Marwe 610; First 150kms

I have had my Marwe 610 rollerskis for ~3weeks and I have skied about 150kms on them. I have found these freestyle rollerskis simulate the real thing better than other freestyle rollerskis I have used.

Specs
- Freestyle Technique
- Honecomb Chassis
- Weight ~ 1.75kg/pair
- Clearance ~3.5cm
- Wheels 105x25mm
- Rolling Resistance = Medium

Price - $325
- $40/replacement wheel

Most of the rollerskiing I do is in the footshills west of Denver where (surprisingly) you will see more bicycles than cars, making for some ideal spots to ski. The terrain is mostly hills and the road surface ranges from smooth to rough.

Marwe rollerskis are imported from Finland by Finn Sisu out of Minnesota. I ordered my skis predrilled and I mounted the bindings. Mounting was straight forward. I found that threading the holes with the binding screws first(before mounting bindings) made the process much easier and insured the screws would go in straight when mounting the bindings.

The first thing that caught my attention when I tried the skis was the snow-like feel they have. When the ski is compressed the honeycomb shaft flexes somewhat like a snow ski. This also dampens much of the road vibration that a aluminum ski will not.

The wheels are 105x25mm. They roll over most road debris I encounter. After 150 km the wear on the wheels (or lack thereof) is good. The front and back wheels wear fairly evenly. I think this is due to where Finn Sisu places the binding - Which is more forward than what Marwe recommends. My old skis have the bindings mounted closer to the rear wheel, and I did not get even wheel wear. Marwe wheels come in four different rolling resistances (I think Finn Sisu only offers medium): very low, low, medium, great. The medium friction wheels produce a snow-like speed on all terrain.

The rollerskis seem fairly durable. My one concern is the bottom of the ski does make contact with the pavement when edging off the ski on occasion. The ski does have a protective plastic runner on the bottom, but as the tires wear and the ski clearance is lowered the ski is more likely to scrape the pavment and damage the shaft.

Marwe rollerskis come with plastic mudguards which can be removed if so desired. I have not used them in the rain yet so I cannot comment on their effectiveness in keeping wheel spray at a minimum. The mudguards are effective by keeping the skis free of dirt/grit which can damage the binding if it gets trapped under the boot.

There is one setback - No speed reducer/brake. Speed control has been somewhat of a problem. Hills are manageable. Anything less than a 5% grade can be controlled with a wide snow-plow. A steep hill takes a while to negotiate.

Strengths:
- snow-like feel
- relatively light weight
- tire wear
- rides over debris
- vibration damping
- mudguards
Weaknesses:
- speed reducers/brake (lack of)
- cost? (probably offset by long term cost w/ wheel durabilty)

Overall:

- Highly recommend as an effective training device to
simulate nordic freestyle skiing. 4.5/5 stars

Pics: click below "Attach Files" (low quality)

Jim -- Just curious: Are you satisfied with the length of your poles?
For reference, a guide I like is he
http://www.sierranordic.com/PoleSale.html.

Gene

Jim Howe wrote:

Pics: click below "Attach Files" (low quality)

+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Filename: rs05d.JPG |
|Download: http://www.skibanter.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

--
Jim Howe

"hey, Fat Tony, what's in it for me?"

Do people care about the recommended max 85kg limit on rollerski that
are not aluminum?
like honeycomb and wooden cores.
are there any above 90kg using non-aluminum rollerskies, and it works
well?

Originally Posted by

"hey, Fat Tony, what's in it for me?"

Do people care about the recommended max 85kg limit on rollerski that
are not aluminum?
like honeycomb and wooden cores.
are there any above 90kg using non-aluminum rollerskies, and it works
well?

vagle,

Initially I was concerned about my weight (83-87kg) exceeding the capacity of the Marwes. I contacted Finn Sisu and they assured me that my weight would not be a problem. They stated that they have many skiers around the country in the 185-200lb range skiing on the 610s.



Gene,

My height is 74.67 inches. My pole length is 170cm for both snow and rollerskiing. While standing with my boots on the pole comes up half way between my chin and lower lip.

I used to live in Sacramento and skied at Royal Gorge. I was actually sized with a 167.5cm pole by Noel at Sierra Nordic. I swithced to 170cm because I felt more comfortable getting more leverage with the longer pole.

My classic poles are 160cm and come up to the shoulder joint as Noel recommends. The recommendation for the skate pole is 107% of the classic length.

Noel's formula -

SKATE: 2.26X74.67 = 168.75cm (I use 170cm)

CLASSIC: 2.12x74.67 158.3CM (I use 160cm)

158.3x1.07 = 169.4cm

I think the length's I use are consistent with what Swix charts recommend. Although I noticed last year the length recommendations had increased from the previous year.

I'm wondering what your impression is based on the rollerskiing picture - Too long or too short? I don't notice a significant difference in feel when I go from the snow to dryland skiing.

Jim

Here's a better picture?

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/42b848f8...pHGuCBQjt3S05S

Doesn't work for me. Redirects to he
http://bcvrf.yahoo.com/bc/42b848f8_1...tures/rs05.jpg

Jim Howe wrote:

Here's a better picture?

http://tinyurl.com/dk4ql

--
Jim Howe

Jim Howe wrote:
Wrote:
"hey, Fat Tony, what's in it for me?"

Do people care about the recommended max 85kg limit on rollerski that
are not aluminum?
like honeycomb and wooden cores.
are there any above 90kg using non-aluminum rollerskies, and it works
well?

vagle,

Initially I was concerned about my weight (83-87kg) exceeding the
capacity of the Marwes. I contacted Finn Sisu and they assured me that
my weight would not be a problem. They stated that they have many
skiers around the country in the 185-200lb range skiing on the 610s.



Gene,

My height is 74.67 inches. My pole length is 170cm for both snow and
rollerskiing. While standing with my boots on the pole comes up half
way between my chin and lower lip.

I used to live in Sacramento and skied at Royal Gorge. I was actually
sized with a 167.5cm pole by Noel at Sierra Nordic. I swithced to
170cm because I felt more comfortable getting more leverage with the
longer pole.

My classic poles are 160cm and come up to the shoulder joint as Noel
recommends. The recommendation for the skate pole is 107% of the
classic length.

Noel's formula -

SKATE: 2.26X74.67 = 168.75cm (I use 170cm)

CLASSIC: 2.12x74.67 158.3CM (I use 160cm)

158.3x1.07 = 169.4cm

I think the length's I use are consistent with what Swix charts
recommend. Although I noticed last year the length recommendations had
increased from the previous year.

I'm wondering what your impression is based on the rollerskiing picture
- Too long or too short? I don't notice a significant difference in feel
when I go from the snow to dryland skiing.

Jim


--
Jim Howe

Jim Howe wrote:
Wrote:
"hey, Fat Tony, what's in it for me?"

Do people care about the recommended max 85kg limit on rollerski that
are not aluminum?
like honeycomb and wooden cores.
are there any above 90kg using non-aluminum rollerskies, and it works
well?

vagle,

Initially I was concerned about my weight (83-87kg) exceeding the
capacity of the Marwes. I contacted Finn Sisu and they assured me that
my weight would not be a problem. They stated that they have many
skiers around the country in the 185-200lb range skiing on the 610s.



Gene,

My height is 74.67 inches. My pole length is 170cm for both snow and
rollerskiing. While standing with my boots on the pole comes up half
way between my chin and lower lip.

I used to live in Sacramento and skied at Royal Gorge. I was actually
sized with a 167.5cm pole by Noel at Sierra Nordic. I swithced to
170cm because I felt more comfortable getting more leverage with the
longer pole.

My classic poles are 160cm and come up to the shoulder joint as Noel
recommends. The recommendation for the skate pole is 107% of the
classic length.

Noel's formula -

SKATE: 2.26X74.67 = 168.75cm (I use 170cm)

CLASSIC: 2.12x74.67 158.3CM (I use 160cm)

158.3x1.07 = 169.4cm

I think the length's I use are consistent with what Swix charts
recommend. Although I noticed last year the length recommendations had
increased from the previous year.

I'm wondering what your impression is based on the rollerskiing picture
- Too long or too short? I don't notice a significant difference in feel
when I go from the snow to dryland skiing.

Jim


--
Jim Howe

Dear Jim:

Two dimensions are in play when talking about pole length for snow vs.
roller skiing: 1. The roller skis get you up off the ground by about
an inch and a half, which might lead one to think they should use
longer poles, EXCEPT THAT pole tips on pavement don't sink into
the"snow" up to the baskets, (or where the baskets would be) by about
the same dimension. Therefore, I've always used the same length pole
for both.

Randy

170, huh... Funny, I asked because to me they looked a little short,
such that even with you compressing strongly (?) at the moment of the
photo, your hand seems low (not along your ear or so). Perhaps it's the
angle. I'm maybe a 1/4" taller than you in boots and noticed last
summer doing intervals on rollerskis that I had better V2 glide and
turnover with 168.5s, but felt more comfortable with 170-172.5 in the
sense you describe. Watching some snow video with the latter showed
that I couldn't get my hands through and was coming off the ski way
early to keep up. I also suspect in V1 that feeling of extra leverage
translated into staying on the poles so long that my shoulders were
twisting. Going go back to 168s immediately allowed up my hands to go
back further and extended my glide. One other thing Noel mentions is
that those with longer necks should go shorter on skate poles. I do and
had never considered it before.

Concerning classical poles, 160 seems long. Your shoulders look
relatively flat and so 157.5-158 might be close (Noel's skate
measurement less 10 cm). Mine slope considerably and a recent video
showed that at 157+ my hips were being pushed back a tad (Zach says this
is common with overly long poles for some reason). Gauging pole length
is where video and an expert eye can really help. A subjective clue can
be picked up either double poling or in faster diagonal stride. If you
sense the turnover or timing being slowed by the poles at all, usually
on the return, then it likely is. I also noticed that with poles too
long I get tired more quickly double poling.

Gene


Jim Howe wrote:

Initially I was concerned about my weight (83-87kg) exceeding the
capacity of the Marwes. I contacted Finn Sisu and they assured me that
my weight would not be a problem. They stated that they have many
skiers around the country in the 185-200lb range skiing on the 610s.

Gene,

My height is 74.67 inches. My pole length is 170cm for both snow and
rollerskiing. While standing with my boots on the pole comes up half
way between my chin and lower lip.

I used to live in Sacramento and skied at Royal Gorge. I was actually
sized with a 167.5cm pole by Noel at Sierra Nordic. I swithced to
170cm because I felt more comfortable getting more leverage with the
longer pole.

My classic poles are 160cm and come up to the shoulder joint as Noel
recommends. The recommendation for the skate pole is 107% of the
classic length.

Noel's formula -

SKATE: 2.26X74.67 = 168.75cm (I use 170cm)

CLASSIC: 2.12x74.67 158.3CM (I use 160cm)

158.3x1.07 = 169.4cm

I think the length's I use are consistent with what Swix charts
recommend. Although I noticed last year the length recommendations had
increased from the previous year.

I'm wondering what your impression is based on the rollerskiing picture
- Too long or too short? I don't notice a significant difference in feel
when I go from the snow to dryland skiing.

Jim

--
Jim Howe

Originally Posted by Gene Goldenfeld

170, huh... Funny, I asked because to me they looked a little short,
such that even with you compressing strongly (?) at the moment of the
photo, your hand seems low (not along your ear or so). Perhaps it's the
angle. I'm maybe a 1/4" taller than you in boots and noticed last
summer doing intervals on rollerskis that I had better V2 glide and
turnover with 168.5s, but felt more comfortable with 170-172.5 in the
sense you describe. Watching some snow video with the latter showed
that I couldn't get my hands through and was coming off the ski way
early to keep up. I also suspect in V1 that feeling of extra leverage
translated into staying on the poles so long that my shoulders were
twisting. Going go back to 168s immediately allowed up my hands to go
back further and extended my glide. One other thing Noel mentions is
that those with longer necks should go shorter on skate poles. I do and
had never considered it before.

Concerning classical poles, 160 seems long. Your shoulders look
relatively flat and so 157.5-158 might be close (Noel's skate
measurement less 10 cm). Mine slope considerably and a recent video
showed that at 157+ my hips were being pushed back a tad (Zach says this
is common with overly long poles for some reason). Gauging pole length
is where video and an expert eye can really help. A subjective clue can
be picked up either double poling or in faster diagonal stride. If you
sense the turnover or timing being slowed by the poles at all, usually
on the return, then it likely is. I also noticed that with poles too
long I get tired more quickly double poling.

Gene




--
Jim Howe[/i][/color]

Gene,

Thanks for the information. I find myself wantng more pole length when double poling while classic skiing. I don't seem to notice the 160cm pole as being to long while striding - I'll have my pole length evaluated while roller skiing and again when on snow next season.

Jim