Why are Goode skis shorter than Radar, D3, and Ho

[texasall6]

Can someone explain why Goode's longest ski is so much shorter than other brands? In other words, why doesn't Goode make a 68' or 69'?

[skidawg]

They measure different

[A_B]

It all goes back to the N1, "one-size fits all" stance they took. Later realized maybe the Kool Aid needed a little sugar, so now a couple lengths.

[texasall6]

Thanks guys.

[londonskier]

Goode skis are made with only the finest quality materials. They costs more than $2k each. If they started making them the correct length, no one could afford them. So they use a bit less carbon and keep the price down! That's why they are a bit shorter. Simple economics.

[LeonL]

@AB, I think it goes back much further than that. Their measurements have been unique for quite some time.

[Chef23]

The 66.75" N1 I have is a little longer than the 67" Vapor my son is on. They seem to measure differently than other vendors. I don't know if this is cord length vs material length that is seen in the alpine ski industry.

[SkiJay]

@texasall6‌ Are you asking how Goode measures their skis, or why they recommend shorter ski lengths for a give skier's weight than the other companies?

[Horton]

Ski sizing is about marketing.

 

If a factory makes a new ski that is designed to work for skiers who are 175 to 195 lbs and skis at 34 mph they are going to call it a 67”. They might make one for skiers who weigh between 155 and 180 and call it a 66”. The actual length of the ski means crap. Skiers expect a ski of a specific “Size” to work for them. When a ski company thinks the size of a skis is between expected sizes then call it some inch and ½ or ¼. It is all about perception.

 

My point is 65”, 66”, 67”, or 68” are just labels. I am not saying it is a bad system but the physical length of the ski not really meaningful. If you got one of each size for a model of ski in some cases you would find that they are labeled in inch increments but the skis are not actually different in length by 1”.

 

I am 190 lbs with a PB of 2 @ 39 so I generally ride skis that the industry calls a 67”. In most cases these skis are just less than 7” wide in front of my front foot and my front binding go at 29.5” and 30”. The distance from the tip to tail means what?

 

I imagine the test team signs off in a final design for a ski and tells the CAD guy make the ski exactly like the last prototype and to lengthen or shorten the tip of the ski so it roughly fits the size they are going to call it.

In the case of Goode: Dave does everything different. He has his own charts. It shows that the size labels are arbitrary.

 

[MrJones]

John. You are just begging for Chipman to break out his surface area chart. :) Someone should post a pic of Harald's chopped ski. Probably a 63".

[Horton]

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

 

[Horton]

OMG

Since the actual length of a ski is arbitrary so is any gross square inch #. @scotchipman‌ you do understand that if I make the tip longer I also increase the square inches?

 

What about a Radar Vapor? If it did not have the window would I need a shorter one? Got to be 4 square inches there.

[Horton]

@MrJones‌ may have to kill you

[Horton]

The last 3 inches of my Warp is an part they glue on after they make the ski so I guess the ski is really a 64.

[Horton]

As always the best way to determine the proper ski to buy is manufacturer recommendation

 

Might be the smartest thing you have ever said

[Horton]

meh. not ridiculous. How can you define "active"?

[Horton]

FYI a 1/4" is MASSIVELY HUGE.

[Horton]

The less rocker the bigger that active area?

[Horton]

Let's just agree that I am right and you are wrong so we can move on

[Horton]

Come on Chippy I am funny