sks- actual vs published dims

[Ron]

one of the many funs aspects of looking at new skis is the hunt for real vs. published dims. not that anyone is deceiving anyone, its just how many measure, so one thing for sure is there's no standards for rocker run/rise but here are my skis actual vs. published with actual running length. some very interesting stats.? these are just using eye-sight so they may be off by a few mm's.

Kastle mx 78, 176
actual length 174,? running contact length, 155cm

Kastle mx 88, 178
actual length 176, running contact length, 157cm

Bent chetlers, 183- some camber, pop-rocker 20/20,
actual length 182, running length is 105cm's

Rocker note: the 20/20 is really closer to 20mm rise over 40 running length measured from the tips/tails to contact pont and decambered. But the rise is more abrupt and falls quickly so after
20 cm's the rise is already down to 1cm and at 25cm's from the tip, it's? about 7-8mm's.

[jim-ratliff]

Interesting information/subject, and generated a rocker question in my mind.

In your case where the Bent Chetlers have a 40mm front rocker, but the last 15mm of that is only 7-8 mm off of a hard surface, how does that ski on groomed slopes.  Seems like the running length of the ski would change as you tipped them. Or, even on a groomed surface I imagine that your running length might be 15 cm longer because most Western groomed slopes are soft enough for the skis to sink in 1/4" and it wouldn't take much before the 7-8 mm rise would be in contact with the snow (1" = 25.4mm, so 7mm is less than a 1/4").

I guess my question is whether or not you feel the rocker come into contact with the snow as you edge.  Obviously, the behavior on soft surfaces is really what the rocker is aimed at - and hence my skepticism about K2's rocker for on and off-piste.

[Ron]

well depending on the rise, the ski will make more contact as it comes up on edge, if there's too much rise and/or too soft of tips you will get tip flap at speed. Most newer moderate rockers like the 15 or 20 with nominal rise, say 1 to 1.5 and that are somewhat stiff clai to have little or no tip flap. Most of them that do, the flap is not an issue for the most part.

[jbotti]

This is my issue with tip and tail rocker, you end up skiing on kid sized skis. Works in somewhazt ion soft snow, but not really elsewhere. Nice investigative work Ron!!

[Ron]

yeah, not sold on its eficacy on groomed and not sure of the "need" or advanage even on loose or tracked. A ski with soft tips will provide enough rise IMHO.

[jbotti]

Agreed.

[jim-ratliff]

One of the things I have been unable to put in context was the published weight of the Ullr's Chariot, because one of the things I liked about the Watea 84 was it's light weight when carrying it or when they're hanging off my legs on the lift.? In fact, the Watea's are, if I remember correctly, lighter feeling than my SS Magnums .? So, thanks to Ron's initiative, I took the bindings off my Wateas to weigh them.? Railflex plates were still on, so not exactly an apples to apples comparison.? Also measured the running length of the Watea 176's to compare to the shorter running length of the UC.
Conclusions: The UC is 20% wider than the Watea at the waist, but only 12-15% wider at the tip and tail.? But even with the extra width, the weight is only about 10% greater, so not a relatively heavy ski.
The running surface of the UC is about 1.5 inches less than the 84.

176 Watea 84: 4100 grams -- 126-84-112 (18m TR) --? 1499 mm running length (176cm actual length)

178 Ullr's Chariot: 4500 grams -- 145-101-131 (15m TR) -- 1460 running length from JB re email from Dave @SkiLogik

[Ron]

jim, I would like to see the actual length, tip t tail as this two measrements really tell how much relaitive rise even in non-rockered skis. So if the UC is an actaul 178, it would tell me there's either quite a bit of rise in the tip and/or a pretty bit Twin on the tail. for now, can you measure the actual length of the  Watea?

[jim-ratliff]

I did measure the Watea from the tip to tail on the base, and it was right at 176. (so I assumed any error was my measuring accuracy).
I will do the same with the UC's when they get in, and plan to post some pictures as well.
I expect the difference to be largely in the tail (the Watea has a bit of a flare, but certainly not a twin tip) and the UC looks to have more rise in the front as well.? I was surprised that the proportionate increase in width from the watea to the UC was less at tip and tail than at center.

Exotic Skis pictures.? UC foreground, Howitzer background. First picture is tails, second is tips.? I would say that there is at least? 2" more in the tail off the snow as compared to the Watea 84.? Like you say, measurements will tell some of that.? The tip isn't as noticeable, but probably still an inch more than the Watea.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Ron]

wow, a very pronounced difference in profiles! the low tip longer taper vs, hi tip abrupt taper, would have to demo.

What's interesting is the RL of the 176 watea vs the 176 Kastle 78, 1500 vs. 1550 and the kastle measures 2cm's shorter at 174!

[jim-ratliff]

wow, a very pronounced difference in profiles! the low tip longer taper vs, hi tip abrupt taper, would have to demo.

What's interesting is the RL of the 176 watea vs the 176 Kastle 78, 1500 vs. 1550 and the kastle measures 2cm's shorter at 174!

Note that the "low tip, longer taper" is the Howitzer and is their stiffer tipped "Rocker Logik" design.

Not like a twintip, but the last 2-3 inches of the Watea's tail flares up off the snow.? 50mm difference sounds like a bigger number than saying that the Kastle has a 2 inch longer running length.
Or maybe I need to get my tape measure out again and measure and make sure that Google is converting units for me correctly.

[Ron]

I wouldn't be too suprised if the measurements are dead on. the kastles do run longer than many similarly sized skis, look at the RL on the 78 compared to the Pilgrim for instance, granted it's a TT,  I found the Pilgrim to be a very good length for me, so its kind of interested when looking at all this. I think you have to consider the snow you are on as to the real effect of the RL

[jim-ratliff]

Measured my Ullr's Chariots now that i have them.  Overall length is 179 (called a 178).  Running surface is 1490.
Very similar running surface to Watea, almost all of the extra length is in the twin tip tail.

One of the things I have been unable to put in context was the published weight of the Ullr's Chariot, because one of the things I liked about the Watea 84 was it's light weight when carrying it or when they're hanging off my legs on the lift.? In fact, the Watea's are, if I remember correctly, lighter feeling than my SS Magnums .? So, thanks to Ron's initiative, I took the bindings off my Wateas to weigh them.? Railflex plates were still on, so not exactly an apples to apples comparison.? Also measured the running length of the Watea 176's to compare to the shorter running length of the UC.
Conclusions: The UC is 20% wider than the Watea at the waist, but only 12-15% wider at the tip and tail.? But even with the extra width, the weight is only about 10% greater, so not a relatively heavy ski.
The running surface of the UC is about 1.5 inches less than the 84.

176 Watea 84: 4100 grams -- 126-84-112 (18m TR) --? 1499 mm running length (176cm actual length)

178 Ullr's Chariot: 4500 grams -- 145-101-131 (15m TR) -- 1460 running length from JB re email from Dave @SkiLogik

[jbotti]

Thanks Jim. That makes it pretty clear that the right length for me is 188cm. I have the Watea 84's  (now my rock skis because of how beat up they have gotten) and the 176's feel short. As an all mountain knock around ski they are fine at that length but off piste at any speed they start to feel real short. I think however that you have got yourself the right sized ski. Since I beleive that you will be using these as a Western daily Driver all mountain ski (and will use them on non new snow days in the Rockies) the 178cm length is definitely the one. Since I will only be using mine in fresh snow the longer length seems necessary.

Again thanks for all the photos and mearsurements.

Anyone else ready for some skiing!!

[Ron]

John/jim, here's where I think a lot the manufacturers are getting it wrong (IMHO) the running lenghts are getting freakishly short for their length, I don't know enough about skis but I would think a lot of this lenght is due to a tip with a rather large amount of abupt rise (lack of better literary skills) Seems to me they should be scoping these in a little better, say a 176 and a 186 with a little less rise, more gradual rise?? Thoughts??

the 188 is the right length for you by default but its more like, the 178 is WAY too short, but the 188 is only a little too long.... especially given that almost every other 188/9 ski on the market is at least 2cm's shorter than published lenght (with the exception of the Keeper which is a 190 published at 189)