Float - Surface area matters, right?

[spaztwelve]

I have a dilemma. Hopefully someone can help. I'm looking at some fatties. 120 underfoot and about 188 length. Early rise tip and tail...you know, the regular new stuff. Seems simple enough, right? The issue I have is this. I'm 6'2". With this much surface area, do I really need 5 or 6 more centimeters? Would it make a difference? I mean, if the longer ski were slightly more narrow in the waist and tip, wouldn't it be a wash (without doing the math)?

Man, I hate transition times in skiing. There's no consensus. No sanity. Ahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

[whyturn]

191 lhasa and 179 toon, 188 megawatt 186 renegaede,190 112 for me. same size as you. fatter can be shorter for float, but a little 60 mph stability loss is trade off. but they are quicker with less swingweight in shorter
so you decide. 195 will truck, but wont swing as quick. float will be minimal

[toast2266]

Unless you're skiing really tight trees all the time or care about swing weight in the air (i.e. doing a lot of flippy-spinny-jibby stuff), go longer. rocker + fat = really easy to swing around in tight spaces. Sure you can get plenty of float on something shorter, but it won't be as stable.

[spaztwelve]

What's your take on Rossi super S7s?

[lynchdogger]

To add to what others have said . . .

Yes, it matters. Terrain and most common snow conditions - east coast, west coast, etc. Style and type of skiing? Huck and/or flip a lot? Prefer longer radius turn or shorter or ability to mix it up? It all matters.

There is no consensus but that is what it makes it sooo good. Comes down to personal choice. Try before you buy if possible.

Best of all the search function works really well!

[butterscotch]

Height is irrelevant, how much do you weigh?

My personal rule of thumb is "no powder skis < 190 cm" but what really matters the length of the ski from the midsole forward.

Also, consider snow density. If you ski lighter snow, you want more surface area.

[spaztwelve]

I'm 6'2" and 220 (maybe more...I'm scared of the scale). Lynchdogger, I hear you on the search part. It's more a question about surface area of slightly shorter skis. Kind of like this...

Ski 1: 145/120/135 - 188cm

Ski 2: 140/115/127 - 195cm

Let's assume the effective edge is similar...140cm or so

They'll ski differently for sure (different manufactures, radii, material, construction, etc) but on a purely scientific level will you get about the same level of float?

Should powder ski manufacturers start listing the surface area of their skis? Hmmmm?

Eh...I suppose you can learn to ski anything but isn't this kind of an interesting pursuit?

[james11]

I'm 6'2" and 220 (maybe more...I'm scared of the scale). Lynchdogger, I hear you on the search part. It's more a question about surface area of slightly shorter skis. Kind of like this...

Ski 1: 145/120/135 - 188cm

Ski 2: 140/115/127 - 195cm

Let's assume the effective edge is similar...140cm or so

They'll ski differently for sure (different manufactures, radii, material, construction, etc) but on a purely scientific level will you get about the same level of float?

Should powder ski manufacturers start listing the surface area of their skis? Hmmmm?

Eh...I suppose you can learn to ski anything but isn't this kind of an interesting pursuit?

I think float is going to have a lot to do with HOW the surface area is DISTRIBUTED . You would have to ask someone studied in physics but I imagine that 2 skis could have the same amount of surface area but if one is regular camber, regular sidecut and the other is reverse sidecut with lots of rocker it's obviously going to float very differently than the first ski..... A ski with even less surface area could very well float better than a ski with more surface area depending on the design. Now notice that I said float DIFFERENTLY, not necessarily "more". My rudimentary understanding of physics tells me that same surface area = same amount of float( I could be very wrong here... ) but if you have very little surface area underfoot and lots at the tip and tail your tips and tail are going to float with less float underfoot resulting in the ski hanging up, not have the slashy feeling etc....

So, I think you need to consider all the factors -
- Surface area
- Sidecut design
- Rocker
- Length

[bridge]

just get some hellbents, my 189's (198 cm) swing around like a champ in tight spaces. the tip and tail are really light and really soft, the ski is really well balanced making for a very fun easy ski, however they are heavy. If you don't ski a lot or are just out of shape, size down to the 179.

I think you need to think about flex pattern as well. I would bet a really stiff hellbent would NOT float the same as the normal soft ones, and would probably weigh even more. In my experience stiffer skis cut through powder as where softer float, just depends on what you're looking for.

[vtdownhiller]

consider the difference in the length ahead of you and behind you. A fatter 186 cm and a narrower longer 195 will technically have the same surface area but the 195 will allow you to have more stability and pivot, especially with a dude of your size.

[Shin-to-Win]

If Ski 1 is rockered and you like to go fast in pow, then go longer.

I'm shorter than you but not much lighter and found 186 Billy Goats too short and too turny for wide open pow (trees were great though), but love my 188 Bros which have no rocker. Now on 191 Lhasas. Have also owned and liked OG 193 EHP.

Unless you are a gaper or ski in the trees ALL the time, I think a 195 super 7 or EHP/Renegade 193 would fit the bill as a pow specific ski. I'm sure there are others.

[single]

A lot of questionable information in this thread.

Float is going to relate a lot to the camber profile, the stiffness of a ski, and the speed at which you ride. Not just width.

Case in point: Rossi phantom SC108. Float like a tank (AKA, not much) until you are going 87mph.

You could pretty much have a 120mm underfoot ski that wont float as well as a S3 at average speeds. It would just need to be real stiff/heavy and have a ton of camber.

So, to answer your question, depends on the rocker profile of the ski and the flex. If it is the same ski, flotation will likely be directly correlated to length, although different lengths often use different stiffness/rocker-camber profiles.

If this is another "188 vs. 195" S7, and you are 220# and over six foot, get the 195 if you are any good at skiing. If you qualify your skiing ability to what color/shape of the runs you ski, get the 188.

[lynchdogger]

AAAAAHHH SH*T!!! You had to get all scientific and pull out the physics?!

Got it. But still it's a personal choice unless you are a ski designer - how much float does someone like vs. another? Just like the recent thread - how fat is too fat?

For me it will never come down to a scientific formula (but glad somebody is coming up with these shapes and designs).

For me its not the float (they are all gonna float) but it's the feel of the ski - flex, pop, responsiveness, the shape, etc. The ski that fits my style and provides the feel that I like - that's what I'm looking for and that may vary from day to day (where skiing, what terrain, what conditions expected, so on). I want that same feel in a pow ski as my daily driver albeit maybe in a little softer more rockered version but still with camber underfoot!

Fun to think about.

I agree with the statement that no pow skis less than 190 cm for now on! I had the 183 Bents last year and with what few airs I hit the tail felt short on the landings and just sold them for that reason. That's why these in a 190 are on the way soon!



Let it snow! And snow . . . and snow . . . and snow . . .

[arewolfe]

No comment on the surface area thing, but damn if I was 6'2" 220 I would not want to be on anything less than 190. For rockered pow boards I'd want closer to 200.

[nickwm21]

No comment on the surface area thing, but damn if I was 6'2" 220 I would not want to be on anything less than 190. For rockered pow boards I'd want closer to 200.

amen... go big or go home.

That 188 rockered ski, will ski like a 170 in everything but deeeeep pow.

[spaztwelve]

HAHAHAHA...I love the responses in this thread. I'm a good enough skier and I normally ski on 190+ skis (but up until now, regular camber, regular tip tail rise, and 110+ under foot). There's obviously so many variables. I'm just curious if any had figured it out.

There's gotta be a point when you include early rise tips with ample width where you can reduce the overall length. There's physics in there somewhere, I just don't know what it is.

[Wild4umlauts]

That 188 rockered ski, will ski like a 160 in everything but deeeeep pow.

Fixed it for ya.

[Vitamin I]

...With this much surface area, do I really need 5 or 6 more centimeters? Would it make a difference?...

Nothing in skiing is "really needed" (well, maybe for people who hunt their food on skis), but yes, add 5-6cm to a ski, and it makes a difference.

...I mean, if the longer ski were slightly more narrow in the waist and tip, wouldn't it be a wash...?...

Yes, but only for certain moves in certain conditions. So, not a wash for many moves in many conditions.

What's your take on Rossi super S7s?

My take is: Damp, powerful, slarvy playtime fun with a fat-ass tip. More details [ame=http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200548]here[/ame].

...on a purely scientific level will you get about the same level of float?...

Depends what you mean by "more float". I think different people here have different definitions for "more float". Is your definition something like: Ski achieves planing at lower speed? Or: High-speed planing position is up higher? Tip doesn't dive as much? Tip rises higher above the surface? Deepest point of the ski is higher? Feet are higher? Displaces more snow during a 90 degree hockey stop? A "cushier", more "weightless" feeling when doing the bouncy-bounce pow technique? Etc... My point is I don't think people here agree on a precise definition for "float" of skis in powder.

...Should powder ski manufacturers start listing the surface area of their skis?...

We can do it ourselves. Endre measures it annually for many skis in FriFlyt. If manufacturers reported it, they would not match Endre's accuracy. I have a formula that estimates surface area for any ski (input common stuff like widths, length, etc), and whose outputs average zero error over a set of 2 year's worth of Endre's data. It is accurate enough to be useful, especially when normalized to an iconic uberfat ski.

...I'm just curious if any had figured it out.

There's gotta be a point when you include early rise tips with ample width where you can reduce the overall length.

Could credit Pollard for "figuring that out"---all his fatty designs have been short from the start. Then again, before him, Shane made the Spatula pretty short since it was fatter. Then again, Pow+ first came out short in 180cm only. Then again, original snowboarders went shorter and fatter compared to skis.

.

[farmer]

HAHAHAHA...I love the responses in this thread. I'm a good enough skier and I normally ski on 190+ skis (but up until now, regular camber, regular tip tail rise, and 110+ under foot). There's obviously so many variables. I'm just curious if any had figured it out.

There's gotta be a point when you include early rise tips with ample width where you can reduce the overall length. There's physics in there somewhere, I just don't know what it is.

but float isn't the only point of the length of a ski. I had this argument with a guy I went to school with. He was a slowboarder, and insisted that surface area was the be all end all, and so my 192 bros were completely pointless. I like to go fast, as do many on here. The length (along with a billion other factors, stiffness, radius, etc) give the ski so much more stability at speed compared to my older shorter skis that have a smaller waist. It means that the 192's are actually a better hardpack ski than any skinny ski I've tried. Granted, I've never been on race skis, but I love the 192s for everything.

Early rise makes a ski feel shorter from what I've heard. Going even shorter would put you on god damned snowblades. Sure, the float might be possible, but the shorter length would change the speed limit too. Of course, some like a shorter ski to begin with for something that is turnier. Like you said, there are so many variables; snow conditions, weight, how the individual skis in each situation, pitch, speed, boots, bindings, personal preference, etc. All of these can completely change how a ski feels while having nothing to do with the ski itself. I think it would be almost impossible to quanitfy all of that, even if someone could come up with a model to analyze it. There isn't a scale to measure how much people like a ski. It would be like trying to use a tape measure to tell how much you love your wife. You can qualify it, but there is no way to actually quantify it.

That's why we have so many different skis, and what I think is the perfect ski, someone else might think is a piece of shit. I let my dad try a run on my 192's (we have the same BSL). He didn't like them at all. He likes to ski on a short, low radius carving ski, thinks that powder is a lot or work, and if he could use a computer he would probably be on epic ski. I skied with him on his short carving skis that he loves, and thought they were crap. Is either of us right? No. If we were, there would be one ski on the market and that would be it.

[rush1975]

No comment on the surface area thing, but damn if I was 6'2" 220 I would not want to be on anything less than 190. For rockered pow boards I'd want closer to 200.

I'm 6'1 210 and love my 195 Praxis powder boards

[Beyond]

If you actually do the math, width has a far larger impact on surface area than length. So hard to say if it "would be a wash," but imagine you have a 140-120-130 ski. 6 more cm in length would increase the SA from 2350 to 2425 Sq cm. OTOH, you'd end up with the same SA increase by increasing width only 6 mm. (Two values not necessarily the same number, just a coincidence in this example) Point being that width is what counts.

Also, in powder, your height is largely irrelevant. Your weight, along with the velocity you ski at, the density of the snow, and the angle of attack of the shovel will produce lift. When your lift = total weight of you and your gear, you plane. Eg, you neither sink nor rise. IMO, folks get obsessed with width and forget about the other major variable, how fast you typically ski. You don't need a bunch of width (and the extra length/stability might be useful) if you mach. Lots of width is mostly helpful for ironing out crud or wiggling through trees at lower speeds. There's been a thread on this, good reading.

Finally, rocker will be added to your SA only if it's in contact with the snow. So a non-rockered ski of the same length and width will actually have more - not less - float in one or two inches of powder. Once there's enough pow for you to sink into it past the rocker, then you've got that extra SA. Can't speak to how the shovel and rocker shape will influence lift per se; that's seriously complicated.

[montanamike]

I'm just curious if any had figured it out.

193EHP will put a smile on your face