Latest posts for the topic "Ski length, and why it relates to height. . ."

Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

Dshenberger — GMT

I am curious as to why ski length relates to height and not just skiing ablility? One of the difficulties I have run into is that I am fairly tall (6'2") which would in theory put me on approx. 180cm skis. But this seems to make it difficult for me to control them. I have not skied a lot, and tried again this year for the first time in several years. My rentals were 150's which were extremely easy to stop/skid with. Please don't yell at me Pavelski! The concept of carving fascinates me, but I don't know how realistic it is for a beginner at an east coast resort with only manmade snow(ice if you prefer) and rental skis. I plan on buying skis and boots after this season is over. I also plan on trying to tune them myself since apparently with my local snow conditions sharp edges are a must. One of my other sports is mountain biking, and I do all my own work on my bike, including lacing up my own wheels. So, sharpening/waxing my own skis should not be out of my reach. Any advice I could get on skis to look for would be great! I want to learn to ski well, and not have to buy skis in two years because I "outgrew" my first ones. I hope this all makes some kind of sense! Pavelski - what part of the country are you from? I want lessons! I very much enjoy reading you and Trencher's posts. True professionals have a certain way about them, and you all convey that easily. Thanks! Dean

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

Max Cottle — GMT

Hi Dean, Good question, I think I will defer to the experts on this but my understanding is that the shorter the ski the easier it is to control but the longer the ski the quicker it will go, the hight thing is to get the closest balance between the two. If you are a more advanced skier you will pick a longer ski in general. I think that if you hire skis it will depend on the resort that you go to. Some resorts will give you shorte skis resorts like Maria Alm in Austria and the instructors will advise you to buy a shorter ski where as Resorts Like St Anton will advise you to buy a longer ski. I don't know if you remember the skis in the old days but they were huge, skis have become progressively shorter in general over the years. There are other factors that can make certain skis easier than others as well. These are just my thoughts by the way, I am not an expert I look forward to seeing what the experts have to say on this. Cheers Max

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

Trencher — GMT

Man made, east coast snow is the best reason to learn to carve. You will be suprised at how well the edges grip, even when the snow seems almost icey. Skis have become quite specialised in recent years. As Max says, unless you want to go very fast, long skis are not needed for the conditions you are encountering. Side cut radius is more important. Shorter skis are easy to handle (especially when it's crowded) and shorter skis will normally have a smaller radius sidecut. This is important as this smaller radius sidecut will allow you to learn to carve at lower speeds. So rather than worry about length, I would look for skis with a 10 to 12 metre radius side cut. These will proberbly be in the 156 to 165 cm range for length. Try to find something that is soft flexing to start with (not a slalom race ski). This will be relative to your weight and I guess that's where the height comes - taller =heavier. If you are commited to this sport, you might have to accept the fact that the best skis to learn on, are not going to be what you want in two seasons time. By then you may well want something longer and faster, but that would hinder your progress now. Trencher

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

Dshenberger — GMT

Well, considering I weigh in at about 150. . . :lol: The weight doesn't always come with the height!

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

bennyboy — GMT

Dshenberger, you are the same height and weight as me!! When i was skiing last year i had 175s but i think somewhere around 170 would be easier for me, as i prefer shorter skis. So i will have 170s to try when i go in a week.

Re:Ski length and weight, height, ability level

pavelski — GMT

Dean, Those short "easy" questions are the ones that reveal deep issues. Yours is one of them. Thanks for the information about your body type. What you forgot to include, is your ski type. How do you ski ( speed, type of turn, type of terrain). There is no longer any set rules and most guidelines are for Mr. Average. Your physionomy puts you in the extreme range. Rare is the 6'2" at 150. You are called the perfect Ectomorphy ( see Sheldon's body types for analysis of your personality) Let's clarify the short and long issue as far as speed. The speed of skiing is caused and maintained by the skier NOT the ski! So a longer ski does not go faster ( that is more due to waxing and tuning). What longer skis do is have more stability as speed increases and a sidecut with greater radius ( 21 M). Please note it is NOT just length that creates this stabilty since I can take a twin tip 180 cm ski and it would not be more stable than a 165 cm. SL ski. The stability is the product of; length, ski design, ski core products, ski stability plate. It is the interaction of all of these that make the ski "fast or more stable" Skiers must know how they would like to ski,where they typically ski and yes their physical body types. Let's look now at short skis and ease of turn. Yes shorter the ski ,,,,easier it is to turn! If that is all you want to do then get 140 cm boards! However there are some negatives to "short" skis. They are; 1. If skier does not have correct technique, body rotational turns will creep in. ( 80% of skier suffer this ski infection). 2. Short skis limit performance range of skiing. That is skiing will be great in a specific type of terrain with specific type of skiing. Go outside this range......you are "frustrated" I have seen 6,2" skiers doing great turns with 165 cm skis but the second the skis pick up speed the tips start to wander!!!! 3. Physical limits of ski core. Rarely do ski companies speak of ski delaminations but they do occur as do; tip bends, edges breaks, bindings rip-offs ( units pulled out) and sectional breaks. I collect "broken" skis from ski shops, racing clubs and ski companies in order to show my tuning classes the weak areas of skis. Every ski has these weak areas and I have found that many breaks occur just before or just after internal vibration plates! I have seen many racing SL skis broken by strong male skiers with 165 cm skis. Many skis now have rails for bindings. Let us see what their limits are!!! You have to determine how much "turn" pleasure you want in reference to ; life of ski , type of skiing you do, and technical competence level. Since you are "unique" you decide what range you want to ski. May I give you an illustration. I used to ski 210 cm superG skis since I skied fast and wanted stability. Over the years the slopes got more crowded, skis got better and I have found that I can take a 180 cm GS ski and get same stability. I know because I still have my Volkl super G skis so once in a while I take dust off and ski with them. Then I will take new skis and follow same path at same speed. I am amazed how good the new skis are! As mentioned previously the new skis are great AT WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR, and I have noted that this performance range is getting narrower ! That is these new skis often are great for ice, or crud, or powder. My Atomic 12 are like missiles on easter slopes but in 15 cm powder they "sink" in. Make me a inventory of the kind of skiing you do, where you do your skiing and I will give you a list of possible skis. Send this via PM and I will send you a list of some skis I have which you can try! You have deduced correctly that I am in the eastern skiing region. I will be in Sunday River for two weeks testing the 2007 model skis. Hope this has cleared the air for you. Sorry if I did not give you specific skis and specific lengths, that is for you to determine.

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

midfielder — GMT

All great info above. My $.02 worth. I think that ski flex (longways) to weight ratio is crucial - much more important than height to ski length. That said, if you want a good carving ski it must have the torsional rigidity to maintain its edge grip fore and aft under considerable stress - otherwise, it will carve only so far and no more. Race skis have the best torsional to longitudinal stiffness characteristics and so I think they are the ticket. Plus, you can pick them up year old new stock for about half price which is a helluva deal for great skis. You must find one in a flex that you can bend. This is important because the sidecut only starts the turn. In a carve you are riding the ski decambered - the shape of the backbend, how much the ski is counter flexed, defines the radius of the turn, not the sidecut. There are increasing numbers of rec skis on the market with similar construction to race skis - quality wood core, titanium and carbon fiber laminates for torsional stiffness and dampening; however, they tend to exceed even race skis in price! and I'm not sure they are even as good, unless you want a wider ski. Probably not the case if you ski here in the east. The weight relationship can be tricky. For example, I'm 5'6" and weigh 130 and skied for years on skis too stiff for me. I finally found specs for Fischer's cutoff weight for junior and adult skis. The upper limit for the junior skis is 135 so I tried them and was delighted. Because I'm within 5 pounds of the upper weight limit for the skis they are relatively easy for me to flex but still have the torsional rigidity to hang on to crazy arcs. My son is a sophomore in high school and a good racer. He tried my skis but at 145 lbs, because his weight was enough to make the tips and tails wash they would not hold a turn. Now he skis adult skis but is at the other end of the spectrum, just above the lower weight limit. This makes the skis more difficult to carve and demands greater skill and strength - not a bad thing for a developing racer. An adult learning would probably be better off with more generous flex. There is some lessening of longitudinal stiffness with decrease in length built in to skis which is the main reason for a lighter skier to use a shorter ski, regardless of height. My guess for you is that a 155 Fischer slalom ski would be about right and ought to carve like crazy. Atomics are softer lengthwise so you might be ok with a 165 but the only way to know for sure is to try them. My personal opinion - stay away from Rossis. First you have to have your skill at the level where you are actually testing the skis for the technique you want. If you want to ski really fast then a GS ski is called for but my guess is you'll want to get it down on shorter radius turns first. Cheers.

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

Real Ale Madrid — GMT

Just to add to this debate I'm no expert but have skied about 25 years. I've been on Salomon F2s for the last 10 years refusing to be sucked into yet another gimick of skies that look like spoons. (or so I thought!) but I tried a pair of salomon 165 'spoons' hire skies this year on hard packed conditions in Saux and they were brilliant. I had tried 2 pairs previously and hated them one was Volkyl and one Rossignol. I think they were both too stiff. So if I were you I would specify Salomon skies and if they don't have them go to a shop that has and ask for soft flex whatever your weight, about 165s will be fine as you don't need long and therefore faster skis.

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

daved — GMT

This is all very good for you small guys...I am 6'4" and weigh 235 and am skiing on 190 cm semi carvers at the moment...what should i get

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

midfielder — GMT

lol, Sorry that's beyond my range of experience! :D

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

Real Ale Madrid — GMT

daved wrote:

This is all very good for you small guys...I am 6'4" and weigh 235 and am skiing on 190 cm semi carvers at the moment...what should i get

My mate is 6 foot 3 weighs about 200 and skies on 175 parabolics but he is quite a good skier so I would go for 165s and make sure they are soft flex and preferably Salomon

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

pavelski — GMT

Real Ale suggests "soft skis" for a skier over 200 lbs. May I point out that a "soft" ski on a "heavy" skier will result possibiy in; 1. broken ski 2. Bent ski at tip 3.need for new ski every year. Every skier should ask themselves, how much "performance" they want vs. how long do I want to keep ski! Nothing is free in life! Yes you can have a 200lb. skier on 165 cm boards but the ski will last 1 year if he is an expert skier! I weigh 180 lbs and have delaminated a "soft" ski in SL race course since the grooves near poles were deep! And why Salomon!!!!! ONLY !!!!

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

ben76 — GMT

Salomon skis are ok but certainly nothing special in comparison to the range of skis that are available these days, in fact they are well known for losing their stiffness quicker than most skis. As for soft flex, that would be the last thing you'd want if you're a half decent skier. Stiffer skis are much more stable when you're going at speed and won't 'chatter' on hard pack snow.

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

Trencher — GMT

As I understand it, skis can be softer flexing now days while still having good torsional flex properties. Torsional flex is the worst thing in a carving ski and in the past it was neccersary to make a very stiff ski to prevent this. The latest skis also have far better damping. These properties have made skis that hold an edge while still being soft. I do think it is easier to learn to carve on softer skis (with a small radius sidecut), but this is obviousely relative to the skiers weight. This does mean that as a skiers carving improves, they might want to upgrade to a stiffer ski. I have seen people trying to carve on skis that are too stiff. Thier progress was very slow because most people cannot go straight into aggressive carves and therefor don't generate the forces to decamber the stiff ski. Trencher

Soft and hard flex

pavelski — GMT

Trencher, You are so right about the soft ski issue and learning. The problem is that "soft" is such a relative term. For the past 10 years I have been testing skis and keep a file on all skis. Whenever I get a new ski I do all sort of "bench tests" using the same weights and same procedures. After reading your comments I went back to my files and found; 1. all modern skis have softer flex than skis 10 years ago 2.torsion index has increased in some racing skis The issue is how much "softness" is good for learner and still will allow skis to be "active" for at least 4 -5 years. I would love to do a 5 year study in this regard. Dave might get a new free ski next year if I can convince some ski companies to donate 5-8 pairs of skis for such a study! Since I am meeting several reps next week I will offer them this study! Also it is a shame that like in ski boots there is an flex index, we do not have any indication of ski flex index! All I know is that I have 15 pairs of skis in my workshop, with all sorts of; breaks, delaminations and top ski peeling! Cause,,,,unknown. No ski company wants to face this issue,,yet. I have asked racing coaches to keep records of ski breaks and they will provide me with information on the skier. I hope to do correlational study in relation to ski breaks and age, sex weigth and skier level. I hope to present the findings at an industry conference in 2007! Meanwhile the debate continues and Dave wonders!!!!

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

Trencher — GMT

Another thought on this height/weight/length discussion. If you are a tall, light weight male, you might look at women specific skis, which I think have a softer flex for a given length. I'm not sure if the bindings have a different placement, but if they do, it would be forward and therefor better for carving. Another option for light weight men or (average women), might be junior race skis. Trencher

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

midfielder — GMT

As per my post above, I think you are in a unique place for ski selection. Tall but light, you need a shorter ski for more generous flex, you don't want to go too short and sacrifice your sense of front/back stability and you are too heavy for junior skis - they just won't perform for you (maybe at first, but as you learn to carve well they will pig out on you - too bad because they are great skis and real cheap). Here's a ski that might do - a decent wood core model that should have about a 16m radius sidecut in a 160 - halfwayish between a slalom and gs ski. For you it will feel more like a slalom ski at that length. http://cgi.ebay.com/skis-package-FISCHER-RX9-160-w-bindings-carving-NEW-06_W0QQitemZ120081571399QQihZ002QQcategoryZ62182QQcmdZViewItem Race skis.com (http://www.raceskis.com/) still has some 1 year new-old-stock $325 - great price, but only 156s left, a bit short but that would be happy turning ski for you. If I were you I wouldn't mess about. I'd just go for this year's model. They have them on sale for $550 and still some 165s - also a good price. I've skied Salomon, Rossi, Dynastar, and Fischers and I think the Fischers are the best by far. Don't prat about with the SC, RCs etc. Go for the SLs - you won't regret it. Cheers.

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

Dshenberger — GMT

Thanks all for your help! I plan to make a purchase after the season ends. I need to do a lot of rereading of the posts, as well as a lot more research into all the different product offerings out there. Again, thank you all! Dean

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

midfielder — GMT

U bet - try as many skis as you can. Cheers

Re:Ski length, and why it relates to height. . .

AndyTheSkiMachine — GMT

HI, I just wanted to make a comment here ? you said that you hadn?t skied that much and that you had trouble selecting skis! You then went on to say that you were planning on buying new boots and skis this season (or was it next season?). May I suggest something that I did that may be useful! When I first started skiing about 10 years ago I didn?t really know much about skis and boots etc and wanted to get my own! A mate of mine suggested that I NOT buy skis and instead invest in some good boots and hire skis! The reason was that, as a beginner and then as I progressed to intermediate, I became more familiar with different skis and wasn?t stuck on the same old sticks week after week, year after year! I spend a lot of time in a good boot store, bought myself some excellent comfy boots and had inserts made etc ? they have been the best thing that I have ever bought ? they are comfy, warm, fitted to my foot brilliantly etc etc. I have spent that last 8 years or so using hire skis ? because you can then switch and change each time, finding what you like, what you don?t, what suits certain conditions etc. I have found this to be terrific and each season I can now hire the latest skis and give them a whirl! So, my suggestion is that you spend some time and money on really good boots and then hire skis for a few years until you get to know what you feel comfortable on! If it gets to the stage where you are certain of the type/length of skis your after then buy them then! The only time when this may not work is if you plan to ski for an entire season OR ski for a number of weeks during the year when buying your own skis would work out much cheaper than hiring time and time again!

The long and short of it.

pavelski — GMT

Just after having "answered" some questions skiers had about ski length , I happen to read in Ski Canada on page 10 a great article about this very topic but written in 1999. The author, Ian MacMillan points out the "reasons" skier select skis based on various factors. There seems to be no logic (in 1999) in ski length selection and it seems even less in 2007! If you have a chance read this article.