or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Panic Panic Panic! I've gone against the general consensus!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Panic Panic Panic! I've gone against the general consensus!

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 

OK.  I'm panicking and I need someone to alleviate the shortness of breath and sick feeling...

 

So, last year I skied some pretty deep days in Utah including a bluebird 25 inch + day at Powder Mountain.   I managed to both demo and rent the Rossi S3 in a 178cm and despite being 6'2 and 215lbs, I found it a joy to behold!   The bumps felt just awesome and although I'd never really skied DEEP powder, I had great fun.

 

Now, I dont ski the west very much.  I live in Boston and mostly ski the East coast - I currently own some K2 Rictors in the 176 length and they do everything I want as far as the typical east coast conditions deliver EXCEPT trees and bumps.  They just dont like 'em.

 

Now imagine my surprise when visiting a local ski shop I found some 2013 S3's in 178cm which were on sale for less than I had seen them anywhere before?   I told the guy to put them to one side and I went away and thought about it.  The reason that I was in two minds is that the general consensus of opinion is that a 178cm is WAY too short for me.  I read thread after thread from people saying "dont buy the 178's!"  and that "these things ski way short!" but I cant get my head around why they felt so damn good in Utah?

 

I need some help.   Tell me what is going to happen if this ski is too short?  Bearing in mind I have my K2's for the really hard days, and this ski was so good in the groomers and bumps of Utah, am I going to hate them?  I've pushed the button on the purchase and they are being FedEx'd as we speak.  I need someone to help me calm down!!

 

 

:eek

post #2 of 20

All the collective advice of the internets is just advice. Ultimately you have to go out and try the skis people suggest to see what you actually like. If you liked the feel of a ski that's shorter, then go ski a shorter ski. Life's too short to get hung up over equipment!

post #3 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingFish View Post
 

All the collective advice of the internets is just advice. Ultimately you have to go out and try the skis people suggest to see what you actually like. If you liked the feel of a ski that's shorter, then go ski a shorter ski. Life's too short to get hung up over equipment!


Great first post!  I ski on stuff that the internetsters would recoil at, but I don't care.  They work for me and I have fun.  Go for it.

post #4 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markoncarp View Post
 

OK.  I'm panicking and I need someone to alleviate the shortness of breath and sick feeling...

 

  I managed to both demo and rent the Rossi S3 in a 178cm and despite being 6'2 and 215lbs, I found it a joy to behold!   The bumps felt just awesome and although I'd never really skied DEEP powder, I had great fun.

 

 

:eek

Everyone is different, if I were you (I'm not) I'd say trust your own experience over any internet opinion.

 

If I were to caution you about anything it would be: you might have loved the ski conditions and the ski wasn't a factor. What I mean is, you might have loved any ski that you had on your feet on those days so the fact that you loved the 178cm S3 might not be an indication that you will actually love the 178cm S3 in 'normal' conditions.

post #5 of 20

Funny thread title. :)

 

FlyingFish is fundamentally right, of course. You have to follow your own star.

 

However, as someone who's 5' 7" and 135lbs and found the 178 to be a good length for me in that ski, I'll have to side with the crowd. I speculate that the reason you found the 178 awesome is precisely because you were utilizing all 178cm of that ski on that particular day. That was because - and only because - you were in deep snow. As soon as you get into any kind of a semi-2D environment, all of a sudden you're going to be on about a 150cm ski and it won't feel so awesome, is my prediction. If you are only going to take these skis out when there is at least 12" of new snow, then you are probably all good with the 178.

 

Plus, you were a deep snow virgin, according to your own post. So of course you were ecstatic. You would have been ecstatic on almost any ski. You were on a halfway decent powder ski, so that made it even better. Nothing we say can change that happy memory (I sure hope). But that doesn't prove that you won't be happier yet on something else going forward.

 

Again, not raining on your parade. If you get the 178, have a ball and don't look back.

 

EDIT: My post crossed with Whiteroom's. We are saying the same thing.

post #6 of 20

Good on ya'  Note, there's actually not a hell of a lot of difference in the longer length; just a lot more splay. I tend to like shorter skis as well.  

post #7 of 20

Here is Bob Peter's reply to a Soul 7 length question.

 

I'm no Bob Peters but I agree with him 100% on this issue. You really liked the 178's, you think the price is fantastic, no more thinking needed.

 

 

"I think you made the right decision.  IMO, many of the replies on this forum tend to recommend lengths that are too long for the person asking the question.  Don't take this wrong, but if you're asking the question of which length is "right for me", then most likely the shorter length would be a better choice unless you intend to spend almost all your time skiing big, open faces at high speeds.

 

I'm totally convinced that the only - debatable - advantage that a longer length offers is incrementally more "float" in deeper, softer snow.  The whole thing about "stability at higher speeds" with most modern skis is - again IMO - primarily a function of ski technique rather than length of the ski.  I've watched too many really great skiers go balls-to-the-wall on "short" lengths to believe that stability is even a question with modern skis at reasonably high speeds

 

If you spend most of your time skiing inbounds, on-piste, or in relatively skied-out snow, shorter is better than longer.  You will learn to feel how the ski works when properly pressured rather than trying to "keep up with" a ski that's longer than what you really need."
 

post #8 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingFish View Post

All the collective advice of the internets is just advice. Ultimately you have to go out and try the skis people suggest to see what you actually like. If you liked the feel of a ski that's shorter, then go ski a shorter ski. Life's too short to get hung up over equipment!

Sage wordsFF.

Marko, youve bought them so enjoy them. If you find them wanting buy another pair of skis the year after.
post #9 of 20
Thread Starter 

Thanks Guys.  A couple of guys in the office who ski the trees of a lot of the local mountains have also reduced the palpitations to almost normal levels :)   

 

Now, I just need to choose some bindings... now, where is there a good place to ask that kind of advice?  ;)

post #10 of 20

The primary thing I can see with the short length being less good for you than a longer length is that it will provide less float, though still likely more than you are used to.  This might be a concern if you were skiing bottomless powder, or if you were skiing on a very gentle slope and didn't want to get bogged down.   If you're not skiing these conditions, there's no problem there.

 

Another aspect of length is a trade off decision to sacrifice some length (and float) which may give you a little safety margin vis-a-vis fore-aft balance and recovering same in return for maneuverability.  The trade off would be to go shorter for tighter trees, so it seems if you're not skiing a big open slope, you made the right choice.

 

As to stability, I have not tried the S3, but as a general rule, I have found that if the ski is not stable in a short length at speed, it is even more unstable in a longer length at that speed, and if the ski is built for speed, it is stable in even a short length.  You used to need a longer length for stability at speed; those days are gone.

post #11 of 20

I work at a demo centre and had some friends from eastern Canada come out for their annual visit and they told me that they wanted to demo some skis with a view to buying new skis for hard pack snow conditions. We allow 2 days of demo $ to be applied to a ski purchase.

 

After a couple of days of demoing different skis nothing was really turning them on so I said to her, "You might as well try the S3 as it is the most popular ski in our fleet". I put her on the 168cm and that night I got a phone message asking me to put aside those skis for her as she was going to rent them for the rest of the trip!

 

It was a time of year that we were getting close to selling off the demo fleet ( we didn't have any new S3s left to sell) and at this point it would have been cheaper for her to buy the skis than rent them. So I went to my boss and said why don't we just sell her the skis and he agreed, so for $350+tax she got the demo skis with bindings and was thrilled.

 

I then went to her husband who is about 5'9" and 200+lbs and put him on the 178cm demos and he ended up buying them as well.

 

I like to ski fairly fast and make big GS turns but I have a friend who is 200lbs+ and likes to ski fast but make lots of turns. He owns a pair of S3s, not sure what length.

 

As a demo ski guy it has been my observation over the years that even with people who I know how they ski it is difficult to predict what ski they will like. It turns out that there are subtle differences between skis and ski lengths and subtle differences between what skiers prefer even among skiers who seem to be at the same ability level. So enjoy your new skis.

post #12 of 20

my snarky reply is that you probably really muscle your skis around thats why the 178cm feel good to you.

 

video of you skiing would prove me right or wrong.

 

that said if they feel better then you are 'right" no need to tell us.

post #13 of 20
Just about any ski feels awesome with 25" of fluff on bumps. wink.gif
post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markoncarp View Post
 

Thanks Guys.  A couple of guys in the office who ski the trees of a lot of the local mountains have also reduced the palpitations to almost normal levels :)   

 

Now, I just need to choose some bindings... now, where is there a good place to ask that kind of advice?  ;)

Anything that will handle your DIN setting at something below the top end of the binding (ie don't get a DIN 12 binding if your DIN is 12).

post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markoncarp View Post

Thanks Guys.  A couple of guys in the office who ski the trees of a lot of the local mountains have also reduced the palpitations to almost normal levels smile.gif   

Now, I just need to choose some bindings... now, where is there a good place to ask that kind of advice?  wink.gif

Start a Kneebinding thread...it's been a while.
post #16 of 20

The better quality bindings are DIN 12 as opposed to something lower. However if you are on a tight budget the minimum is to get a binding that goes at least 2 DIN numbers higher than your Din.

 

So if your Din is 8, then 12 would be ideal and 10 DIN would be minimum.

post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Markoncarp View Post
 

OK.  I'm panicking and I need someone to alleviate the shortness of breath and sick feeling...

 

So, last year I skied some pretty deep days in Utah including a bluebird 25 inch + day at Powder Mountain.   I managed to both demo and rent the Rossi S3 in a 178cm and despite being 6'2 and 215lbs, I found it a joy to behold!   The bumps felt just awesome and although I'd never really skied DEEP powder, I had great fun.

 

Now, I dont ski the west very much.  I live in Boston and mostly ski the East coast - I currently own some K2 Rictors in the 176 length and they do everything I want as far as the typical east coast conditions deliver EXCEPT trees and bumps.  They just dont like 'em.

 

Now imagine my surprise when visiting a local ski shop I found some 2013 S3's in 178cm which were on sale for less than I had seen them anywhere before?   I told the guy to put them to one side and I went away and thought about it.  The reason that I was in two minds is that the general consensus of opinion is that a 178cm is WAY too short for me.  I read thread after thread from people saying "dont buy the 178's!"  and that "these things ski way short!" but I cant get my head around why they felt so damn good in Utah?

 

I need some help.   Tell me what is going to happen if this ski is too short?  Bearing in mind I have my K2's for the really hard days, and this ski was so good in the groomers and bumps of Utah, am I going to hate them?  I've pushed the button on the purchase and they are being FedEx'd as we speak.  I need someone to help me calm down!!

 

 

:eek


why is fedex involved with a 'local' ski shop?  :cool

post #18 of 20

If you are going to buy your bindings from somewhere other than where you bought your skis (often labor is included in such a case), and if you are going to buy on line then evo in Seattle is having a sale for at least one more day. The Marker Griffon (DIN 13) is $150 plus change (free shipping no tax). Having said that I would give your shop a try. And am I to believe I'm the only one so far thinking too short on the skis?

post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j View Post
 


why is fedex involved with a 'local' ski shop?  :cool

My local shop was going to have to order mine from Rossignol. I got them from Phil instead.

post #20 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by wa-loaf View Post
 

My local shop was going to have to order mine from Rossignol. I got them from Phil instead.

good choice!  :)

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 › Panic Panic Panic! I've gone against the general consensus!