EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Volkl Kendo Length: 163 or 170?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Volkl Kendo Length: 163 or 170?

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 

Hello All:

 

This is my first time on Epic Ski. I am an advanced skier that is trying to decide between the Kendo in a 163 or a 170. I am 5'8.5", 150 lbs. I mostly ski VT (Stratton, Stowe, MRG), but will be making a trip out to UT this winter. My current skis are Rossi Bandit B2 @ 166. I was told by 2 shops that I would be a 163, but Im afraid they'll be too short. I can get my hands on a 163 (2010/211) at a reduced price, or a 170 (2011/2012) at a standard price--but that's not a deciding factor. Also, I want to order the Marker Squire bindings, will I be ok with a 90MM brake? The Kendo waist is 88.

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

post #2 of 14

170/90mm

 

SJ

post #3 of 14

Definitely go for the 170...

post #4 of 14

I disagree that the 170cm is an obvious or automatic choice. The two lengths perform differently; the 163cm lighter, livelier, turnier, quicker. The 170cm faster, more powerful, a bigger arc. With the burly wood and metal sandwich construction and stiff flex, neither are going to be an inadequate ski for you in any situation.

 

You could define "advanced skier" in a little more detail, as an expert or pro would prefer this ski in longer lengths at the same weight.

 

 

post #5 of 14
Thread Starter 

Ive been skiing for a long time, and consider my technique aggressive. I prefer challenging terrain--steeps, bumps, glades, jumps. I enjoy speed w/ long arcs, but also enjoy ripping tight turns. With the rossi bandit b2 that I have now in 166, I feel like they are holding me back. Looking for something that has more float and more stability at speed, hence going to a 170. While I am slim, I have strong legs (road cyclist), so I feel I can handle the 170.

post #6 of 14

I'm in the same boat in deciding what size for the kendos. Im 165lbs 5'9 and people have been saying to get the 170s over the 177s because how stiff they ski.

 

Question being- would you lose float with a shorter ski?

post #7 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Work2Ski2011 View Post

I'm in the same boat in deciding what size for the kendos. Im 165lbs 5'9 and people have been saying to get the 170s over the 177s because how stiff they ski.

 

Question being- would you lose float with a shorter ski?



Of course you will.

 

You will lose a little float but that's not the strong suit of the Kendo anyway. Getting it slightly longer or shorter is not going to make the Kendo much better or worse as a deep snow ski. It sounds as if you were thinking of going for the 177 and if you are a decent skier.....that's a good call. Best answer is go for the size that you think you'll be most comfortable on and don't worry too much about what others say if it's too contrary to your own gut feel.

 

SJ

post #8 of 14

Thanks SJ. 

 

 I'm buying a pair of S7's or JJs this season so I don’t really mind losing float with the kendos. All i want these to be are my everyday "rip" ski for interior British Columbia (the star). So from what "Geward" says 170 maybe better as its less work for a daily driver (doing 60+ days). I’m an advanced skier that wants to go expert by the end of this season so again maybe 177s "hard work" will be better. Too many decisions!

 

 

 

 

post #9 of 14

Work:

 

You do have a dilemma but it's maybe not what you think. A guy your size that is advanced now and wants to be an expert skier soon is pretty much on track with a 175-178 (ish) ski as a daily driver. The dilemma may come from the fact that you have chosen a ski that is quite stiff as your go-to choice but then express concern that that ski may be a lot of work in certain circumstances. True enough....stiffer skis are always more work than softer ones and the Kendo is about the stiffest ski in class. Rather than move down in size on a Kendo, you might consider a more medium flex ski in the longer size. I'm not talking about a noodle ski here, but rather something that is medium or even on the stiff side of medium rather than the stiffest thing out there. The bennies that you'd realize would be on the day after the storm or the several days after that when your S7 (or...whatever) would not be your best choice. A longer medium flex ski would handle soft and mixed conditions better, incipient bumps better, soft groomers better, and would be very good for 90% of your firmer conditions. The stiffer ski would really only excell when the snow gets really hard such as a week or so after a storm. Naturally you'll get those days, but you need to evaluate for yourself whether they rate priority or not. A few great choices among many would be................

 

Blizz Bushwhacker

Dynastar Legend 85 or 94

Kastle FX 94

Nordica Steadfast

Rossi Experience 88

 

All of these would be better than the Kendo for everything except hard packed groomers.

 

SJ

 

 

post #10 of 14

Don't forget frozen crud... the Kendo's stiff flex makes them pretty great on that stuff.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

All of these would be better than the Kendo for everything except hard packed groomers.

 

 



 

post #11 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

Don't forget frozen crud... the Kendo's stiff flex makes them pretty great on that stuff. 

 



My experience is the opposite at least for my tastes. During last years testing process at Mammoth I selected a pretty steep off piste pitch that had chopped up crud that was scoured and consolidated by wind then filled in with a little blow in. It was like skiing coral heads buffered with a little dusting of powder. I skied over 30 different skis on this really ugly snow and the stiffest skis were rough and jarring while the skis with a slightly softer flex seemed to flow over the rough stuff better and exit the turns more easily but were still plenty stable.

 

Naturally, this is a preference deal but (for example) the Dynastar Legend 94 with a bit softer flex, better dampening, and a bit of tip rise seemed to flow in this really horrible stuff and feel like much less work. OTH.....if one's preference in these conditions is trying to overpower the conditions instead of flowing through them, then the stiffer, non rockered ski would make a better choice.

 

As always........preferences.

 

SJ

post #12 of 14
  • Thanks SJ,

     

     

    really appreciate the time - you have pretty much nailed my dilemma in one go. I was already considering the bushwhackers, however for my situation how do the following skis go ( I just went down to my local who had these)

     

    • Line prophet 90
    • Armada tst
    • Nordica enforcer
       

 

  • My local ski shop suggested these and i have done a little research on them (not much). however it is worth nothing that our local rep talks alot of rubbish just to get a sale.



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraJim View Post

Work:

 

You do have a dilemma but it's maybe not what you think. A guy your size that is advanced now and wants to be an expert skier soon is pretty much on track with a 175-178 (ish) ski as a daily driver. The dilemma may come from the fact that you have chosen a ski that is quite stiff as your go-to choice but then express concern that that ski may be a lot of work in certain circumstances. True enough....stiffer skis are always more work than softer ones and the Kendo is about the stiffest ski in class. Rather than move down in size on a Kendo, you might consider a more medium flex ski in the longer size. I'm not talking about a noodle ski here, but rather something that is medium or even on the stiff side of medium rather than the stiffest thing out there. The bennies that you'd realize would be on the day after the storm or the several days after that when your S7 (or...whatever) would not be your best choice. A longer medium flex ski would handle soft and mixed conditions better, incipient bumps better, soft groomers better, and would be very good for 90% of your firmer conditions. The stiffer ski would really only excell when the snow gets really hard such as a week or so after a storm. Naturally you'll get those days, but you need to evaluate for yourself whether they rate priority or not. A few great choices among many would be................

 

Blizz Bushwhacker

Dynastar Legend 85 or 94

Kastle FX 94

Nordica Steadfast

Rossi Experience 88

 

All of these would be better than the Kendo for everything except hard packed groomers.

 

SJ

 

 



 

post #13 of 14

Can't speak to that particular Armada model as I haven't skied it. The other two would be just fine.

 

SJ

 

post #14 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Work2Ski2011 View Post

  • Thanks SJ,

     

     

    really appreciate the time - you have pretty much nailed my dilemma in one go. I was already considering the bushwhackers, however for my situation how do the following skis go ( I just went down to my local who had these)

     

    • Line prophet 90
    • Armada tst
    • Nordica enforcer

 

  • My local ski shop suggested these and i have done a little research on them (not much). however it is worth nothing that our local rep talks alot of rubbish just to get a sale.

 

 


If you go with the TST, go longer as they have quite a bit of tip rocker, so from looking at the running length, I believe my 183's are going to feel and turn like a 165-170eek.gif on hard snow.  In some pow, they will feel like a 183 ski.  I can hardly wait to try them, as they are very different from any normal camber ski I have ever purchased in this size. I just hope they don't feel to nervous at speed. Although if kept on edge, I think they will be fine. My goal these days is to ski slower with better technique, so we will see what happenswink.gif

 

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 › Volkl Kendo Length: 163 or 170?