EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Optimal Ski Dimensions For Different Purposes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Optimal Ski Dimensions For Different Purposes?

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Now that the industry has had several seasons to shake out the various experiments with "fat", "mid fat", "all mountain"...etc. terminology and associated tip-waist-tail dimensions, (creating categories as they went) ...what are he community's opinions about the best dimensions for the following categories:

What trends in dimensions are really successful for "experts" in your opinion? (category descriptions are not authoritative or cast in stone...just guidelines .. feel free to alter them!)

CATEGORIES:


BIG-MOUNTAIN (100% off-piste floatable crud busters with muscle)

FAT (80%+ off-piste [not powder boards])

MID-FAT (50% on-piste..50% off? good floater, so-so hardpack carving)

ALL-MOUNTAIN (70% on-piste, pretty good hardpack carving, all surfaces)

RACECARVE/CROSS CARVER (90% frontside groomer carving tools)
post #2 of 15
I like red skis. Or, no - GREEN!
post #3 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
I like red skis. Or, no - GREEN!
Into the chasm you go!
post #4 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExoticSkis View Post
Now that the industry has had several seasons to shake out the various experiments with "fat", "mid fat", "all mountain"...etc. terminology and associated tip-waist-tail dimensions, (creating categories as they went) ...what are he community's opinions about the best dimensions for the following categories:

What trends in dimensions are really successful for "experts" in your opinion? (category descriptions are not authoritative or cast in stone...just guidelines .. feel free to alter them!)

CATEGORIES:


BIG-MOUNTAIN (100% off-piste floatable crud busters with muscle)

FAT (80%+ off-piste [not powder boards])

MID-FAT (50% on-piste..50% off? good floater, so-so hardpack carving)

ALL-MOUNTAIN (70% on-piste, pretty good hardpack carving, all surfaces)

RACECARVE/CROSS CARVER (90% frontside groomer carving tools)
who cares?
post #5 of 15
i'm tired
post #6 of 15
Med cart comes @ 2130 hours sharp. See, the hospital ward and railroad stations have something in common. Yer' train is right on time.

Sweet dreams Sunshine.
post #7 of 15
Dont yew make funof me. my lawyer says i'm intlecktuallie challenged. i'll soo you to!
post #8 of 15
I see this thread is slowly turning into drool, but here's some input:

With my east coast perspective, I think < 70mm waist for a hardpack/groomed ski, 76-82mm for a mid-fat all mountain ski (partial importance on hard/groomed snow performance), 85-92mm for an all-mountain fat ski (with much less importance placed on hard/groomed performance), and > 95mm for a fat ski (little/no importance placed on hard/groomed performance). I have not explored the > 95mm category myself, and consider that the domain of western skiers, or perhaps east coast skiers who can afford to have a ski in the quiver that is optimal maybe 10-15% of the time.
post #9 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
I see this thread is slowly turning into drool
slowly?
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
slowly?
I believe the implication is that you are falling down on the job... Time to shape up and get busy!

Or did you just think you'd take a Zen-like approach and leave perfection alone?
post #11 of 15
Mid-fats are optimal around 78mm I think.\

Fats... 90mm?

Race... around 65mm.

70% groomers? around 70mm I think... its in the 50-50 area....
post #12 of 15
What ever dimensions you don't have yet. Got long skis? Short ones are in. Got straight skis? Got to have some shaped skis. Got short shaped skis already? hmm. Fat is where it's at! Got your fat shaped skis yet? Yes? Now you got to get some long radius fat skis? Got your long radius fat skis finally? You really don't need them that fat, try this skinny long radius ski. Wait! That's the GS ski you had in the 90s. You not playing fair! Your were supposed to throw those out!
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExoticSkis View Post
Now that the industry has had several seasons to shake out the various experiments with "fat", "mid fat", "all mountain"...etc. terminology and associated tip-waist-tail dimensions, (creating categories as they went) ...what are he community's opinions about the best dimensions for the following categories:

What trends in dimensions are really successful for "experts" in your opinion? (category descriptions are not authoritative or cast in stone...just guidelines .. feel free to alter them!)

CATEGORIES:


BIG-MOUNTAIN (100% off-piste floatable crud busters with muscle) 140-117-125

FAT (80%+ off-piste [not powder boards]) 140-117-125

MID-FAT (50% on-piste..50% off? good floater, so-so hardpack carving) 140-117-125

ALL-MOUNTAIN (70% on-piste, pretty good hardpack carving, all surfaces) 140-117-125

RACECARVE/CROSS CARVER (90% frontside groomer carving tools) Snowlerblades-fartbag-gapergap
......
post #14 of 15
Seriously, it mostly depends on your skiing speed, and within that speed it depends on your preferred turn radius. Length between 160 and 200 depending on speed and ensuing fore-aft balance stability requirements. Given length, you need enough width for float given your weight. With length and width fixed, you need shape to match the turns you prefer to make, though there will be a limit to how small you can go at any given speed. There will likely be a correlation between length and turn radius, as higher speeds will go along with longer skis and turn radii and less shape.


Since there are so many different preferred skiing styles even within the categories, there will be no optimal length or shape.
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
What ever dimensions you don't have yet. Got long skis? Short ones are in. Got straight skis? Got to have some shaped skis. Got short shaped skis already? hmm. Fat is where it's at! Got your fat shaped skis yet? Yes? Now you got to get some long radius fat skis? Got your long radius fat skis finally? You really don't need them that fat, try this skinny long radius ski. Wait! That's the GS ski you had in the 90s. You not playing fair! Your were supposed to throw those out!
Dammit, you are right. And that explains why I can't stop spending money on skis.... When I buy a new pair of 200cm 67mm waist skis I will definitely have come full circle.
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 › Optimal Ski Dimensions For Different Purposes?