Ski length

Hello all!

I need a quick advice. I plan to buy new skis this year and I need
advice on what length to look at.

I'm 5'6', 140 pounds and I ski advanced/expert level. I bought my
last pair ten years ago and they are 180. I love them very much, they
are like a pair of old shoes, but I feel a bit embarrassed that I'm
probably the only one on the mountain skiing on parallel skis.
Unfortunately, I don't have the money or time to try different skis,
so I'm mostly relying on the online reviews. So does anyone know what
length I should be looking for? As far as I understand parabolic skis
should be shorter than my usual length in parallel? So if my old skis
are 180, should I be looking at 175-177?

Any help would be appreciated!

P.S. Also, I plan to go to ski swap in Tahoe this weekend, if you
have any relevant tips on what to expect, please let me know!

Thanks!

Hi Anna

The type of carver ski and length depends on what type
of snow you like. I would recommend either a GS race
carver at about 165cm or for better versatility the new
Twin Tips at about 159cm. Remember the wider the ski
the shorter the length you buy. Still cheaper in the long
run to demo first as it could be real easy to buy the wrong
length which is quite critical with carver skis.

Good luck

Peter
"Anna" wrote in message
om...
Hello all!

I need a quick advice. I plan to buy new skis this year and I need
advice on what length to look at.

I'm 5'6', 140 pounds and I ski advanced/expert level. I bought my
last pair ten years ago and they are 180. I love them very much, they
are like a pair of old shoes, but I feel a bit embarrassed that I'm
probably the only one on the mountain skiing on parallel skis.
Unfortunately, I don't have the money or time to try different skis,
so I'm mostly relying on the online reviews. So does anyone know what
length I should be looking for? As far as I understand parabolic skis
should be shorter than my usual length in parallel? So if my old skis
are 180, should I be looking at 175-177?

Any help would be appreciated!

P.S. Also, I plan to go to ski swap in Tahoe this weekend, if you
have any relevant tips on what to expect, please let me know!

Thanks!

"Anna" wrote in message
om...
So if my old skis are 180, should I be looking at 175-177?

More like 160 or so. Perhaps up to 170.

The typical terminology is "straight" skis (though they're only relatively
more straight than current skis), not "parallel."

I always skiied a 180 or 190 straight ski and sidecuts feel just right
for me in the 167-178 range. I demoed a pair of 183's last year, I
forget which make) and ithey were a bit long for me.

In sidecuts the width of the waist, the thinnest part of the ski is
important. The wider the waist is the more stable the ski thought this
is not always a desirable thing. When looking at sidecuts you will
often see three numbers (ex. 109/68/99) This is the width of the ski
at the front, middle(waist) and back respectively.

Check out the K2 Apache Crossfire. If you like speed and some
stability these are very good all around skis.

Good luck. Hope this helps.

Cheers,
GF

On 25 Oct 2004 16:47:27 -0700, (Anna) wrote:

Hello all!

I need a quick advice. I plan to buy new skis this year and I need
advice on what length to look at.

I'm 5'6', 140 pounds and I ski advanced/expert level. I bought my
last pair ten years ago and they are 180. I love them very much, they
are like a pair of old shoes, but I feel a bit embarrassed that I'm
probably the only one on the mountain skiing on parallel skis.
Unfortunately, I don't have the money or time to try different skis,
so I'm mostly relying on the online reviews. So does anyone know what
length I should be looking for? As far as I understand parabolic skis
should be shorter than my usual length in parallel? So if my old skis
are 180, should I be looking at 175-177?

Any help would be appreciated!

P.S. Also, I plan to go to ski swap in Tahoe this weekend, if you
have any relevant tips on what to expect, please let me know!

Thanks!

"Anna" wrote in message
om...
Hello all!

I need a quick advice. I plan to buy new skis this year and I need
advice on what length to look at.

I'm 5'6', 140 pounds and I ski advanced/expert level. I bought my
last pair ten years ago and they are 180. I love them very much, they
are like a pair of old shoes, but I feel a bit embarrassed that I'm
probably the only one on the mountain skiing on parallel skis.
Unfortunately, I don't have the money or time to try different skis,
so I'm mostly relying on the online reviews. So does anyone know what
length I should be looking for? As far as I understand parabolic skis
should be shorter than my usual length in parallel? So if my old skis
are 180, should I be looking at 175-177?

Any help would be appreciated!

P.S. Also, I plan to go to ski swap in Tahoe this weekend, if you
have any relevant tips on what to expect, please let me know!

Thanks!

As Horvath would say lose weight. EG

Peter, sjjohnston and GF thanks for your input!

I have a follow up question. I like to ski on edge, short turns and
aggressive. I'm not a big fan of moguls or powder, though
occasionally fresh snow is nice. I like my skis soft, though not too
soft and speed is very important. I am looking for all around skis,
but so that they would be able to satisfy above characteristics as
well. I am way too demanding, I know.

So should I be looking for narrow waist and shovel that would not be
too wide? Also, small sidecut radius?

Thanks again!

P.S. Lucky, get a life!

Check this out.
GF

http://www.wiredsport.com/02skifacts.htm

On 26 Oct 2004 16:22:37 -0700, (Anna) wrote:

Peter, sjjohnston and GF thanks for your input!

I have a follow up question. I like to ski on edge, short turns and
aggressive. I'm not a big fan of moguls or powder, though
occasionally fresh snow is nice. I like my skis soft, though not too
soft and speed is very important. I am looking for all around skis,
but so that they would be able to satisfy above characteristics as
well. I am way too demanding, I know.

So should I be looking for narrow waist and shovel that would not be
too wide? Also, small sidecut radius?

Thanks again!

P.S. Lucky, get a life!

"Anna" wrote in message
om...
I have a follow up question. I like to ski on edge, short turns and
aggressive. I'm not a big fan of moguls or powder, though
occasionally fresh snow is nice. I like my skis soft, though not too
soft and speed is very important. I am looking for all around skis,
but so that they would be able to satisfy above characteristics as
well. I am way too demanding, I know.

So should I be looking for narrow waist and shovel that would not be
too wide? Also, small sidecut radius?

A few quick (somewhat simplisitic) thoughts about sidecut dimensions:

Wider waist - better in unpacked snow. Waists vary from the low-to-mid-60s,
for "carving" or racing skis, through the 70's (70-80 is generally
considered "mid-fat," though some might use the description for something a
bit wider), up to really fat powder boards, which run up into the 90s and --
in some cases -- over 100. The wider waist will also make it slower to get
the skis up on edge, and more difficult to carve on packed snow.

Wider tip and tail, relative to waist - smaller sidecut radius / more
sidecut, for a given length (the shorter the ski, the smaller the sidecut
radius / more sidecut, for given sidecut dimensions). Generally, the more
sidecut, the tighter and more snappy a turn the ski will carve.

Moguls are a sort of a special case: they're not ordinarily skied by carving
smoothly arced trenches, but with quick rotations, slips and hard edge sets.
Also: a wide tip or tail may get you into trouble, since your tips and tails
are often on entirely different contours from what's under your feet. Mogul
skiers favor skis which actually are quite similar to (if not exactly the
same as) old-fashioned "straight" skis.

It sounds like you're most interested in something that would fit into the
"carver" or "race carver" classification ("race carver" basically means a
de-tuned GS ski, with a sidecut somewhere in between GS sidecut and a SL
sidecut). The race carvers may be a bit on the stiff side, though. In terms
of sidecut dimension, you might consider looking at a waist in the 60s, and
a radius in the mid- to upper-teens. If, on reflection, you care more about
the "occasional fresh snow" than it sounds like, you might go for a mid-fat.

Since you like a softer ski, and are female, a starting point might be the
female-specific lines, like the Atomic Balanze ("B") series (e.g. the B9 or
B11, which have somewhat extreme sidecuts), the K2 T-Nine series (e.g. the
Burnin' Luv) or the Fischer Vision series. Volkl also has a women's line, as
does Head and the others.

Hi Anna

If you enjoy short agressive turns on hard snow try the
Volkl P60 Slalom Race in say 150 cm. I bought a pair
in 155 and found them fine but I would not ski on them
everyday as they make you work. Rather as suggested
you may like to consider a cross between SL and GS
which you would ski in a length between 160 and 165
cm.

Good Luck

Peter
"Lucky" wrote in message
...

"Anna" wrote in message
om...
Hello all!

I need a quick advice. I plan to buy new skis this year and I need
advice on what length to look at.

I'm 5'6', 140 pounds and I ski advanced/expert level. I bought my
last pair ten years ago and they are 180. I love them very much, they
are like a pair of old shoes, but I feel a bit embarrassed that I'm
probably the only one on the mountain skiing on parallel skis.
Unfortunately, I don't have the money or time to try different skis,
so I'm mostly relying on the online reviews. So does anyone know what
length I should be looking for? As far as I understand parabolic skis
should be shorter than my usual length in parallel? So if my old skis
are 180, should I be looking at 175-177?

Any help would be appreciated!

P.S. Also, I plan to go to ski swap in Tahoe this weekend, if you
have any relevant tips on what to expect, please let me know!

Thanks!

As Horvath would say lose weight. EG

"GF" wrote in message
...
Check this out.
GF

http://www.wiredsport.com/02skifacts.htm

.... but do so with a critical eye. There's some useful advice at that site,
and some stuff that looks like hogwash to me.

The business about "effective edge" seems to fit into the latter category.
The edge of a ski is a piece of metal: it *is* the length it is. It doesn't
change length when you bend it (cut a one-foot long length of twine; bend it
it into a curve: it's still one foot long; wrap it around your finger: it's
still one foot long).

True, the more sidecut a ski has, the longer the edge is for a given
front-to-back length. But the difference is miniscule: the length of the
edge of 200 cm ski* with a 50 m sidecut radius is 200.01 cm. The length of
the edge of a 200 cm ski with a 10 m sidecut radius is 200.33 cm.

The reason why skis with more sidecut tend to be skied shorter is really
something else. For one thing, if you wanted to build a 200 cm ski with a
slalom-ski-type sidecut radius of 12 m, it would need to be something like
135 mm wide at the tip (with a 65 mm waist). That's awfully wide, and trying
to deal with that big tip is even harder if it's sticking out 3 or 4 feet
away from you.

*Actually, the relevant edge of a 200 cm ski is shorter than that, because
the tip is off the snow, and the "engaged" edge doesn't run all the way to
either end, but I'm ignoring that for the moment.