EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Wider, shorter skis????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wider, shorter skis????

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

I'm 5'7" at 170 lb's. I'm thinking of buying wider (then what I have now) skis (85's) and wondering if 158cm would be to short for me? I'm an intermediate skier and usually end up on the windy stuff and not so comfortable yet at higher speeds although I would like to learn to go faster as well. I'm on the east coast and take a trip or two to the west each year. I found a pair of skis I like at 158cm (the width is what I was looking for) for a great price but not sure if I'm going to be happy with them long term. I've read that the rule of thumb is that skis for an intermediate should go up to my eyes and 158cm does, but I've also read that at my weight I should have 165-170's. Will there be a big difference for me if I got the 158?

 

Thanks all.

post #2 of 24
Too short.
post #3 of 24

If you're not comfortable with speed now, I think you would be a lot less comfortable on childrens skis.

post #4 of 24
Thread Starter 

Actually I have 155 skis now, being my first skis I started out with. So the 158 would be longer then I'm used to. Big difference between 158 and 165-170 for me huh?

post #5 of 24

A jump to 165 may feel big big, but it really isn't. Most people fear seeing 10cms more in front of them,  but remember all that difference doesn't go on the tip. Some of it is behind you too. You'll be disappointed if you go too short. My wife is 5'4" and 115lbs. She skis on 160s. Go longer. You'll be happier.

 

M

post #6 of 24
Thread Starter 

Yeah, I was reaching for a reason to get the 158's because I really like the skis, just too short I guess. :(

post #7 of 24
Thread Starter 

OK so 165 or 172?

 

post #8 of 24
172
post #9 of 24
Thread Starter 

Will 165 or 172 make a difference in the trees? Even though I'd like to learn to go faster I'm still a relaxed skier. Like Eyemgh said, jumping to 165 seems like a lot so 172 is like wow to me. What should I expect making such a big jump?

post #10 of 24
Thread Starter 

 

 


Edited by Blikkem - 10/5/11 at 3:59pm
post #11 of 24
Thread Starter 

bump

post #12 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blikkem View Post

Will 165 or 172 make a difference in the trees? Even though I'd like to learn to go faster I'm still a relaxed skier. Like Eyemgh said, jumping to 165 seems like a lot so 172 is like wow to me. What should I expect making such a big jump?



You should expect a ski that is more stable at high speed than the snowblades you are on now.

post #13 of 24

You could get away with a ski in the upper 160's if it is strong enough. I would suggest a ski like a Blizzard 8.1 (165) or K2 Aftershock (167)  as two good choices that with their early rise in the tips and sandwich construction with metal could be two viable choices. 

post #14 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

You could get away with a ski in the upper 160's if it is strong enough. I would suggest a ski like a Blizzard 8.1 (165) or K2 Aftershock (167)  as two good choices that with their early rise in the tips and sandwich construction with metal could be two viable choices. 

 

OP - I'm your height but just a bit lighter at 155# and am happy with my Aftershocks at 167cm, so think you should be thinking longer than your current skis. Believe the Aftershocks at 167cm would be a good length for you.    rickp
 

( edited to express intended meaning )


Edited by rick p - 10/8/11 at 7:11am
post #15 of 24
Thread Starter 

OK, 172 is the consensus. 

 

rick p, Do you find it difficult at slower speeds? I'm looking at Sultan 85's. I'm kinda weird in that I enjoy the narrow windy trails and trees at slower speeds, that's why I was a little worried about going 17cm above my current "snow blades" :)  I'm sure they will help me tons in the speed/stability department, which I want to improve. Just want a length that will be happy doing both.

 


Edited by Blikkem - 10/6/11 at 2:13am
post #16 of 24

Difficult at slower speeds?

While a longer ski might naturally want to go faster than a shorter one, the early rise tip of the Aftershocks let's you easily scarve / skid to control your speed, if that's your intention. They're also great in moguls, which can be another slower speed environment. Another perspective is that at slow speeds and with the ski flat, it's essentially shorter than it's stated length due to the early-rise tip. Net-net, I don't see an issue with having "too much ski".

 

Enjoy,    rickp

post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blikkem View Post

Will 165 or 172 make a difference in the trees? Even though I'd like to learn to go faster I'm still a relaxed skier. Like Eyemgh said, jumping to 165 seems like a lot so 172 is like wow to me. What should I expect making such a big jump?


First, understand that short skis make proper, carving turns difficult.  There is a minimum speed for carving for a given combination of skier and skis, you learn that quickly, so get above that speed. You will find that ~170s will be FAR more comfortable at speed.  But you need to practice going faster.  How?   Buy the 172s or RENT some 170s and practice skiing faster on flatter and wider terrain.  IF you don't carve now but rather skid your turns, fix that BEFORE anything else--If you can't carve you can't ski much faster safely, end of story.  The great thing about longer skis is that they are MUCH EASIER to carve and MUCH HARDER to skid.  They will help you ski better!  Keep at it until you get comfortable at speed.  THEN... gradually increase the difficulty of terrain keeping the same, high(er) speed.  Note, the higher speed will greatly reduce your fatigue as it increases your enjoyment of skiing.

 

Good luck, and I apologize for shouting!  

 

post #18 of 24

Ice coast, your height ~140lbs been out of the game for a very long time due to a softening of cartilage and other injuries which took decades to come back from. Anyway, my practically new old mid 80's era Volkl Weltcup Targa R straight skis (still in use when not renting demos), are 195cm and i have a hard time even considering anything shorter then a 170 in a new ski. I still haven't demoed enough new skis to really know, however i'm not looking for a slalom ski and wouldn't go lower than a 165-168 traditional camber ski.

If the ski you're interested in is good for someone your weight go longer. As others pointed out, there will be a learning/getting used to period but 10:1 you won't regret it, especially on those trips out west.

post #19 of 24
Thread Starter 

Neonorchid, So you think it's the weight that is more important then the height that determines the length of the ski? I've been reading arguments for both. 

 

Whippersnapper,

I agree with you completely. I tried getting used to higher speeds last season on my short skis and either it's mental or the ski is making it difficult so I'm considering spending money I don't want to spend on finding out. So your comment is very much appreciated. 

 

I think I'm half and half carve and skid. When I'm relaxed I carve, when I feel the speed or an obstacle I skid to control/slow down. So that's why I want something I feel comfortable with and not too much over my head. I will try the 172's and see what happens. 

post #20 of 24

I'm going to assume that since you're comfortable in the trees, you're at least somewhere in the intermediate range and have the skills to ski faster than you're used to. You may find your discomfort at speed is directly related to the lack of stability such short skis provide. A couple of runs on longer boards and you'll find that fear turns to exhilaration.

 

A lot of skis these days have early rise which can make them ski shorter. The Aftershocks Phil mentions feel that way to me, they're as quick turning as anything I've been on for while. At your height/weight the 174's should be fine.

 

Take a lesson and move from half-carve to all-carve. Then do as whippersnapper suggests - you can demo different lengths of the same ski.

 

I'd sure hate to purchase and then find after half a day that I went too short.

post #21 of 24
Thread Starter 

Thanks everyone. I've gotten so much from all the information here.

I've probably outgrown my skis and will look into lessons this season. The Aftershocks seems interesting, I'll look into it.

 

C

post #22 of 24
Thread Starter 

OK so I found a great price on some New Sultan 85, 172's with bindings. I know I should have probably demoed something before buying but with all the preseason stuff going on I couldn't resist and it seems the general consensus, between evo.com's Dynastar chart (strangely, I couldn't find a size chart on Dynastar's website), this forum and a visit to a couple of ski shops I think it's the right choice for me to move forward in my progress. I'm hoping many years from now I'll be still enjoying these no matter what skill level I will be.

post #23 of 24
Great ski, think that will work out a good choice
post #24 of 24
Thread Starter 

Hey everyone, wanted to update you all on what happened. I purchased the Sultans at 172. Then took them out to Utah for my first runs on them, after a day of fumbling around and getting used to the jump in length, by the third day I was really feeling them and was jumping off trial to see how they did in softer conditions. I can say they are just what I needed, I was rolling over mounds of snow much easier and felt my confidence and speed go up within the 4.5 days of skiing I did there. Thanks so much for all your input and I so appreciate it. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Wider, shorter skis????