EpicSki  ›  The Barking Bear Forums  ›  Skiing Forums  ›  Ski Gear Discussion  ›  What length ski should I be buying?
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

What length ski should I be buying?

#1
Rating: 0
11/19/08 at 7:35am
  • Joined: November 2008
  • Post Count: 1
I'm pretty set on buying a pair of TigerShark 10' w/o the switch, as is my younger brother. I'm an east coast skiier and I think I'd rather save the money than have the switch. I'm just under 5'5" and 170-175lbs. I'm not quite an expert skiier, but i think that I'm pretty d*mn close.

My brother is a former racer, he is the same height, but probably 20 lbs lighter and is convinced both of us need the 168cm TigerSharks for my weight and ability. I currently ski on crappy atomics that are 160cm, so I'm thinking I would probably ski best on the 161cm. I love skiing more like GS style long carving turns, but I like to hit moguls and trees pretty often too which is why i think the 161 might be better for me.

Sorry for the long set up, any thoughts?
Export to Wiki
#2
Rating: 0
11/19/08 at 9:36am
  • Joined: March 2007
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
  • Post Count: 677
At your weight I'm thinking 168 would be better. Weight is more relevent than height. Skis can't tell how tall you are but they can tell how heavy.

Mike
Export to Wiki
#3
Rating: 0
11/19/08 at 10:31am
  • Joined: November 2008
  • Post Count: 19
I'm looking to ski pretty much the same conditions. I'm going with a 160cm. I'm 6'-0 around 170lbs. This is shorter than what most people recommend but I really love the shorter skis in moguls and glades.
Export to Wiki
#4
Rating: 0
11/19/08 at 10:35am
  • Joined: November 2008
  • Post Count: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeC View Post
At your weight I'm thinking 168 would be better. Weight is more relevent than height. Skis can't tell how tall you are but they can tell how heavy.

Mike
I agree with this somewhat but not completely.. For someone who's taller they are likely to have a higher center of gravity where you could benefit from a slightly longer ski. Just my 2cents.
Export to Wiki
#5
Rating: 0
11/19/08 at 10:41am
  • Joined: May 2004
  • Post Count: 269
If you weighed 120 lbs., liked only short turns, & skied only on a small hill, I would recommend a 160cm ski. A 168cm ski will generally be better with other conditions: heavier skier, longer turns, bigger hill. You will appreciate the stability.
Export to Wiki
#6
Rating: 0
11/19/08 at 4:03pm
  • Joined: October 2004
  • Location: Ontario, Canada
  • Post Count: 9,923
168 cm.
Export to Wiki
#7
Rating: 0
11/19/08 at 4:20pm
  • Joined: November 2008
  • Location: Chicago, IL
  • Post Count: 33
I am 6'4", 170 pounds and i just bought 181cm recons. My previous skis were 170cm. Are these too long? I mean come on 10 cm is not that much longer.
Export to Wiki
#8
Rating: 0
9/27/09 at 8:41am
  • Joined: September 2009
  • Post Count: 7
I just bought yesterday the Volkl Tigershark 10 n/s 175cm. I am 6' and weigh 190-lbs, i was looking at 168 and 161cm but the ski pro told me I would over power them. I just bought Solomon X-Wing 10's 3 seasons ago, and I am not overly impressed with them, and since my boots were improperly fitted back then, upgraded to Nordica Supercharger spark.
I mostly ski eastern Canada with the ice and coldness, so I am hoping i will be ok with these.
Off to Vermont in Ddecember, can't wait to try this new gear out!
Ski like there is no tomorrow!
Export to Wiki
#9
Rating: 0
9/27/09 at 7:31pm
  • Joined: August 2009
  • Post Count: 55
HI

Look at the Volkl 11, the 10 is most likely to soft, not the ski lenght.
Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread