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

Kendo Length 163 vs. 170

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 

I've decided to go with a pair of Volkl Kendo's, however not sure which size I should go with. I'm 5'4", 110lbs, so I'm pretty small and light, but I ski aggressively for my size. I prefer to make short, quick turns in mostly all conditions. Favorite terrain is trees and moguls. So from that I think the 163 would be a better bet, but at the same time I want it to last me a few seasons so that's why I was thinking possibly the 170. However at my size and weight I worry that the 170 would just be to much for me, in the way that I couldn't even flex the ski very much. Also to add I've skied 163 Volkl Grizzlys and that length was about perfect. But like I mentioned I'm only considering the 170 if you think it will be a better fit for me and something that can last.

 

Please leave a response as I need to figure out the size dilemma asap.

post #2 of 11
Thread Starter 

Come on guys just need your quick opinions!

post #3 of 11

Go with the 163.  You just don't have the weight to effectively flex the 170 length for those off piste conditions.

 

Dennis

post #4 of 11
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny1969 View Post

Go with the 163.  You just don't have the weight to effectively flex the 170 length for those off piste conditions.

 

Dennis



Thanks for the response Dennis. That's kinda what I'm thinking, just hope the 163 would last me for a couple seasons...

post #5 of 11

From what i've read and been told it's not for short quick turns, the Rossi E88 would be better there, they say Kendo likes longer closer to GS type turns. As far as length i'd guess 163cm will be more then enough for you to grow into level wise but don't know not having skied it, nor am i qualified to give a opinion. The blind leading the blind here, take with a grain of salt. Next years '12/'13 kendo has some tip rocker so could ski shorter, still it's not a big mountain powder floater that you'd want to ski long.   

post #6 of 11
Thread Starter 

I mentioned above that I've used the Grizzlys in the 163 length, that ski isn't known to be forgiving or easy to turn quick. For some odd reason it was perfect for what I like to do, and you take similar dimensions and construction in a slightly lighter ski and I think it would work really well for me.

 

I actually demoed the E88, didn't like them at all to be blunt.

post #7 of 11

You seem pretty set on the Kendo, probably can't go wrong at the current end of season sale pricing i'm seeing them listed for.

 

Curious, by any chance did you try the Blizzard Bushwacker (166cm), supposed to good in trees, although some say they'd want it to be a twin tip, don't know how they are in bumps? And not to get off track but i'm told the Nordica Steadfast is another good one but i think it's only available at 170cm minimum length so... 

post #8 of 11
Thread Starter 

Funny you ask, I actually owned the Bushwackers... Good ski, just to soft for my likely, not as good when skied aggressively. And that was in the 166 length. But with the Kendo being full camber it would run longer then the 166 Bushwackers did, so that could be the way to go, but I'm just slightly worried of the 163's lastly me.

post #9 of 11

I am 5'5'' and 115 and most of my skis are 170s, so the length itself should not be an issue. If your target use is trees and bumps primarily, the shorter length should be better. I got a Kastle FX 94 in 166 this year for bumps and eastern new snow works fine. I don't know that I would want it much bigger.

post #10 of 11
Go for 163. I have demoed kendos this year in both 163 and 170. I'm 5-10, 170lbs and the 163 was even stable for me and a lot of fun. You can get quick turns out of them but it's more of a gs type of ski. Even my 94 wide 184 Mantras when edged over seem to have a shorter turning radius.
post #11 of 11

Cast my vote for 163.  If you are 110 lbs and skiing slow enough to make short turns, there is no need for or significant benefit to going longer (unless you plan on putting on 40 or 50 lbs in the next year or so).

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 › Kendo Length 163 vs. 170