or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What is Right Ski length (Head Titan)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is Right Ski length (Head Titan)?

post #1 of 23
Thread Starter 

Hi all! I'm novice here, hope my question is not rather stupid Smile Archives searching didn't help to find answer

What are your opinions of optimal Head i.Titan length for my (and hope, not my only) case? Level 8/10- skier, 6', 166lb, last ski - Atomic Metron B5, 162cm. From the posts and reviews here Titan seems to be a good replacement for it, but I wonder what length will be good for me (163 or 170), for B5 style of skiing (hyper-carving on piste in all conditions with occasional off-piste venturing). Do not want to loose manoeuvrability in quick turns but stability and some flotation are of concern too

Appreciate your advice very much

post #2 of 23

170, I would have said 177 but everything I've read on them says go a size smaller than normal. For your skiier level you should have no problem carving at that length and the extra length over the 163 will give you more float on a narrower ski. Post your experience when you get out on them, I need an good hard carver for the icier days here on the east coast and you seem to have a similiar build to me.

post #3 of 23

When I saw the post I thought you would be inquiring 170 or 177cm? I'm almost a duplicate of your height and weight. Didn't have the B5 Metron but the one below it . I got a pair of 177 Titans last spring out at Vail and skied on them 3 days .

 

I had been skiing a 170 Head Super Shape Speed. The 177 Titan is just a lot more ski than the SSS in 170 cm length.

 

They skied me more than I skied them the first couple hours on them.   Probably should have stayed at the 170 cm length for the Titan too in retrospect. Having said that I think the 170 cm Titan will be the right choice for you .

 

Its a pretty stout ski and I didn't need the longer length.

post #4 of 23
Thread Starter 

Hi all!
You've really helped. I still have piece of doubts if I'll easily do fast turns with them, but, anyway, 170cm looks like reasonable length for me.
I'll post my experience as soon as I run them extensively

 

post #5 of 23

For what it's worth I've skiied the 163 Titans for 2 seasons, 12.7 radius. I'm 6ft tall too but only 145 pounds. They are not as stiff as your metrons but still hold on edge very well going fast in bigger turns while still being able to carve very short energetic turns too which is their best attribute I think.

The 170 is still only a 13.5 radius so should turn pretty quick and you have an extra 20 pounds over me to be able to push it.

 

Dawgcatching wrote this last year and his reviews are usually spot on:

 

Head Supershape i-Titan: new 78mm ski, somewhat replaces the Peak 78. Tested in 170 and 177cm.

 

This ski more or less takes the 78mm Peak slot, although it isn't the same ski. It felt like 2 different skis in the 170cm vs. 177cm. I first skied the 170cm at Winter Park, in some softer bumps, and off-piste (up to 6” of new wind-blown snow), and frankly, it ripped. Not the most stable ski in the world, but stable enough for all but the highest speeds, and super quick, fun, energetic, and forgiving. It was extremely fun in zipper-line bumps, smooth snow, crud, whatever I threw at it. I had forgotten how much fun off-piste skiing could be on a short, snappy ski: this ski would literally bounce you from turn to turn in the crud. On really hard snow, edgehold was somewhat lacking: it isn't the stiffest ski laterally, but seemed stable enough. It was just one of those skis that you never want to exit the fall line with. Great ski!

 

In 177cm, it became a lot of ski, and found a GS character that was very stout. I didn't like it as much in that length. It was more of a handful in bumps, extremely stable, but kind of burly. There is some video of me on the ski at Alpine in bigger, soft steep bumps. It also lost much of it's fun energy, and became more of a 2x4 in feel. I was much less impressed in the long length, so if you look at this ski (it deserves a look for a frontside machine) then be sure to go under head height. Ski it short, harness all of that mid-flex energy, and feel like you are driving a little 2-seater sports car. Highly recommended, a blast to ski!

post #6 of 23
Thread Starter 

Yes, I've read his review and Bob Peters reviews too. Seems 163 will be good for me too. I've PM Bob Peters and his opinion is to go for 163 if my off-piste time is not too much. And it's not  -about 80/20 pist/offpiste.

So my doubts are stay.. Of course, the best way - to try, but not sure I can do it befor going to mountain...

post #7 of 23

This thread might be a bit old, but I'm looking for similar advice and thought this would be the right place. I haven't bought skis for many years, and have borrowed/rented for the last several seasons. One pair I liked was an older model from Head (I think they were called Cyber XP 80), they were relatively damp and turny on the piste and didn't seem to care too much whether I was skiing crud or hardpack. But I wouldn't mind slightly stiffer ones that also are more stable at higher velocities.

After lurking around for a while, I got the impression that the Titans would be pretty much perfect for my one-ski-quiver.

I'm 186 cm / 80 kg (that's 6'1" / 175 lbs for the rest of you). I probably spend 80% of the time on-piste. I guess I would classify myself as a intermediate-advanced skier despite being somewhat one-dimensional.

Which length would fit me the best? The Head web page seems to recommend 177, but others here on the forum have recommended going shorter with the Titans, so I'm seriously considering 170 cm.

Im not sure if I'll get the chance to try them on before I buy, so any opinion/experience would be greatly appreciated.

post #8 of 23

How heavy is Dawgcatching i.e compared to you? His review I copied in above is based on both those lengths so....?

post #9 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by krakatau View Post

This thread might be a bit old, but I'm looking for similar advice and thought this would be the right place. I haven't bought skis for many years, and have borrowed/rented for the last several seasons. One pair I liked was an older model from Head (I think they were called Cyber XP 80), they were relatively damp and turny on the piste and didn't seem to care too much whether I was skiing crud or hardpack. But I wouldn't mind slightly stiffer ones that also are more stable at higher velocities.

After lurking around for a while, I got the impression that the Titans would be pretty much perfect for my one-ski-quiver.

I'm 186 cm / 80 kg (that's 6'1" / 175 lbs for the rest of you). I probably spend 80% of the time on-piste. I guess I would classify myself as a intermediate-advanced skier despite being somewhat one-dimensional.

Which length would fit me the best? The Head web page seems to recommend 177, but others here on the forum have recommended going shorter with the Titans, so I'm seriously considering 170 cm.

Im not sure if I'll get the chance to try them on before I buy, so any opinion/experience would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by snala View Post

How heavy is Dawgcatching i.e compared to you? His review I copied in above is based on both those lengths so....?

 

Your weight puts you sort of smack-dab in the middle of the two lengths.  

 

If you had said you were a strong, technically-capable, very aggressive skier, I'd probably recommend the 177.  The fact that you describe yourself (modestly) as an intermediate-advanced skier leads me to suggest that the 170 is the better length.  I think you'd find that the 177 would often be skiing YOU rather than vice-versa.  

 

Personally, I don't believe that a skier who is still developing some of the main skills gets much real benefit out of ski that's longer than their ideal.

 

I'd say you should go with the 170.

 

 

post #10 of 23

First of all, thank you so much for your replies! I got the impression that this forum had a unique blend of knowledge and helpfulness, and you have just confirmed my suspicions.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by snala View Post

How heavy is Dawgcatching i.e compared to you? His review I copied in above is based on both those lengths so....?


Here's how Dawgcatching describes himself in a recent review:

 

 

"About me: 5 foot 9, 155lbs, solid all-mountain skier, can ski most anything reasonably well, tend to like powerful frontside skis, and less powerful, more crud oriented big-mountain skis.  Ski 30-50 days a year. Fairly athletic, technically oriented style."  

 

He's about 20 lbs lighter, and sounds like he's both a more technically capable skier and more fit than me. I'm in decent shape, but i don't spend most of the green season competing in high level cycling races, unlike him :-)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

 

 

 

Your weight puts you sort of smack-dab in the middle of the two lengths.  

 

If you had said you were a strong, technically-capable, very aggressive skier, I'd probably recommend the 177.  The fact that you describe yourself (modestly) as an intermediate-advanced skier leads me to suggest that the 170 is the better length.  I think you'd find that the 177 would often be skiing YOU rather than vice-versa.  

 

Personally, I don't believe that a skier who is still developing some of the main skills gets much real benefit out of ski that's longer than their ideal.

 

I'd say you should go with the 170.

 

 


I'm not particularly strong, and technique-wise I'm still ironing out basic kinks. I like speed, but that doesn't make me technically-capable, it makes me a menace. Interesting that you mention longer skis than would be optimal for a certain skill level, because I was actually thinking that I would "grow into them" even if they would be a bit challenging to begin with. I would probably have ordered 170 cm based on that advice, had I not the possibility to try them on:

 

So to the update: I just got back from Switzerland, where i got to try out the iSupershape Magnums @ 170 cm today. Those were the most similar skis I could find for rent, and they only had that size. But those skis are wonderful! The store rep told me I could try out other models as well (e.g. some Atomic GS skis), but there was no way I wanted to part with the Magnums. I've read somewhere on the forums that the Magnums ski quite similarly to the Titans, which I certainly hope. They come alive at higher speeds, grippy, turny and quite stable. At least as long as I avoided the back seat, something I noticed on the first couple of runs (first trip of the season, I blame it on a bit of piste-rust).

 

In two weeks I'm going back to Switzerland for another weekend, and have (hopefully) made arrangements for trying a new pair of Titans @ 177 cm. If I like them, I get to buy them. Which I hope i will, because I would love to have these with me for a one-week trip later in the winter. We'll see who skis who.. I can't wait :-)

 

post #11 of 23

Well fellas, I just spent the day at Alyeska on my new 163cm Head Titans.

 

I'm 5'9 / 175, and an intermediate to advanced skier who favors fast skiing on hardpack over the soft stuff.  I ordered the 163 instead of 170 because I'd heard lots about skiing this ski short, and a 171 pair of Atomic Crimson TI's felt like a lot of ski on the day I tried them (though it was blizzarding at the time...).

 

I had a blast, but definitely wishing I had gotten the 170's.   The 163 is almost jumpy and the radius so tight that sometimes it forces you to turn or die.  Not the most stable ski at speed, at least in this length.  Still very fun on the hardpack with tons of energy and rebound and very snappy response.

 

Not really an option to exchange them, so I guess I'll make due with it being shorter than ideal.  Highly recommended, nonetheless.

post #12 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by krakatau View Post

So to the update: I just got back from Switzerland, where i got to try out the iSupershape Magnums @ 170 cm today. Those were the most similar skis I could find for rent, and they only had that size. But those skis are wonderful! The store rep told me I could try out other models as well (e.g. some Atomic GS skis), but there was no way I wanted to part with the Magnums. I've read somewhere on the forums that the Magnums ski quite similarly to the Titans, which I certainly hope. They come alive at higher speeds, grippy, turny and quite stable. At least as long as I avoided the back seat, something I noticed on the first couple of runs (first trip of the season, I blame it on a bit of piste-rust).

 

In two weeks I'm going back to Switzerland for another weekend, and have (hopefully) made arrangements for trying a new pair of Titans @ 177 cm. If I like them, I get to buy them. Which I hope i will, because I would love to have these with me for a one-week trip later in the winter. We'll see who skis who.. I can't wait :-)

 


The Titans ski very similiar to the Magnums, so if you loved the Magnums in 170 and didn't think they lacked anything there is your answer. Go the Titan in 170 too. Same radius just more width if that's what you are after.
 

 

post #13 of 23

Yes, I definitely liked the Magnum 170's, and I'd love to get the Titans just because of the increased width and versatility. The Magnums did feel a bit short in 170, but that's probably due to what kind of skis I've been using the most in the past. And to be quite honest, I don't know what to expect from the 177's (except that they may try to kick my butt). The older Head skis I mentioned before (Cyber XP 80) were probably around 175 cm, but not nearly as stiff as the Supershapes.

 

I got to check if there's any possibility of trying both lengths before i commit, but I believe the store will order them specifically for me and I'm not sure they are willing to order both and let me take only one of the pairs after having tried them. I'll try to convince them..

 

Thanks again for all the info!

 

By the way, in Switzerland I came across another Head model that i haven't seen before. Apparently, it's some kind of Didier Cuche limited edition version. They seem to have the exact same measurements as the Titans, but have entirely different print/color scheme and come with a slightly higher price tag. I suspect they are just restyled Titans, but a sales rep in a random store i visited said they were slightly softer. Anyone heard of these?

 

Edit: found a link with a picture.

 

post #14 of 23
Thread Starter 

Hi Krakatau, just 2 week skied Head Titan in Austria (Solden) in 170 cm (my parameters are above). In short - I got almost what needed and wished. Very (very!) stable ski on preapred piste and crud for quite high speeds. Very good for medium and long turns, and good for short. Require serious work on hard packed snow - not ice ski. Good off-piste abilities (tested for 30cm of new snow). Actually, 170 cm appeared quite right for me - do not want less or more.

For your description I'd choose 170. Also tried 170 Magnum. In comparison Titans are more stable, better for crud  - but have to be more worked on.

Hope it helps.

post #15 of 23

Hi Everyone...

 

I bought the iTitan this year (2012), and chose the 177.  I am an athletic 6'1", and about 190lbs.  I am an aggressive skier, and my last instructor told me I was a 7.5/10, although my effort level probably makes up for so/so technique too often.

 

I also debated between the 177 and the 170 lengths, but coming off a very stiff Atomic Beta Ride 11.20 in the 180 class, I went for the 177 in the iTitan

 

Honestly, I don't know if I made the right decision... I really like the ski in 177, but maybe I don't know what I'm missing in the 170?????  I find the 177 to be super strong in the crud (which I love to ski), have decent float in the powder, and it carves great at high speed (super stable)  My only feeling is that I am missing some quickness on the fall line short turns, although they are quicker than my old Atomic's for sure.  Any advice from someone who has skied both lengths???  I wonder if I am splitting hairs, or if I need to make a switch to 170 length.  Thanks, Aric

post #16 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serpit View Post

Hi Krakatau, just 2 week skied Head Titan in Austria (Solden) in 170 cm (my parameters are above). In short - I got almost what needed and wished. Very (very!) stable ski on preapred piste and crud for quite high speeds. Very good for medium and long turns, and good for short. Require serious work on hard packed snow - not ice ski. Good off-piste abilities (tested for 30cm of new snow). Actually, 170 cm appeared quite right for me - do not want less or more.

For your description I'd choose 170. Also tried 170 Magnum. In comparison Titans are more stable, better for crud  - but have to be more worked on.

Hope it helps.


Thank you! It seems like the consensus is to go for the 170 cm Titans. I'll probably get the possibility to try them in this size next weekend, something I'm looking very much forward to.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahgetty1 View Post

 

Honestly, I don't know if I made the right decision... I really like the ski in 177, but maybe I don't know what I'm missing in the 170?????  I find the 177 to be super strong in the crud (which I love to ski), have decent float in the powder, and it carves great at high speed (super stable)  My only feeling is that I am missing some quickness on the fall line short turns, although they are quicker than my old Atomic's for sure.  Any advice from someone who has skied both lengths???  I wonder if I am splitting hairs, or if I need to make a switch to 170 length.  Thanks, Aric


I haven't tried any of them yet, but I will try to get it arranged before i buy. If so, I'll share my opinion of how they compare. Not sure how much it's worth though, as you're both a heavier skier and more technically sound than me.

 

post #17 of 23

Hi Everyone...

 

Well, I just got back from Austria (I'm living in Poland), and I skied my "new" (bought this year) iTitan's in 177 length for 3 days hard all day.  Honestly, I love this ski a lot.... providing 1 thing... you are going FAST.  Not just a little fast... but really Flying, Flying, Flying...  It is unbelievably stable and smooth, both in hard and soft snow.  When it is on edge and loaded up with energy, it is a pure rocket ship...   Both short and long turns it rocks.

 

The problem is... 80% of the time, when you are frontside skiing with friends and family... you aren't going fast enough to get any "bang" out of these 177 skis.  I wish I would have bought the 170s.... I would sacrifice a little stability, and get some quickness and energy at all speeds.  I don't know if what I am saying makes any sense technically, but it is how I feel.  I Demo'd two premium ski's in 171 (Salomon X Kart) & 170 (Vokyl RTM 84) length, and they both convinced me that today's modern ski's are strong enough in 170 length to hold me at 190lbs... 98% of the time at any speed... bottom line... I had an awesome trip... I love my iTitans.... but will probably trade them for 170 length in the same ski.  Hope it helps...  Later

post #18 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahgetty1 View Post

Hi Everyone...

 

Well, I just got back from Austria (I'm living in Poland), and I skied my "new" (bought this year) iTitan's in 177 length for 3 days hard all day.  Honestly, I love this ski a lot.... providing 1 thing... you are going FAST.  Not just a little fast... but really Flying, Flying, Flying...  It is unbelievably stable and smooth, both in hard and soft snow.  When it is on edge and loaded up with energy, it is a pure rocket ship...   Both short and long turns it rocks.

 

The problem is... 80% of the time, when you are frontside skiing with friends and family... you aren't going fast enough to get any "bang" out of these 177 skis.  I wish I would have bought the 170s.... I would sacrifice a little stability, and get some quickness and energy at all speeds.  I don't know if what I am saying makes any sense technically, but it is how I feel.  I Demo'd two premium ski's in 171 (Salomon X Kart) & 170 (Vokyl RTM 84) length, and they both convinced me that today's modern ski's are strong enough in 170 length to hold me at 190lbs... 98% of the time at any speed... bottom line... I had an awesome trip... I love my iTitans.... but will probably trade them for 170 length in the same ski.  Hope it helps...  Later


There is a strong tendency on this forum for people to "recommend" skis that are too long, particularly with models - like the Titan and similar skis - that haven't tricked-up the lengths by adding rocker or a lot of early rise.

 

I've said this often enough that some people are tired of hearing it, but my business partner is a former World Cup downhiller.  He's 175# and skis FAST (as in VERY fast) on whatever skis he's on.  He spent an entire ski team career on 225cm skis.  Today, he refuses to ski anything over 180cm and is most comfortable on something around 170.  He says today's skis are super stable at speeds even in short lengths. I think he would know.  

 

Skis like that can and should be skied in shorter lengths than what a lot of people would suggest.  

 

post #19 of 23

 

I have tried the Titans in 170cm now, and liked them a lot. I have been wanting to try them in 177  well, although i realize from all the advice in this thread that these probably would be a bit too much. So I think I'll skip it. I liked the Titans even more than the Magnum in similar length, very smooth ride! And as was pointed out above, they love speed.

 

At the moment I'm waiting to try out the Völkl RTM 84. A Swiss store rep who has tried both (and many others, obviously) recommended them very warmly. He seemed to be a very similar skier to me, so I'll heed his advice and give them a go. If I don't like them, they will order me the Titans instead. I realize that the RTMs probably are quite different, but I've never tried such a ski and I'm looking forward to checking them out. Unsure about the stability at higher speed compared to the Titans, though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ahgetty1 View Post

The problem is... 80% of the time, when you are frontside skiing with friends and family... you aren't going fast enough to get any "bang" out of these 177 skis.  I wish I would have bought the 170s.... I would sacrifice a little stability, and get some quickness and energy at all speeds.  I don't know if what I am saying makes any sense technically, but it is how I feel.  I Demo'd two premium ski's in 171 (Salomon X Kart) & 170 (Vokyl RTM 84) length, and they both convinced me that today's modern ski's are strong enough in 170 length to hold me at 190lbs... 98% of the time at any speed... bottom line... I had an awesome trip... I love my iTitans.... but will probably trade them for 170 length in the same ski.  Hope it helps...  Later


ahgetty: how do you think the Völkl RTM 84 and Titans compare?

post #20 of 23
Agree on stability of shorter skis. 6'/195#. Last skis were Volkl P60 Race Stock. Have skied nothing but "race skis" since jr. high school. I ski eastern hard pack, some crust, soft ice, and occasional crud. I ski a short radius ski in part to get more exercise in less time at lower relative speeds. Lots of fun and stable at medium speed if ride on edge. These were demos in perfect shape. Talked at length with Head rep and he thought that after the P60s, I'd prefer the 163. I'm enjoying them, but they feel more dampened and not as quick as the old P60s. Probably the extra width and intended market. They don't seem to like hard crust/ice that much, but can't have everything. I might be happier much of the time with a race ski, but these probably are more forgiving, and I don't at all question the length.
post #21 of 23

To Krakatau... sorry for the delay in my response, I have been traveling

 

I really liked the RTM 84, off piste in the 12-18 inches of cut up soft snow... they were awesome.  Really, on any softer snow, they were great.

 

Why do I say this?

 

1. Turn initiation in the deeper snow was literally telepathic... I guess this is the rocker??  whatever it is, it was really sweet

2. They felt soft but yet very stable at speed, IF, you were on a solid edge

3. Very maneuverable and pretty quick, even with the longer radius, short turns felt easy too. (I was on a 171 or something close to that)

 

If you are always on good/soft snow, could be your "one ski" type of ski

 

Question marks...

 

1. On straight line tracking.... they were pretty "loose", you had to pay attention

2. On ice or hard-pack, if you are lazy and don't have your weight driving a forward edge, the rear end will slide out from you (also rocker effect???)

 

Don't necessarily like them better than my iTitan's... but they are a great ski, especially on softer snow, I am going to consider buying them.  For what it is worth... my skiing partners said I looked more balanced on these ski's than the other two... I felt really good, even though I was tired when I skied them...

 

Later, Aric

post #22 of 23

Thank you for your observations, Aric! I tried out the RTM 84 (176 cm) as well, and liked them a lot. I really enjoyed the Titans too, but for my level/weight/type of skiing, I believe the RTMs may be a better option. So I ordered myself a pair :-) That is, I ended up with the "pimped up" V-Werks version with some fancy carbon fiber and whatnot. Although the slightly lower weight of these is appreciated, I doubt they are much different to the "normal" RTMs in terms of performance. 

 

Your description of them is really spot on. I haven't tried them in proper powder myself, but I expect them to handle shallow powder decently at least. I agree on the good stability, although they were a bit skittish if I went straight down the fall line on flat skis (as should be expected, I guess). I also really like how they blast through soft crud. The edge grip on scraped/hard snow was impressive, even if I initially found it slightly difficult to get a good "tip-to-tail grip" at lower speed. I assume this might be due to the skis being a bit wider/longer radius than what I'm used to, or possibly the low rocker. Looking forward to spending a whole week on them later in the season.

post #23 of 23

Glad to hear about your new skis... from my experience on the RTM 84, I really liked them a lot.  Anyway, Congrats!

 

I was in Czech skiing this weekend... and for what it is worth, I was able to demo the iTitan in 170. (remember I own them in 177, and have skied about 15 days on them this year).  You will note from the above that I really like them, but had wished I bought them shorter.  A couple of notes.

 

The iTitan in 170 is definitely a different ski... it was more energetic... and I finally figured out what that KERS technology does.  WOW, does it kick!  A lot of fun.  The 170 really liked to turn, and was maybe a little quicker side to side than the 177.

 

But that said, I gave them back to the test crew early...  I wanted back on my 177s, and cranked up the speed.  As a techie, and gear nut, I wish I could tell you why technically I like them better, but can't really.

 

So be it...   For me (6"1', 190 lbs.) the iTitan in 177 is a pure rocket ship on rails, and unbelievably smooth.

 

Please let me know how your RTM 84s work out once you get some time on them... I really liked them too, and hope to get some soon.  It is awesome we have so many good choices.

 

Later, Aric

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 › What is Right Ski length (Head Titan)?