EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Bias, selection, and morons, oh my!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bias, selection, and morons, oh my! - Page 2

post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

eccimortal is halfway right, alot of those skis are WAY too short for the poster. The Recon, Savage, and AC50 are the right length but the Lord, Snoop and 8.1 are too short. 

My comment was on how Eci framed it -- seeming to question the OP's manhood.  For certain types of skiing -- e.g., moguls -- shorter skis are better.  No need to get macho about length.

On your point, Bush:  the OP knew that the Blizzard was too short, but apparently that was the only length available for demo.  The Lord he demo-ed in 177.  Why do you say it was WAY too short for a 188 cm tall intermediate skier?  I know that the Lord has "early rise" (or, semi-rocker, or whatever the heck they call it) -- does that mean it skis short?

The Snoop he skied in 176.  Maybe a tad short, but "WAY" too short?  The next size up for that ski is 186, essentially the OP's height.       
post #32 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post




My comment was on how Eci framed it -- seeming to question the OP's manhood.  For certain types of skiing -- e.g., moguls -- shorter skis are better.  No need to get macho about length.

On your point, Bush:  the OP knew that the Blizzard was too short, but apparently that was the only length available for demo.  The Lord he demo-ed in 177.  Why do you say it was WAY too short for a 188 cm tall intermediate skier?  I know that the Lord has "early rise" (or, semi-rocker, or whatever the heck they call it) -- does that mean it skis short?

The Snoop he skied in 176.  Maybe a tad short, but "WAY" too short?  The next size up for that ski is 186, essentially the OP's height.       
 

He is at Breck. Meaning that his ski choices should be longer, than the same person back east.

Lord would ski much short with early rise and twin tip. Snoop would ski alittle shorter and yes he should still get the 186. If I can handle the 195 at stowe sometimes and all the time out west, him at 3 inches taller and 40lb heavier despite less skill should be able to do the same on shorter skis. The Snoop is pretty easy to ski.

I am not trying to insult him or anyone its just shorter skis make ALOT of things harder. Even believe it or not mogul skiing.
post #33 of 46
Bush -- no insult from you perceived. 

Why West = Longer?  Greater surface area, more float?

I take your point that skier's weight as well as height should be considered.  OTOH, I wonder if you sometimes under-estimate how much better a skier you are than some of us.

Longer skis better for moguls?  I'm skeptical but open-minded.  Let's ski some moguls together next season up at Stowe.  
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshershest View Post

Minutes ago pulled the trigger on the Sutan 85's at 178cm.  Went up to A-Basin last weekend after about 20in pow over 2 days and had to rent a pair of sh#$ sticks, which made the otherwise epic day a bit tiring and frustrating.  Pushed me to go ahead and make the leap despite my indecision.  Thanks to all for their input.  This is a great site/blog with helpful, intelligent, enthusiastic folks.  Now I'm psyched to try out my purchase.  Can't wait for next season!  Cheers to all!  BTW, found them on www.powder7.com, a clearing house for demos in Golden, CO.  Nice staff, decent deals.  My skiis were this year's demos for $380.  Not bad.



Wow, they sound short to me, for your height - weight, but some folks just like shorter skis.
Sounds like a good deal. I hope you get to wear them out next season.
post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post

Bush -- no insult from you perceived. 

Why West = Longer?  Greater surface area, more float?

I take your point that skier's weight as well as height should be considered.  OTOH, I wonder if you sometimes under-estimate how much better a skier you are than some of us.

Longer skis better for moguls?  I'm skeptical but open-minded.  Let's ski some moguls together next season up at Stowe.  

west is longer for several reason. More softer snow, easier to go faster since there is less people and stuff in the way along with softer easier to ski snow.  Moguls are bigger IE easier to ski with longer skis on.  

The thing is skiing short skis can stunt some people from getting better.

On the moguls longer skis being better is kinda of true. In slush/powder bumps I can ski my snoops faster than anything else in my quiver because the length absorbs the bumps better and doesnt let me fall forwad or back....but generally for me 180ish is easiet for me to ski bumps with SL skis IMO being really demanding in bumps because I feel like I am either to far forward or too far back. 
post #36 of 46
 Bush is right here, regarding skiing something longer in the west and I will add to his list that you just have longer and wider trails west. There is more room to let the skis run. 
post #37 of 46
Agree with Bush.  Western hills have much more open space, more room to turn a wider turn radius ski.  You CAN find tight places if you look for them, but on the whole runs and especially the top of the mountain where you can't quite tell where the run is and where it's just open terrain are more wide open.
post #38 of 46

OK, thanks, Bush, Phil and Ghost.  I'm open-minded to logical reasoning and/or actual experience.  My earlier objection stems from overhearing countless teenagers on the slopes (and their ilk here on Epic) bragging about ski length -- as if that will somehow transfer to their anatomical dimensions. 

At Snowmass, I did demo a bigger ski, Head Peak 88, after one day on my AC-20s -- and there was a huge difference in performance for those conditions.  But the Heads were not really longer: just 164 vs. 163 for my Volkls.  Maybe I should have asked for the next size up on day three, just to experiment.  

Unexpectedly for me, the Heads were way better even in the bumps; I could ride the crests and troughs without getting thrown around.  Yes, true, moguls at Snowmass in March after 12 inches of fresh snow are quite different than moguls at Stowe in December with sub-zero temps.

 

post #39 of 46
Bigger is better in the West (the real America).
post #40 of 46
As an older instructor, I am for anything that will keep me skiing.  I tried Nordicas at Whistler and was willing to buy them on the spot.  I did like the point the rep made about bringing back steering the skis.  The emphasis on edging the last few years has really helped me, what really brought it together was steering the inside leg. 
I think that Ski magazine is trying to be more relevant.  They did a big test at Okemo this year and I got to participate in their Deer Valley test last year:  http://www.skinet.com/ski/gear/2009/10/the-citizens-ski-test   I'm on the far right in the Blue parka.
post #41 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post

OK, thanks, Bush, Phil and Ghost.  I'm open-minded to logical reasoning and/or actual experience.  My earlier objection stems from overhearing countless teenagers on the slopes (and their ilk here on Epic) bragging about ski length -- as if that will somehow transfer to their anatomical dimensions. 

At Snowmass, I did demo a bigger ski, Head Peak 88, after one day on my AC-20s -- and there was a huge difference in performance for those conditions.  But the Heads were not really longer: just 164 vs. 163 for my Volkls.  Maybe I should have asked for the next size up on day three, just to experiment.  

Unexpectedly for me, the Heads were way better even in the bumps; I could ride the crests and troughs without getting thrown around.  Yes, true, moguls at Snowmass in March after 12 inches of fresh snow are quite different than moguls at Stowe in December with sub-zero temps.

 


actually you would need more brains and sense to go against the masses and go long. Alot of teenages like to point it down the fallline with little turns and maybe backseat. Guess what longer skis actually help them do that for better or worse.....
post #42 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post

actually you would need more brains and sense to go against the masses and go long.

I can't tell if I'm being diss'ed or what.    Who is BWPA's designated translator this week?
post #43 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post




I can't tell if I'm being diss'ed or what.    Who is BWPA's designated translator this week?

 

LOL.  It's not you being dissed; it's the teen-aged braggarts with the too-long skis.

There was a time when it was next to impossible to get a ski that was stable and resistant to vibrating off your feet at high speeds that was anything less than 215 cm long.   If you skied fast, you had long skis; if you didn't have long skis, you obviously didn't ski fast.  Those days are long gone.   Today, a good 165 cm SL ski is every bit as vibrationally stable as an old-school 215 GS ski (though they can get wobbly if not on edge).   Even back then, the effect was somewhat lessened by soft snow, but extra length did help with float in powder. 

As far as difficulty goes, a longer ski will be more resistant to pivoting the ski via user-supplied torque, and will require a little more precision (because the tip is so far away from the boot it can exert more torque on you, thus compounding mistakes) when controlling your direction by tipping and carving following the tip.  However, at today's lengths (even today's longer ones) it really only takes a little while to get used to the precision required by the extra length unless you are fighting the ski, and the payback in fore-aft forgiveness in rough terrain is huge.  Unless you specialize in bush whacking very tight trees, there's no need to worry about going too long as far as difficulty goes; if you don't know what you're doing and have to fight the ski to make it turn, you will regret length, but once you learn the correct moves it won't bother you.  The real reason not to go too long is that the ski won't excel unless it is operating as designed, which means bending the right amount for the snow conditions, turn size, speed, and weight of skier.

Once you have settled on a type of ski to suit the snow conditions, length should be based on your weight and how fast you ski, as those two factors combined will determine how much force you have available to bend the ski, and longer skis are usually stiffer and thus require more force to bend.  Getting a ski that is too long means you are spreading your weight along too long an edge and it might not have enough pressure to dig into the ice or hardpack, and it means that your ski will not be decambered as much just running straight in deep snow thus diminishing how easy it is to get a turn started by simply tipping a bit.  In the old days you might have to put up with the drawbacks of a too-long ski in order to get the added stabillity, but not any more.

Because spaces are more wide open out west, you will likely be skiing faster in those spaces (kind of like going 70 mph on a 4-lane highway as opposed to 20 mph in a narrow laneway), hence the recommendation for a longer ski.

It's not just about length.  I suspect the peak 88s were higher performing than the AC20s for a host of reasons.  For short turns I prefer my 165 cm skis SL-shaped skis, for maximum speed skiing with ability to ski anywhere if needs be I have 208 SG skis.  General rules and the laws of physics hold, but the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.  Best bet is to try before you buy, but failing that, listen to folks who have tried the model ski you are interested in skiing and can tell you how it behaves when skied the way you will ski it.  When I got my 208s, I tried out lengths on either side (205 and 215 I think) over a week end at Tremblant.  The 205s weren't stable enough at top speed and the 215s were too much of a work out for my legs at what I would call cruising speed in moguls (but then again I sucked at moguls). 
post #44 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post




I can't tell if I'm being diss'ed or what.    Who is BWPA's designated translator this week?

 

your not being dissed, you respect me. You get respect back :). If you ever think your being dissed by me I can tell you I didnt mean it.
post #45 of 46
I believe much that Ghost states is evidenced in a ski's radius lenght, i believe most companies products radii  grow with the length of the ski.  Seems this may also (besides the wests spread and snow) favor a technically skilled skier and perhaps why heavier skiers often find some added ski length beneficial
post #46 of 46
Bush -- I know, I just sharing some levity about your sentence structure.    I do still want to ski moguls with you sometime.  I need to get better so I can keep up with my kids when they're barreling down the bumps.

Ghost -- Thanks.  This is one of the best explanations of ski length I've read.    
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 › Bias, selection, and morons, oh my!