EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › New ski but 2nd thoughts on length
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New ski but 2nd thoughts on length

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 

I bought a new set of ski's at the end of last ski season, my first in at least 10 years, Atomic beta carve were my old skis. I got a set of 2010 Dynastar Sultan 80's in 165cm, I think they match my skill level just fine, intermediate with room to grow, but now I'm 2nd guessing the length. The old adage was the ski should be as tall as you were as you progressed, and these are as tall as I am at 5'5 but maybe I should have gone with a 158cm. The rules may have changed with all the shaped skis out there these days.

 

I rented skis last year while I was getting back into skiing, and looking for equipment. I haven't mounted bindings to these so I thought if I went shorter I could sell these off. Oh, I'm 5'5 tall and 170lbs and at an intermediate level, if that makes a difference

 

Any thoughts?

post #2 of 6

Those skis are not too short for you.

post #3 of 6
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Those skis are not too short for you.



Are you saying the 158's are not to short for me? Or that the 165's are the better choice?

post #4 of 6

The 158 ARE too short.

The 165s are not too long.

 

At 170 lbs,  IMHO, 165 cm would make a good SL ski, 178 a decent open space cruising ski.

What you have in the Sultan 80 is a lower level general purpose all around ski.  I would have chosen the 172, but more importantly I would have chosen the Sultan 85.

 

You don't need any more length than that, but it's a matter of personal preference.  For higher speed rough conditions a little extra length will make things easier (but no length will make the Sultan 80 feel good at higher speeds).  Short skis only make things easier if you're doing it wrong.

post #5 of 6
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

The 158 ARE too short.

The 165s are not too long.

 

At 170 lbs,  IMHO, 165 cm would make a good SL ski, 178 a decent open space cruising ski.

What you have in the Sultan 80 is a lower level general purpose all around ski.  I would have chosen the 172, but more importantly I would have chosen the Sultan 85.

 

You don't need any more length than that, but it's a matter of personal preference.  For higher speed rough conditions a little extra length will make things easier (but no length will make the Sultan 80 feel good at higher speeds).  Short skis only make things easier if you're doing it wrong.



Thanks for clearing that up for me. I didn't choose the Sultan 85's because most of my skiing is here in the midwest and on groomed runs. I didn't go for a straight out carving ski because I do want to head out west again and can't afford multiple ski's so I thought the 80 would be a good compromise for me. The last time I bought ski's an 80 cm waist would have been a pure powder ski...lol.

post #6 of 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperG40 View Post



Thanks for clearing that up for me. I didn't choose the Sultan 85's because most of my skiing is here in the midwest and on groomed runs. I didn't go for a straight out carving ski because I do want to head out west again and can't afford multiple ski's so I thought the 80 would be a good compromise for me. The last time I bought ski's an 80 cm waist would have been a pure powder ski...lol.



Makes perfect sense to want a narrow ski for groomed hard-snow runs.  I would have gone even thinner.  The Contact series would be very suitable (Groove - 66 mm 12 m, Cross 72mm 15 m, or 4x4 75 mm and 16 m). 

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 › New ski but 2nd thoughts on length