EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What's height got to do with it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's height got to do with it? - Page 2

post #31 of 41

Should we consider our CoG, as in the distance of your CoM from the ground/skis? Wouldn't this change the amount of torque on the skis?

 

edit: just read more of the thread. Ghost has it correct IMO. That is where I was going.

post #32 of 41


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Living Proof View Post

Demo away on size in a certain model.

 


Easier said than done.

I saw your post about lack of woman's performance ski demo opportunities, and, yes, demo'ing is far easier said than done. I've owned the same ski in two different sizes (not at the same time). They were slightly different as would be expected - tradeoff of performance is what ski selection is all about. The shorter version turned easier and was less stable at speed. By traditional thinking, the shorter version should not have been owned by a 6'2" 190# male, but, I was using it to learn carving. It exceeded my expectations.

 

Perhaps my main point stated more clearly is that if one has an opportunity to demo the same ski in different sizes, take it out in both and test traditional thinking about how a ski should perform.
 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

I am sorry, but IMO anyone who thinks that ski length is an overrated criteria in equipment selection must be talking about skiing on nothing but groomed runs.  If you are dealing with terrain and snow condition transitions a short ski is a deficeit, and the taller you are the more of a deficit it becomes.  Imagine hitting a condition that unexpectedly pitches you forward.  A taller skier with a higher center of gravity will need more ski to handle it as smoothly as a shorter person.

 

The trend is now towards longer rockered skis.  Why, because length is a definite asset anywhere but on packed snow, assuming you have the skills to use it properly.


Mudfoot,+

 

For just one ski season, I'd like to have an address with a zip code for Durango, Jackson Hole or Truckee and learn what the skiing you describe above is really about. In the east, we don't need longer, rockered skis.

 

You've described ripping big mountain lines where length is an asset both in-general and for a bigger skier. But for the less skilled 6' plus person, the same skis need to work in bumps, hard snow and tight turn conditions where something shorter with a lower turning radius has advantages. Again, it's about tradeoff's and what works for a specific individual in the environment they  ski. That's why we have quivers with skis of different lengths. I never intended to dismiss length as a factor in ski selection, but, for me, it's the way a ski feels and performs on-snow rather than a perception of how it should perform based on a single criteria.

 

And, damn it, just one season our west to make me change my opinions, that's all I'm asking for!

post #33 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujativeOCR View Post

I had some friends helping me change the hub on my car a few years ago.  Both dudes were much stronger than me...and heavier...but topped out at 5'10".  Neither of them could get a bolt off one of the hubs with an average sized Ratchet no matter how hard they tried.  I remembered a story a friend told me about working on a hummer in the Army.  They had a guy attach something like an 8 foot pole onto the end of a torque wrench to try and get a bolt undone.  It ended up snapping the bolt.  So I offered up the same suggestion with my grand am.  We added about a 18" pipe onto the wrench, and wahlah, bolt comes right out with only my strength pulling on it.

 

Moral of the story, don't underestimate the force that can be added to your skis with only an extra few inches of height on the skier.


Moral of story, it defies biomechanics as told. rolleyes.gif Yep, you have a mechanical advantage over your friends. But muscular strength is primarily a function of cross sectional area of the muscle. And there's less variance in arm length than total stature. So if they were actually "much stronger," meaning much more arm and shoulder muscle circumference, doubt that the force they could exert was so much less that your advantage from the lever length (which for arms will be a coupla inches). Most Olympic weight lifters are not 6'5"...

 

post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by mudfoot View Post

I am sorry, but IMO anyone who thinks that ski length is an overrated criteria in equipment selection must be talking about skiing on nothing but groomed runs.  If you are dealing with terrain and snow condition transitions a short ski is a deficeit, and the taller you are the more of a deficit it becomes.  Imagine hitting a condition that unexpectedly pitches you forward.  A taller skier with a higher center of gravity will need more ski to handle it as smoothly as a shorter person.

 

The trend is now towards longer rockered skis.  Why, because length is a definite asset anywhere but on packed snow, assuming you have the skills to use it properly.


Mudfoot,+

 

For just one ski season, I'd like to have an address with a zip code for Durango, Jackson Hole or Truckee and learn what the skiing you describe above is really about. In the east, we don't need longer, rockered skis.

 

You've described ripping big mountain lines where length is an asset both in-general and for a bigger skier. But for the less skilled 6' plus person, the same skis need to work in bumps, hard snow and tight turn conditions where something shorter with a lower turning radius has advantages. Again, it's about tradeoff's and what works for a specific individual in the environment they  ski. That's why we have quivers with skis of different lengths. I never intended to dismiss length as a factor in ski selection, but, for me, it's the way a ski feels and performs on-snow rather than a perception of how it should perform based on a single criteria.

 

And, damn it, just one season our west to make me change my opinions, that's all I'm asking for!


The length factor for a tall guy is not just for big mountain lines, but for everyday skiing, at least where I ski.  I tend to avoid packed runs as much as possible, and in the mixed conditions a little length defintely helps. The hardest thing around here is picking a ski for a day at Telluride. They have some very steep groomed high speed sections combined with steep bumps on the same run.  The top of the mountain is above tree line, so it is exposed to lots of sun and wind.  Almost any day of the season there you will encounter an incredible variety of snow conditions.  My "short" skis are 185 M:EXs.  I have skied shorter, which allows hot rodding in the bumps, but they were not enough for an all-mountian ski.  I am waiting for some 186 partial twin tips, which should ski a bit shorter than my 185s, so I'll be interested in how they work for varied conditions.

 

Obviously, the best ski for someone is a combination of serveral factors, but IMO too many folks are on shorter stiffer skis than they should be.  A longer mellow flexing ski can be made to do more things, and is more easily forced into a tight turn. Heck, you can turn on the front or the back half if you have enough length and flex, but like you said, the most important thing is that it has to feel right for you. It is probably because of my size, but I'll usually favor more flex over more sidecut, but I realize I am probably in the minority.

 

On that other issue, I advise starting to plan your escape to the mountains as soon as possible.  I moved out west from Wisconsin 30+ years ago to ski bum for a season or two and never made it back.  Everytime I thought about leaving another ski season would come rolling around.  It is easier than you think.

post #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noodler View Post

My advice would be to avoid the temptation to go wide (or the pressure from the sales guys).  As a level 7-8 skier you're still working on developing a solid carved turn that you can use in all conditions.  Wider skis will make getting to that point more difficult (i.e. learning to really tip your skis).

 

So my "i-Advice" would be to pickup something in the mid 160s for length and the mid 70s for width.  Don't go beyond 85mm underfoot no matter how tempting it might be.  You would only be doing yourself a disservice.  Also be careful of skis that are too stiff for you to be able to bend them at lower speeds.

 

As far as your desire to ski bumps and ungroomed - that's more about skills than skis.  Good skiers can take any ski anywhere, but of course some tools are better for the job than others.  A little extra width doesn't really buy you all that much on the ungroomed - a lot more width will allow you to get away with poor technique by letting you use pivoting moves and poor releases without getting hung up.  Consider your desire to become a better skier over the desire to look cool on the latest fat skis.



Hey thanks for the advice. I was looking on the used market to get 08/09 Atomic Blackeyes which have a 79cm underfoot in the 164cm or 171 length. I was also considering the 08/09 Nordica HR Nitrous which has a 78cm underfoot in the 170 length. I currently ski an ancient K2 GS style ski with a 64 underfoot and since I mostly stay on hardpack it works fine, but since I've been wanting to venture off a little more I thought it was a time for an upgrade.

post #36 of 41

Well obviously length is secondary to type of ski.  You are not going to worry about how long a pontoon you need to carve on a race course.  And even my 208 cm SGs will bog down in the deep stuff if you don't have the slope to get them up to speed.  Height is secondary to weight, as well.  Type of ski matters.  Weight matters.  Nobody said they didn't matter.

 

However when you have your ski selected, you need to consider what length.  Weight is the primary factor here.  Second is how fast you ski.  Speed can only make up so much weight though, because although you may ski 4x as fast and thus produce 16 times the centrifugal force (need 16x the centripetal force to stay in the turn), you still only have the into-the-snow component of your weight (plus the sand in your pockets) keeping those edges pressed onto the snow.  Third is how tall your are.

post #37 of 41
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Speed can only make up so much weight though, because although you may ski 4x as fast and thus produce 16 times the centrifugal force (need 16x the centripetal force to stay in the turn), you still only have the into-the-snow component of your weight (plus the sand in your pockets) keeping those edges pressed onto the snow. 

 


Hmmm. But for float, speed is just as important as mass. So again, assuming we all ski on groomers...wink.gif

post #38 of 41

I think what the ski is (design parameters: flex, width, camber, etc) , where and how the ski will be used (the skiers personal style, conditions of use, and line choices), skiers skill level, and other techncial issues (mount point, binding, boot fit) , matter an order of magnitude more than any gross biometric measure (height weight, how much you bench, etc...) when choosing between size X and size X+6cm.

 

So I think the question "what is the right size ski for a guy given height X and weight Y?" totally misses the point.

post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post




Hmmm. But for float, speed is just as important as mass. So again, assuming we all ski on groomers...wink.gif


Thats getting into shape and width. we are talking about flex and length. 

 

 

From my understanding, Ghost has this stuff right on.

 

A properly fitted ski with length and flex will allow you to perform. 

It is possible to ski on different ski's, but that also depends on your ability as well.

Just as almost everything in skiing does. 

 

people have spent time researching and doing the numbers to come up with these figures. 

I'm 6'3 and 180  with all my gear on, I ski a 180 ski. I've been told many times by different people I should be on a 160. 

I don't know why, but thats what I'm told. But with my 180's, I can flex them just the way I want them anytime I want. They just suck in the crud and slush. 

post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by FujativeOCR View Post

I had some friends helping me change the hub on my car a few years ago.  Both dudes were much stronger than me...and heavier...but topped out at 5'10".  Neither of them could get a bolt off one of the hubs with an average sized Ratchet no matter how hard they tried.  I remembered a story a friend told me about working on a hummer in the Army.  They had a guy attach something like an 8 foot pole onto the end of a torque wrench to try and get a bolt undone.  It ended up snapping the bolt.  So I offered up the same suggestion with my grand am.  We added about a 18" pipe onto the wrench, and wahlah, bolt comes right out with only my strength pulling on it.

 

Moral of the story, don't underestimate the force that can be added to your skis with only an extra few inches of height on the skier.


Moral of story, it defies biomechanics as told. rolleyes.gif Yep, you have a mechanical advantage over your friends. But muscular strength is primarily a function of cross sectional area of the muscle. And there's less variance in arm length than total stature. So if they were actually "much stronger," meaning much more arm and shoulder muscle circumference, doubt that the force they could exert was so much less that your advantage from the lever length (which for arms will be a coupla inches). Most Olympic weight lifters are not 6'5"...

 



So you're saying that never happened?  It did.  Both my friend and his pops are short stocky, muscular guys.  I'm tall and feeble.  Teh pipe extension made all the difference.

post #41 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by FujativeOCR View Post


So you're saying that never happened?  It did.  Both my friend and his pops are short stocky, muscular guys.  I'm tall and feeble.  Teh pipe extension made all the difference.


Or taken another way... the thing that MADE all the difference was that the nut was over tightened to begin with. The difference in initial conditions totally overwhelemed the biometric difference between you and your friends. You needed a long wrench becuase the nut was on there too tight, not beucase you are talle or or shorter or weigh more or less than someone else.

 

If you were working on a nut that was properly torqued to begin with and not damaged or coroded then the standard equipment would have been fine, for anyone. 

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 › What's height got to do with it?