markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,549
Location
PNW aka SEA
A hockey stop or hard pivot check turn on a 200+ cm ski has a lot more bite than one on a 165 cm ski.
Sorry cr. They don't. You really need to get out on a current FIS Sl. Your old boot without power straps won't do them justice though. The edge grip is crazy compared to the old skis, not to mention that current SL speeds on course are just much faster.
 

François Pugh

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
2,803
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
Nah, now you're at the Austrian logic. Deal on a gs cheater type or go home. You can go through all sorts of logic, but in the end it's what those running it think. It's definitely harder to ski it where it wasn't made for, so it has meaning.

But, why did men have to ski 200cm + for years and years? Can't see a good reason.
Because for years and years there was not a single under 200 cm ski that was stable at high speeds.
 

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,549
Location
PNW aka SEA
Page 10, we're well off the rails, so .... Did a gear talk last year about 'what's new for 17-18' last fall... Started the talk with two skis, a 207 Rossi Strato 102, and a 165 Head FIS SL. Really fun to show how much stiffer the 102 is/was, the ski's crazy plank like section, and how soft the current SL skis are by comparison, yet how much better edge grip they have because they bend well and are torsionally very ridged.... 50 year of point A to point A state of the art. Most everyone was shocked at how heavy and stiff the 207 Strato was. Good for a fun conversation and a new gear intro starter. Anyhow....
 
Last edited:

Tony S

thread drift a specialty
Skier
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
3,564
Location
Maine
My thought going in was that a GS ski is a mistake and also that it is inappropriate to use one. I felt that we should be on skis that are like what our students ski on. I have never, ever had a person show up for a lesson on a GS ski of any kind. It pretty much only took me one run to realize I had made the wrong choice, and we didn't really ski any bumps, so my skis never had a chance to shine.
Well observed, and that sucks.
 

Tony S

thread drift a specialty
Skier
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
3,564
Location
Maine
There's also a good deal of animosity toward instructors of all stripes, at all levels, in all subjects in the US. We are not a nation of learners. We're more a nation of 'go figure it out yourself, and the paycheck will be the judge of your success' types.
Some subsequent comments make me think that many are not understanding marko's insight here. He's alluding to the strong vein in American culture that is both anti-authoritarian and anti-intellectual. Teachers, generally, are not well respected (or well paid) here. They're seen to have a lot of "book knowledge" but not practical skills or experience "in the real world." Many of you no doubt have heard the saying, "Those who can't do, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym."

Needless to say this is not my perspective. It just reminds me of Isaac Asimov's comment that goes something like, "Americans seem to think that democracy means 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'."
 

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,549
Location
PNW aka SEA
Some subsequent comments make me think that many are not understanding marko's insight here. He's alluding to the strong vein in American culture that is both anti-authoritarian and anti-intellectual. Teachers, generally, are not well respected (or well paid) here. They're seen to have a lot of "book knowledge" but not practical skills or experience "in the real world." Many of you no doubt have heard the saying, "Those who can't do, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym."

Needless to say this is not my perspective. It just reminds me of Isaac Asimov's comment that goes something like, "Americans seem to think that democracy means 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'."
Thank you. I was wondering how to address this without gross misunderstanding. Well done! Of course the grand irony is the 'anti-authortarian' bent seems to lend itself to quite opposite impulses, but that's as far as I'll go down that rabbit hole.
 
Last edited:

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,131
Location
The Bull City
Sorry cr. They don't. You really need to get out on a current FIS Sl. Your old boot without power straps won't do them justice though. The edge grip is crazy compared to the old skis, not to mention that current SL speeds on course are just much faster.
Mark,

A) The question was why did they stay on 200cm skis so long,, not are they better than today's technology. Answer was that 200cms of that plank did better than 160 cms of the same sandwich going sideways.

James said:
But, why did men have to ski 200cm + for years and years? Can't see a good reason.
B) The fact that race courses are now injected plays a big part in why shorter skis get more bite than they used to as well. Another point is when better shapes enabled better pure carves the need for sideways skidding grip went away.
C) I now ski in a Head shell with the straps, Still don't like them too tight though Got a set of Booster WCs in a box that may get put on the next shells depending..
D) My hard snow speed skis are Salomon Lab GS RACE STOCK from Scotty's private stash of old, 21 meter version. Current? Not really but 185 cms holds pretty well for me.


But, please carry on bashing my archaic equipment.
 
Last edited:

James

Skiing the powder
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
9,207
Got a set of Booster WCs in a box that may get put on the next shells depending..
That's not much different than a solid strap. Try the expert one.
The fact that race courses are now injected plays a big part in why shorter skis get more bite than they used to as well. Another point is when better shapes enabled better pure carves the need for sideways skidding grip went away.
Injection is relevant to 99.5% of skiing how?
No flotation argument for long skis?
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,131
Location
The Bull City
Injection is relevant to 99.5% of skiing how?
No flotation argument for long skis?
Were 99.5% of all men on 200cm plus? 99% of men in a race course were, but elsewhere not so sure. I've seen solid geometry proof that a shorter wide ski floats better than a longer skinny one. 10 cm wider on a 170 cm ski is way better than 20 cm longer in a 65 mm ski, Regardless, if you're sinking try to go faster..

And FWIW, I would guess that the way grooming (packing everything down ASAP to reduce melting) and increase in manmade has evolved the groomed trails are still a harder surface than they were in the 70s and 80s even if not injected...
 
Last edited:

James

Skiing the powder
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
9,207
Were 99.5% of all men on 200cm plus? 99% of men in a race course were, but elsewhere not so sure. I've seen solid geometry proof that a shorter wide ski floats better than a longer skinny one. 10 cm wider on a 170 cm ski is way better than 20 cm longer in a 65 mm ski, Regardless, if you're sinking try to go faster..

And FWIW, I would guess that the way grooming (packing everything down ASAP to reduce melting) and increase in manmade has evolved the groomed trails are still a harder surface than they were in the 70s and 80s even if not injected...
Injection didn't exist during straight skis afaik. Grooming is an interesting effect to be explored. Race courses were pretty sketchy thenselves.

In gs, length has maybe only changed 5-10cm. 200/05 - 195cm.

There's also tuning. Straight skis were likely pretty poorly tuned. Standard was 0/0 no? Of course dull the front 6-8 inches.
Badly tuned shaped skis are probably more problematic to the user.

Let's not discount sheer force of habit and tradition in maintaining ski length. Raise your arm over your head to pick a ski length for a kid?
 

BS Slarver

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
900
Location
Big Sky MT
Anti-authoritarians at a PSIA exam :roflmao:

Bottom line - If you’ve got the skill set the width
and length of ski shouldn’t matter, however IMHO those who are on the correct equipment for the era are the ones who stand out and are ready to pass.
Been a part of the exam process on both sides and have seen my share of unprepared and clueless candidates who show up ready to wing it, a waste of time and money if you ask me.
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,131
Location
The Bull City
Injection didn't exist during straight skis afaik. Grooming is an interesting effect to be explored. Race courses were pretty sketchy thenselves.

In gs, length has maybe only changed 5-10cm. 200/05 - 195cm.

There's also tuning. Straight skis were likely pretty poorly tuned. Standard was 0/0 no? Of course dull the front 6-8 inches.
Badly tuned shaped skis are probably more problematic to the user.

Let's not discount sheer force of habit and tradition in maintaining ski length. Raise your arm over your head to pick a ski length for a kid?
No injection and no shape were why longer skis performed so much better than shorter ones. Same is true to a lessor degree on hard packed manmade versus natural less vigorously rolled.

In GS the male racers were on 210-215cm back in the day.. SL was 200-204cm.
 

James

Skiing the powder
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
9,207
No injection and no shape were why longer skis performed so much better than shorter ones. Same is true to a lessor degree on hard packed manmade versus natural less vigorously rolled.

In GS the male racers were on 210-215cm back in the day.. SL was 200-204cm.
Injection has zero to do with this as far as I can tell. You seem to be stuck on it, but something that came years after the demise of straight skis has little to do with the issue. Maybe you can actually show it?

We're not wondering why men didn't ski 165's instead of 205's, but maybe more in the 180's. Off course there was ballet which was short. And GLM.

I'm still thinking most of it was tradition and the influence of racing. The very early 1980's Head Yahoo at 180cm and over 7mm of sidecut was a precurser of things to come.

As reasons to go shorter with shaped skis couldn't be ignored anymore, the influence of racing was also declining rapidly. At some point very early 2000's, people could care less about gs skis and went out and bought an X Scream or a carving ski.
These days an average guy might ski from 155cm to the 190's. Which is a pretty big range.
 

Josh Matta

Skiing the powder
Pass Pulled
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Posts
4,126
The problem with the tryout at Whiteface and the PSIA in general, speaking as PSIA employee is that I knew whiteface condition could not be further from what I actually like or excell at, and the vast majority of my lesson would want nothing to do with it. I also find it ironic they were searching for people to send out to a spring time Snowbird/Breck/Big Sky by having them ski on the hardest snow imaginable and no bumps when the conditions at the national team are going to be spring time crud. I know my ski performance sucks on hard snow compared to my peers, I also know I make shitty stuff look better than most and I am buttery smooth is basically all bumps to the point I think they penalize the lack of appeared "Effort"

Even though I feel the settlement expressed by Epic about how not a single student skis on GS skis........I also feel masters GS skis are the for hardpack like whiteface or stowe on a bad day.

I have passed every exam/ tryout on skis wider than 80mm underfoot. I even used my E93 for part of the Dev team tryout. Matt Boyd was on mantras so.....
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,131
Location
The Bull City
.

As reasons to go shorter with shaped skis couldn't be ignored anymore, the influence of racing was also declining rapidly. At some point very early 2000's, people could care less about gs skis and went out and bought an X Scream or a carving ski.
These days an average guy might ski from 155cm to the 190's. Which is a pretty big range.
Unless you skied them and back then on the less packed surface it's tough to speculate. What I do know is that racers stuck with what the winners were using. If someone started winning on a shorter ski others followed. I think it was Tamba who was the first high level racer to start really taking advantage of the new rapid gates (hinged) that replaced solid bamboo. He was the first racer I remember blasting over the gates instead of skiing around them. IIRC, he also went with shorter skis. Bode was the first high level to go shaped and a little shorter for GS with the K2 Fours. Ultimately though, performance was pretty important relative to tradition... Whatever people were winning on is what younger competitors and rec skiers bought.

I remember going from 160cm to 175 between 10th and 11th grade for USSA Freestyle. I was less than 5 feet tall and under 100 pounds and still caught some crap from the other kids my age for skiing "women's skis". The following year I went with 190s after getting the instructor gig. Skied those for both bumps and race clinics, instructor clinics, pretty much everything but never ever lessons.. Used the old 175 bump skis for noob lessons.
 

markojp

mtn rep for the gear on my feet
Industry Insider
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
3,549
Location
PNW aka SEA
Tomba skied 205's like everyone else. Jr's rarely got what 'the racers' were on. A race room Rossi ST was very different than what you bought in the shop, and that held true for pretty much every manufacturer including K2. Bode skiing on fours was the game changer as you've correctly noted though. In the end, there really aren't many 100mm recreational all mountain skis that AREN'T a bunch better in every regard than the old race skis. If I could have time warped back to 1977-80 with a pair of 180 Bonafides for GS, everyone would have laughed, but I'd have crushed on them.
 

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,412
Location
NYC
Wait, did I just wandered into the retro ski thread. :duck:
Straight skis are like the old Detroit irons of the 60's and 70's. You know what they say, "They don't build them like they used to. :facepalm:
But of course, they won't let them if they could." :cool:

Comparing straight skis of old with modern skis is like comparing apples to pineapples. We definitely can take a shot at that. They are both apples, right? :roflmao:

Funny thing about the abundance of hormone in our youth. It not only clouded our judgement then. It also affects our current memories of the good old days.
 

mister moose

Instigator
Skier
Joined
May 30, 2017
Posts
254
Location
Killington
I think you've baffled me there. I understand you criticising the original diagrams because they are showing an inside/non dominant ski but my big toes are always the inside edge of both skis and definitely on the dominant edge (of the outside ski) in a turn.
Yes, of course. That was restating to go further. Consider that while we often talk about the outside ski receiving the most pressure as a result of being the most efficient given the centripetal forces and slope (long leg/short leg), what I haven't seen discussed is that the big toe edge is stronger than the pinky toe edge.
I get the point on tibial alignment but surely everything should be measured by reference to lateral centre of ball of foot rather than toes? Maybe defeining ball of foot is also open to interpretation?
On what do you base this? Rotary forces are measured from the point of rotation, the fulcrum. the hinge point. Lateral torque on the boot shell is measured from the hinge point, ie the base of the tibia. I mentioned it aligns almost completely with the big toe, as you can plainly see. This means that lateral forces on the boot and the ski are not symmetrical. I don't agree that lateral forces should be measured by reference to the center of the ball of the foot, because that is not the lateral center of skeletal support.
 

crgildart

Gravity Slave
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,131
Location
The Bull City
Wait, did I just wandered into the retro ski thread. :duck:
Straight skis are like the old Detroit irons of the 60's and 70's. You know what they say, "They don't build them like they used to. :facepalm:
But of course, they won't let them if they could." :cool:

Comparing straight skis of old with modern skis is like comparing apples to pineapples. We definitely can take a shot at that. They are both apples, right? :roflmao:

Funny thing about the abundance of hormone in our youth. It not only clouded our judgement then. It also affects our current memories of the good old days.
End of the day modern test on modern snow conditions needs modern equipment (for those particular snow conditions) if you want to do well without a lot of extra effort.
 
Top