It seems everybody I know is going 150 - 165 range and teasing me about my 'long' 170's
Yet it seems ever one here is building long skis - the 180 - 195 range.
Just curious if I'm missing something..
Just an observation.. (ski length)
Moderators: Head Monkey, kelvin, bigKam, skidesmond, chrismp
Just an observation.. (ski length)
I used to be a lifeguard, but some blue kid got me fired.
Here's my take on it.
In soft snow, whether it's dry powder or wet mush, surface area is the name of the game. If you go shorter, you gotta go wider in order to maintain the same degree of flotation. Going shorter will let you turn shorter radius turns and shorter is lighter. Width on a short ski just needs to be balanced with how much flotation you want for the snow conditions you tend to ski.
On the other end of the spectrum is firm, groomed snow. Here, longer and narrower skis rule because they are quicker edge to edge, let you rail mach speed carved turns, and are way easy on ankles and knees. They are also much more stable on long, straight, fast runs... like those running back to the lift when your legs are hammered from the steep run down. Wider skis on firm snow can provide a more stable landing platform for jumps and tricks, and shorter skis can come around faster with 360's and such. Much depends on what you're spending your firm snow time doing.
Somewhere in the middle is backcountry (anything goes mixed snow) and softer resort snow. If I want to go fast at on soft resort snow, I like a 180cm long, 100mm waist, and 125mm tip ski... not a lot of side-cut because I'm not going to be spending much time in the trees. This ski lets me go fast, with good stability and flotation, and is not bad edge to edge because the snow is soft and forgiving. For backcountry soft snow, I like a ski that is about 165 to 170cms long with lots of side-cut because I love tight trees. The short length lets the tips come around quickly and the increased side-cut enables the ski to flex into a deeper arc when I put it on edge. Because the ski is shorter, I like it a bit wider in order to maintain flotation in mank and breakable crust. Increased width comes at the cost of increased weight on the climbs. Increased side-cut decreases edge hold on icy side-hills.
As for the really short 150 to 160cm skis, they'll be lighter and turn quicker, and they'll get a good purchase on icy side-hills because of the increased PSI on the steel edge. They'll climb well , also because of the increased PSI on the skin surface. Overall, I think that their nitch is in the backcountry, but much depends on how willing you are to give up flotation in exchange for the other benefits, and that depends on where you ski. In the Sierra backcountry, surface area is almost always a good thing, so I doubt that I'll be going much shorter that wide'ish 165's.
Like most things, ski offerings and preferences run in trends. I think we finally maxed out on the 'fatter is better' trend, and are finally realizing that fatter skis suck at certain things. Most production ski companies are moving away from foam cores and carbon laminates, back to good old wood and glass. And what is this thing about those short, ugly round ski tips?? Just where you guys hang your skin tip loops?
G-man
In soft snow, whether it's dry powder or wet mush, surface area is the name of the game. If you go shorter, you gotta go wider in order to maintain the same degree of flotation. Going shorter will let you turn shorter radius turns and shorter is lighter. Width on a short ski just needs to be balanced with how much flotation you want for the snow conditions you tend to ski.
On the other end of the spectrum is firm, groomed snow. Here, longer and narrower skis rule because they are quicker edge to edge, let you rail mach speed carved turns, and are way easy on ankles and knees. They are also much more stable on long, straight, fast runs... like those running back to the lift when your legs are hammered from the steep run down. Wider skis on firm snow can provide a more stable landing platform for jumps and tricks, and shorter skis can come around faster with 360's and such. Much depends on what you're spending your firm snow time doing.
Somewhere in the middle is backcountry (anything goes mixed snow) and softer resort snow. If I want to go fast at on soft resort snow, I like a 180cm long, 100mm waist, and 125mm tip ski... not a lot of side-cut because I'm not going to be spending much time in the trees. This ski lets me go fast, with good stability and flotation, and is not bad edge to edge because the snow is soft and forgiving. For backcountry soft snow, I like a ski that is about 165 to 170cms long with lots of side-cut because I love tight trees. The short length lets the tips come around quickly and the increased side-cut enables the ski to flex into a deeper arc when I put it on edge. Because the ski is shorter, I like it a bit wider in order to maintain flotation in mank and breakable crust. Increased width comes at the cost of increased weight on the climbs. Increased side-cut decreases edge hold on icy side-hills.
As for the really short 150 to 160cm skis, they'll be lighter and turn quicker, and they'll get a good purchase on icy side-hills because of the increased PSI on the steel edge. They'll climb well , also because of the increased PSI on the skin surface. Overall, I think that their nitch is in the backcountry, but much depends on how willing you are to give up flotation in exchange for the other benefits, and that depends on where you ski. In the Sierra backcountry, surface area is almost always a good thing, so I doubt that I'll be going much shorter that wide'ish 165's.
Like most things, ski offerings and preferences run in trends. I think we finally maxed out on the 'fatter is better' trend, and are finally realizing that fatter skis suck at certain things. Most production ski companies are moving away from foam cores and carbon laminates, back to good old wood and glass. And what is this thing about those short, ugly round ski tips?? Just where you guys hang your skin tip loops?
G-man
you seem to have the spectrum pretty well covered but expanding on the park area i think that longer skis are much easier in the long run because of the stability that they offer. I dont notice them being harder to spin at all and i am way more confident landing switch with huge tails.
J I B T H E S H I T
i think we should make a diversification between long skis and long running lenghts. everyone makes different tip and tails with different lenghts and this also has a big influence on how a ski rides, as you know.
so a 180cm twintip can ski on slopes like a "normal" carving ski with 170m lenght (for example, if they have the same sidecut).
my personal thoughts about ski-lenght were following:
i`m 193cm tall and about 70kg. i once rented a powder ski, the stöckli stormrider (a swiss ski) - they gave me 195cm long skis, 125-100-115 something like that. these biests were so horrible long and a pain to ski!
and it doesn`t make any sense compared with snowboards: snowboards are about 174 maximum. so why not build shorter but wider skis! i don`t know how it handles with tele-skis, but for me with alpine, my ideas seemed to work. 177cm long, 146-112-136 with 15cm long tips is all you need
so a 180cm twintip can ski on slopes like a "normal" carving ski with 170m lenght (for example, if they have the same sidecut).
my personal thoughts about ski-lenght were following:
i`m 193cm tall and about 70kg. i once rented a powder ski, the stöckli stormrider (a swiss ski) - they gave me 195cm long skis, 125-100-115 something like that. these biests were so horrible long and a pain to ski!
and it doesn`t make any sense compared with snowboards: snowboards are about 174 maximum. so why not build shorter but wider skis! i don`t know how it handles with tele-skis, but for me with alpine, my ideas seemed to work. 177cm long, 146-112-136 with 15cm long tips is all you need
plywood freeride industries - go ply, ride wood!
my 0.05 cents:
a long ski is stable at high speed ... combine a long ski with a decent waist (around 100) and what you get is a super smooth floating ski that can be skied really really fast. (thats what the stormrider was build for, @ply: my guess is, you are too light for that ski, I skied it myself, wheight about the same as you do but Im muuuch smaller, I've been racing all my life and at last "can handle" any ski, but I didnt have fun with those skis, they are too stiff for me and I have to work really hard to get them going, else these skis ride me, not me riding the skis).
What has to be found, is a compromise between floation around the waist and lenght to keep the ski stable at speed.
Im talking about powder skis ... For groomers anything tiny but stiff will work just fine, lengt for sure, keeps the ski calm in these cases, too. But to be honest, I'm not thinking about groomers anymore.
a long ski is stable at high speed ... combine a long ski with a decent waist (around 100) and what you get is a super smooth floating ski that can be skied really really fast. (thats what the stormrider was build for, @ply: my guess is, you are too light for that ski, I skied it myself, wheight about the same as you do but Im muuuch smaller, I've been racing all my life and at last "can handle" any ski, but I didnt have fun with those skis, they are too stiff for me and I have to work really hard to get them going, else these skis ride me, not me riding the skis).
What has to be found, is a compromise between floation around the waist and lenght to keep the ski stable at speed.
Im talking about powder skis ... For groomers anything tiny but stiff will work just fine, lengt for sure, keeps the ski calm in these cases, too. But to be honest, I'm not thinking about groomers anymore.
I think reasonably long, and nice and fat is where its at. From there - minimal sidecut for charging big lines, lots of side cut for flowing lines, trees etc. For those that havent read it, have a look at lineskis.com, and then look at the development story behind the sir francis bacon, the elizabeth, and the prophets - its a real interesting concept and if you watch pollard ride you can see his awesome ideas come to life.
I don't ski groomers, so I have no need for a short skinny ski (ill be skiing park or pow/trees/pow-chop), and unless you are skiing gates or taking groomers seriously I personally don't see any fun in this type of ski.
Rockered/semi rockered skis (with a little camber and sidecut underfoot) for basically everything but hardpack is the future. If you look at http://www.filmtheidea.com/fujaspage.html (gonna be an unbelievable movie) and read this article pep fujas wrote about rockered park riding it opens your eyes to another cool aspect of skiing and ski dimensions too. Note - pep and andy mahre rode the k2 hellbents in the slopestyle at this years x-games - so sick!!
Anyway, sorry if i got off topic, but those few sites are definately worth looking at - especially for those of you into the more newschool side of skiing -park and backcountry jibbing kinda stuff. Gives some really cool design ideas
I don't ski groomers, so I have no need for a short skinny ski (ill be skiing park or pow/trees/pow-chop), and unless you are skiing gates or taking groomers seriously I personally don't see any fun in this type of ski.
Rockered/semi rockered skis (with a little camber and sidecut underfoot) for basically everything but hardpack is the future. If you look at http://www.filmtheidea.com/fujaspage.html (gonna be an unbelievable movie) and read this article pep fujas wrote about rockered park riding it opens your eyes to another cool aspect of skiing and ski dimensions too. Note - pep and andy mahre rode the k2 hellbents in the slopestyle at this years x-games - so sick!!
Anyway, sorry if i got off topic, but those few sites are definately worth looking at - especially for those of you into the more newschool side of skiing -park and backcountry jibbing kinda stuff. Gives some really cool design ideas