Have skis got longer again?

Have skis got longer again?

Post by Michael Char » Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:24:25


Have skis got longer again?

I have been using 165-168cm skis for the past few years and I find this
length very good. - I don't normally cross them!

I was looking in Snow and Rock and the skis they had were generally a
bit longer.

--
Michael Chare

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by Ace » Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:53:34

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:24:25 +0000, Michael Chare

Quote:

>Have skis got longer again?

>I have been using 165-168cm skis for the past few years and I find this
>length very good. - I don't normally cross them!

>I was looking in Snow and Rock and the skis they had were generally a
>bit longer.

Err, it depends what length you buy. Most normal recreational skis
will be available in lengths starting from around 160cm or lower; some
more dedicated off-piste or "freeride" skis are only available in
larger sizes, but they're the excpetion.

If you're only looking at what's on display I suggest you just ask an
assistant.

--
Ace
Ski Club of Great Britain http://www.skiclub.co.uk/
All opinions expressed are those of the poster and in no way reflect those of the Ski Club or its members

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by Mike Clar » Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:15:46



Quote:
> Have skis got longer again?

> I have been using 165-168cm skis for the past few years and I find this
> length very good. - I don't normally cross them!

> I was looking in Snow and Rock and the skis they had were generally a
> bit longer.

Depends on the type of skiing you want to do. Recreational piste skis
are generally shorter similar to either Freestyle or race Slalom or GS.
But off-piste, All Mountain or Freeride skis generally are medium to
long. My short touring skis are 172cm Freeride skis, previously I'd
skied lengths of 175 or 180, but the 172 although shorter are wider
underfoot so offer me a similar amount of floatation in soft snow.

Mike
--
 o/ \\    //        |\   ,_ o      Mike Clark
<\__,\\  //   __o   | \ /  /\,   "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
 ">    ||   _`\<,_  |__\  \> | caving, antibody engineer and
  `    ||  (_)/ (_) |   \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by The Older Gentlem » Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:07:59

Quote:



> > Have skis got longer again?

> > I have been using 165-168cm skis for the past few years and I find this
> > length very good. - I don't normally cross them!

> > I was looking in Snow and Rock and the skis they had were generally a
> > bit longer.

> Depends on the type of skiing you want to do. Recreational piste skis
> are generally shorter similar to either Freestyle or race Slalom or GS.
> But off-piste, All Mountain or Freeride skis generally are medium to
> long. My short touring skis are 172cm Freeride skis, previously I'd
> skied lengths of 175 or 180, but the 172 although shorter are wider
> underfoot so offer me a similar amount of floatation in soft snow.

Heh. I remember skiing on 210s, back in the 1970s.

--
Honda CB400 Four x2  Triumph Street Triple  Ducati 800SS
Yamaha 660 Tenere  Suzuki GN250, TS250ER x2
So many bikes, so little garage space....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by Ace » Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:48:52


Quote:




>> > Have skis got longer again?

>> > I have been using 165-168cm skis for the past few years and I find this
>> > length very good. - I don't normally cross them!

>> > I was looking in Snow and Rock and the skis they had were generally a
>> > bit longer.

>> Depends on the type of skiing you want to do. Recreational piste skis
>> are generally shorter similar to either Freestyle or race Slalom or GS.
>> But off-piste, All Mountain or Freeride skis generally are medium to
>> long. My short touring skis are 172cm Freeride skis, previously I'd
>> skied lengths of 175 or 180, but the 172 although shorter are wider
>> underfoot so offer me a similar amount of floatation in soft snow.

>Heh. I remember skiing on 210s, back in the 1970s.

My first skis, in ~1994, were 205s. Seems incredible, but there really
was a general belief that longer was better, although very few people
could demonstrate why that should be the case, except at racer level.

As it happens, this was about the period when things were changing,
and so my next few skis went down through dtages of 203, 198, 195,
188, 183, 177, then back to 192 (my Salomon Czar fat long rocker
off-piste skis), as my skiing improved. When I teach now most
beginners are on 160 or shorter, and the progress we can make is
incredible.

Of course, it could just be down to my skills as a teacher...

--
Ace
Ski Club of Great Britain http://www.skiclub.co.uk/
All opinions expressed are those of the poster and in no way reflect those of the Ski Club or its members

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by Paul » Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:25:52


Quote:





>>> > Have skis got longer again?

>>> > I have been using 165-168cm skis for the past few years and I find
>>> > this
>>> > length very good. - I don't normally cross them!

>>> > I was looking in Snow and Rock and the skis they had were generally a
>>> > bit longer.

>>> Depends on the type of skiing you want to do. Recreational piste skis
>>> are generally shorter similar to either Freestyle or race Slalom or GS.
>>> But off-piste, All Mountain or Freeride skis generally are medium to
>>> long. My short touring skis are 172cm Freeride skis, previously I'd
>>> skied lengths of 175 or 180, but the 172 although shorter are wider
>>> underfoot so offer me a similar amount of floatation in soft snow.

>>Heh. I remember skiing on 210s, back in the 1970s.

> My first skis, in ~1994, were 205s. Seems incredible, but there really
> was a general belief that longer was better, although very few people
> could demonstrate why that should be the case, except at racer level.

> As it happens, this was about the period when things were changing,
> and so my next few skis went down through dtages of 203, 198, 195,
> 188, 183, 177, then back to 192 (my Salomon Czar fat long rocker
> off-piste skis), as my skiing improved. When I teach now most
> beginners are on 160 or shorter, and the progress we can make is
> incredible.

> Of course, it could just be down to my skills as a teacher...

So rule of thumb when I learnt to ski was the type should reach your nose -
what do you reckon it should be now - shoulder?

--
Paul S

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by Paul » Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:27:25


Quote:





>>> > Have skis got longer again?

>>> > I have been using 165-168cm skis for the past few years and I find
>>> > this
>>> > length very good. - I don't normally cross them!

>>> > I was looking in Snow and Rock and the skis they had were generally a
>>> > bit longer.

>>> Depends on the type of skiing you want to do. Recreational piste skis
>>> are generally shorter similar to either Freestyle or race Slalom or GS.
>>> But off-piste, All Mountain or Freeride skis generally are medium to
>>> long. My short touring skis are 172cm Freeride skis, previously I'd
>>> skied lengths of 175 or 180, but the 172 although shorter are wider
>>> underfoot so offer me a similar amount of floatation in soft snow.

>>Heh. I remember skiing on 210s, back in the 1970s.

> My first skis, in ~1994, were 205s. Seems incredible, but there really
> was a general belief that longer was better, although very few people
> could demonstrate why that should be the case, except at racer level.

> As it happens, this was about the period when things were changing,
> and so my next few skis went down through dtages of 203, 198, 195,
> 188, 183, 177, then back to 192 (my Salomon Czar fat long rocker
> off-piste skis), as my skiing improved. When I teach now most
> beginners are on 160 or shorter, and the progress we can make is
> incredible.

> Of course, it could just be down to my skills as a teacher...

So rule of thumb when I learnt to ski was the tip should reach your nose -
what do you reckon it should be now - top of the shoulder?

--
Paul S

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by The Older Gentlem » Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:48:55

Quote:

> My first skis, in ~1994, were 205s. Seems incredible, but there really
> was a general belief that longer was better, although very few people
> could demonstrate why that should be the case, except at racer level.

Back in the day, when wooden skis demonstrated a remarkable coefficient
of friction, you needed long skis if you wanted to move at all.

As regards later plastic skis, I do remember my Rossignol Drac 210s
(late 1970s vintage) having remarkable straight-line stability, but all
the turning ability of a supertanker.

--
Honda CB400 Four x2  Triumph Street Triple  Ducati 800SS
Yamaha 660 Tenere  Suzuki GN250, TS250ER x2
So many bikes, so little garage space....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by The Older Gentlem » Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:48:55

Quote:

> So rule of thumb when I learnt to ski was the type should reach your nose -
> what do you reckon it should be now - shoulder?

When I learned, you put your arm straight up, and crooked your hand over
so it was parallel to the ground, and the tip of the ski was supposed to
nestle in the palm of your hand when the end was on the ground.

--
Honda CB400 Four x2  Triumph Street Triple  Ducati 800SS
Yamaha 660 Tenere  Suzuki GN250, TS250ER x2
So many bikes, so little garage space....
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by Ace » Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:34:13


Quote:


>> My first skis, in ~1994, were 205s. Seems incredible, but there really
>> was a general belief that longer was better, although very few people
>> could demonstrate why that should be the case, except at racer level.

>Back in the day, when wooden skis demonstrated a remarkable coefficient
>of friction, you needed long skis if you wanted to move at all.

I guess. But there you're talking about pre metal-edged ones, so 1920s
and earlier, I'd have thought. And I know you may remember them, but I
don't ;-)

Quote:
>As regards later plastic skis, I do remember my Rossignol Drac 210s
>(late 1970s vintage) having remarkable straight-line stability, but all
>the turning ability of a supertanker.

Aye, and that, of course, was why there were so many variations of
tern involving lifting one or both skis to turn them off the snow,
either by jumping or the famous "Stem Christiana" and its variants.
Sadly some of these are still very much used by some people to this
day.

--
Ace
Ski Club of Great Britain http://www.skiclub.co.uk/
All opinions expressed are those of the poster and in no way reflect those of the Ski Club or its members

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by Mike Clar » Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:23:51



[snip]

Quote:
> Aye, and that, of course, was why there were so many variations of
> tern involving lifting one or both skis to turn them off the snow,
> either by jumping or the famous "Stem Christiana" and its variants.
> Sadly some of these are still very much used by some people to this
> day.

Don't knock the Stem Christi, it can be an excellent turn when touring
off-piste, tired at the end of a long day, with a heavy rucksack, and on
difficult snow and terrain conditions.

Mike
--
 o/ \\    //        |\   ,_ o      Mike Clark
<\__,\\  //   __o   | \ /  /\,   "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
 ">    ||   _`\<,_  |__\  \> | caving, antibody engineer and
  `    ||  (_)/ (_) |   \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by Ace » Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:07:42



Quote:


>[snip]
>> Aye, and that, of course, was why there were so many variations of
>> tern involving lifting one or both skis to turn them off the snow,
>> either by jumping or the famous "Stem Christiana" and its variants.
>> Sadly some of these are still very much used by some people to this
>> day.

>Don't knock the Stem Christi, it can be an excellent turn when touring
>off-piste, tired at the end of a long day, with a heavy rucksack, and on
>difficult snow and terrain conditions.

OK, so the 'sadly still used' was clearly tongue-in-cheek, and I agree
that there's a place for any technique that can work. I often stem the
start of a turn in a narrow steep gully, for instance, when I can't be
confident of what the snow's going to be like when I commit to it. Bit
of a wuss-out though, and often gets your weight in the wrong place
for the next turn, but still useful.

Not so good in breakable conditions though, where you're often better
doing something much more like what we teach nowadays as 'plough
parallel'. Getting something of a plough shape before changing
direction allows much of the force of the turning ski to be directed
across the surface of the snow, rather than down through it, so
reduces the risk of breaking through, then by rotating the inside ski
around to match the outside one, rather than stepping it as in the
Stem turn, you can  keep the load more balanced between the two skis.

--
Ace
Ski Club of Great Britain http://www.skiclub.co.uk/
All opinions expressed are those of the poster and in no way reflect those of the Ski Club or its members

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by PipL » Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:31:54


Quote:


>> So rule of thumb when I learnt to ski was the type should reach your nose -
>> what do you reckon it should be now - shoulder?

>When I learned, you put your arm straight up, and crooked your hand over
>so it was parallel to the ground, and the tip of the ski was supposed to
>nestle in the palm of your hand when the end was on the ground.

We've certainly moved on from leather boots and hickory skis.
--

Pip

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by PipL » Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:35:30

Quote:

> I often stem the
>start of a turn in a narrow steep gully,

That's *exactly* what I was told would be useful in narrow, steep gulleys, by
a French ski instructor.

I have to say that narrow, steep gullies are my personal bete-noire.
--

Pip