If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 215 or 220 cm skis?
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 215 or 220 cm skis?
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 215 or 220 cm skis?
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 215 or 220 cm skis?
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 215 or 220 cm skis?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 215 or 220 cm skis?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 215 or 220 cm skis?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 215 or 220 cm skis?
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why no 215 or 220 cm skis?
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Skate skis vs classic skis? | skijornovice | Nordic Skiing | 5 | December 21st 07 01:38 AM |
Sisu skis or Elpex pneumatic skis? | [email protected] | Nordic Skiing | 3 | July 8th 05 12:49 PM |
What's with the XC skis that look like alpine skis? | Bruce W.1 | Nordic Skiing | 4 | December 17th 04 01:19 AM |