Short vs long skis for powder?

[lilcliffy]

For reference- I am 5'10" (178cm) tall and 185lbs (84kg).

[lilcliffy]

I've been using Madshus Epoch (NNN binding), a little shorter than my height. However, this winter, I plan to switch to Rossignol XP100, which is a little longer. I'm hoping that the Rossignol XP100 will be more stable in pitch. Both skis will perform similarly in terms of floatation.

I tested the XP100 in deep snow last winter- I am thinking you will find that this ski will float much higher in the snow collumn than the Epoch- it is significantly wider and has less sidecut. This ski has't gotten much attention- it is quite unique in its profile..Very interesting ski.

When the surface of powdered snow is flat and consistent, there won't be much difference between the two skis. However, in the backcountry, the snow surface is often uneven, and its density or hardness may change abruptly, causing speed changes. In such cases, the stability of pitch control becomes more critical. If we lose pitch control, we may end up falling headlong into the snow or falling on our buttocks. This is especially true when we ski in deep powder.

[lilcliffy]

I'm always scared of "math in public" but the Objectives at 112 underfoot are 21% wider than the HV's but only 8% longer. I'd bet the Objectives have more float and they're not so long that they'd adversely affect tight turning. Also a ski that's 112 UF will likely be more powder design oriented than one at 92 UF.

I think you might have some errors in your numbers...
The Vector is wider than the Objective- and pushes the 100mm width in its longest length-
Please correct me if I am wrong- but, I think you would need a wider ski to get up to 112mm width...

[lilcliffy]

In terms of the initial question, all things being equal, I prefer a longer ski for powder. For instance, I'd rather have a 171 or 178 Objective on a powder day than my 164's, for the float. While a shorter ski is usually easier to turn, less float equals harder turns.

With the Ultra's, I definitely wouldn't suggest going as wide as the HyperVectors. It's another case of "if the conditions are good and the slope is easy" you might get away with it, but you'd be spanked if less than ideal prevails. What binding are you using, or thinking of using?

[lilcliffy]

I was thinking shorter wider vs longer skinnier, assuming both have the same float, what would be easier to turn in powder.

The longer narrower ski is going to be more stable at speed and easier to drive with your leather boot.

I only use my hypervector bcs in deep fresh powder, like when I end up down to my shins/knees or deeper on the downhill.

And in this context- are you able to freely turn this ski with your leather boot?

I've been struggling with tele powder turns but I'm not totally sure if it's due to the width of the ski and using leather, or if it's just technique. Tom M made a video of him skiing longer hypervector bcs (the longer ones are slightly wider underfoot) on alfa frees and it seemed totally fine.

I have seen this video- terrain is moderate- the ski is floating in ideal snow- and Tom is simply weighting his skis and riding them through turns- using the inherent profile of the skis to come around- he is not driving those skis in that video- at least not from my observation.

Still trying to figure out how much the leather boot + skinny ski guidelines apply to powder surfing.

If you want to "surf"- smear; slarve- in deep powder snow- you need a very wide ski, with a full-rockered profile- and a rigid plastic boot. Leather boot + "skinny" ski in deep powder is awesome- but one is not "surfing" on top of the snow.

[CIMA]

I've been using Madshus Epoch (NNN binding), a little shorter than my height. However, this winter, I plan to switch to Rossignol XP100, which is a little longer. I'm hoping that the Rossignol XP100 will be more stable in pitch. Both skis will perform similarly in terms of floatation.

I tested the XP100 in deep snow last winter- I am thinking you will find that this ski will float much higher in the snow collumn than the Epoch- it is significantly wider and has less sidecut. This ski has't gotten much attention- it is quite unique in its profile..Very interesting ski.

That's great news and will make me look unlike the duck paddling its feet underneath the water.

[JB TELE]

I'm still trying to figure out the technique for telemark turning in powder. I've struggled with plastic boots as well. So not sure if the leather boots are an issue or not yet. But it sounds like you are suggesting that a skinner and longer ski with comparable float might be easier to turn with a leather boot in powder?

When I say "surf", I'm trying to emphasize that I'm not digging my edge into anything remotely firm. I only use these skis with leather boots when going downhill results in the entire ski and my boots disappearing, sometimes sinking up to my knees or below. My s-bound 98s get used for more common consolidated powder conditions. Maybe surf wasn't the right word.

[Stephen]

I'm still trying to figure out the technique for telemark turning in powder. I've struggled with plastic boots as well. So not sure if the leather boots are an issue or not yet. But it sounds like you are suggesting that a skinner and longer ski with comparable float might be easier to turn with a leather boot in powder?

When I say "surf", I'm trying to emphasize that I'm not digging my edge into anything remotely firm. I only use these skis with leather boots when going downhill results in the entire ski and my boots disappearing, sometimes sinking up to my knees or below. My s-bound 98s get used for more common consolidated powder conditions. Maybe surf wasn't the right word.

@JB TELE, Others might / probably have different opinions, but for the type of snow you are talking about (light, deep, dry Rocky Mountain Powder), it seems to me that a ski about your height, on the softer side, with at least tip rocker, >80mm to <100mm under foot would give you more stability on the ski, and let you stay closer to the surface of the snow and get more of a “surf” feeling, rather than deep in the snow “carve” feeling.
The skinnier ski is going to knife through the snow, a wider ski is going to sort of smear through the snow (in a fun way).

This would not be such a great ski for consolidated snow, maybe even very frustrating.
Just my .02 cents…

[Manney]

If you’re looking at skis from a ground pressure (float) perspective on soft snow, the only things that count are length and width. These two measurements determine ground pressure.

When you look at it this way, there’s scant difference (less than 3%) between a ski measuring 200 cm x 70 mm (1400 cm2) and 160 cm and 90 mm (1440 cm2) The surface area (and by extension, ground pressure) is essentially the same.

The biggest difference is in effective edge, with the longer ski obviously having a much greater edge (~25% difference). This is why camber ends up playing such a major role in ski handling… because it has such a profound effect on both the effective edge (length of the edge in actual contact with the snow) and a skier’s ability to use it easily or not. Side cut plays a role too, of course, but both skis will be relatively consistent in “side” if they are designed for roughly the same purpose. (Which is why the ground pressure example assumed the best/worst case example of a straight cut ski and wished away other features such as tip and tail rocker).

Edge angle is edge angle. Angle is angle after all and the edge doesn’t “see” ski width… at all. The most it sees is “area” at low edge angles in powdery conditions. And it’s already been established that the differences in area are vanishingly small.

But a ski that has greater effective edge length will have better edge hold for each degree of angulation… and cornering forces will be spread over a greater length and help prevent the holding limit of the snow from being exceeded... that is until the limit of hold is reached. Then the departure speeds will be greater and horrific crashes will ensue. This is what was happening in GS competition until FIS pulled the plug and got onboard with shorter parabolic skis first introduced by Elan over 30 years ago.

So a more sensible thing to reflect on, once you resolve the camber issue) is the ease or degree of control exercised by the skier though the boot and binding.

[Stephen]

If you’re looking at skis from a ground pressure (float) perspective on soft snow, the only things that count are length and width. These two measurements determine ground pressure.

...

So a more sensible thing to reflect on, once you resolve the camber issue) is the ease or degree of control exercised by the skier though the boot and binding.

What does all that mean for the person who asked the original question?
I mean, for one thing, "effective edge" isn't particularly relevant in knee deep powder.