Why no 215 or 220 cm skis?

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?

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.

--JP
outyourbackdoor.com

jeff potter wrote:
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.

Last year a was surprised to see a 215 cm ski in a store. Probably
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)


On 2009-01-13, jeff potter wrote:
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?

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.

--JP
outyourbackdoor.com

The current longest race ski that I know of is a 210cm made by Madhus.
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.

On Jan 13, 11:03*am, jeff potter wrote:
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?

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.

--JP
outyourbackdoor.com

On Jan 13, 9:49*pm, wrote:
The current longest race ski that I know of is a 210cm made by Madhus.
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.

On Jan 13, 11:03*am, jeff potter wrote:



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?

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.

--JP
outyourbackdoor.com- Hide quoted text -

- 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.

On Jan 14, 11:16*am, wrote:

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

PS: Again, there are THOUSANDS of big/tall skiers in the general
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

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


jeff potter wrote:

PS: Again, there are THOUSANDS of big/tall skiers in the general
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

On Jan 14, 3:45*pm, wrote:
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



jeff potter wrote:
PS: Again, there are THOUSANDS of big/tall skiers in the general
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- Hide quoted text -

- 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

On Jan 14, 8:41*pm, wrote:

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