Skiing style = ski length?

[Ron]

Yes, We;re all working with gary to get him out of that damn pizza thing but he's so afraid to let go and ski fast. It can be daunting but we all ski ahead and then wait for him to get down. (usually he gets down by rolling and tumbling!)

[jim-ratliff]

OK, a serious post.? Gary says one size shorter, and it makes sense to me, but one size shorter than what.? I generally find I like the second longest ski in the ski family, but that is a changeable length.? And, in general, I would expect Gary to prefer a ski one size shorter than me (cause I'm fat and overweight at around 190 lbs. and he ain't).? (Also, I am 5'11.83256" inches tall, but that makes less difference).

I currently have a pair of iM78's (that I really like) in the 177 length, but they come in 165,171,177,183.?
I also have a pair of Head SuperShape Magnum's that I bought in 170, but they only came in 156,163,170,177.? I haven't skied these yet, but this guideline has worked well for me in the past.

My gut feel (pun intended) is that there is a rough correlation between weight (because weight is a primary component of the force that winds up bending the ski) and manufacturer intended ski lengths (and that's not to say that individual skiers might feel more comfortable one size off from that).
200+ pounds? ? ? ? ? ? ? = longest in the family
180-200 pounds? ? ? ? ? = second longest in the family
160-180 pounds? ? ? ? ? = third longest in the family
less than 160? ? ? ? ? ? ? = fourth longest in the family

Other examples.? my prior pair of carving skis was the Head i.SL chip in a 165.? It came in 150,155,160,165,170 so obviously designed to be skied shorter than either of my current pair.? I also think I could have been happy on the 160 length with this ski, but that was too short to overcome psychologically.
Head Supershape circa 2006 came in 155,160,165,170,175? (170 was a very popular size.? If i was skilled enough to use this ski I would have bought the 170, but I think Gary is happier with the 165 and I think that is the right length for his size).

[Ron]

Interesting formula!  Very cool. Did you compile that? I woudl basically agree but I factor in the stiffness of the ski and what kind of terrain. However, it does seem that most of my ski's do fall into your categories.  I weigh just under 170 now, 6' (OK, maybe 5' 11.995" for frontside groomers where I want more carving ability, I go 170, for my frontside soft snow, I can go 175-178, my Goats are 183's however, they are directional twins (I think, maybe full TT's)

I also think length is ability based, a intermediate is going to ski a shorter ski much easier and with less effort. making the learning process a little easier.

[jim-ratliff]

It's just my opinion, no real facts behind it.? And I agree with your intermediate analysis, but think that you'll find that Intermediate skis as a family are provided in shorter lengths by the manufacturer.? I agree that skier ability can affect, especially since speed is the another main component of force applied to the ski and dramatic speeds may require a longer or stiffer ski.? But I still think a lot of this is designed into the lengths that the manufacturers decide to build.

[Ron]

correct my powder seeking friend!  Nice job. I like that.

[jim-ratliff]

Interesting formula!? Very cool. Did you compile that? I woudl basically agree but I factor in the stiffness of the ski and what kind of terrain. However, it does seem that most of my ski's do fall into your categories.? I weigh just under 170 now, 6' (OK, maybe 5' 11.995" for frontside groomers where I want more carving ability, I go 170, for my frontside soft snow, I can go 175-178, my Goats are 183's however, they are directional twins (I think, maybe full TT's)

I also think length is ability based, a intermediate is going to ski a shorter ski much easier and with less effort. making the learning process a little easier.

Ron: Excellent point, because the Gotama's come in 168,176,183,190 so clearly designed longer to address the twin tip and the type of skiing that they are normally used for and the type of skier they attract.  (I'm going to be real embarassed if the Gotama isn't what Ron is calling Goat.  I'm not as hip as he is, so could be way off base.

[Ron]

You are right on the money and look, they are the 2nd longest too!

[Philpug]

This is something that Salomon was ahead of their time with their "power rating" (PR) of skis. For those of you who have only been skiing since the advent of shape skis, here is what Salomon did when they first introduced skis back in 89. They offered a PR of every ski. PR went from 5 to 8. our PR was based upon (IIRC) weight, (not height, a ski cannot feel how tall you are), agressiveness, and ability. This number was rated on every ski.  Their skis (at that point) didn't have a conventional length (in cm) listed on them. I was a PR8, I would ski every model in an 8, so I skied the 9000 1S GS in a 212, the 9000 2S SL in a 205, the 9000 3S J-turn SL in a 203, the SuperForce 3S in a 198 ( a 9000 3S foam core, one size down). When they went to the 9100 series, the skis actually dropped 2-5cm, but PR numbers stayed the same. This made ski length choice much easier, you skis the particular length according to the type of ski and what it was designed for.

Tomorrow we talk about Salomon Volume boot fitting .

I think Peter might have still been involved with Salomon at this point, maybe he could add to this.

[Ron]

very interesting. Obviously, it didn't fly. What was good about it and what didn't work?

[Glenn]

I want to say I remeber that. It was a pretty new way of doing things...and I think it help "hype" things up for them.

[Philpug]

I want to say I remeber that. It was a pretty new way of doing things...and I think it help "hype" things up for them.

That first two generations on Salomon skis were the first skis I skied at actually felt "different".

[Gary]

I remember those Phil...didn't ski any of those personally but was aware of the system.

Given the fact that todays skis are a different breed, I think they should come up with a stiffness rating based on a persons weight....clearly show optimum mounting positions based on an individuals center of mass, and petiitioned the snow gods to provide 1-18" of snow at each resort I ski at this year. 

There, I'm all done now!

G

[Ron]

No don't be done, very interesting thoughts about the rating!  Interesting ideas

[Glenn]

Basing skis on flex or the skiers weight would be a pretty interesting concept. There must be some Freudian explanation as to why we've stuck with the "length" system for so long. 

[Ron]

I guess, I'm in trouble cause' i ski on shorter skis than most.