TPS Archives

Reprints From The Professional Skier

Spring 1996 - "Ski Length: How Long Should You Go?" by Patrick Hunter

This article is reprinted from The Professional Skier. All copyrights apply. Please see our copyright and disclaimer notice page.

Every fall the skiing magazines publish their equipment buying guides, and every year, it seems, they advise their readers to "buy longer skis:' This advice appears to be at odds with what has been happening in many areas of the ski world. Powder skis are now short and fat. Cross-country skis have become "tiny." Short, super-sidecut skis have appeared. Race skis are being nibbled down.

A few years ago I decided to take a close look at ski length. Naturally, I was especially interested in what impact length would have on ski instruction. Intuitively, it seemed that longer skis were inherently more difficult to use. Here are a few of the things I discovered.

World Cup champion Marc Girardelli uses a shorter downhill ski than before (215 cm instead of 230 cm). In a recent Powder magazine article he said that he can even use these downhill skis to practice GS courses. He also noted that he often slid his former skis a little to start a turn. The shorter skis are far more turnable than the longer ones yet still perfectly solid at higher speeds.

The newest race skis have greater sidecut, softer flex, and better dampening. In addition, the introduction of energy absorbing bindings, plates, and boots make these skis run more quietly. And because the racers feel a quieter ride, according to one theory, they can keep their "foot on the gas pedal." Surely the less a ski shakes, the better its grip. In the case of current racing skis, a combination of improvements allows for them to be shorter and just as, if not more, effective.

Rumor has it that Alberto Tomba has been testing some "sub-200" skis in practice. Hearing that makes me wonder just what equipment options even elite racers have. In car racing, a team can try a host of variables before a race in order to select the optimum combination. Ski racers, on the other hand, select much of their equipment in the off season. Ideally, they would be able to choose from a wide range of flexes, sidecuts, and lengths. This all depends, however, on what the ski manufacturers decide to offer that season. My own guess is that very few racers will, or even can, do any sort of meaningful comparison of ski length.

In the cross-country department recent changes in ski length have been very dramatic. Fischer created the "Revolution," and, at 160 cm, they look like kid's toys next to my old pair of 215's! The public loves these new skis because they're so much easier to maneuver and to learn on. And racers have found them to be just as fast as the longer skis.

Meanwhile, Atomic's "Fat Boys" revolutionized powder skis. At least a dozen companies now have a version of these shorter, wide-body skis. And it wasn't long before a "diet Fat Boy" appeared. Slightly slimmer and longer, these skis appeal to the accomplished powder skier who wants to run a little deeper in the snow. (The slim versions are also more manageable on groomed or firm snow.) Both styles make powder skiing incredibly easier for beginner and pro alike.

A few years ago I went heli-skiing in British Columbia. The slopes were like a minefield, sprinkled with invisible pockets of hoar-frost. The only "survivors" were those skiing on wide bodies. Even the guides wanted to switch skis!

The new super-sidecut skis (a.k.a. parabolics or "hourglass" skis) are a novel generation that has evolved from race skis, powder skis, and snowboards. At the Snowmass Ski School, instructors of all shapes and sizes are skiing super-sidecuts in lengths ranging from 160 to 199 cm. Amazingly, even some of the 200-pound guys are skiing the 160s. Guests are always asking, "But can you ski fast on those skis?" The answer is, yes! The super-sidecuts can carve trenches like a snowboard.

About five years ago I began doing some personal research to try to locate more effective ski equipment for my students. It had become pretty obvious to me that snowboard technology had leaped ahead of ski technology. Snowboarders were making turns and riding in places that were far beyond the capabilities of the average skier. It was also obvious that the learning curve for snowboarding was far quicker than that for skiing.

This quest led me to experiment with a number of "contraptions." Some of them, like the "snowskate," actually worked well. The snowskates came in a length of 125 cm or 150 cm, and the shorter one had no tail. The skates had a shovel tip, a concave base, and a sidecut "three times that of standard skis;' according to the manufacturer. The top of the front featured a chamber containing liquid and ball bearings to dampen vibrations. I found that people could learn to ski quickly on these "skates," As skidding was virtually impossible, they learned to make the arc of a carved turn.

But I wanted to find something more commonly available. I recalled that some of our instructors had gone out on rental skis, in a sort of "empathy-building" exercise. If they couldn't ski on the equipment, then they would have to start giving their guests more slack! So I borrowed a pair of stock, 170-cm rental skis from a local shop. The salesperson was very reluctant to let me use them. No wonder I couldn't keep them in a turn! They bobbed and weaved like an old boxer.

That night I hand-tuned the skis, giving them flat bases, sharp edges, and a hot wax. What a difference when I went out the next day! I rolled the ski on edge and, zing!, I was able to trench a carved turn. And because the skis were so much shorter and lighter, the swing weight was nil-talk about going quickly from edge to edge. Plus, these babies could noodle in the bumps. I started skiing them all the time! The rest of the ski school voted to have me committed.

What a pleasure those skis were to teach on. My legs felt fresh at the end of the day. And it was much easier to get around on the beginner hill. I could make turns that precisely fit those of my students' skis. Not one to have all the fun, I bought some short skis, in lengths from 150s to 180s (for $20 a pair, with bindings). Any time I had a group of students for more than a day, I offered the skis to them. (Naturally I kept the skis well tuned, and to avoid liability problems I had a local shop adjust the bindings.)

People experienced a revelation! Women would arrive the first day with 190-cm skis and ski at Level 5, perhaps. The next day, on 150s, they could bend their skis into an arc, sometimes for the first time ever. Their confidence soared. Men were a lot more reluctant to try the shorter skis. But if they did, it was breakthrough time for them, too. Not only could they feel the skis working through the turn but, just as important, they had to stay centered or they'd wash out.

In sum, beginners, who most likely were on shorter skis to begin with, benefited from the better tuning of my personal stock. More advanced skiers (Levels 4 to 8) benefited from the skis' easy maneuverability and great feedback.

By the end of the season I was totally intrigued. I knew the shorter skis were easier to use, but I wasn't sure exactly why. I went to a local rental shop with a tape measure, a fishing scale, some blocks of wood, and some clamps. The fishing scale had a hook with which I could attach it to the ski. With a 2-inch block placed under both the tip and the tail, I could then measure the pull needed to bend the ski into a 2-inch bow. With the tail clamped tight and a block placed under one corner of the tip, I could pull down on the other side of the tip and measure torsional rigidity with the scale. I hypothesized that the shorter skis would have the characteristics--i.e., greater flex combined with adequate torsional rigidity-that were conducive to carving. It turned out I was right.

I picked out a batch of rental skis, all of the same model, that ranged in length from 150 cm to 200 cm. I was astonished to find that the widths of the tip, waist, and tail were exactly the same for all the skis. Therefore the shortest skis had a much tighter, effective sidecut. Meanwhile, the overall flex was softer in the shorter skis while the torsional rigidity was higher. I had to conclude that the shorter skis were not the bane of existence for beginners that everyone claimed they were.

I was mulling this over with a longtime ski friend when he said I should talk to Dave Stapleton. Dave, a former U.S. Ski Team member and pro racer, had recently purchased an Aspen ski shop. He had just done his own little ski test. Curious about the gear he was renting out, he grabbed some 180s and a pair of rear-entry boots and headed up Aspen Mountain. He reported that the stuff worked just dandy. This was an encouraging confirmation of my own experiences.

I talked about my research with an engineer at a major ski manufacturer. He said their prototype GS ski was a 207-cm race ski. Their shorter GS skis were similar in construction, just thinned out and scaled down. Imagine a 175-pound racer traveling down a race course at 35 miles per hour, making a really tight carved turn. The course is smooth as a baby's fanny but hard as a rock. The racer's skis are tipped way up on edge. This picture does not even remotely portray the one-week-per-year recreational skier.

The optimal performance window on "race" skis is between 30 and 50 miles per hour. The skier needs that speed to provide enough energy to adequately bend the skis. Because those speeds are way too fast for most skiers, they have to skid their skis before they engage the edge. Most instructors ski at low speeds during lessons. Yet they use 200-cm GS or slalom skis designed for a race course, not "fanny hill."

I find it curious that over the years, beginners have moved to increasingly shorter skis, but the instructors teaching them have not. The irony is that beginners have skis that can make very neat little carved turns on gentle slopes while instructors don't have equipment that easily allows them to do that. They are using the wrong tool for the job. If those instructors were on 150's when teaching beginners, they might very well teach a different kind of lesson. For instance, because a carved rum is so easy on a 150 cm ski, instructors just might have their beginner students give it a try. (I do!)

Ideally, skiers should use a ski that works best for the task at hand, especially during a lesson. Shops today rent a complete range of "toys," from Fat Boys to 150s to "Big Feet." My ski school is starting to make a wider variety of equipment available to students, which will give those skiers a better shot at success.

A skier who uses a ski that is too long, and too stiff, for the type of skiing he or she plans to do will be severely handicapped. Such a ski is difficult to carve with and tends to rail out when put on edge, forcing the skier to keep the skis flatter on the snow in order to skid through the arcs. While this may be perfectly adequate on groomed snow, new snow and crud are nearly impossible to man age with long, stiff skis. And the bumps are no picnic, either, as these skis become a trampoline over the ruts.

My hope is to see more skiers on equipment that will help them learn. Skis must operate properly within a skier's "comfort zone." The super-sidecut skis, which are generally much shorter and very soft, are proving to be the best option. A skier can mimic even high-end racing moves at very slow speeds. With these skis, beginners can ski like intermediates in a day or two. Intermediates can ski advanced turns in a day. Advanced skiers can pick up the nuances of experts in minutes. You might say that I've been at altitude too long and my brain cells all went south. Maybe, maybe not!

So, how long should skis be? I believe as short as possible! Why take on any more baggage than you need? So far, Salomon has been the only ski manufacturer to tie the choice of a ski to a "power level." The criteria are weight, skiing ability, and skiing "personality." Clearly, skis have no way of knowing how tall you are or what sex you are. Nor do they care.

John Howe, a former engineer with Head Skis, has recommended that a skier stand on skis with a block under each end to see if the skis will bend enough (at least 2 inches). If the skis don't adequately bend, the skier should try a softer pair. A better question may be, how short should skis be? If you are going to demo skis, ask for the shortest pair in the model that you want to try (and be sure that they are well tuned). Start by carving turns on gentle slopes. Get a feel for the turn that is built into the ski. Then work up to steeper hills and tougher snow. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. It's my own bias that skis are for turning, but some skiers prefer to keep their skis flat and go fairly straight. These self-proclaimed "cruisers" would be happier staying with longer skis.

More skiers might well use skis that are 10 to 20 cm shorter than usually recommended. Lighter skiers, such as women, could even use skis as much as 20 to 30 cm shorter than "normal." My supervisor, Ken, weighs in at 220 pounds. He now skis a 180-cm "rental" ski when working with beginners and intermediates and reports that the short boards ski "just fine."

Super-sidecut skis go even shorter. Men have been skiing 180s and even 160s, while women say they love the 160s.

What has really driven my work on ski equipment is a hope that vacationing skiers can learn the sport more easily and have more fun. A traditional mistake, I believe, has been to "promote" skiers too soon; that is, to encourage them to get longer skis that are more "stable." And so these skis are more stable-when going straight. But they are much harder to turn. Skiers are forced to keep these longer, stiffer skis flat and skid to an edge set.

If you give the shorter ski concept a try as an instructor, you'll have a lot to gain. Not only will you suffer less wear and tear after a day's lessons on the lighter, shorter skis but you'll be a model for your students. And they'll be happier because they'll be skiing better sooner. Your own skiing will improve. And, you might just even be in demand for your successful, innovative approach to teaching.

Patrick Hunter (a.k.a. Parabolic Pat) is a Certified Level III instructor and is in his eleventh season of teaching at Snowmass, Colorado.