Why no 215 or 220 cm skis?
jeff potter
They still comprise the race market so they have to WORK best.
I think a market hurts itself when it assumes that tourists and casual
users are unskilled...
But of course product position is a science, bla bla...
(Case study: I recall Dahon recently launched a sweet 21-lb folding
bike for $700. Performance at a price point! Elegant-looking. Very
clean. A couple years later they nuked that model and offered a 20-lb
"race" folder for something like $1000 and a 25-lb "commuter" model
with racks, fenders, lights, kickstand for $800. There ya go! They're
still sweet bikes and they probably serve their markets just fine. But
folding bikes are BOOMING not shrinking like XC...)
Anyway, I just noticed the ski size "advice" for Fischer's 210cm
Country ski: "160 - 200+ lbs" Yeah, right. One size fits all. How many
adults fit into that bracket? Is any aspect of such a range realistic?
Now try to talk "mid-length" for such folks. Does it truly apply?
I know two healthy lads of 6'2", 220 lbs. Is that such a rare size?
They pine for 215's and 220's but can't find em no mo.
OK, I recall that big, tall Bob Woodward loves the new mid-lengths,
right? So, is it true? Do they work for Big'n'Tall?
I mean, work as good as any mid-length does, which seems worse than
full-length.
OK, I give mid-length the steep, twisty, narrow trail regions---they'd
work fine there---and nowax works fine probably when you're just
climbing to the sky or plummeting. New England? Certainly nowhere in
MI/MN/WI.
I was out skiing unbroken deep snow in mellow terrain last weekend...
I'm 6', 180# and I wanted 220's at least! I'd love to try em, anyway,
in such conditions. More float makes SENSE to me in such skiing.
Heck, then there's the Forest Ski of Finnland---230-280cm. I'd love to
see just ONE set of those over here in the USA! Anyone see any? I saw
a Finn ski catalog site---they didn't cost any more than other rec
skis.
SMS
> I've seen full-length skis fading in the touring market.
>
> They still comprise the race market so they have to WORK best.
>
> I think a market hurts itself when it assumes that tourists and casual
> users are unskilled...
>
> But of course product position is a science, bla bla...
>
> (Case study: I recall Dahon recently launched a sweet 21-lb folding
> bike for $700. Performance at a price point! Elegant-looking. Very
> clean. A couple years later they nuked that model and offered a 20-lb
> "race" folder for something like $1000 and a 25-lb "commuter" model
> with racks, fenders, lights, kickstand for $800. There ya go! They're
> still sweet bikes and they probably serve their markets just fine. But
> folding bikes are BOOMING not shrinking like XC...)
>
> Anyway, I just noticed the ski size "advice" for Fischer's 210cm
> Country ski: "160 - 200+ lbs" Yeah, right. One size fits all. How many
> adults fit into that bracket? Is any aspect of such a range realistic?
It's because it's cheaper to manufacture fewer lengths. You see the same
thing with bicycles, they used to manufacture a lot more different frame
sizes, then they came up with the idea of "compact" frames which with
longer seatposts and stems can "fit" (but not really) a wider range of
riders. To get a bike that really fits you now means moving up-market to
the manufacturers that are still making standard geometry models, and
these are invariably much more expensive than when they were mass market
products.
Sylvain Fauvel
a light bakckcountry ski.
Until about 10 years ago i skied on 215cm Atomic CCS skis (one of
the first telemark ski, a backcountry ski by todays standard).
In Quebecs narrow trail, when climbing, the tips tended to catch
more in the deep snow on the side of the trail. I prefer a 210 cm
ski with a stronger camber than a 215cm skis.
For well groomed trails, i had Karhu ultralight and narrow 215
skis which were fine.
For off trail, not too steep terrain i have wood skis and would not
mind longer ones.
Sylvain
Montreal (Quebec)
mnfin...@gmail.com
Otherwise Rossignol-208cm, Fischer-207cm, Atomic & Salomon - 206cm.
The new skis can handle the heavier skiers on hard track. In soft
conditions they won't really work well. But race skis aren't used that
much in powder powder.
edga...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The primary off-track support (weight bearing) capacity for skis would
area, not length, which translates to the pressure the ski puts on the
snow.
In ungroomed conditions, the bending forces on a long & narrow ski
would be greater than a short and wide ski. This would force a ski
designer to strengthen the mid-section of the ski, complicating its
flex design.
Looking at the current fleet of backcountry skis, these skis are wider
than my Alpine (downhill) skis of 20 years ago.
jeff potter
> Looking at the current fleet of backcountry skis, these skis are wider
> than my Alpine (downhill) skis of 20 years ago.
That's BC. I'm talking about touring. Normal kick'n'glide in mixed
conditions. Not race skis. I'm talking about the skis bought by 90% of
the public. (Whew!)
--JP
jeff potter
touring public. It seems that there is no ski being made today that
halfway meets their needs. Odd.
Or maybe not.
Are the ski makers serious that they can size a ski to fit "160 - 200+
lbs." (As Fischer says for its sole remaining 210 touring ski.)
Actually, that kind of assertion is a joke and they might as well say
that one size of ski fits absolutely everyone.
It is a bit varied. I checked the Alpina size charts and all their
models suggest the same mid-size ski for folks 180 lbs and more. Rossi
suggests the same mid-size ski for folks 160 lbs and up!
In general it seems like they're saying that weight doesn't matter
much.
Then again I look at Rossi's touring skis and most seem to all have
metal edges---useless for, say, 80% of the pop. One of their models
says it's shorter to help keep speeds down on the downhills. Yeah,
that's how to help a sport catch on! Yeah, people are all about lack
of skilz these days. Yeah, in the mellow terrain that 90% of XC is
done in, people want to go slower when they're gliding. Obviously, a
ski that's slower on a downhill is basically slower EVERYWHERE. And,
as we know, speed---which means efficiency, of course---does NOT sell;
nobody wants it; especially young people and new markets... ARGH! Show
me another sport where slower is a selling point! (Non-geriatric, that
is. Then again, there's nordic walking...and geriatrics are boomin',
eh?)
--JP
ge...@none.net
skiers could be met with relatively shorter skis than in yesteryear.
At the same time, that eliminated the costs of extra production set up
and downtime. I don't know if the shorter skis are meant to be
slower, or if that's just a Rossi thing. However in the skill range
that would use such a ski, and we're presumably talking mostly adults
here, slower (up to a point) is better because it makes x-c skiing more
accessible to a wider range of folks. If they want more speed, they can
purchase it - or do repeats on the steepest hills. By and large, I
suspect the kids who want faster get it by joining a club or school
program.
Gene
edga...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Could it be that the market for sub 52mm skis sized for 100+ KG skiers
is pretty limited? In another thread, re the TdSki, Anders noted:
"BTW is Babikov a small guy or at least a guy with a relatively slight
frame? In the women's race the two Norwegians, Johaug and Steira, won
with an impressive gap and they certainly seem to have a highly
favourable VO2max/weight ratio".
Big recreational skiers in all likelihood get sold BC skies > 60mm.
The other problem big guys have is the big guys with big feet.
Edgar
jeff potter
> Big recreational skiers in all likelihood get sold BC skies > 60mm.
...With useless metal edges and useless excess weight.
> The other problem big guys have is the big guys with big feet.
...There are lots of big boots out there. Now more than ever. Just no
touring skis to fit them.
--JP
jeff potter
> I suspect research showed that the same needs for taller and heavier
> skiers could be met with relatively shorter skis than in yesteryear.
> At the same time, that eliminated the costs of extra production set up
> and downtime. I don't know if the shorter skis are meant to be
> slower, or if that's just a Rossi thing. However in the skill range
> that would use such a ski, and we're presumably talking mostly adults
> here, slower (up to a point) is better because it makes x-c skiing more
> accessible to a wider range of folks. If they want more speed, they can
> purchase it - or do repeats on the steepest hills. By and large, I
> suspect the kids who want faster get it by joining a club or school
> program.
>
> Gene
I'm not biting at all!
I suggest the opposite. That research would show that as you increase
weight and height that you should increase length first then width.
100 yrs of skiing would be on my side. And so would the easiest of
tests. If I go out at 6 feet tall and 180 lbs and ski with a 180 cm
traditional ski --- it is a lame thing. I sink down in. I go slow. I
break the ski. I lengthen the ski til I get good glide, control and
flotation. A "modified" ski design can't totally nullify this basic
science --- the mid-lengths alos get longer with weight/height ...
until some magic point 160 lbs or 180 lbs when weight FOR NO SHOWN
REASON no longer matters. ---Except to the heavier person!
There are more big/tall people alive today than ever. The market need
is statistically greater for longer skis, not less.
Lastly, I super-duper cannot buy the "slow is good" argument. Or that
only kids appreciate speed. Remember, my clear assertion that a "fast"
ski is simply an efficient ski. Why overlook this obvious science?
Only the fast kids could possibly appreciate the "resistance" training
offered by a slower ski. It takes more work and MORE FITNESS to ski
with such a ski! A quality fast ski always works BETTER for every type
of skiing. A slower ski going down a hill is also always slower going
up a hill and slower on the flats. Who buys extra-slow roller skis?
Only the fit high-end people who want more resistance. But then
rollerskiing is about training and includes some real hazards and
offers much less effective braking so isn't apples/oranges to skiing.
Skiing is an easy skill that offers glide as its only "per se"
benefit.
Anything that gets in the way of that seems lame.
...Until I see a nice explanation otherwise... : )
--JP
jeff potter
> Could it be that the market for sub 52mm skis sized for 100+ KG skiers
> is pretty limited? [ ]
> Edgar
Whups, I forgot to reply to this line in my previous.
My notion: NOPE. I'd say that the market for big/tall skier skis has
grown in all use-sectors by the same amount that big/tall people have
increased in recent decades. So maybe they've always been something
like 10% but in past 30 years, say, they're more, since more people
are bigger/taller.
For instance, I don't know THAT many skiers. But I know several off
the top of my head who are 6'2" plus and 220 lbs plus. They're a
significant sector.
Also, I note that I've been discussing the MOST POPULAR kind of
skiing: all-round casual touring.
Sub 52mm is of course groomed track skiing, which is fairly popular.
But I suspect maybe 3X as many people just "ski around" on homestyle
trails. So that the 55-60mm ski type would far outsell the sub-52
market. ...And of course the 55-60 ski works fine in a track as well.
Bob Woodward is a big/tall ski journalist who says he likes the new
nowax mid-lengths. But then he's gettin' on in years. And he lives out
in big slushy country where you're going big up or big down. I've
granted the mid-length nowax to the east and west. Well, I've given
them some wiggle-room there. I still question them for many users. But
for mellow regions like the northern midwest? Full of thousands of big/
tall skiers who like glide and flotation on their gentle outings? Are
we really better off without the 215's and 220's? Is there truly no
market for a 230-280cm Forest Ski? (Not sold in this country, but sold
in Finnland which is similar to half the snowbelt in the USA.)
--JP
runcyc...@yahoo.com
canoes etc, I would imagine the technology would be similar. Would you
be ready to give away, say, 5k for a custom ski (any length) with OYB
graphics?
ge...@none.net
shorter, stiffer, perhaps slower skis are aimed don't buy rollerskis of
any speed and few ever will. Longer skis, different marketing, whatever
you want, won't change that.
One of the things I've found in the past few years is that using a 202
classical race ski instead of a 206-210 has helped make me become a
technically better skier (I'm 6'2 +" and weigh 175 or less during
winter). Using a shorter ski has carried over to somewhat longer ones
- as well as being easier on a bad knee. Is that 202 slower? I suspect
it is, tho the person whose suggested these skis doubts much if
anything is lost with a slightly shorter glide zone in this range. This
winter I'm also teaching kids all day with some old 157cm Fischer Rev
Controls, and seeing some benefit when I put on my regular skis. Part
of that is time on snow and part is more confidence gained from being
able to maneuver better with shorties. I can see where learning with
something shorter and more manageable has a lot of merit.
Gene
jeff potter
No interest or relevance. I'm talking about the mainstream market.
Thousands of big/tall casual skiers are neglected. Just seems weird.
jeff potter
> You ask, who buys extra slow rollerskis? The people for whom the
> shorter, stiffer, perhaps slower skis are aimed don't buy rollerskis of
> any speed and few ever will. Longer skis, different marketing, whatever
> you want, won't change that.
Not related to my assertion, which was that it seems that whenever
anyone buys something intentionally slower in the world of XC it's
because they're MORE advanced and it's only in the world of rollerskis
that folks buy INEFFICIENT stuff on purpose. (Because in that case
inefficient is more efficient.)
> I can see where learning with
> something shorter and more manageable has a lot of merit.
>
> Gene
OK, maybe there's something here. Let's see... In downhill skiing,
most use shorter/slower skis to improve handling. But then handling is
the ONLY issue there. It's how efficiency is judged. Speed or glide is
never a problem or relevant for the casual mainstream. The groomed
downhill gives them plenty of that...and easily too much. Short/slow
is good. They can learn to use it before going longer. Does this
really cross over to XC? For 75% of the time on the skis the quest for
glide is Job #1. As compared to 0% with downhill. The skis DO have to
be reasonably manageable for length, thus the need to have a ski fit
to us regarding length. If too long they will tangle. But any shorter
and they don't glide nearly as well in common situations and ski-joy
really drops off. But maybe learning basic handling skills really is
too much for many.
Perhaps in our isolationist society that ski lessons have dropped way
off and too many "customers" flounder out there on their own. Maybe a
short ski can be used by a "consumer" with less embarrassment. Since
they're ignorant maybe they never miss ski-joy/glide. Never knew it.
Ski retires to garage and who cares, the purchase was made. Many long
skis are also retired even after some lessons---especially by
consumers. Lessons can be consumed as well. Maybe a consumer is the
enemy of learning.
ge...@none.net
You seem to miss that gliding is a learned skill, physical and mental.
I think it's better to set people up for success and let them expand the
meaning of it. But then there's the other point of view: in the words
of a teacher and parent whose kid was in my group the other day, when I
had her 3rd grade son and some others walk up a short highly slanted,
hard-packed hill before putting on their skis to hit the trail, "How can
they learn if they don't try?"
Gene
edga...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gene,
Another reason for a shorter ski is weight. All other things equal,
given a choice between a 205 and a 201 with a flex-camber that both
work, the 201 will be lighter.