Featured Gear Talk

Introducing Our Ski Weights Project

Ascertaining the weight of skis has long been a powder hole of research. Countless times we’ve weighed a list of prospective skis on our shipping scale for one of our customers. The TGR forum has an eleven page “The Official Ski Weight And Other Stuff Thread.” And that thread isn’t even solely source material but rather was started as a metastudy of other threads dedicated to the arcane subject. Not to mention the fact that when you do get a weight then you wonder what ski size was measured and on what scale.

 

Click here to see the data from our Ski Weights Project

Thus our Ski Weights Project began. From the outset, we tried to be as scientific as possible although admittedly we’re not scientists and I majored in history in college. To start, we bought an even better scale, (the Ultra Ship Ultra-75 if you want to replicate our data). We bought a scales calibration weight kit to maintain reliability. Next, we tried to be consistent in the size we weighed – whatever size we have in stock for a model that is closest to 175cm for men and 155cm for women. We measured in grams because well, we’re going to come out of the closet and say it: we like the metric system dammit.

powder7-ski-weight-project1

Then we took that data and got to work trying to present it in a way that makes sense. The actual weight of a pair of skis is good but it’s not that useful when you dig into it. A 3,000 gram pair in 170cm is obviously lighter than a 3,050 pair in 180cm but when you normalize for length it’s more like 5% heavier. Taking it a step further, we normalize for width. Narrow carving skis should be lighter as they have less mass than a wide pair of powder skis. So a 110mm waist ski should be 10% heavier than a 100mm waist ski. So we calculated the weight per square centimeter. Full disclosure if you’re looking to dig into the math as this aspect gets a bit tricky. See the bottom of the page for a note about these measurements if you really want to get into it.

weights-screenshot2

So, we have for you, three ways of looking at the data:

  1. Normalized For Length – Ordered By Waist Width: this is the most useful way to present the data. If you know what waist width you’re interested in then you can look at the weights of skis around that width.
  2. Normalized For Length And Width – Ordered By Weight Per Square CM: this is a really fun measurement as it’s essentially comparing different constructions. For instance, we can compare the Dynafit PDG 161cm long/65mm waist race touring ski to the DPS Wailer 106 Tour 178cm long/106mm waist backcountry ski. That kind of comparison is fun to see for ski geeks albeit not as useful if you’re actually choosing a pair of skis.
  3. Normalized For Length – Ordered By Brand then Model: this is useful if you quickly want to look up a particular weight.

Some of our impressions from this project:

  1. Does Weight Really Matter? If you’re using your skis solely for downhill skiing with no touring then ski weight might count for less than you think. At the shop, we were surprised to see that Head’s Flight Series of skis ranked heaviest or almost heaviest in category the four skis in the series. The reason we were shocked to see this is that for the last few years we’ve internally ranked this as some of the most lively, poppy, and light feeling skis on the market. Many of us consider these the best ski in their width. They are phenomenal in trees and the tighter they get the better they perform. Also of note is that generally we’ve found that these work especially well for lighter weight skiers and guys like myself who are only 160 pounds (I know I know, I don’t weigh myself metrically). So take the weights with a grain of salt if you’re looking for a pure downhill ski. It’s likely that a ski’s weight doesn’t correlate with its perceived weight when you’re out skiing. Perhaps construction has more to do with it – skis with metal will feel a bit heavier while pure wood core skis can be heavy yet feel light depending on the type of wood.
  2. Carbon Lives Up To The Hype. Carbon skis are a great hack to get around the my-light-skis-suck-on-the-downhill dilemma. Looking at the lightest in category winners, we noticed how carbon skis ranked among the lightest. We also know from skiing many of them that they ski like full on downhill skis, notably the DPS Pure series, DPS Tour series, and Volkl BMT series. If anything, those of us lighter weight skiers at the shop have found that the Pure series can be a bit too much of a downhill ski. They are some stiff burly skis. Those of us in that camp absolutely love the Tour series as a full on downhill ski however. So the overall takeaway is that these carbon skis are incredible light yet, almost magically, incredibly sure footed.

weights-screenshot1

* A note on our weight per square cm methodology: We took the tip, waist, and tail width along with the ski length. We then divided the skis into two trapezoids with those measurements. Since the waist is more towards the tail we made the tail trapezoid 40% of the ski’s length and the tip trapezoid 60%. We’re not calculating in the curvature of the skis to get this measurement but are instead calculating based on straight lines. But, we’re confident that this would have a negligible effect on determining the weight per square cm for our purposes since ultimately we are looking to compare skis rather than get the precise weight per square cm of a pair of skis. After all, we’re not sending these skis up to the moon, just comparing them. One other thing to consider is we’re not quite sure of the effect of ski width on weight per square cm. The sidewall and edges are fixed no matter how wide the ski while the meat of the ski changes in mass according to how wide the skis are. We’re not worried about this but acknowledge it’s something to consider. Basically, narrow skis could skew slightly heavier per square cm or vice versa.

powder7-ski-weights-project2

Save

Comments

Similar Posts