Have skis got longer again?

[Michael Chare]

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

[Ace]

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

[Mike Clark]

In message <KeKdnfrMkdtpuFrN...@brightview.co.uk>

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/

[The Older Gentleman]

Mike Clark <mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> In message <KeKdnfrMkdtpuFrN...@brightview.co.uk>
> Michael Chare <mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk> wrote:
>
> > 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

[Ace]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:07:59 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:

>Mike Clark <mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <KeKdnfrMkdtpuFrN...@brightview.co.uk>
>> Michael Chare <mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk> wrote:
>>
>> > 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...

[Paul S]

"Ace" <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote in message
news:si2hc89gmcnlics20...@4ax.com...

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

[Paul S]

"Ace" <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote in message
news:si2hc89gmcnlics20...@4ax.com...

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

[The Older Gentleman]

Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:

> 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.

[The Older Gentleman]

Paul S <news_AT_ghweb_DOT_me_DOT_uk> wrote:

> 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.

[Ace]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:48:55 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:

>Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 ;-)

>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]

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

>
>"Ace" <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote in message
>news:si2hc89gmcnlics20...@4ax.com...

>> 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. Hardcore 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).

[Mike Clark]

In message <gj4jc8p3806jlb2vv...@4ax.com>
Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:

[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.

[Ace]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:23:51 GMT, Mike Clark <mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk>
wrote:

>In message <gj4jc8p3806jlb2vv...@4ax.com>
> Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:
>
>[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.

[PipL]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:48:55 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:

>Paul S <news_AT_ghweb_DOT_me_DOT_uk> wrote:
>
>> 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

[PipL]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:07:42 +0100, Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:

> 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

[PipL]

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

See what I mean?
--

Pip

[PipL]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:48:55 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:

>Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:
>
>> 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

[Rod]

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

[The Older Gentleman]

Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:

>
> 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.

[Michael Chare]

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

[PipL]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:00:56 +0000, Michael Chare
<mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk> wrote:

>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

[Paul S]

"Ace" <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote in message

news:9o4jc8dlpbqcp2opf...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:25:52 -0000, "Paul S"
> <news_AT_ghweb_DOT_me_DOT_uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ace" <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote in message
>>news:si2hc89gmcnlics20...@4ax.com...
>>> 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. Hardcore 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

[The Older Gentleman]

Paul S <news_AT_ghweb_DOT_me_DOT_uk> wrote:

> 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?

[Ace]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:16:47 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:

>Paul S <news_AT_ghweb_DOT_me_DOT_uk> wrote:
>
>> 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?

[The Older Gentleman]

Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:16:47 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
> (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> >Paul S <news_AT_ghweb_DOT_me_DOT_uk> wrote:
> >
> >> 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!

[funk...@hotmail.com]

> Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:
<>
>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...
>

My theory: To sell skis you have to sell a product which is 'new' and
'different'. Therefore what you need is fashion. This sells more skis.

The amount of upturn at the front of the ski was quite high in the
1960s but as pisting improved, this height gradually reduced. You did
not need it as much. But that is, likely, the only evolutionary
change.


Can some one keep any eye out for me for a pair of mid-1990s era K2
Explorer. These are the one pair of skis I regret never putting in
line-up.

[funk...@hotmail.com]

> Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:48:55 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk
>(The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>>Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 ;-)
>

My 1940s era wooden skis have no metal edge.

When and where metal edges came in I could not say for certain, but
probably mid 1950s

[Ace]

The first ones were used at least two decades before that, but they
took a long time to be generally adopted.
--
Ace
Prime Ski School, Engelberg, CH
http://www.prime-engelberg.ch