EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › The move to longer skis? Michael Rogan and Stu Campbell in SKI
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The move to longer skis? Michael Rogan and Stu Campbell in SKI - Page 5

post #121 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by joseph View Post
There I was, all excited to try out my new 170 Nordy Mach 3s. First pair of skis I ever bought without skiing them first. Also by far the shortest ski I've owned (at least as an adult). But hey, what a price I got. How could I go wrong?

Then this thread.

I've just dug my 198 K2 4s back out of the closet. Still look pretty good too....

/Anyone want a brand new pair of Nordicas?
Bro, don't worry - I just found a killer deal on some 216 Volkl race stock DH's. You could sell the Nordicas and still have some $$ left over for a family sized bag of Doritios!
post #122 of 137
why all y'all got wrapped up in plank wagging you missed the really historical moment of this whole thread:

"highly shaped short skis dont make my skiing easier so why would I buy them, same as some PSIA groomer guy isnt going to want my 192 thugs.

and if I was skiing green circles 165cm Sl skis would suddenly sound alot more appealing.

at the sametime I doubt whats easiest for me would be easiest for anyone else, how many of you would actually skis something like a thug.

all yeah yep its not looking for a easy way out either, just look at my touring TRs, let me tell you how easy that was..."

Save for missing a few 's on his "donts" and "didnts" this was easily the most error free Bushwacker post EVER.

kudos. congrats. hallejulah! i'm definitely bringing Out-of-State beers to the Utah conclave to celebrate!
post #123 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
why all y'all got wrapped up in plank wagging you missed the really historical moment of this whole thread:

"highly shaped short skis dont make my skiing easier so why would I buy them, same as some PSIA groomer guy isnt going to want my 192 thugs.

and if I was skiing green circles 165cm Sl skis would suddenly sound alot more appealing.

at the sametime I doubt whats easiest for me would be easiest for anyone else, how many of you would actually skis something like a thug.

all yeah yep its not looking for a easy way out either, just look at my touring TRs, let me tell you how easy that was..."

Save for missing a few 's on his "donts" and "didnts" this was easily the most error free Bushwacker post EVER.

kudos. congrats. hallejulah! i'm definitely bringing Out-of-State beers to the Utah conclave to celebrate!
can we do epicski on the phone? I would be tons more undersandable.
post #124 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
I haven't read this whole thread, just skimmed the first couple pages, but heres a thread I started at TGR thats similar to this one.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=88137

A quote from that thread:

" 196 Moment Comi Kazis (136 underfoot)

200 Igneous FFFs (118 underfoot)

204 Unity Hiat Pros (120)

200 DP Lotus 120 and 138s

207 Fischer Dukes (121)

Salomon X wing labs, 198cm, and 107mm

Salmon Rocker 192cm and 127mm.

Every single one of these is either completely new for the 07-08 season, or at least a new size. That’s a pretty big deal if you think about it. 8 big skis, seven of which are 196cm of bigger, and seven of which are also 118mm underfoot or bigger, when at the beginning of this past year, there were none that fit this description."
Don't forget the 197 Volkl Katana @ 111mm.

The year before volkl canceled the 197 Gotama.
post #125 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
can we do epicski on the phone? I would be tons more undersandable.
He's saying you nailed it. I can't say I disagree.
post #126 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormDay View Post
Don't forget the 197 Volkl Katana @ 111mm.

The year before volkl canceled the 197 Gotama.
True, but at the time I don't think those were common knowledge.

I think this year will be looked back upon as a momentous year in ski design.
post #127 of 137

Long skis meaning fast skis relative to skier are good for the mountain

Squaw is a place to ski fast. They have a 'ski fast lose pass' sign hanging on a lift tower with the Palisades in the background where skiers commonly exceed 50mph without a twitch by the patrol. I can't see that sign without thinking, yeah, speed limit: 65. really cool. But what I dig about fast skiers, skiers that straight-line big lines or carve huge GS turns on a massive pitch, is that they barely touch the snow, don't chop it, cut it loose, bump it out, or otherwise destroy it with every turn. snow and line conservation is way important. it's a major way to respect your ski buds on the hill. and give everyone more than one memorable run on a day that is not puking or blowing. ski long, stiff, wide or whatever works for your physiology, but ski fast and carve big. the mountain will appreciate your class.
post #128 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiMangoJazz View Post
Last year I started what became an interesting thread here about longer skis being better. I had gone from 165 RX8's to 175's and many others agreed that a little more length is a good thing.

In the September issue of SKI on page 66-67 Rogan and Campbell describe the problems caused by too short skis. It's very good. The implication is that shorter isn't always better - thus maybe the industry has gone too short recently.

By the way the two spreads before describe the problem of wide skis on hard pack, and narrow skis in crud and powder. The diagrams and descriptions are excellent!
The issue is sales. Now that the shorties have all been sold, it is time to sell long skis again. Forget about being the "right" tools, just go and buy some like Rogan and Campbell say.

BTW: Which ski ads are nearest pages 66-67? I predict those will be the most pushed skis of the year.
post #129 of 137
Hey all!
Holy Shuss Batman! What fun! I can’t be ridin’ em yet so I may as well belly up, have a listen and Jones for snow country. Stumbled across this thread and really got some belly laughs. Thanks guys ----the entertainment got me pumped…….and thinkin’. Guess I gotta read the article in Ski mag.

I dug out the only pair of old long boards I still own – 204cm K2 Mickeys – and compared ‘em with my current planks. Yikes! No wonder my 183cm Fischer DR104s felt like ice skates when I first got on ‘em in 2002. Looking at those K2s – sidecut? What sidecut? Long was good, better leverage to get ‘em to bend and arc and rebound.

Gets me to thinkin’ – from the old ski school days of the ‘70s and ‘80s – “why do we ski? Cuz it’s just plain fun”.

I didn’t ride many chairs through the ‘90s, kinda lost interest in downhill and just skinny skied out back behind my farm. The Fischers were my first experience on shaped skis in 2002 and what a gas that was! Skiing became REALLY fun!

Last season I demo’d a number of different short skis – 165 thru 175 – and found that for me, at my advanced age of 53 and lack of physical conditioning, short here in the Midwest is fun. And fun is what got me back into Alpine skiing. A couple days ago I picked up a pair of 2006 168cm Volkl Allstars at a killer price – so what the heck? I’m 5’6” at 155 pounds, guessing they’re about right for Midwest ripping . We’ll see…..

Its a lot of fun reading all yer comments, thanks folks! Wish I could join you at A-Basin…..When I do ski the west this season I’ll demo longer boards, ‘cuz I’m thinkin’ longer arcs and 4WD for mountain conditions. I missed the stability and confidence of longer boards at Mt Hood Meadows last spring. The 165cm Volkl TigerSharks I demo’d there for two days in late March corn and mank felt too squirrelly at speed, switch turned on or off.

‘cuz it’s just plain fun………..
post #130 of 137
I am a low level skier compared to all others here.

This is my experience:

Shorter ski is definately easier to move around and use at low speed. Longer skis are definately more difficult for someone at my level because I ski mostly at lower speed and push the sks around. Longer ski=more resistance and more ski to push.

Put this argument into perspective. IMO short skis do a service to the ski industry as if gets more people like me to ski. Sure we could benefit from modern technique but you have to start somewhere and longer skis IMO would prevent people from keeping with the sport.

My goal really is just to have fun. Like a great many skiers I am not a hardcore skier and only think about skiing in the winter or when winter approaches. The advent of these shorter modern skis has made it more fun and for people like me to enjoy and participate in the sport and spend my dollars on the industry.

I think looking at it from the wrong perspective. Shorter skis keep many recreational people skiing and going on ski vacations and keep the lifts going.

I think the short ski/long ski debate only is relevant to people ate advanced and expert levels. Most of us who ski will never really be at this level because as I said we are just in it for something to do and have fun in the winter. It doesnt matter to me what is on my feet as long as I am enjoying the experience. I would bet if you polled all skiers, 80% would respond likewise. It is only the hardcore and skilled skiers who really care about it IMO.

The fact is people like me are the meat and potatos of the inudstry and we are the ones who put most of the dollars into the industry with our vacations,lodging, full price on-the-spot lift tickets and $7 hot chocolates.

Without us the corporate ski industry would collapse and skiing would be limited to those who hike into the back areas for their fun. The availability of easy to use gear keeps people like me on the slopes.

Shorter skis = backbone of the industry. It is no good to make fun of people on short skis.
post #131 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67 View Post
well as somebody who has gone through two quiver over hauls in the past two seasons i'm of the mind that it's the ski's personality more so than the size, though size does and can matter.

i started out my first new quiver in over 15 years with 177 Karmas and Mantras. loved 'em the first season i was on 'em but as the snow conditions hardened and got sparser last season they began to feel and act really short and squirrely.

i began demoing again and settled on some 180cm King Salmons to replace the Mantras. most folks have said that 3cm added to the length is really minor, but the ski feels totally different than the Mantra. I tend to think it has to do with the build of the ski not so much the length. The 177 Mantra skied short to me. The 180 KS skis long.

i also demoed some Titan 9's and ended up buying a pair of 181's to replace the Karmas. Tip to tail the T9 is the same length as a 185 Karma, so my feeling that the Karmas skied short was more or less confirmed in spades.

i know from demoing the M:EX from Atomic that the 175 felt just right and the 185 felt hella long and cumbersome.

i think in all these cases i was/am dealing with rather stiff skis, which greatly change the personality of the ski. my only comparison would be that my 185cm Spats are really noodly and don't feel half as long as they are (granted a lot of this has to do with the reverse camber and the actual running length, which when i measured it was between 35 and 75cm depending on surface contact).

in the end i've come to the conclusion that some skis are meant to be skied short. they're designed that way. but most of the Big Mountain models that have become popular these days are meant to be skied longer, at least 180 and higher.

the other thing is that after a year on 177 and 180 cm skis the 190s and 195 lengths really don't seem all that long any more.

honestly, if you're interested in a ski i would recommend demoing it in several lengths. i really wish, in hindsight, that i had ridden the Mantra and Karmas not only in the 177, but the 184, 185, and 191 lengths just to fully suss out which length would be best overall.

also we have to realize that a lot of this is all marketing trends. when twips (twin tips) were hot everybody was extolling the virtues of them, regardless if you were riding park or not. 2 seasons ago everyone was extolling the virtues of wider skis to the degree if you were on anything narrower than 80 you were crazy or a diehard OG purist. Now everybody seems to be screaming "longer is better." I really think it depends on the ski, the skier, and the predominant type of terrain. For most of Tahoe skiing I don't really see the need for a 190+ ski unless you are a big (height and/or weight) charger. A lot of our hills may be steep, but they can also be relatively short. I've been with guys on 195 skis and they take 2 turns and they're done with the run!




first: you can't compare different skis in slighltly different lenght;

second: there is no such like a bad or to short/to long skis: there are only skis which are wrongly mached to the skier and conditions. nobody who is sane will ski SL on skis longer than 165. nobody should go short on deep snow either.
my shortest skis are AC40 184 (only cause I would have to wait for 191s).
never skied anything shorter but same talking I do SL on 165 racetigers.

let's be honest: people discussing whether to use 2 or 3 cm shorter or longer skis usualy have technical problems at differernt conditions.

for me nothing is more comical than reading : "I need help : I can't decide whether 163 XYZ skis will be better than 165".

here at USA, the trend towards short skis is not as insane as in europe: overseas, anybody carring skis longer than 165 is looked at like from different world, and everybody is trying to ski "carving" or "fun-carving". fortunately, here the blind move towards extremely short skis is not that overwhelming.

however even in Europe , they strated to see a move towards slightly longer boards.

And the bottom l;ine is: about 10 years ago the manufactures started to lose competition against snowboards. they had to come up with skis which would be easier to managed by beginners and easier to turn and this what the main reason why the shorter skis started to be so popular. for average "skier" spending 7-10 /year on the snow this is just simply an aesier way to enjoy the skiing. and this is fine, however with increasing skills and demands, many people are willing to move towards longer skis for the many reasons mentioned in this discussion

BTW: I'm 6'1 /185-190 lbs
post #132 of 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by kubagr View Post
first: you can't compare different skis in slighltly different lenght;

second: there is no such like a bad or to short/to long skis: there are only skis which are wrongly mached to the skier and conditions. nobody who is sane will ski SL on skis longer than 165. nobody should go short on deep snow either.
my shortest skis are AC40 184 (only cause I would have to wait for 191s).
never skied anything shorter but same talking I do SL on 165 racetigers.

let's be honest: people discussing whether to use 2 or 3 cm shorter or longer skis usualy have technical problems at differernt conditions.

for me nothing is more comical than reading : "I need help : I can't decide whether 163 XYZ skis will be better than 165".

here at USA, the trend towards short skis is not as insane as in europe: overseas, anybody carring skis longer than 165 is looked at like from different world, and everybody is trying to ski "carving" or "fun-carving". fortunately, here the blind move towards extremely short skis is not that overwhelming.

however even in Europe , they strated to see a move towards slightly longer boards.

And the bottom l;ine is: about 10 years ago the manufactures started to lose competition against snowboards. they had to come up with skis which would be easier to managed by beginners and easier to turn and this what the main reason why the shorter skis started to be so popular. for average "skier" spending 7-10 /year on the snow this is just simply an aesier way to enjoy the skiing. and this is fine, however with increasing skills and demands, many people are willing to move towards longer skis for the many reasons mentioned in this discussion

BTW: I'm 6'1 /185-190 lbs
This is true. Easier to turn = skier sticks around for another season. I can tell you if I had to start on long modern skis I would not still be skiing.

People forget the ski industry doesnt care about such debates as long vs short. Their goal as a business is to make a profit and remain competitive. The hardcore skier is the exception rather than the norm - most people spend 5-10 days a year on the slopes. The industry is going to be centrered around these skiers as they keep the money flowing.

The manufactuers will make long skis because their is a target market for them - the advasnced and expert. But if you looked at production numbers based on ski length I bet it would look like a bell curve - the 160-165 length at the apex and the 150 and 190 at the low ends of the curve. I would guess the plot of ability level of all skiers looks like a bell curve as well - intermediate at the apex and beginner and advanced at the low ends. I like this forum but IMO it is skewed in outlook. Not everyone is into skiing to the same degree or as advanced as the majority on this forum.

LIke I said in my other post the bottom line is short skis sell and are the backbone of the manufacturers profit margin.
post #133 of 137

the TRUE length of Artfulness

Quote:
Originally Posted by newfydog View Post
Well, the easiest tool for catching trout may be 20 lb test with a treble hook and bait but I like a flyrod.

The easiest boat in a river might be a big wave flattening raft, but I like a kayak.

The best ski to get down a hill may be some big damp wide monster but sometimes I like something else. Gosh, sometimes I don't even have my heel clamped down. Ridiculous.
I agree with this very subtle point by newfy. and it makes me smile. Easiest has nothing to do with anything. Best is relative to purpose. Purpose may be to scare one's self, take on the next challenge, create an original, artful line.

As to the technical part that we are mulling. My take: it is a dynamic interplay, power of the skier related to power in the ski. You HAVE to be capable (strength, skill, willpower) of making the ski GO DYNAMIC. Stiffness, rebound, liveliness, dampening, side-cut all are major factors as significant as length and affecting choice of length. And does your chosen line at this moment in time take power or gentleness, speed or finesse, carve or smear,today different from yesterday, over there different from right here. A skier might focus on different dynamics in different situations on different days with different skis. Best to have a whole sh-tload of skis, no doubt, as there never was and never will be a right ski length, or a best ski design for everything, though ski marketers love this concept as they can plug the name of their ski into that slot. I enjoy running everything from old Red Sleds at 195cm to latest Rossi Quads at 164cm. It's all good. Let's get some runs and put this analysis into real perspective. yeah!
post #134 of 137
I can't believe I am only finding this thread now. This is a great topic. I started racing the local beer league about three years ago, so I bought a pair of 170s. They turned great but I felt like I was going to die when I free skied and tried to ski longer turns on the steeps. The skis felt particularly sketchy when getting air. With that said, they are great skis (atomic gs9), but really are only good for particular situations.

We went out west two years ago and I brought the atomics and a pair of Salomon pilots 190cm that I have owned for years. Never even touched the atomics while I was out there. The longer skis were just too happy on those wide fast groomers, crud and even in the powder.

I have since moved to 180cm fisher wc rc's for beer night and bombing on groomers (nice and stiff and super stable), and I have a pair of AMC 76s in 182cm length on the way. These will be the go to all around ski for me. I realized that I enjoy long turns and higher speeds. I think the 182cm AMC will fit the bill just right and also allow me to enjoy the occasional powder day or skiing in the trees. You can alway make tight turns with long skis; it just requires a little more emphasis on the shovel of the ski or the dreaded skid.

BTW I am 6feet tall and weigh 175lbs.

It's all fun. It comes down to what you enjoy the most.

P.S. My wife has been skiing 150cm skis for the past five years. I bought her a pair of 164cm AMC 76s. She can't believe how much more comfortable she feels at speed. WHY??? It's the length baby!
post #135 of 137
Can't believeI missed this jem back in October:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulR View Post
The fact is people like me are the meat and potatos of the inudstry and we are the ones who put most of the dollars into the industry with our vacations,lodging, full price on-the-spot lift tickets and $7 hot chocolates.
Thank you, PaulR, thank you for fleets of groomers, high speed sixpacks, all the high-priced mid-mountain resteraunts, billion dollar luxury hotels and the high-priced lift tickets to pay for all this great stuff which we all could never do without.

Believe it or not, there are lots of skiers who would be perfectly happy with a crappy double chair followed by a nice hike. The only thing people like you are the "meat and potatos" of is the BS "McSki" industry. And I'm fine with that - to each his own. But don't start spraying about how everyone owes people like you a debt of gratitude.
post #136 of 137
What is long and what is short? At ESA Tahoe, Mike Rogan was on the 178 Top Fuel and 178 Mach 3 Power. AT 6 foot or so, it seems about right for him. If he was a random guy coming into the shop, looking at those skis, that is the length I would put him on. I ski the 170cm, and am 9cm shorter, and that seems about right for me.

Is this article referring to 6 foot 5 skiers on 160's? Then yes, that seems a bit limiting.

FWIW, I like a hard-snow carver to be somwhere between 170 and 180cm (170cm for snappiness and quickness, 180cm for GS stability at any speed). An all-mountain midfat I would ski between 170 and 178cm, depending on where I am using it (shorter is probably easier in bumps and on groomers, longer better in crud at speed). For a big-mountain ski, 180-185cm seems about right.

Is this too short? I have skied longer skis (most recently the Watea 84 in a 184cm) and hated it. That ski was clearly too long for me: it reminded me back when I skied a 203 before shaped skis came around: too much tip, too forever for the tip to engage.
post #137 of 137
Having read through some of the earlier posts on this v e r r r y l o o o o n g thread, I have edited this post by deleting the previous message in its entirety.

By this point in a thread, it's all been said. Although it really improves my circulation to spew and carry on - and it's FUN! - discretion being the better part of valor, I'll sit down and shut up. (sustained applause - I can hear it!)
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 › The move to longer skis? Michael Rogan and Stu Campbell in SKI