post #1 of 1
Thread Starter 
This has been bugging me for awhile-ski lengths sometimes make no sense. For example, a Fischer ski in 180cm will have a running surface length of 180cm (with the actual stand-height just under 180) while an Atomic in 181cm will have a running surface length of 181cm as well. So far, it makes sense-either measure a ski by running surface length (as many manufacturers do) or by actual length of the ski.

But then, with the Elan GSX or Dual X, a 176cm ski only has a running length of 172.5 cm, with a actual length of 171.5cm. So, where does the 176 come from? Do they just pull it out of their butt? Do they mean to say that it skis like a 176, even though it is a 172? Or, do they want a uniform length for their catalouge on every model, regardless of actual length?

If I walk into a store and like the Dual X, I would likely want the 176cm, as I usually ski race carvers between 175 and 180cm. But, if I measure the ski and see it is a 172cm, I would probably go with the Dual X in 184 (which is actually a 180 when measured). But, if I were a consumer, I wouldn't know that the 176 was actually a 172 (unless I had a tape measure or thought to myself "gee, this looks short for a 176cm") and could end up with a shorter-than desired ski (unless the salesperson was knowlegeable and told me to go up a size). Shouldn't ski companies be more accurate in their ski sizing?

Then there is K2. An Axis X in 181 is 2 cm shorter than an Escape 5500 in 181cm, same with the ladies 167cm Spire and Flight-one ski is almost 2 cm longer than the other. Go figure...