in SL racing. Mogul ski construction hasn't changed much at all in recent times; the current Fischer and Head mogul skis are virtually unchanged from 5 years ago. The only people skiing bumps on 150's are kids. There's no cheating because there are no length restrictions in freestyle as there are in racing. Nobody even makes a 150 mogul ski! The main reason competitors are now using slightly shorter lengths of 170-180 is because off-axis spins score higher than a twister spread; the mogul technique is still the same. The last mogul comp I attended was at Park City last year, and the course wasn't any different than the ones I used to compete on in the late 90's...

Anyhow, I'm under the impression that bumpdad doesn't have any intention on entering any freestyle competitions, and he obviously doesn't want a full-blown mogul ski so it's a moot point. I simply recommend anything relatively narrow waisted with a mild sidecut in 170-180 length. There's no reason to be terribly picky, but fore/aft stability becomes an issue at super-short lengths. I ski moguls with Dynastar Concept's in 180 from a few years back. The Concept/Candide is a popular ski among ex-bumpers.
post #9 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by bumpdad
I am tempted to buy the old 2004 Bandit B1. Beyond and 2-turn liked the Bandit in another thread. 2-turn, do you feel, as Beyond does, that the 2004 was superior to the newer model?
Absolutely, no question...
post #10 of 28
Thread Starter 
If I enter a freestyle competition I have gone back in time 20 years. If you ever see me doing an aerial, I've made a mistake somewhere.
post #11 of 28
Thread Starter 
It also seems that eveyone agrees that the Apache X 160 is too short. So it will eventually go on the selling block. I can't help myslef, I'll just have to buy a 2004 Bandit B1 170cm as my mogul ski. Is there any treatment for this ski buying disease? I'm going to end up with too many skis and then, as my tastes change, I'll think they're junk and off they'll go.
post #12 of 28
Umm my bump ski is 165 Line Darkside, awesome bump ski, and ok to and from the bumps.

Just had them out to day skiing Sneaky Pete's Bump line at the Bird and are much better than anything else in my 4 ski quiver.

Is it too short I dont think so but moderately fast in bumps is ok for me.
post #13 of 28
My two cents, for what it's worth (about that):

Personally, my old 207-cm straight skis worked better in moguls than anything I've had since. If I were looking for a special-purpose mogul ski for little money, I'd see if I could find an old straight ski that nobody wants. There may be NOS skis still floating around, and there must be a good number of lightly used skis. Lengthwise, something like 190 or so. Maybe a little less. Probably a slalom model (for one thing those existed in straight form for a little while after they started disappearing elsewhere, plus the stiffish tail is not a bad thing): a bit on the soft side as slalom skis go (the 190 length would probably accomplish that); no metal.
post #14 of 28
Here you go, for $10.50, if you can get to Concord, NH to avoid shipping:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Rossigno...cmd ZViewItem

Probably not all that lightly used, though. (I had that exact ski, but longer, a long time ago).
post #15 of 28

Slight variation of topic

I'm seriously looking at purchasing the Dynastar Legend 8000 at 178, not sure if I'll go with the Fiber or the Red yet still trying to figure out the difference. I'm looking for a good solid all around ski. I am looking for a ski that will ride smooth and relaxed in the powder and flexs through the moguls with silky smooth precision. I am not a hard driver, I can throw down some rapid fire turns with great precision but you won't find me burning down the hill.

My specific interest is how well do the 8000's handle in the moguls?
post #16 of 28
FWIW, I have a k2 axis x at 160 and volkl g3 at 163, my height is 5’ 7” at 145 lb. I like the axis x when the snow condition in the bumps is hard granular, the g3 (which is my rock ski) when the bumps are softer. The latter also implies the rest of the snow is spring condition, for me, the g3 stiffness holds up for mash potatoes /spring crud.

Another FWIW, here’s a picture of the 2006 olympic women medalist with their skis, notice the shape, bindings (no riser) and length. Granted they have boots on but you get a rough ideal of ski length the pros are presently using.

http://www.skidebosses.com/2006/jo/jo.htm
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack97
... rough ideal of ski length the pros are presently using.
But ... normal people don't fly into the air and do wild spinning jumps in the middle of their mogul runs. Not every run, anyway.
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjjohnston
But ... normal people don't fly into the air and do wild spinning jumps in the middle of their mogul runs. Not every run, anyway.
Here’s the “yeah but”……Look at them rip, I wish I can ski like a girl (ahem, at least any one of them), the length didn’t hinder their mogul tech.

bumpdad,
IMO, its more important to get a soft (maybe all mountain) ski at a length that you’re comfortable with on groom terrain. If you’re uncomfortable on a shorter or a longer length in the groomers, it’s going to manifest itself even more so in the bumps. Both Dan Dipiro’s book and Chuck Martin Mogul Logic video suggest flat land drills to improve zipperline techniques. Dan has commented that some of the flaws you find in the bumps can be resolved on the grooms. B Barnes’s post reinforced something I always do, do drills on easy terrain, take it a step further, do the flatland drills on the way to or after the bumps. Again, if problems occur in the groom, it will show up in the bumps.
post #19 of 28
Thread Starter 
Thanks jack97. I do go with what feels best. When I get 176 or longer I always feeel less comforatable in the bumps. If I'm doing steeps or open bowls with powder/crud, I like the 176 length more than 166-170. I also practice technique on baby bumps/blue trails and try to continue that in steeper trials. I like skiing Pali lift at A-Basin (Pali, International, North Woods), but find that on the steepest parts I just don't stay in the zipper line.

I still want to know if there is specific physics/geometry involved in choosing bumpskis (that will be good in other conditions). ie if side cut/radius, length, or stiffness/softness is more important in choosing a ski.
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack97
Here’s the “yeah but”……Look at them rip, I wish I can ski like a girl (ahem, at least any one of them), the length didn’t hinder their mogul tech.
Most of them are skiing in the neighborhood of 170cm and that's appropriate for their size and speed. Watch someboy like Janne haul ass straight down the fall-line, and it should be pretty obvious why he chooses a longer, faster, and more stable ski somewhere around 180cm. Now if you don't want to run a line that direct and that fast, you'll likely find a shorter, maneuverable length more appropriate.

Janne Lahtela hauling ass

It's also worth noting that unlike the race world, there's nothing too crazy or exotic in the world mogul gear. Some competitors use softer plugs while others still use Flexons. Always flat binding mounts as you noticed. I'm also willing to bet that most of the freestyle skis used in the Olympics were pretty close to if not identical to actual off-the-shelf bump models.
post #21 of 28

Railflex and moguls

Interesting topic you just tapped on. Whats the advantages and disadvantages of the railflex systems, specifically in regards to mogul skiing? Any takers?
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by real9999
I'm also willing to bet that most of the freestyle skis used in the Olympics were pretty close to if not identical to actual off-the-shelf bump models.
Great vid,

Given, off the shelf mogul ski have an overall narrow shape; 100-84/ 64-61/95-80. This narrow dimension, light core material and construction should affect fore/aft stability and speed stability as a function of ski length. Now I’m curious on a comparison to a normal every day ski like an all mountain.

I heard that a good compromise to a bump ski is a soft all mountain; axis x, rossi b1, both have similar dimension (axis x, 107/70/97). I found some mogul skis with less sidecut but some with more, here’s some interesting numbers; Rossi Mogul (99/66/87), Fisher Lunar (90/62/78) and Head Madtrix (90/61/81) has similar ratios; tip/waist, tail/waist and tip/tail as the all mtn. Still, the factors (core and overall shape) mention above should affect on slope performance. Hmm, time to update my demo list (just to feel not to buy).

Anyway, I take my all mnt in the bumps, most recommend nose to top of the head for length. I got caught up in the short ski hype but I have taken a longer recreational slalom (64 mm waist) into bumps. I have no problem with pivot/rotary turns but I practice pivot slips and hockey slides. The only thing I do notice is the difference between a stiff ski and a soft; my ankles are sore at the end of the day when I used the volkl g3 on hard granular bumps.
post #23 of 28

Volkl G3

I am assuming the Volkl G3 is a stiff ski? Therefore the sore ankles?
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by stwildcat
I am assuming the Volkl G3 is a stiff ski? Therefore the sore ankles?
Yes. The G3 a stiff ski, it’s the predecessor to the Volkl 724 exp and the AC3. It’s great for high speed stability on groomers and can plow through early and late season wet snow/crud. Only thing I hate about it is in the hard bumps (spring bumps are fine) my knees are ok because of absorption but my ankles can’t hold up to the pounding, I can go for half a day, but not all day. I don’t have this problem with my softer ski (k2 axis x).
post #25 of 28
When shaped skis started becoming the norm, some manufacturers (notably Rossi and Salomon) switched to bump designs with slightly more shape. Some people like them, other people hated them and didn't even consider them real bump skis. Up until recently, Dynastar had two, the Twister and Twister Pro; the regular Twister had some shape and the Pro was completely old-school straight and skinny. Then there's the Hart F-17 which is a skinny ski that clearly refuses to die. In the end, it's just a matter of preference.

The one thing they all have in common is that they suck horribly outside of the bumps. Some more than others. IMO the only people that need mogul skis are people that only ski moguls. Everybody else will probably be much happier on something else. I sold my last pair of mogul skis (Lunars) last season, and I don't miss them at all. I've run bumps on Legend Pros. Are they a little cumbersome and slow edge-to-ege? You betcha. But do they still work in bumps? Sure. The only skis I've really had issues with in moguls are race stock SL & GS. Thick metal plates and huge sidecuts (SL skis) don't exactly work very well when you're your feet and knees glued together.
post #26 of 28
I'm not looking to blast through the moguls like the pros. I want a ski that allows me to handle the moguls easier, works with me, and doesn't tire me out. I am looking for a ski that is silky smooth, like water flowing through the moguls. I am capable of skiing moguls in this manner, almost in slow motion. I do not ski fast by choice, not from lack of skill. I want a ski that will allow me to ski the moguls in the manner I would like to ski them. I don't care what the professionals ski on since they are skiing to make a living not for the enjoyment of the sport. I am leaning towards the Dynastar Legend 8000 Fiber because of the softness, assuming this would give me that buttery softness in and out of the troughs. Any suggestions or experiences with this?
post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by real9999
IMO the only people that need mogul skis are people that only ski moguls. Everybody else will probably be much happier on something else. I sold my last pair of mogul skis (Lunars) last season, and I don't miss them at all. I've run bumps on Legend Pros. Are they a little cumbersome and slow edge-to-ege? You betcha. But do they still work in bumps? Sure. The only skis I've really had issues with in moguls are race stock SL & GS. Thick metal plates and huge sidecuts (SL skis) don't exactly work very well when you're your feet and knees glued together.
Yeah, its interesting that the shape mogul skis has the same ratio as an all mnt but narrow overall. The trade off is the quick edge to edge vs stability and float (a non-factor to the pro). In addition, that they are soft to begin with, I can see why the pro bumpers go longer in length wrt to their weight and height.

I ski in NE, widest I get underfoot is 72 mm. I’m set with my skis for a while, but I’m seeing a trend in all mtn with bigger sidecuts, tips approaching 100mm or greater. Rossi B1 may get phase out as did the axis x, iirc the Apache has bigger sidecuts than the axis series. May have to focus on gluing the knee only and forget about the feet…. just kidding.
post #28 of 28
It's a personal choice. For mogul skiing your not going to be going that fast so length for stability is not an issue, though if your going to use the same ski everywhere it might be. A Fischer RX8 in a 170 seems like it would be a good compromise to me.

FWIW, I'm 165 lbs. I find that my Fischer WC SCs in 165 are as short as they need to be, maybe 5 cm longer would be better, but they are just a little too stiff for slower speeds and softer snow. If the ski is a little longer you extend your reach and you're able to use more of the hill that's passing by. If the ski is too long you run the risk of having it get hung up on stuff that would have been more easily avoided with shorter skis. My 208s extend my reach a little beyond my grasp for skiing tight bumps if you know what I mean.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion