Ski length measuring convention for rockered skis

[M_R]

Sorry if this has come up before, my 3 minute search came up empty

Just curious as I'm guessing that perhaps different companies measure differently, or is there an industry standard?.

All my race skis lengths are accurate as to their actual stature, ie my 165 SL's measure 165 from tip to tail, or raw standing height. I've always assumed this to be the way all skis are measured.

Now I just received my first modern powder boards that are sold as 189's. Their actual standing height is 185 however if you measure the actual base from tip to tail along its surface then 189 comes up. I would consider these a 185 instead of 189's, however with tip and tail rockers now in play in a large % of modern skis, perhaps the convention that I grew up with has changed to accommodate this new design trend?

So I'm curious if all rockered skis are measured this way (actual base surface length) or does each company do their own thing?

I'm figuring its kinda important to know as 4-5 cm difference in measuring convention is like a whole ski size difference for some manufactures, and if your thinking one thing, and order X you might be in for a surprise when you get X-5.

[glademaster]

There is no convention. Different manufacturers measure skis differently. Any stated length can be +/- 5cm's from actual.

Just like there is variation in BSL's (i.e. a Lange 306 may measure up to 5 mm's different from another manufacturers 306mm BSL).

[SiSt]

Seems there's some kind of pattern of American indies measuring standing height, many euros measure base length and the big names measure whatever the marketing departement feels like.

All ours are measured as base length, btw.

[nickwm21]

All my race skis lengths are accurate as to their actual stature, ie my 165 SL's measure 165 from tip to tail, or raw standing height. I've always assumed this to be the way all skis are measured.

That is the correct way per FIS, basically the 2D length of the ski. So yea, there is a convention for race skis and it should be followed for everthing else.

[Scottish_Skier]

K2 measure the effective edge length of the ski after it has been pressed.
So they "ski long".
i.e 188cm in K2 is similar to 191cm dynastar.

Even with out considering the effect rocker may have there is no cross-brand protocol.

[skimaxpower]

the big names measure whatever the marketing departement feels like.

Too true. K2 is guilty as hell.

[TeCeBe]

There are 2 lengths of skis available from manufacturers. Mens and womens.

[Like a Boss]

I measure from the taint. Oh ski measurement...nevermind.

[Whipper]

I just go effective edge if there's camber to equal to the or near the top of my head. The rocker at both ends make the ski much taller than me but the effective edge is spot on. If the ski is flat full rockered then it really is personal because the effective edge is so short you can go way over your head and be just fine or short width for float mostly the concern I find. Theres a great chart on Epic some were,were a guy took surface area and calculated that to weight to determine the min waist width to floating said person. Ive used it and it actually works!! The more ya go over recommended min the higher in the powder you float. Simple enough to understand. it was accauly this that made me go from a 127mm waisted powder ski to a 112 for all round use. 120 is the perfict waist to get the surfy feel in deep power for me at 220. But 112 feels just fine also and still rip hard pack.
Most of the fIS guide lines for ski lengths for each discipline are based on skis 66 mils at the waist. So the calculation reference to fatter rockered skis based on surface area to use the same methode would have us all skiing much shorter than we tend to. I tryed some 173 Blizzard Bones {only length to try that day} i had a blast on them and found them stable even at 60mph so that had me thinking about this very subject.

I would encourage trying real short rockered skis if you ski 185-190,s try some 173-175 in the same ski at a demo one day. Depending on the ski of course I cant say for other skis that might be softer but those blizz Bones works fine short probably still over a 200cm surface area from days gone past were we all skied 203-220,s if your old enough to recall. im 6ft 220.

[M_R]

I tryed some 173 Blizzard Bones {only length to try that day} i had a blast on them and found them stable even at 60mph so that had me thinking about this very subject.

I would encourage trying real short rockered skis if you ski 185-190,s try some 173-175 in the same ski at a demo one day. Depending on the ski of course I cant say for other skis that might be softer but those blizz Bones works fine short probably still over a 200cm surface area from days gone past were we all skied 203-220,s if your old enough to recall. im 6ft 220.

Interesting point, however I would imaging that each ski will likely behave differently at speed in different snow conditions.

My only rocker ski reference is a Solly Rocker 2 that I skied in a 180. (I'm around 200 and 5'11") The effective edge was short with lots of tip and tail rocker which made this ski very turny/slarvy and overall fun at lower speeds in powder and steep tight trees. However I found the ski short at speed. Despite being fairly center mounted, i felt like I wanted more tail and the stability was so so. I came away from my week on these boards loving the experience but also telling myself I'd get one size up if ever purchased a pair. So I guess each ski will behave differently at speed.

Now as far a ski lengths, thanks for the input guys, glad I'm not missing anything and am not going crazy.

[M_R]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start a TGR reference thread for big mountain skis so mags can reference a manufacturer to figure out what they'll get as far as length. This would especially be useful if buying a brand that you haven't skied before. We can read up all day long on performance and ski characteristics to make the decisions on what sticks to pull the trigger on, however most ego's on this site would say go for the 19X if asked about length choice and that simply doesn't work for everybody. I needed a mid 180's ski and was very hesitant getting the 189 bluehouse maestro for fear it might just be a tad too long, however was supper happy once I received it and saw that it measured only 185 in 2D length, its actual base length was a true 189. I would have been really pissed had I opted for the 178 ( the next size down) which likely would measure in the low 170's and really would have been too short.

So is TGR game to this? List would only apply to non race skis.

we could start a list of manufacturers and then label them as one of three ski length measuring conventions that were mentioned above, namely:

standing height , base length and effective edge

so something like this:

Bluehouse - base length
K2 - effective edge
Line -
ON3P -
4FRNT -
DPS -
Icelantic -
Faction -
Armada -
Atomic -
Black Diamond -
Dynastar -
Elan -
Fischer -
Head -
Rossignol -
Salomon -
Volkl -

etc....

[pruitt]

Not exactly the same but I had similar questions and ended up comparing K2s to some BD Amps. See info and pics here.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...gth?highlight=

[Johnny Deep]

Red is always longer, so go for those.

[mountaingoat]

Obviously not skiing and getting laid enough. Categorically real mountain ski lengths are a ballpark, the nerdy on paper +/- micro differences doesn't help determine what ski you'll love. Doesn't actually reflect if it'll ski big or small when it's real. Just got to go ski, they work or they don't.