The Shorter Ski

Out of curiosity what are the disadvantages of skiing on a ski that is shorter than the reccomended for your height/weight/level etc?

I think it will likely flap at speed, and therefore be a chore and not a delight.

Hirsty,
My first "serious" skis were 215 Kneissl White Star. I was a slow learner. Not too sure there is a correlation really.

Then went through many years of skiing 210s. You weren't a real man unless you had 210s. Five ft two guys had 210s. Four ft eleven gals skied 195s.

All straights, no carvers. For straight line, fast skiing, (Schuss), they are stable.

When I eventually ditched my last Blizzard 210's, bought a pair of 2m K2 carvers. They are fantastic. Intend to take them out to Niederau to join my others.

Now, most of the time I ski 185s, then sometimes 165s, and this is led by how strong/not so strong my knee feels.

It is much easier to turn on the piste with shorter skis, right down to blades. But should you choose to go fast, straight line, with short skis/and or carvers, there is a loss in stability.

Yeah what Dave Mac said!!

Shorter than "recommended" skis have advantages and disadvantages that kinda outweigh eachother really!

bandit wrote:I think it will likely flap at speed, and therefore be a chore and not a delight.

That's partly related to flex isn't it? You could produce some sort of measure of flex per unit length and find that flap point or the the point at which it's hard to get the ski to hold in a turn. So a ski that works for me at 180 probably wouldn't work at 170 but equally something floppy at 180 would have just the same problem.

ise wrote:

bandit wrote:I think it will likely flap at speed, and therefore be a chore and not a delight.

That's partly related to flex isn't it? You could produce some sort of measure of flex per unit length and find that flap point or the the point at which it's hard to get the ski to hold in a turn. So a ski that works for me at 180 probably wouldn't work at 170 but equally something floppy at 180 would have just the same problem.

Well, I was thinking in less technical terms as usual :oops:

More along the lines of the ski being over flexed all the time, and the ski not being able to be used over it's length and the problems that would arise from that :D

bandit wrote:

ise wrote:

That's partly related to flex isn't it? You could produce some sort of measure of flex per unit length and find that flap point or the the point at which it's hard to get the ski to hold in a turn. So a ski that works for me at 180 probably wouldn't work at 170 but equally something floppy at 180 would have just the same problem.

Well, I was thinking in less technical terms as usual :oops:

More along the lines of the ski being over flexed all the time, and the ski not being able to be used over it's length and the problems that would arise from that :D

Isn't that the same thing in different words? I was just thinking that I can ski a short stiff ski but a short floppy ski is a nightmare, so it's some combination of length and flex.

Basically when you turn you're bending the ski to an arc so the full contact length is describing that arc, if it's already loaded there's no where to go.

To put a different question for the original, would having a short ski have benefits? and the answer is yes providing the flex is matched to your weight and ability, skis aren't so much sold on length now for that reason I guess.

ise wrote:

bandit wrote:

ise wrote:

That's partly related to flex isn't it? You could produce some sort of measure of flex per unit length and find that flap point or the the point at which it's hard to get the ski to hold in a turn. So a ski that works for me at 180 probably wouldn't work at 170 but equally something floppy at 180 would have just the same problem.

Well, I was thinking in less technical terms as usual :oops:

More along the lines of the ski being over flexed all the time, and the ski not being able to be used over it's length and the problems that would arise from that :D

Isn't that the same thing in different words? I was just thinking that I can ski a short stiff ski but a short floppy ski is a nightmare, so it's some combination of length and flex.

Basically when you turn you're bending the ski to an arc so the full contact length is describing that arc, if it's already loaded there's no where to go.

To put a different question for the original, would having a short ski have benefits? and the answer is yes providing the flex is matched to your weight and ability, skis aren't so much sold on length now for that reason I guess.

I would certainly agree that a short floppy ski is worth avoiding, from personal experience. I tried every ski angle I could set, playing with fore/aft weighting on easy slopes to try to calm them, but eventually Ebay came to the rescue :D

It serves me right for buying a ski based on a UK ski retailer's write up :lol:

Actually, I do think that in the UK, skis are being sold on length, just looked in one large retailers' catalogue. Very basic picture, and different lengths of ski based on terrain/discipline.