New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Dimensions

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 

What can you tell -- or make an educated guess -- about skis based just on their dimensions?

 

Here are the dimensions of five skis -- how would they ski (compared to each other) in, e.g., hardpack, crud, ice, powder, trees, moguls?

 

1.    126-88-112

 

2.    126-84-112

 

3.    127-88-109

 

4.    125-90-113

 

5.    127-90-115

 

post #2 of 22


1.
 Long turn fast cruiser, floats  fairly well for an attempt at a 1SQ, reasonable ice and crud behavior      doesn't do short turns well.   Meh, but a fast meh.

 

2.

Snoozer attempt at a do-it-all ski, not even remotely adequate for powder, probably OK for bumps.   Pass unless I was looking for a "safe buy".    Wake me up when we get there?

 

3.

 

I want this one.

 

4.

 

Slightly more versatile than #1, less hardpack cruising fun, probably more bump fun.   Meh, in a "might choose it for slush bump day" way.

 

5.

2nd choice.  Better hardpack behavior than #4, not as good as #1.   Not as versatile in turn shape as #3.

 

 

 

What do I win?  

post #3 of 22

According to the 2003 Powder Buyers Guide, all 5 of these skis should be Excellent in Waist Deep Pow, but should suffer dearly on the hardpack.  Ice?  Forget it.

post #4 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujativeOCR View Post

According to the 2003 Powder Buyers Guide, all 5 of these skis should be Excellent in Waist Deep Pow, but should suffer dearly on the hardpack.  Ice?  Forget it.



What did the 2003 PBG say about the PR, the Beast and the XXX?

post #5 of 22
Well in 2003 that was a decent sized waist. So it is all relative.
post #6 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post





What did the 2003 PBG say about the PR, the Beast and the XXX?


LOL I don't know.  I was guesstimating the time-line that these would have been the fattest skis around.  Might have been 2001.  Or maybe 2004.

post #7 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post


1.
 Long turn fast cruiser, floats  fairly well for an attempt at a 1SQ, reasonable ice and crud behavior      doesn't do short turns well.   Meh, but a fast meh.

 

2.

Snoozer attempt at a do-it-all ski, not even remotely adequate for powder, probably OK for bumps.   Pass unless I was looking for a "safe buy".    Wake me up when we get there?

 

3.

 

I want this one.

 

4.

 

Slightly more versatile than #1, less hardpack cruising fun, probably more bump fun.   Meh, in a "might choose it for slush bump day" way.

 

5.

2nd choice.  Better hardpack behavior than #4, not as good as #1.   Not as versatile in turn shape as #3.

 

 

 

What do I win?  

you can haz cookie, you have also out nerded everyone on here(but me!) and your awesome like that.

 

the thing is a ski shape isnt the only thing that matters in how it performs. If it was it would be as simple as looking at the dimension you have listed. Lucky for you I know what all these skis are but number 2.

 

1. Head Peak 88  - kinda of a boat for EC unless you buy it to short, best longer turn off the bunch better than better in crud than the kendo, but overall I think its not what you want.

 

2. Fisher Watea 84 or Nordica HR (and all the models) to show how different and flawed a ski dimension poll is both of them blow and suck which isnt even possible. the 84 are the best bump skis listed but suck at just about everything else compared to the other more capable skis in this list.

 

3. Volkl Kendo - probably the best one mentioned for all around east coast skiing wont be as good as 4 or 5 in powder

 

4. Line P90 -  good skis just kinda of meh like comprex say probably the best off trail skis here along with the Pilgrims

 

5 .Icelandtic Pilgrims  - very fun skis more lively and less damp than the P90

 

 

 

Number 3 is IMO probably going to be proven to be what will fall nicely into what your skiing. Probably in a 170 or 177 size. 

 

 

post #8 of 22


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post

What can you tell -- or make an educated guess -- about skis based just on their dimensions?

 

Here are the dimensions of five skis -- how would they ski (compared to each other) in, e.g., hardpack, crud, ice, powder, trees, moguls?

 

1.    126-88-112

 

2.    126-84-112

 

3.    127-88-109

 

4.    125-90-113

 

5.    127-90-115

 



Nothing.

 

SJ

post #9 of 22

That you don't plan to ski much powder.  Or at least you think fat skis are dumb.

post #10 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiplainsdrifter View Post

That you don't plan to ski much powder.  Or at least you think fat skis are dumb.


his home mountains get 50 inches of snow a year.... so yeah its quite a different form of skiing than what you get to do. 

post #11 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post


 



Nothing.

 

SJ

X2. While I don't share the simplicity in SJ's answer, it has as much to do with core construction, flex, profile and I will throw in a dab of graphics. 

post #12 of 22

The length of the ski would also dictate float in powder and turn radius so the numbers are somewhat meaningless without more specs.

 

post #13 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiplainsdrifter View Post

That you don't plan to ski much powder.  Or at least you think fat skis are dumb.


The first.   Although it's not so much a "plan" as it is my location and circumstances. 

 

Other than day or weekend trips to local places (e.g., Whitetail), all of my ski trips are planned months in advance.  I can't time my trips so that I'm at the resort when there is virgin powder -- in fact, I have never been to a ski resort when it had expanses of untouched powder (as opposed, say, to chop, crud and bumps three days after the powderific day).  I've had some fantastic skiing, just never seen expanses of real powder.  If I'm ever out skiing when powder strikes, I'll rent "fat" skis (over 100 waist?), but so far I haven't needed to own them.  To me -- who admittedly hasn't tried a lot of different skis -- the 80 - 95 range gives you more versatility on non-powder days.
 

post #14 of 22



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimski View Post




The first.   Although it's not so much a "plan" as it is my location and circumstances. 

 

Other than day or weekend trips to local places (e.g., Whitetail), all of my ski trips are planned months in advance.  I can't time my trips so that I'm at the resort when there is virgin powder -- in fact, I have never been to a ski resort when it had expanses of untouched powder (as opposed, say, to chop, crud and bumps three days after the powderific day).  I've had some fantastic skiing, just never seen expanses of real powder.  If I'm ever out skiing when powder strikes, I'll rent "fat" skis (over 100 waist?), but so far I haven't needed to own them.  To me -- who admittedly hasn't tried a lot of different skis -- the 80 - 95 range gives you more versatility on non-powder days.
 


This is an excellent strategy.  No reason to own something you only use rarely, and unless you hit a 2 foot of blower kind of day, 90 mm waist will actually handle powder just fine. 
 

post #15 of 22
Thread Starter 

So, here they are:

 

1.    126-88-112     Head Peak 88

 

2.    126-84-112     Nordica HR Burner

 

3.    127-88-109     Volkl Kendo

 

4.    125-90-113     Line Prophet 90

 

5.    127-90-115     Icelantic Pilgrim

post #16 of 22

I'm treating this thread as a PSA.  Glad someone made the point again to start off the season.  You can tell very little from dimensions alone.  I have also learned that you still know very little even with the dimensions AND construction info.  And you might think you have some idea based on reading reviews from other skier's, but in the end demo, demo, demo - it's the only way to fly if you really want to know what you're getting in to.

 

That said - I made the same mistakes I've made before.  I bought 4 pairs of skis that I've never skied before - 2 at the end of last season and 2 now at the beginning of this one.  Unfortunately I tend to like skis that are much harder to get a hold of so I have to outlay the cash and take the gamble, but I'm ok with it - really.


Edited by Noodler - 10/11/10 at 4:38pm
post #17 of 22

Did you ever get to ski those Viruses?

post #18 of 22

I did find the Virus skis at a shop in Boulder, CO for a mere $1650.  Enough said.

 

Actually the skis of late that I've decided to take the plunge on are the Palmer P02, Scott Crusade, and ZAG Heli Gold.  None of which are easy to find in the U.S. (for whatever reasons).  These were all situations where they were truly unique skis at good prices so I said WTF .  I own way too many skis and need to thin the herd, but like many here I'm always looking for the "magic".

post #19 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post


 



Nothing.

 

SJ




Wisdom ^^^
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post



X2. While I don't share the simplicity in SJ's answer, it has as much to do with core construction, flex, profile and I will throw in a dab of graphics. 




Wisdom ^^^
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiplainsdrifter View Post



 


This is an excellent strategy.  No reason to own something you only use rarely, and unless you hit a 2 foot of blower kind of day, 90 mm waist will actually handle powder just fine. 
 



You should see what my expert friend can handle on his 90mm skis.

post #20 of 22

What can he handle?  More importantly, what is your point?  You are preaching to the choir if you think that you don't need huge skis to ski well.  However, huge skis are more fun. 

post #21 of 22

dimensions are only a piece of the pie that tells the story in how its going to ski, construction is huge!

post #22 of 22

^^^^^subtle things go into the layers, and lay-up (adhesives and dampeners) and pressing is not a gross process which is the same for all skis. shape is certainly just one of many qualities in a ski.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion