EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Short skis....are the future
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Short skis....are the future - Page 2

post #31 of 57
I get a big kick out of folks who think THEY own pets. They don't realize pets have outsmarted humans into providing their food, shelter, medical care, grooming services, etc.
post #32 of 57
Make that mm not cm. I'm not very metric.

Alaska Mike- Why do you have last years ski on the way? The SL9 is the replacement and in most everyone's mind a big improvement.

[ June 06, 2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Rusty Guy ]
post #33 of 57
Yeah, I've heard really good things about the SL9 and SL11, but I'm not plugged into the whole Atomic Rep circle, and I'm definitely done paying retail. Hello, eBay? Last year's ski is just fine for me, considering that technique is more of an issue for me than equipment.

Race camp starts this weekend. Hope I don't make a fool of myself.
post #34 of 57
Everything is relative. The first skis I bought in 1991 were 190 cm Heads,and they seemed to be about right for me. The next pair I bought a few years later were 198 Salomons, and they seemd to work fine. Then I got some "shorter" skis, 193 "mogul" skis, which also were Salomons. First shaped ski was the then new K2 Fours in 178 - they were just amazing, and never felt "too short". The same day I demoed them I also demoed a shorter version of my Salomons, and they DID felt too damn squirrelly. Let's see, after that I mistakenly got he Volkl P30 Ultra in 180, which were too long and too stiff for someome of my weight, strength and ability, and I considered qittting skiing, I was so frustrated. Thence came EpicSki, Lars and Pierre, eh! They actually convinced me not to throw in the towel, and on the advice of Pierre, eh! I tried shorter skis, eventually getting an Atomic mid-fat in 170 cm, followed by Rossi T-Powers in 160 cm. The Rossis are surprisingly stable at high speeds as well as super nimble in shorter turns and edge to edge. These got me from "there" to "here". I loved those shorties, the Rossi T-Powers, and raved about them every chance I got - until that epic snow year in Vermont, where we sometimes had to negotiate a foot of HEAVY ungroomed snow. In that, the shorties were impossible for me. I bought mid-fat K2 Mod 7/8 [now the Axis-no-X] in 174. These were absolutely unstoppable in ANY snow, and particularly fun in any ungroomed snow. Of course, I kept the Rossis in 160, which still were a hoot on groomed snow. Next year I sold the K2's in 174 and bought the exact same ski in 167 - also love that, and tended to ski it on just about anything, save true ice where the Rossis were my ski of choice. I must say that I would be happy with either the 174 or the 167 K2. Then, of course, doing my part to support the ski manufacturing industry, I happened upon the current Rossi Bandit XX in 170, and if I had to choose one of these skis for everything, that would be it - wide at the waist at 74 mm and go through anything, but super agile in short turns and edge to edge, while stable in long turns and at speed. So now I have three pairs of skis: The Rossi T-Powers in 160, the K2 Mod 7/8's in 167, and the Rossi Bandit XX's in 170, all great skis. Now I think I should learn how to ski.
post #35 of 57
Quote:
Originally posted by Lostboy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Remember that half the continent skis in the East, where a 200cm ski is as useless as skiboards in Alaska.
For many years, I skied on 205cm GS skis at places like Stowe, Killington and Mt. Snow in Vermont as did many other skiers. They were not useless and a lot of folks skied on even longer skis.

That it is easier for most skiers to negotiate typically arrow New England slopes on short skis is a given. That ski technology has improved is also a given. However, 200cm skis are hardly as limited as the author of the above comment suggests. In fact they were a lot of fun. [img]smile.gif[/img]
</font>[/quote]Good point Lostboy. The word "useless" was inappropriate. I meant that a 200cm ski is simply too much ski. We all had long skis at one point (some still do), but the shorter skis seem to be able to do the same job and are easier. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #36 of 57
Geez, SCSA won't be able to tell me to get longer skis anymore. I probably will be dropping down from my 181 cm Mod X's to a 170 something or another.

The thread did provoke an interesting thought. In how many other sports has the advance of technology made a major impact?

Tennis went from wooden, small rackets to metal, composites and oversized heads.

In my summer world of golf, technology has had a phenomenal influence. Golf clubs have gone from forged heads to investment cast oversized heads. Shaft technology has gone off the wall. Golf balls have gone from wound rubber band cores and balata rubber covers you could cut with one bad swing to solid cores with surlyn non cut covers. Recently, I took out my old college clubs and compared them to my new Pings. It was like comparing a Model T to a Vette. I'll take the Vette.

I wonder where else in the world of sports has technology had a major impact?
post #37 of 57
The only reason why longer skis were considered better was because the bigger surface area touching the snow made it more stabe. Now we have so many new technologies likes plates, space frames, and power channels to name a few. We can finally get rid of those clunky, no good in glades long ass stix.
post #38 of 57
SCSA mate .... less than 190cm ... me thinks you may be slowly becoming a "gangster". Oh Oh!!

With all this short ski hype and marketing pretty soon the "Ski Manual" will just say, Drop em, Spread em, Tip em, Gnash em .... Enjoy.

“You do not need ski school because these new skis will make you a hero”

Is shrinking ski length actually reverse engineering ski teaching? Do short skis (160cm) promote a false sense of expertise? Do short “stable” skis push the let go point closer to the catastrophic edge? The jury is still out and many questions remain unanswered.

Oz [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #39 of 57
Tom B said,
Quote:
We all had long skis at one point (some still do), but the shorter skis seem to be able to do the same job and are easier.
Agreed. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #40 of 57
bump for a funny thread - Some of the comments from '02 are funny.  It used to be short vs long skis or straight vs parabolic, now its fat vs. thin skis.  whats next?

I remember when I retired an old pair of 195cm Atomics for a pair of 170 Salomon 1080's.  My dad kept preaching to me that I needed to go longer (210cm) because I was getting taller, not shorter.  He was also against parabolics...  If he were still alive, I'm sure he'd be rippin it up on some 184cm Mantras or something like I am.  I would have convinced him!

Either way - 8 years sure does a lot to change a persons mind :)
post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude04 View Post

bump for a funny thread - Some of the comments from '02 are funny.  It used to be short vs long skis or straight vs parabolic, now its fat vs. thin skis.  whats next?

I remember when I retired an old pair of 195cm Atomics for a pair of 170 Salomon 1080's.  My dad kept preaching to me that I needed to go longer (210cm) because I was getting taller, not shorter.  He was also against parabolics...  If he were still alive, I'm sure he'd be rippin it up on some 184cm Mantras or something like I am.  I would have convinced him!

Either way - 8 years sure does a lot to change a persons mind :)

I agree with your dad all around skis for true expert should still be longer than the masses not 200cm but longer than what most people think.
post #42 of 57
Perhaps this is the case with the major manufacturers but I seem to be seeing a trend towards longer with some of the indies. For example:

Icelantic - granted these guys started WAY short but they've been adding about 10 cms a year to most of their models. For example, I am pretty sure when the Shaman debuted the only size was a 161.  Now they offer at 184.

Armada - They dropped their 170's model JJ and are running with just a 185.

I guess you're right on the number of 190+ skis out there but I would say there has been upward pressure from the 170's to 180's range, at least IMHO.

Now, one thing that is interesting is that so many skis have some sort of rocker in them these days. So even a 185 JJ on 2D snow skis much shorter.   
post #43 of 57

Most of the small and indie-builders I have been talking too are stretching out their rockered models to 195...200cm + for next year due to customer demand (because the contact length is so short on the flats!)....so go figure..

 

Also, there is a great pleasure in skiing some skis in long lengths....one of the greatest pleasures can be to take an older slalom ski in a 207cm out for a cruise...not "rock'em-sock'em" slalom turns...but simply high-speed crusing.  Long, narrow skis can make some really fun turns if you let them run.  Precise and curvy at speed.  Every length has it's place...but the manufacturers have to go with the crowd...and most folks are happy with today's designs in the 170-185 lengths...

Then there is the ride from the 213cm Super G skis of old.....ahhhh yes.....

 

post #44 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExoticSkis View Post

Most of the small and indie-builders I have been talking too are stretching out their rockered models to 195...200cm + for next year due to customer demand (because the contact length is so short on the flats!)....so go figure..

 
 


It is really funny how things change......my alpine skis have not gotten shorter (quiver), yet I find that when I alpine I go short...165 & when I tele I go long 193....
post #45 of 57
http://photos.sharpshooterimaging.com/PR3/SSOrderPage.aspx?pi=Y87F0VHJ000038&po=38

These are the same length as my megawatts, yet the running surfance is doubled!
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExoticSkis View Post

Most of the small and indie-builders I have been talking too are stretching out their rockered models to 195...200cm + for next year due to customer demand (because the contact length is so short on the flats!)....so go figure..

 

Also, there is a great pleasure in skiing some skis in long lengths....one of the greatest pleasures can be to take an older slalom ski in a 207cm out for a cruise...not "rock'em-sock'em" slalom turns...but simply high-speed crusing.  Long, narrow skis can make some really fun turns if you let them run.  Precise and curvy at speed.  Every length has it's place...but the manufacturers have to go with the crowd...and most folks are happy with today's designs in the 170-185 lengths...

Then there is the ride from the 213cm Super G skis of old.....ahhhh yes.....

 

I found the 213s a bit limiting in moguls.  They would bridge the troughs, and it was hard to get a decent camber out of them without really booking it at speeds that were just to hairy for moguls.  Of course I only weighed 145 lbs.

When you tip these rockers, the tips and tails are on/in the snow, so they are only shorter when they are flat to the hill?
Edited by Ghost - 12/23/09 at 6:34pm
post #47 of 57
I think there may be some truth to this. I was skiing at Loon Mountain on Monday and they have a 4 person Gondola where your skis are outside on the door. I only ski 177 cm K2 Apaches, yet only one pair of skis of anyone I rode with were longer than mine, and they were old straight skis. I realize the sample was relatively small I saw maybe 15 pairs of skis in the rack to compare to, but it shows that many people aren't skiing as long of skis as before.
post #48 of 57
 We aren't taking anything longer than a 180 at our consignment sales next year.  
post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikewil View Post

Geez, SCSA won't be able to tell me to get longer skis anymore. I probably will be dropping down from my 181 cm Mod X's to a 170 something or another.

The thread did provoke an interesting thought. In how many other sports has the advance of technology made a major impact?

Tennis went from wooden, small rackets to metal, composites and oversized heads.

In my summer world of golf, technology has had a phenomenal influence. Golf clubs have gone from forged heads to investment cast oversized heads. Shaft technology has gone off the wall. Golf balls have gone from wound rubber band cores and balata rubber covers you could cut with one bad swing to solid cores with surlyn non cut covers. Recently, I took out my old college clubs and compared them to my new Pings. It was like comparing a Model T to a Vette. I'll take the Vette.

I wonder where else in the world of sports has technology had a major impact?

The skiing technique has also changed - try turning a pair of say 200 cm Head 360's (what I learned on and modern compared to the Northlands) using todays parallel technique - or even say a 200 cm Dynastar G9 which is almost a shaped ski from the late 1990's. Better yet try a 200 cm K2 VO salom  from the middle 1980's.

I think the new available(developed) materials allow the changes, and it keeps the ski manufacturer's, ski retailers, ski schools in business and allows for the continuing training/testing of Instructors and patrollers.

Ain't it great, most important it gives us something to talk about - you remember .....xxxxx.. in the good old days. ya just gatta luv it.
post #50 of 57
post #51 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve2ski View Post
 Better yet try a 200 cm K2 VO salom  from the middle 1980's.
 

a 200cm is that ski WAS short... 


Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post


Song is fun, video was lacking. 
 
post #52 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post


Song is fun, video was lacking. 
 
Agreed, somewhere out there is a version with SitSkiAndy footage.   No time to dig for it.
post #53 of 57
It's funny that people still use the term "parabolic."  Most alpine skis had exact or roughly parabolic sidecuts decades before Elan marketed the term.  And the curve radius is just a comparative measure; as edging angle varies so does the radius of the carving arc, within the limits dictated by the sidecut, snow, etc.  Since a parabola has no circular radius, the USSA radius definition just generates a circular average of the sidecut's parabola measured along the contact length.  Skis have been "shaped" for over 150 years, just not enough.  Seth Masia's short history is fun to read:
http://skiinghistory.org/sidecut.html
Cheers
Edited by whippersnapper - 12/23/09 at 4:31pm
post #54 of 57
really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

 We aren't taking anything longer than a 180 at our consignment sales next year.  
post #55 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSA View Post

For this ski season, the longest ski Head makes is a 191. Head will produce just one ski longer than 180.
 


Really?? Then who's making Jimis, Joes, Richies and Johns? I coulda swore those were made by Head.

The short ski thing comes and goes. I've seen this happen twice since I started out.Eventually people come back to their senses.
post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post

Really?? Then who's making Jimis, Joes, Richies and Johns? I coulda swore those were made by Head.

The short ski thing comes and goes. I've seen this happen twice since I started out.Eventually people come back to their senses.

2002...
post #57 of 57
Ooops!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Short skis....are the future