Short vs long skis for powder?

[JB TELE]

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.

I just want to know if people prefer longer or shorter skis in powder, assuming similar flotation, based on their own personal experiences and preferences. I appreciate all of the detailed responses but a lot of this is getting confusing.

[phoenix]

I prefer longer skis in powder.

[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.

...

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.

What it means is:

1. not to get bamboozled into discussing short or long skis when talking about floatation (or more correctly, weight bearing capacity on soft snow). It’s a red herring. The surface areas are roughly the same unless you’re comparing very skinny and very fat skis.

2. If you’re on a long ski and having edge control issues, the problem lies with the skier. There’s lots of edge on a long ski. All going to a shorter ski will do is reduce edge hold. More angulation would be needed because the edging forces are higher per unit of length. So if the skier can’t find an effective edge thru angulation on a long ski, they likely won’t be able to do so on a shorter ski. All things being equal, of course, like base edge angle etc.

3. if you’re in knee deep powder and can’t seem to find a way out, a bit more surface area (float) might be the answer. This is not a long or short ski issue. It’s a surface area issue. Do the calculation… just don’t lose sight of camber.

It goes without saying that edging is less of an issue than float if you’re in knee deep powder.

[Stephen]

I’m sticking to what I already said:
https://telemarktalk.com/viewtopic.php? ... =10#p63671

But, like @Manney said, it’s not just short or long.
I think a wider ski will give you more stability under foot (not fore and aft, but foot stability — a wider surface to stand on).
A wider ski will give you more float for unit of length, so a “shorter” ski can work.
But, that’s only shorter relative to a longer, narrower ski, with similar surface area.

And, like @phoenix said, a lot of people prefer longer skis in deep snow.
And if the longer ski has some tip and tail rocker, it will be easier to turn than a ski with a long cambered section.

I hope that is clear and helpful.
If not, ask more questions!

[JB TELE]

My hypervector BCs are about nose level (164) and 123/92/108. Yes that was helpful.

My question wasn't really about flotation. I'm aware that a long skinny and short wide can have the same flotation. My question was more about what is easier to control on the downhill in powder where my boots and skis are buried, assuming the same flotation, tip rocker, ect. I would assume that a shorter ski would be easier to maneuver through the turn when buried in powder but maybe a longer ski would be more stable and be easier to keep straight? Or does it not really matter? I suppose I'll find out more this winter (supposed to be another big winter for Colorado). For more context I'm a newer tele skier who is looking to ski up to 20, maybe 25 degree slopes slowly and conservatively in the backcountry rather than blast downhill with long sweeping arcs.

[Krummholz]

I know side cut is a factor carving on piste. Any thoughts when in deep powder. I found the fact sheet for skies I picked up last Christmas, they list turn radius as a function of ski length. I went with 176cm. Does that even matter in deep powder??. I was still learning fore/aft balance when they porpoise without nose diving.

[JB TELE]

Telemark powder skiing is something I'm trying to work on this season.
If your choice was between a shorter ski (nose height) or a longer ski (a little bit taller than you) and they both provided similar floatation, which one would be easier to ski and turn in powder up to your knees?

I have some voile hypervector bcs in a 164 length (123/92/108) and I'm curious how they would handle compared to a voile objective in a 178 length or an s-bound 112 type ski in a 179 length, both a bit skinner but probably similar float due to longer length. I'm using old school heavy duty leather tele boots (merrel ultras) if that matters.

I would think that shorter skis would be easier to guide through a turn when buried, but maybe longer skis would be more stable? Not sure yet as I'm still trying to figure out powder turns.

What type of turns you want/need to make in deep soft snow?
And by extension- how high in the snow collumn do you want to be?
And also how steep and fast you want/need to ski?

Longer skis are definitely more stable than shorter skis- especially at high speeds.

One cannot reasonably "drive"- or hold it on edge- a ski as wide as the vector with a leather boot-
so if you want to use that boot I would suggest that the narrower Objective (or narrower) would be a better "fit".
Both the Vector and Objective have a long working edge- without a rockered tail- and are best suited to a more traditional driving/charging/carving turn.

The S-Bound type ski is much more of a Nordic touring ski than the Vector/Objective.

I can turn skis in deep powder with much less heavy-duty boots than your Merrel Ultra- but I cannot make tight radius surfy/slarvy turns, because I am deep in the snow collumn on a much narrower ski.

My widest touring ski is the Altai Kom (98mm) and I need plastic boots to be able to drive that ski downhill.
I have the 162 Kom- and ski moderate treed slopes with it-
I would want at least the 174 Kom if I was going to charge in steep truly mountainous terrain- I find the 162mc unstable at high speed. I would probably want a 183 or probably even a 188 Voile V6 if I was skiing big lines in the western mountains...

I'm not sure what you what you mean by "types of turns" to be honest. Just dropping a knee, pressuring the rear ski, and causing the ski to turn. I'm far too new to tele skiing to understand.
I like the snow to at least come up to the tops of my boots when going downhill. That has always felt the most stable to me, regardless of ski width. Deeper is ok, and seems fun, but still figuring out how to turn in that. If I'm on top of the powder in leather boots then I know I should switch to a narrower ski.

My intent is to have a ski for those 10% of days when we get a big powder and it hasn't settled and condensed yet. I would rather be in the snow going downhill with just enough float for touring. My 179 s-bound 98s seem ideal for most of the other days.

When skiing very low moisture fresh powder deeper than my boot tops, which is what I'm trying to use the hypervectors 164s for, I don't feel like I'm edging the ski into anything. It feels more like ultra high friction air if that makes sense. It's more of a weight transfer pressuring one ski. My struggle usually comes from the friction of the snow pulling my skis in different directions making it hard to keep a tight stance, but I improved on that a bit last season. It never felt like I was trying to tilt the skis on edge and having them slide/skitter out from under me, which I've experienced a lot with my s-bound 98s on very hard snow in leather boots. But maybe my perception of what's happening is different that what's really happening.

I do not ski at high speeds, I don't really care about that. I'm just touring around my local hills and skiing downhill slowly with lots of traverses.

The objective in a length that has comparable flotation to my hypervectors (164 vs 179) is only 6mm narrower at the waist and 6mm at the tip. Not a lot.

[JB TELE]

I know side cut is a factor carving on piste. Any thoughts when in deep powder. I found the fact sheet for skies I picked up last Christmas, they list turn radius as a function of ski length. I went with 176cm. Does that even matter??.

The general consensus I've found from talking to downhill focused alpine skiers is that sidecut is less important for turning in the ultra soft fluffy stuff because its more of a surfy weight transfer and less sidecut makes them feel more stable and less squirrely when buried. Many of the super wide reverse camber powder boards have very little sidecut.

[CIMA]

It's important to mention that speed also affects floatation on powder, which was not discussed much earlier. The faster you go, the more floatation you'll experience. In particular, increasing the speed in the tangential direction of turns results in more floatation, much like the breaststroke in swimming.

There are two ways to achieve this. One is to tackle steep slopes, while the other is to learn short turns, common in telemark skiing. By making quick, snappy turns with a small radius, you can increase your tangential speed, causing your front ski to rise. You can then use this opportunity to transition to the next turn, similar to log hopping in an obstacle race.

While shorter skis may be advantageous for making short turns, we can't always do those turns during ski tours. Therefore, taking this into account, I prefer slightly longer skis.

[Stephen]

@JB TELE, I think reading this Voile blog post will help expand your understanding of skis: https://www.voile.com/blog/early-rise-c ... -shootout/

Learning how to interpret ski write ups and correlate that to your experience of the ski on the snow takes time, but is worth the effort.

For example, Voile writes this about the Hypervector:

DESCRIPTION

ALL MOUNTAIN & MOUNTAINEERING
DIRECTIONAL / CARVING

Make no mistake; the Voile HyperVector is a climbing machine. But don’t be fooled by its thirst for the up-track. This is a ski that was designed for downhill performance as much as uphill performance.

It shares the same camber profile and overall concept of the HyperCharger, but in a slimmed down version that’s easier on the approach and tuned to harder snow conditions. Like the other skis in our Hyper Series, it has a paulownia wood core and proprietary carbon/fiberglass weave that sheds significant weight when compared to the standard construction of the Voile UltraVector.

The HyperVector is a directional “carving” ski with an edge-to-edge feel, featuring a hard-working tail for control in ice, debris, and hardpack. A long running length with less sidecut provides for strong edging ability when driving fast and steep. However, not to be left out when the opportunity strikes, its early-rise tip and wide shovel ensure plenty of float in powder.

This is a backcountry ski that gets after it from pre-season to corn harvest—a ski that does it all