Skis--How Long?

Elle Navorski wrote:

Thanks Bev, Joe, and GF. Everything you all said is very helpful. I'm gonna
buy the nicer colored poles at the thrift shop soon and cut them down with
my trusty hack saw and file, as suggested. I'll go back to the nearest
mountain next week and demo some different shaped ("parabolic" skis)
further. Seems like 148-160 will do the trick, based on what folks are
saying here and my experience with the 153's the other day.

Good luck finding that other carbon fiber "throw-away" pole, Bev.

One thing that shopping at yard sales teaches you is patience :-)

Thanks, Joe, I wondered about removing the handles -- they seem pretty
firmly attached.

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
"Why put fault tolerance in the OS, when it's already built
into the User?" -- Steve Shaw, regarding Win95

Richard Henry wrote:

"Elle Navorski" wrote:

Good luck finding that other carbon fiber "throw-away" pole, Bev.

She's too fussy. The only thing that has to match is length,

Pacemaker give out there?

Weightlessness would be good because I get tired of holding my hands in
the proper position while holding useless-except-for-poling-on-the-flats
poles.

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
"Why put fault tolerance in the OS, when it's already built
into the User?" -- Steve Shaw, regarding Win95

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
Elle Navorski wrote:

Thanks Bev, Joe, and GF. Everything you all said is very helpful. I'm
gonna
buy the nicer colored poles at the thrift shop soon and cut them down
with
my trusty hack saw and file, as suggested. I'll go back to the nearest
mountain next week and demo some different shaped ("parabolic" skis)
further. Seems like 148-160 will do the trick, based on what folks are
saying here and my experience with the 153's the other day.

Good luck finding that other carbon fiber "throw-away" pole, Bev.

One thing that shopping at yard sales teaches you is patience :-)

Thanks, Joe, I wondered about removing the handles -- they seem pretty
firmly attached.

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
"Why put fault tolerance in the OS, when it's already built
into the User?" -- Steve Shaw, regarding Win95

I have done this quite a few times and just last week on a pair of old poles
I got my son. I should maybe add a couple of things. When I said "very
hot", I meant boiling water! The quick tug on the pole might need to be a
few strong tugs & twists (I use a nearly closed door to hold the handles)
and lastly if the poles don't slide back into the handles easily, I use my
wife's hairspray as a lubricant (it also has the benefit of acting like a
glue after a few second).

Joe

The Real Bev wrote:
Elle Navorski wrote:

"lal_truckee" wrote:

You didn't mention boots, which are much more important. Buy good boots,
fitted by a good bootfitter, before considering buying skis. (Get your
poles from the dumpster.)


You laugh. A woman at Mountain High broke one of her Goode carbon fiber
poles and threw the other one in the trash. As soon as I find another
woman like that I'm golden.

That's Baade. I've got a pair of carbon poles that I found in the
basement right now. I'm working to fit a pair of old junk box race
handles onto them, since I don't like the creepy molded handles that
came with them. We'll see how it goes.

Okay. I already have the poles picked out from my local thrift store. I
wasn't going to go this route until I saw some shops in my area charging
typically $50 for new poles. I've always had second-hand poles.


Buck a pair, sometimes free. If they're too long you can remove the
grips and cut them down at the handle end with a hacksaw or tubing
cutter. I've never done this, but I believe the people who said it's
possible.

Not only is it possible, it's required for a true fit - humans don't
come in 2 cm size increments so if you use poles at manufactured lengths
they will most likely be wrong.



FWIW, I just spent today skiing with some "old" friends - several
couples. The women are all in their 60s and 70s, in good shape, estimate
120-130 lb, and good skiers; skis were soft expert skis in the 160-170
cm range. (My wife, about your size, is on 178.) Dam fine skiers all ...

Now are these lengths for non-shaped skis?

No, latest and greatest modern shapely hourglass figured corset wearing
skis.

I figured out today that when I was last sking several days a winter some
13 years ago, "shaped" skis had just been introduced, and I in fact did not
have them. I think the ones I owned last (13 years ago) were 160 cm.

Now I see that the shaped skis are shorter (as you know, the area is made
up for by increasing the width). So when I demo some skis using rental
shops, should I get the shop's recommendation and expect suggestions of, I
dunno, 140 cm to 153 cm for shaped skis? Or should I even bother trying 160
cm shaped skis? The 140-153 range is kinda what I'm hearing from the shops
at the moment and one online web site (crude guesstimaters that all these
sources are; I realize it's about personal taste to a great extent).

They also intend to sell you more reasonable skis just as soon as you
realize your new skis are too short - about the third day out.



Data point: 60mumble, 150 lbs, went from 195 MSLs to 160/170 Rossi
rentals and have some original Elan 163 parabolics now. I liked the
170s better. I think. I've only skied the Elans once, on a nasty
slushy day which caused me to write CROWDS ARE BETTER THAN SLUSH on my
calendar so I won't forget.

The Real Bev wrote:
Richard Henry wrote:

"Elle Navorski" wrote:

Good luck finding that other carbon fiber "throw-away" pole, Bev.

She's too fussy. The only thing that has to match is length,


Pacemaker give out there?

Weightlessness would be good because I get tired of holding my hands in
the proper position while holding useless-except-for-poling-on-the-flats
poles.

Not useless - use them for waving at friends and poking enemies and
accidentally dinging the skis of that asshole cutting line in front of you.

I also have seen blind skiers being guided by a buddy skiing ahead of
them clacking his poles together.

"lal_truckee" wrote
FWIW, I just spent today skiing with some "old" friends - several
couples. The women are all in their 60s and 70s, in good shape,
estimate
120-130 lb, and good skiers; skis were soft expert skis in the 160-170
cm range. (My wife, about your size, is on 178.) Dam fine skiers all
....
E wrote
Now are these lengths for non-shaped skis?

No, latest and greatest modern shapely hourglass figured corset wearing
skis.

Okay.

The 140-153 range is kinda what I'm hearing from the shops
at the moment and one online web site (crude guesstimaters that all
these
sources are; I realize it's about personal taste to a great extent).

They also intend to sell you more reasonable skis just as soon as you
realize your new skis are too short - about the third day out.

Okay. After reading all the posts here I am now leaning towards something
in the 153-160 range. I'm not a "soft expert." No moguls; not even single
black diamonds for me. Ever. Well, a few times, but not by "choice." All
I've got going for me is good physical endurance and a desire to be
outdoors, athletic in the wilderness.

Bought some second-hand poles today for $4. :-)

Joe Roach wrote:

"The Real Bev" wrote:
Elle Navorski wrote:

Thanks Bev, Joe, and GF. Everything you all said is very helpful. I'm gonna
buy the nicer colored poles at the thrift shop soon and cut them down with
my trusty hack saw and file, as suggested. I'll go back to the nearest
mountain next week and demo some different shaped ("parabolic" skis)
further. Seems like 148-160 will do the trick, based on what folks are
saying here and my experience with the 153's the other day.

Good luck finding that other carbon fiber "throw-away" pole, Bev.

One thing that shopping at yard sales teaches you is patience :-)

Thanks, Joe, I wondered about removing the handles -- they seem pretty
firmly attached.

I have done this quite a few times and just last week on a pair of old poles
I got my son. I should maybe add a couple of things. When I said "very
hot", I meant boiling water! The quick tug on the pole might need to be a
few strong tugs & twists (I use a nearly closed door to hold the handles)
and lastly if the poles don't slide back into the handles easily, I use my
wife's hairspray as a lubricant (it also has the benefit of acting like a
glue after a few second).

Poking a tiny hole in the end of the grip to let air out and whacking it
on with a rubber hammer are also useful procedures. I think my can of
hairspray might be over a decade old, but it worked on my bike grips a
couple of years ago.

--
Cheers,
Bev
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Will give investment advice for food.

Elle Navorski wrote:
All I've got going for me is good physical endurance and a desire to be
outdoors, athletic in the wilderness.

Hell, Elle - that's all any of us have going. That's the basics you
build on; add a token of effort, some basic instruction, some miles
underfoot, and you'll be out there searching out the next challenge and
enjoying the day. Carpe Skium.

Bought some second-hand poles today for $4. :-)

COngrats. You're getting it.

Elle Navorski wrote:

"lal_truckee" wrote

FWIW, I just spent today skiing with some "old" friends - several
couples. The women are all in their 60s and 70s, in good shape,

estimate

120-130 lb, and good skiers; skis were soft expert skis in the 160-170
cm range. (My wife, about your size, is on 178.) Dam fine skiers all

...
E wrote

Now are these lengths for non-shaped skis?

No, latest and greatest modern shapely hourglass figured corset wearing
skis.


Okay.


The 140-153 range is kinda what I'm hearing from the shops
at the moment and one online web site (crude guesstimaters that all

these

sources are; I realize it's about personal taste to a great extent).

They also intend to sell you more reasonable skis just as soon as you
realize your new skis are too short - about the third day out.

I've got skis ranging from 150 cm to 195 cm. None of them are "too
short" or "too long".

Okay. After reading all the posts here I am now leaning towards something
in the 153-160 range.

I don't want to discourage your research, but don't try to get it all
sussed out on paper before you actually go and try something -- unless
you either won't have an opportunity to ski for a while, or you really
love the whole analysis thing. Personally, I question the value of such
analysis; you've really gotta get on the skis and see how it feels _for
you_. I've also become a ran of trying different lengths of the same ski
if it generally feels good but something isn't quite right. My "on
paper" calculations said that the right length for me in the Atomic
GS:11 was 171 cm; I demoed it, talked with some knowledgeable folksabout
how it felt (I was skiing with some of them too), and they recommended
trying the 176 cm. Result: perfect fit. So, you really gotta feel it
for yourself.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

"lal_truckee" wrote in message
...
Buck a pair, sometimes free. If they're too long you can remove the
grips and cut them down at the handle end with a hacksaw or tubing
cutter. I've never done this, but I believe the people who said it's
possible.

Not only is it possible, it's required for a true fit - humans don't come
in 2 cm size increments so if you use poles at manufactured lengths they
will most likely be wrong.

Do you do the same thing to the clothes you buy? Jeez 2cm!

-GT