Have skis got longer again?

Have skis got longer again?

Post by PipL » Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:37:15


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.

... and it gets worse: I seem to have a dificulty in spelling the plural of
'gully'.

See what I mean?
--

Pip

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by PipL » Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:41:52


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.

I've still got my 195 Kastle skis - a few years ago, as I was driving to the
Alpes, I brought them along wiht the carving skis & snowboard.

Wow, what a difference: while they were docile enough and turned as requested,
I could /not/ get them to carve properly. They just felt sort of lifeless.
Also, I'd got into the habit of starting a slow turn by weighting the outside
ski and rolling that knee in: on the old skis, they immediately started to
diverge and I nearly did myself an injury a couple of times.

--

Pip

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by Rod » Sat, 15 Dec 2012 06:02:30

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.

>I've still got my 195 Kastle skis - a few years ago, as I was driving to the
>Alpes, I brought them along wiht the carving skis & snowboard.

>Wow, what a difference: while they were docile enough and turned as requested,
>I could /not/ get them to carve properly. They just felt sort of lifeless.
>Also, I'd got into the habit of starting a slow turn by weighting the outside
>ski and rolling that knee in: on the old skis, they immediately started to
>diverge and I nearly did myself an injury a couple of times.

I must admit as a long time "plateaued" intermediate skier of dodgy
fitness I have no nostagia watchsoever for the days of "longer is
better" skis.  I remember those 6 day ski holidays where by about day
3 I was running our of steam.  These days I can pick shorter carving
skis and know that I can still be going well on day 6...

Rod

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by The Older Gentlem » Sat, 15 Dec 2012 06:29:01

Quote:

> 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 ;-)

Oh, no. My first pair of Kneissls had metal edges. Screwed in every four
inches or so.

Had to wax them two or three times a day.

--
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 Michael Char » Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:00:56


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.

Just anything narrow is a problem! One difficulty is that paths that are
not to narrow in the morning get rucked up at the edges - making them
much narrower.

--
Michael Chare

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by PipL » Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:24:08

On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:00:56 +0000, Michael Chare

Quote:

>Just anything narrow is a problem! One difficulty is that paths that are
>not to narrow in the morning get rucked up at the edges - making them
>much narrower.

True enough. There's a track in Flaine that's not particularly steep that
leads to the Styx run (Access Gers) that I generally take pretty carefully:
there's a steep-ish drop on the left and a bank on the right. It gets glazed
and slightly bumpy if the snow's a bit scarce, and it's easy to build up speed
if you're not careful, and then it's hard to stop. Worse if a group sees the
steeper (but wider) bit at the track end and decides to stop on the track...

--

Pip

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by Paul » Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:12:22


Quote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:25:52 -0000, "Paul S"



>>> My first skis, in ~1994, were 205s. Seems incredible, but there really
>>> was a general belief that longer was better, although very few people

>>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?

> There's no rule of thumb based on height, but on what sort of skier
> and skiing you are doing. A beginner should start with nothing longer
> thatn around 160cm, otherwise it's just making everything moer
> difficult for them. *** freeride skiing would want something
> closer to 2m, unless you're particularly small, so some women's
> freeride skis do come as low as 180cm. Racers will use the shortest
> ski they can for Slalom (which had its rules changed to stop them
> getting too short) and something in the 190cm range for GS and
> Downhill. Again, not dependent on height like it used to be (thought
> to be).

I was interested specifically about someone learning now  - I shall be
skiing with a newbie this year and was wondering what the current thinking
was about ski length for a person of normal weight.

--
Paul S

 
 
 

Have skis got longer again?

Post by The Older Gentlem » Mon, 17 Dec 2012 02:16:47

Quote:

> I shall be
> skiing with a newbie this year and was wondering what the current thinking
> was about ski length for a person of normal weight.

<Sucks in tummy>

Normal for what?

--
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 » Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:18:45


Quote:


>> I shall be
>> skiing with a newbie this year and was wondering what the current thinking
>> was about ski length for a person of normal weight.

><Sucks in tummy>

>Normal for what?

Norfolk?

--
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 The Older Gentlem » Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:37:15

Quote:




> >> I shall be
> >> skiing with a newbie this year and was wondering what the current thinking
> >> was about ski length for a person of normal weight.

> ><Sucks in tummy>

> >Normal for what?

> Norfolk?

Gimme six!

--
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