Marwe 610; First 150kms

You can usually arrange a week's demo of Marwes from Finn Sisu for the
price of shipping. Talk to Tom during the day. The feel of rough road
is affected by the composition of the shaft. The 610 has honeycomb ski
material shafts so it is more absorbent, but not as much so as pneumatic
tires. Marwe also has lesser expensive metal shafts, which will pass
road vibrations more readily. If rough roads, i.e., worn open pore
asphalt, is the norm where you are, it can get fatiguing after awhile on
the 610s.

I don't think any rollerski feels like snow. Relative speed seems more a
consideration and I'd say the 610s are like being on fast blue
conditions. They are light, more like ski weight, which to me is a big
advantage over the larger Aeros. The 610 wheels do have a speed
governor, so that the issue is more a matter of one's tolerance relative
to the available terrain. I've found the range of declines I've been
able to handle has increased over the years with improved comfort and
control (technique). To some degree, you can train yourself
psychologically, e.g., doing downhill repeats working your way up. One
downside of the 610s is that while they are ok on wet pavement, they
definitely do not like wet leaves. Double-pole or otherwise keep the
skis in close at those moments.

Skate learners often start with the Combis, which have 40mm rubber
wheels (Finn Sisu also sells much faster 33mm polyurethane wheels).
They have the same honeycomb shaft and do have the wire wheels that make
them an excellent classical ski, tho without speed reducers, which I
think is especially helpful in a classical rollerski for repeats.

Gene

nordvind wrote:

Jim,

You stated you like the Marwe's better than other rollerskis you have
tried. Could I ask you which other brands you have skated on? Does
the flex of the ski influence the ski's ability to roll over rough road
surfaces? In that respect would you say the body flex acts like the
pneumatic tires on Jenex V2's? Thanks, still trying to gather as much
info as I can for my own purchase of rollerskis.

Dear Gene:

Here in Michiana many of our roads are the dreaded chip seal, some of
them pretty rough. I have been using Aero 150s for years, but have the
same complaints as many of the writers in this group about Jenex
product development.

I was able to try some Marwe 610s at our team clinic this weekend, and
loved the stable feel and tracking (on brand new smooth asphalt, but
I'm wondering how the would work on rough chip seal, and react to
pebbles and sticks on smoother pavement. I remember taking too many
headers on my old solid wheel skis. Any comments?

Randy

I would second Jim's recommendations for Marwe v. V2. I have just recently
purchased the V2 Aero 150 and already own a pair of Marwe's. I really like
the Marwe's feel & speed on level or gently rolling terrain. They are
definitely a slower ski than the V2s on flatter terrain However, if you
live where there are hills they are unusable unless you want to walk down
all the larger hills. The V2s with the speed reducer has opened up immense
opportunites to me that I did not have before, including dirt roads & rail
trails. I may keep the Marwe's for when I'm in areas that are a little
flatter.

MOO,
Matt

"Jim Howe" wrote in message
...

nordvind Wrote:
Jim,

You stated you like the Marwe's better than other rollerskis you have
tried. Could I ask you which other brands you have skated on? Does
the flex of the ski influence the ski's ability to roll over rough
road
surfaces? In that respect would you say the body flex acts like the
pneumatic tires on Jenex V2's? Thanks, still trying to gather as much
info as I can for my own purchase of rollerskis.

nordvind,

I've rollerskied on V2 Aero 125s, V2 940 Combis, Elpex F1,homemade
rollerskis. All have aluminum shafts and the main differences were
between the wheels - Size, speed, pneumatic or hard/soft rubber, etc.

A large percentage of my rollerskiing was done on the homemade pair and
the Elpex. The other skis were demoed from a local outdoor/ski shop or
borrowed from friends.

I used scooter wheels on my homemade pair and these were quite fast
compared to any other ski. The durabilty was quite poor, although the
scooter wheels are relatively cheap. The Elpex wheels durabilty was
quite a disappointment - I think I got 200km total. This was not
acceptable at $75/pair. I do have two friends who ski on the Elpex and
are happy with them. They also have gotten more kms from the wheels,
which may be attributed to my weight of 87 kilos. The Elpex simulated
snow speed better than the homemade, but equivalent to the V2s and
Marwe.

The 940 combis were pure crap to skate on vs the others, so I would
recommend you don't waste your time. Specialize your ski for each
discipline, though I have heard the Marwe combis are excellent because
you can convert specifically to skateing by removing the classic
extensions, making it a pure skating rollerski.

The aero V2 125s were nice....the large wheels dampen vibration and
roll over most anything within reason. The speed reducers work very
well. I was not happy with the weight and the durabilty of the
pneumatic tires. Also, my weight does exceed the recommended weight
limit of the ski. With my weight and the speed reducers I could not see
the tires lasting very long. The wheel also has a checkered past even
when used by skiers within the weight range. I have a friend who with a
pair who is on the upper end of the range and he has blown out a few
tires. Jenex tells him he is too heavy or is skiing "wrong". I did not
consider the V2 150s because of the weight.

The Marwe and the V2 125s both dampen vibration better than the other
skis. The Marwes, in my opinion, feel more like snow skiing than the
125s. I'm not smart enough to explain why...probably has something to
do with what part of the ski is absorbing the energy from the road.

I have not noticed that the flex has any negative influence on the skis
abilty to roll over rough roads. The Marwes roll as well as any of the
skis. They were the most comfortable and the most quite. The ski is
stiff enough but it also has flex - like a snow ski.

There is a trade-off when deciding which rollerskis. You have the
snow-like feel and the excellent wheel durabilty of the Marwes vs. the
safety features of the V2s. If you train on hills and are not
comfortable with not having speed reduction, then I would go with the
V2s. If hills are not a problem - I would recommend the Marwes.....

I hope this helps. The best thing is to demo from a shop or friends,
then you can make the best choice for yourself.

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

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