Help me buy men's skis...

[Marc]

Originally Posted by jack97

I have thinks about this one, I would agree that there is a critical angle that the ski edge has to take else one would tumble over. I think there are more parameters to this.

It's simplified, but a decently accurate representation of the forces involved in a carved turn. One could look a little closer at the geometry of the ski but it wouldn't tell you anything about the input force from the skier, which is based on the centripetal force generated and the weight of the skier.

Originally Posted by jack97

Hmm, ok I got it, the centripital force would be lower for the taller skier since there is less mass at the radius of rotation. And it would be roughly the same for the tall and short skier.

But I beleive that the conservation of angular momentum does favors the taller skier.... still have to think one through.

Well, the point I was trying to make is that the CM is not a static location for either skier. It could potentially be closer to the axis of rotation for a taller skier resulting in a smaller radius to the CM and smaller centripetal force, but to do so he would require some aid to keep him from rotating down to the snow, otherwise he must flex his legs and bring his weight closer to his skis to balance the torques acting on him.

[Grassi21]

Marc scares me..... All those deviate behaviors and he is smart. Lethal combo.

Back on topic and sorry to hijack MRGs thread... This short stocky italian is looking at some AC 30s at 170 in length. I'm just under 5'8" and tipping the scales at 200 lbs (desperately fighting to get down between 185 and 190). Would these work out for me?

[jack97]

Originally Posted by Marc

It's simplified, but a decently accurate representation of the forces involved in a carved turn. One could look a little closer at the geometry of the ski but it wouldn't tell you anything about the input force from the skier, which is based on the centripetal force generated and the weight of the skier.



Well, the point I was trying to make is that the CM is not a static location for either skier. It could potentially be closer to the axis of rotation for a taller skier resulting in a smaller radius to the CM and smaller centripetal force, but to do so he would require some aid to keep him from rotating down to the snow, otherwise he must flex his legs and bring his weight closer to his skis to balance the torques acting on him.

OK, say the critical angle, centripedal force is a wash for both tall and short skier. However, one still has to take into account that angular velocity does change as the com moves along the radius from the axis of rotation. Only way you can explain "pumping" in any angular movement to increase speed. The taller skier will have this advantage since he/she has more range.

[Greg]

Originally Posted by Grassi21

Back on topic and sorry to hijack MRGs thread... This short stocky italian is looking at some AC 30s at 170 in length. I'm just under 5'8" and tipping the scales at 200 lbs (desperately fighting to get down between 185 and 190). Would these work out for me?

I would say it's a good length. I haven't skied the AC30, but the 2005 AC3 is a lot of ski. Knowing your ability, it might be a tad too demanding (keeping it real). With my AC3, you can't be passive when skiing it; you need to be actively riding the ski or it's going to throw you. An AC20 might be a more appropriate next step? In fact the AC20 dimensions are closer to the old AC3 so it's probably still a lot of ski and something that you can grow into.

http://www.volkl.com/ski/unlimited_ac20.html

[Grassi21]

Originally Posted by Greg

I would say it's a good length. I haven't skied the AC30, but the 2005 AC3 is a lot of ski. Knowing your ability, it might be a tad too demanding (keeping it real). With my AC3, you can't be passive when skiing it; you need to be actively riding the ski or it's going to throw you. An AC20 might be a more appropriate next step? In fact the AC20 dimensions are closer to the old AC3 so it's probably still a lot of ski and something that you can grow into.

http://www.volkl.com/ski/unlimited_ac20.html

I'm all about keeping it real.

The rep at my local shop has been steering me towards the AC30. Maybe because they don't have any AC 20s in stock. I would lean towards your assessment since you have skied with me while the rep has not. The 30s are 80 something underfoot which is why I was leaning towards them. The 20s as you know from that link you posted are 74 underfoot. I'm going to do my best to find a place to demo them. Not pulling the trigger until after the X-Mas. I love gift cards.

[wa-loaf]

Originally Posted by Grassi21

I'm all about keeping it real.

The rep at my local shop has been steering me towards the AC30. Maybe because they don't have any AC 20s in stock. I would lean towards your assessment since you have skied with me while the rep has not. The 30s are 80 something underfoot which is why I was leaning towards them. The 20s as you know from that link you posted are 74 underfoot. I'm going to do my best to find a place to demo them. Not pulling the trigger until after the X-Mas. I love gift cards.

Do you guys have similar boot soles? Maybe you can test drive Gregs AC3s?

[Grassi21]

Originally Posted by Grassi21

I'm all about keeping it real.

The rep at my local shop has been steering me towards the AC30. Maybe because they don't have any AC 20s in stock. I would lean towards your assessment since you have skied with me while the rep has not. The 30s are 80 something underfoot which is why I was leaning towards them. The 20s as you know from that link you posted are 74 underfoot. I'm going to do my best to find a place to demo them. Not pulling the trigger until after the X-Mas. I love gift cards.

Scratch that. The difference underfoot is just 2.

[Greg]

Originally Posted by Grassi21

I'm all about keeping it real.

The rep at my local shop has been steering me towards the AC30. Maybe because they don't have any AC 20s in stock. I would lean towards your assessment since you have skied with me while the rep has not. The 30s are 80 something underfoot which is why I was leaning towards them. The 20s as you know from that link you posted are 74 underfoot. I'm going to do my best to find a place to demo them. Not pulling the trigger until after the X-Mas. I love gift cards.

The AC30 is 76mm at the waist, I believe. If you're looking for something a bit wider under foot but still forgiving, maybe think about a Rossi B2? I've never ridden one, but it seems like it's the generic mid-fat for the upper intermediate skier. Probably a good one to consider for MRG's husband as well.

[Grassi21]

Originally Posted by Greg

The AC30 is 76mm at the waist, I believe. If you're looking for something a bit wider under foot but still forgiving, maybe think about a Rossi B2? I've never ridden one, but it seems like it's the generic mid-fat for the upper intermediate skier. Probably a good one to consider for MRG's husband as well.

I like how your brought things right back on topic. This guy is good.

[Greg]

Originally Posted by Grassi21

I like how your brought things right back on topic. This guy is good.

Years of experience...