Comparing skis the other day

[Glock]

I was at the ski shop over the weekend and was comparing the HO VTX and Radar Pro build. Both of these skis are 68s and I was shocked by the actual difference in length. What gives?

 

[aupatking]

The VTR is no different, way long compared to a ski it's "same size". I could make an un-educated guess, and say they (HO) are using some metric of wetted surface, rather than loa, but that is worth the paper I didn't write it on

I actually read this wrong and thought you said "comparing skis OF the other day", like days gone by. I have been holding on my urge to ask Horton to compare his "2018 Extreme" to a Ski of today, all other things being the same, i.e. Boat, zero off, boots, fin, etc. and maybe we get an idea how far the ski itself has evolved, but, forget I said it. I'm waiting for someone else to make that mistake.

[perfski]

Hey @Glock We asked this exact question when we started getting 65" VTX's that wouldn't fit in 63"=66" ski bags earlier this year. HO Brand Manager Dave Wingerter explained it to use this way: HO scales skis based on WIDTH and other companies tend to scale skis based on LENGTH. These companies constrain ski length and the width of the ski becomes a factor of "length scaling". HO feels constraining ski width and the length of the ski should be a factor or the width scaling. HO feels this creates greater ski performance especially at the smaller and larger ski sizes away from the typical 67” developmental size. As such you can't "measure"/ compare HO skis just by their actual length.

[lpskier]

I've seen several VTX skis on the water this winter. I'm not an HO guy, but that ski really looks like a winner. Or maybe I should say a "Winnergerter."

[dchristman]

This has me wondering why the end user has to do a lookup on a chart to convert ski size to recommended weight. I propose a new standard - manufacturers should denote ski sizes by recommended weight range at max speed. Models could be listed as maximum recommended weight and range downward at speed:

 

190-30/34 (compare to "traditional" 67)

160-40/34 (compare to "traditional" 65)

 

This would make clear a ski's intended weight range and eliminate the confusion caused by every manufacturer doing it differently. It would convey the designer's intent instead of an arbitrary number that I might be able to measure myself, but probably not, since the marked length is fudged to account for historical expectations.

[bigskieridaho]

@Glock yep, I am looking at skis as well and it seems that I am one size larger on a radar compared to an HO for the most part. Definitely feel it rolls around the running surface.

[ForrestGump]

HO told me a while back that they label the size based on the intended usage, not the actual length. So a ski that fit that 170-190 lb range was a 67 no matter it's physical dimensions. Mapple told me this too way back when.

[dchristman]

@scotchipman I'm with @horton on that. I don't want to translate length, width, or surface area! I should be able to look at a ski and know if I fit in the weight range it is designed for directly without having to look at a chart. The manufacturers recommendation can be printed right on the ski!

[jjackkrash]

Part of me cringes when I hear a ski is advertised as one length and its not, even if there is a good reason for the discrepancy.

[MNshortliner]

Not many companies make 69" course skis anymore.

[dchristman]

Doesn't something like this make more sense than 68"? Look at the difference in those ski lengths! 68" means next to nothing information wise. You might as well label the skis S, M, L, XL.

 

 

Use the high number on the left for model number. VTX-210 or a VPB-220G.

[Horton]

@scotchipman I honestly just don't have the energy to continue giving you pandas on this subject.

 

 

[Than_Bogan]

Never thought I'd see "all pandaed out."

[AdamCord]

I'm not sure surface area really works either, because the shape of the tunnel and bevels dictate the lift/drag of the ski as much as area. A small ski can be made to support a big skier with the right tunnel/bevels, and a small skier can ride a big ski with a lower lift tunnel/bevel combo. Really it's on the manufacturer to figure out who can ride which ski at certain speeds, and put out an easy to follow chart.

 

 

[ral]

All skis should be 69". For some reason, I like that number.

[Horton]

@Than_Bogan when @scotchipman brings this up AGAIN i feel like

 

 

[disland]

What happened to the Dave Goode 65" ski that was going to be the only ski anyone would ever need for all size skiers?

[Horton]

@disland the N1/XT is still a classic and one of the most successful skis in the last 10 years. At 185 I still ride the 65.25 original size.

[Horton]

Back to the original question. My understanding is the same as what @perfski said. The way it was explained to me was.... they get a ski the way they want it, figure out what size skier should ride it and then name it accordingly.

 

In other words they are saying "If you would traditionally expect to ride a 67 then ride the "HO 67" - don't worry about the actual physical length of the ski.

 

I usually look at the stock front binding placement and the max width of the ski to guess how big the ski is going to feel on the water. My VTX is at the lake so I can't measure it at the moment but the stock front binding is at 29.375. The ski looks pretty wide and the bindings are pretty far back so I will have no idea until I ride it. :- )

[Horton]

Just gimme one more reason to ban you and it is a done deal. I am tempted to try to reason with you but it is pointless. Like trying to teach a pig to sing.

[aupatking]

My buddy was arguing with a girl the other day. She said "you're like arguing with a post". "Doesn't make the post wrong" he says.

[Horton]

If the post is completely wrong do i have have listen to him?

[B_S]

I love it when my kids argue about something even though they essentially agree on the point they are arguing about. Reminds me of my parents when I was a teen.

[dchristman]

It would be a wonderful world if there were a defacto standard for sizing like there is for bindings holes, but then we would have less to "discuss" here on BOS.