Weigh In

[Manney]

I’m hoping to get 10% off used 75mm boots with cracked duckbills and rusted smiley plates. Only because the 6 holed duckbills cost too much. Those re the ones you can mount them forward or back for more, less drive.

[wabene]

I've never understood what height has to do with ski length. I would hazard to guess shoe size is more relevant to driving a ski than body length, but neither is as important as weight, strength and technique. I'm 5'9" and weigh 182 with size 12 feet. Can a man who is 6'0" and 182 pounds with size 10 feet drive a ski harder than me? Would my big, smelly feet win the day?

[TallGrass]

I've never understood what height has to do with ski length. I would hazard to guess shoe size is more relevant to driving a ski than body length, but neither is as important as weight, strength and technique. I'm 5'9" and weigh 182 with size 12 feet. Can a man who is 6'0" and 182 pounds with size 10 feet drive a ski harder than me? Would my big, smelly feet win the day?

Leverage and balance.
AB is ski length.
CD is skier height.
The shorter BD (or AD) is the easier it is for the skier to fall over the tips (or tails) as ∠DBC (or ∠DAC) gets closer to 90°, but the longer it is the longer the platform you have for stability. Not to say those are the only things, yet they do stand out.

[wabene]

@TallGrass I'm just starting Paul Parker's book Free-Heel Skiing. In the first chapter he says, "A ski doesn't know how tall you are, it knows how heavy you are."
Your body is not a lever, it is too flexible. Imagine sticking a thin bamboo pole under an object and over a fulcrum. Press down and the pole bends while the object does not move.
I would not consider my height when choosing a ski. My weight and intended use are the main factors.

[TallGrass]

@TallGrass I'm just starting Paul Parker's book Free-Heel Skiing. In the first chapter he says, "A ski doesn't know how tall you are, it knows how heavy you are."
Your body is not a lever, it is too flexible. Imagine sticking a thin bamboo pole under an object and over a fulcrum. Press down and the pole bends while the object does not move.
I would not consider my height when choosing a ski. My weight and intended use are the main factors.

Paul is anthropomorphizing, acting like a ski is human, that it can feel, can know -- it isn't, and it can't.

The body can totally act like a lever. It's composed of bone that are linked with muscles et alii to allow/disallow joints to move or remain fixed.

The bamboo pole in your example is still a lever and force is still transferred, same as a tire iron on a stuck lug nut. Conspicuous movement is not a requisite. If flex precluded levers, then a beam-type torque wrench wouldn't be a thing.

Taking height into consideration is common.

Finding a pair of skis with the right length can be quite a challenge. When choosing the right length, you'll need to consider your height, skill level, the type of ski...
https://www.snow-online.com/skimag/how- ... kis-be.htm

What Length Should My Skis Be? Your skis should be the right size for your height, weight and skiing style & ability.
https://www.evo.com/guides/how-to-choos ... size-chart

[tkarhu]

Ingstad 190cm skier height, 90kg skier weight, 205cm ski, bmi 24.9. Ingstad set up for lower bmi skiers? The chart #s make it look that way.

Tonje 170cm, 75kg, 185cm, bmi 26.0
Cecilie 180cm, 85kg, 195cm, bmi 26.2
Nansen 178cm, 85kg, 195cm, bmi 26.8

Breidablik 180cm, 95kg, 200cm, bmi 29.3
Amundsen, 180cm, 95kg, 201cm, bmi 29.3
Gamme 54 180 cm, 95kg, 200 cm, bmi 29.3
Finmark 180cm, 95kg, 200 cm, bmi 29.3
Combat NATO 170 cm, 85 kg, 200cm, bmi 29.4

This is a funny, but useful chart Thanks both for a good laugh and good information. The point of view surprised me.

The chart reminds me of an old "pseudo-scientific conclusion" that ice cream sales causes drowning deaths because there is a strong correlation between the two. That is a textbook example how a correlation does not mean a causal relationship.

For me, the Åsnes ski chart above shows which Åsnes skis have most stiff double cambers. And, I appreciate the information because I like double cambers. I guess high bmi = stiff cambers essentially. Also, you should count average gear weight into a manufacturer chart weight, when choosing skis. Like an earlier @bauerb funny photo in this thread hints.

Personally, I climbed ~5000 altitude meters last two weeks, when skiing XCD. During the two weeks, I gained 0.6 kg weight, but lost 0.4 cm waist circumference. In my XCD case, the weight gained is probably more muscle mass than fat, I would say.

I did eat enormous amounts during the two weeks (plus to a less extent one week after), and food that would be unhealthy with normal energy consumption. But in this case, that was healthy eating, because it matched my energy consumption. Earlier on I would have looked at body weight, thought that I have collected fat, and have tried to get rid of it. That would have been bad for both performance and health, I think now.

I guess XCD gives you muscle mass because when climbing, you have quite big resistances. It both looks and feels that I have gained muscle mass this winter. By contrast, when I have been XC skiing more a few winters, I have lost several kilos each winter.

Like many others, I believe that waist circumference shows better what is going on in my body than body weight. Did anybody else mention waist circumference in this thread yet? Also many national health recommendations say that waist cirumference is a better metrics than BMI. (However, for big groups of people / on national health level, BMI makes sense. Based on this idea, XC vs downhill BMI comparisons might make sense).

On the other hand, I think when starting any new sport, the sport is first strength training because you have to build a basic strength level for the sport. For example, when sea kayaking, you need lots of strength of many small back muscles that are located between your shoulder blades. In normal life, you do not use the muscles that much. Later on, you can improve endurance on top of the basic strength level of the "sport specific" muscles.

[Manney]

Idk if you have enough info to arrive at the conclusions you made about stiffer ski models. Lots of things going on. The width of the skis and overall surface area by model would influence weight capacity. Explains NATO Combat… modest camber but has the highest weight bearing capacity per unit of length.

On cause and effect… it might be that ski companies have a specific body type in mind (cause) for the skis they produce (effect). Or it could be that high bmi skiers cherry pick from the charts (cause), ending up with a ski that only satisfies them to a certain extent (cause)… which drives GAS (effect). Or the conscious lack of skis for high bmi people (cause) drives them towards DH models (effect), which don’t rely on height, weight charts at all.

There’s a system out there that is height, weight, waist circ, and neck circ. Result is another guess on fitness. Just a guess though. Could have the heart and lungs of a gnat due to cigarettes, bad crack habit.

This poll was never about any of that to me. Talk of fitness, capability raised by others. I interested in whether the amateur side of the sport was aligned with the professional side… the pros fall in the bmi 22-25 range for xc, dh. Extremely rare to see a pro well above or below that… and it’s been studied to death.

[tkarhu]

@Manney By average, lower BMI people might be in better shape than excess BMI skiers. Further, people who are in better shape, might prefer stiffer skis. Because stiff skis require certain skill and strength levels, BMI might not correlate with camber stiffness preference.

Probaby worth of mentioning, the above ideas might not apply to athletes. Yet an average skier probably isn't that athletic in a consumer market.

I got interested in the Combat NATO based on the above data. A high camber necessarily isn't a stiff camber and vice versa. Many soft skis have had high cambers, when not compressed.

[Manney]

Yep. Agree with all that. Especially the lack of athleticism across the market. Lots of occasional skiers, short distances, low angles, fetichism, gear obsession, etc.

Bmi isn’t an absolute imho. Might mean something when aggregated on a very large scale. It raises some interesting Qs and the need for more digging.

If I could do it over again, would use different categories. Bmi 0-21, 21.1-25, 25.1-28, 28.1 and up. That would reveal a bit more relative to professionals and available skis.

21.1-25 would be ideal (in line with FIS data, easy to fit for skis), 25.1-28 (stalky but still able to find skis). 0-21 and 28.1 & up would be outlier categories (not ideally suited for the sport, really hard to fit for skis). All this being about skis and defined markets, not health or fitness.

[TallGrass]

Yep. Agree with all that. Especially the lack of athleticism across the market. Lots of occasional skiers, short distances, low angles, fetichism, gear obsession, etc.

What is "fetichism" (feti: plural of fetus; chism: division; ...?) , and what are the rest of the skier groups besides what you listed?