or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Anyone on here have powder skis shorter than you are tall?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anyone on here have powder skis shorter than you are tall? - Page 2

post #31 of 57
You, sir, are going to drive yourself nuts. Just take your e-88's and demo the 181 access. You already know what the 171's do. THIS ISN'T DIFFICULT! Hood is pretty flat. Long is good. Embrace the challenge and don't tell us anything more about what you already know. Repeat after me..... I'll be O.K.... I'll be O.K.... I'll be O.K. .smile.gif
post #32 of 57

Mark is right, this isn't rocket science but you're trying to make it rocket science.  I'm about 5'7" and have a pair of 161cm Icelantic Shamans, 110mm waist and twin tip, and a pair of 174cm Atomic Rituals, 103mm waist, also a twin tip.  They both work fine in deep stuff.

post #33 of 57

longer skis are easy to ski in wide open powder.  My eastern powder skis are slightly over my head, when i was at snowbird I had skis well over my head. 

post #34 of 57

And the answer to your powder ski question for me is 'no'... my fat skis are taller than I am. Only my piste ski is shorter, and my all mountain ski is an inch shy of the top of my head. Teley ride, AT ride, and GS skis are all longer.

post #35 of 57

I think your last idea about waiting is the best one.

You're evidently not going to use them the remainder of this season anyway, and you'll have all kinds of opportunities to demo all kinds of skis once you get to Colorado...so wait and pick your favorite then.

 

It may turn out you like your Accesses as is, and if so, Great.  So what if they're shorter than what most would recommend?  If they do what you want them to do and you have fun on them, that's all that matters...right?

post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by folkfan View Post
 

I've decided to ditch the idea of demoing the 181s.  If I were to do so, I'd only be bringing the 171s and 181s (both Atomic Access) to the mountain tomorrow, when I have a new pair of Experience 88s that I'd like to get more time on.

 

Even though there should be significant new snow tomorrow, it's so darn warm up on Mount Hood that I think it'll feel like a spring day up there, and I don't think the Atomics are a good choice for those conditions, regardless

 

I think the better choice is to move to Colorado with the Access in 171 cm length, wait for a powder day, and see how they fair.  If they don't do well, I'll demo some other skis and see what seems right.  It seems silly to demo skis in conditions that are nothing like where I'll be using them....

 

Gosh, the whole ski buying process is a huge pain in the @$$, especially for indecisive folks like myself!

88's ? I thought this thread was about powder skis ? 

post #37 of 57

Me 6'1 / 180ish, first season on 179 cm Line Sick Day 110s.

Love them on soft groomers, but in deep snow they ski even shorter than the stated length (they measure about 177 cm using tape).

Now looking to replace them with something in 180-190 cm range.

post #38 of 57

I wouldn't even call the Access a powder ski.

post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian View Post
 

I wouldn't even call the Access a powder ski.

 

Neither would Atomic.  They classify it as all mountain.

post #40 of 57
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the replies, all.  Today was pretty great at Mt Hood Meadows.   8 inches of nice fresh snow--which was great until noon when it started get sloppy and wet.  My Atomic Access 171s were a lot of fun, and kept me floating above the snow.  The ONLY real problem I have with them is in tracked out snow or real inconsistent snow they "deflect" or bounce around.  I have not tried out the longer Access, but I do have the Rossignol Experience 88s, a narrower stiffer hard  snow ski that doesn't seem to have the deflection problem so much.  One thing I like about the Rossignol Experience is that I feel I'm along for the ride--they're just beefier.  So I'm wondering if the stiffness of the Atomic Access is the real issue here?  A stiffer ski wouldn't likely bounce around as much when encountering inconsistent snow, right?

 

I'm wondering if you all have any thoughts about how "tracked out" snow in Colorado compares to the same conditions in Oregon?  I'm thinking the problem I've had with tracked out snow isn't likely going to be a problem in Colorado where the snow is so much lighter.

 

Caucasian Asian and Jay T--I'm planning on using the Atomic Access as powder-oriented skis in Colorado.  Will they fulfill that function for me in CO?

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max Capacity View Post
 

88's ? I thought this thread was about powder skis ? 

The 88's are my harder snow ski in my 2 ski quiver.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post
 

And the answer to your powder ski question for me is 'no'... my fat skis are taller than I am. Only my piste ski is shorter, and my all mountain ski is an inch shy of the top of my head. Teley ride, AT ride, and GS skis are all longer.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skierish View Post
 

I think your last idea about waiting is the best one.

You're evidently not going to use them the remainder of this season anyway, and you'll have all kinds of opportunities to demo all kinds of skis once you get to Colorado...so wait and pick your favorite then.

 

It may turn out you like your Accesses as is, and if so, Great.  So what if they're shorter than what most would recommend?  If they do what you want them to do and you have fun on them, that's all that matters...right?

Thanks Skiterish!  I think you're right...what I'm really talking about is the paradox of choice.  So many choices, and a fear of making the wrong one.  It's silly really!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caucasian Asian View Post
 

I wouldn't even call the Access a powder ski.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post
 

 

Neither would Atomic.  They classify it as all mountain.

post #41 of 57

For tracked out snow you need a ski that is torsonially stiff. It seems like your Atomic's lack that.

 

Back to Volkl's, Gotama's, Katana, or my new ski the Shiro, will cut through that stuff like its not even there. I brought the Shiro's because I wanted a big ski that would plow though the Spring time crud. They also have the Volkl edge hold when the snow is firm or icy as can happen in the Springtime between the soft bumps.

 

Don't under estimate how easy a 119mm waist ski be to turn. 

post #42 of 57
All my skis are labeled as shorter than I am. I say labeled as I have two pair labeled 167 which are in fact longer standing against the wall than my 169's. I would be 172. So, minimally shorter. I have not stood next to then to see where my head is compared to them, never was an issue.

Next size up in the 167s would have been 172, which for those skis I would go with the next time as they are my groomer skis and they didn't have early rise so I'd need more edge in the next ones. For the 169s, they are my powder and off piste skis and the right length for where I ski. I was buying skis to address a deficiency I had, which was a fear of the skis coming around in time in tight trees. They ski "short" to me and I had issues with that at first, but I don't worry about the turn being in time anymore. The snow here is rarely above shin height, and they have sufficient float for that. If the snow were heavy or was much deeper, I'd go wider first before I'd go longer. You get more float with a width change than a length change.

None are twin tips, the ones I've demoed seemed to encourage back seated skiing, so I've never felt they were right for me.

There's not really moguls here, far more trees, so the mogul thing doesn't influence me. There's one run that you sort of MUST ski to get to some good stuff and if it gets bad due to crowds I handle it fine, especially if the visibility is better than two chair. But really don't need mogul skis here unless that's your thing.
post #43 of 57

I'm 5'9" and would probably shoot myself if I had to ski Oregon crud on a 171 Access. Colorado will be better in the sense that the snow is lighter, but it isn't as if we only have champagne powder all the time. In spring, stuff gets heavy for sure, and we can get a lot of wind, too, which does weird things to the snow. So if I were you, I would get something definitely a little longer and a little stiffer if possible.

 

I wouldn't necessarily sell those Atomics, though, if you don't have to. If you were buying for the first time, yes, the 181; but you already have it, and it will be a fun ski on a lot of days when the snow is soft but not deep, and you need to turn a lot (ie, Mary Jane or Steamboat, lots of trees and/or moguls).  Those days are actually a lot more common around here than full-on pow days or hard snow days. 

 

Both my kids have that ski, my son uses it as an everyday ski (he's 6'6" and skis the 191), my daughter as her powder ski (she is 5'9" and has the 166, which is a little shorter than optimal, but she's very light and darnit she grew since we bought it a few years ago). They really like it, so I think it's a pretty decent ski for CO. 

 

(Oh, and to answer your question, my powder skis are heavily rockered 184s. Most of my other skis are around 177, so just a little taller than me. Smallest are skinny 172s)

post #44 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by folkfan View Post

Caucasian Asian and Jay T--I'm planning on using the Atomic Access as powder-oriented skis in Colorado.  Will they fulfill that function for me in CO?

 

 

They will be perfectly fine in powder if you want to stick with them.  Our only point was, if you're going to get something *new* for a powder ski, since you already have the E88's you should definitely go a bit longer and wider.  In general, you will find that no matter where you're skiing a little extra length will make going through tracked snow (especially at speed) much easier.

post #45 of 57
Well, weight is the most important measure. The skis don' t behave any differently if you are 5' or 6', but all skis different if you gain or lose 20 lb.
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagbard View Post

Well, weight is the most important measure. The skis don' t behave any differently if you are 5' or 6', but all skis different if you gain or lose 20 lb.

 

 

post #47 of 57
That's new.
post #48 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

That's new.

What's new?
post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by folkfan View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

That's new.

What's new?

 

 @segbrown's subtle graphical way of saying she disagrees with something. I expect to see a giant green check-mark appear on another post soon.

post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagbard View Post

Well, weight is the most important measure. The skis don' t behave any differently if you are 5' or 6', but all skis different if you gain or lose 20 lb.

True, but height is also important when you are either too heavy or too light for your height! I big tall but slim guy will have difficulties to handle a longer ski since he is heavier which goes with your point, but it might feel awkward skiing in something too short, for this case I'd go long/softish ski

 

I'm too short, only 5'5", but not that light at ~147 so I tend to prefer skis a little stiffer so I don't need to go too long because it feels hard to control for my short legs! Yes, weight is important, but height plays a good role as well!

post #51 of 57
Hi Folkfan

I am smaller than you at 5'7" 150lbs. I ski the whistler area and have had several skis over past few years:

190cm volkl explosives. One of the original fatties! 95mm wide waste. Stiff heavy, little side cut. Very damp. Point straight down and charge thru chop
177cm volkl mantras. Too stiff for me. Only wakes up at high speeds. I should have gone with 171cm mantras. I know now i prefer softer ski

171cm Solomon 1080 twin tip. Noodley fun park ski. No edge carve at all!
168cm K2 Coomback backcountry ski. 102mm Super easy to use. Decent everywhere. Soft and forgiving. Not great at carving. Too short for pow. I should have got 174cm length
171cm moment PB&J. 101mm. Decent alround soft snow ski. I didnt like skiing so centred. Moderately stiff and damp. Not bad at crud.

My current quiver:

165cm blizzard 8.1Ti. Nice front side carver 16m radius. Really fun when there is no new snow. No float. Hard to pivot in pow.

DPS w99 176cm. Great alround ski. Enough float to enjoy pow but narrow enough to really carve. Moderately soft so chop and crud have moderate speed limit which is fine with me. I got this ski because is ski with the kids in tight trees and groomers and generally alittle slower than with adults only

DPS 178cm w112. In powder significantly more float and speed. Much more whoowhoo's in untracked powder or chop than any of the above skis! In conditions deeper than 1foot of powder i would prefer this ski even longer 184cm. In deep and really steep i would prefer a ski even wider and less side cut too. It's too turny in really deep and steep! Pretty soft tip and tail. Can't charge through chop but can pop and turn your way through. Fun and energetic. Pops off everything!

Okay where am i going with all this review.... I would stick to your current skis until next year. Demo even longer wider skis for powder use. Target 180+cm length with a mid waist size in the 105-115mm range. This is to get to the WHOOWHOO's!

I cant underscore how important the whoowhoo's are. You have not tried a ski wide enough nor long enough for your weight or size to truly reach whoowhoo nirvana! Go out next year and start demoing some nice powder skis. Especially since you have the Rossi E88 now for hard snow!

You can get a heavier damp stiff ski that charges chop but you will give up on forgiveness in bumps and trees. If your are a finesse skier i suggest sticking to softer skis...but make sure you try the stiff chargers to see how they compare and what you prefer
Edited by avyoung - 4/28/14 at 5:40pm
post #52 of 57
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by avyoung View Post

Hi Folkfan

I am smaller than you at 5'7" 150lbs. I ski the whistler area and have had several skis over past few years:

190cm volkl explosives. On of the original fatties! 95mm wide waste. Stiff heavy, little side cut. Very damp. Point straight down and charge thru chop
177cm volkl mantras. Too stiff for me. Only wakes up at high speeds. I should have gone with 171cm mantras. I know now i prefer softer ski

171cm Solomon 1080 twin tip. Noodley fun park ski. No edge carve at all!
168cm K2 Coomback backcountry ski. 102mm Super easy to use. Decent everywhere. Soft and forgiving. Not great at carving. Too short for pow. I should have got 174cm length
171cm moment PB&J. 101mm. Decent alround soft snow ski. I didnt like skiing so centred. Moderately stiff and damp. Not bad at crud.

My current quiver:

165cm blizzard 8.1Ti. Nice front side carver 16m radius. Really fun when there is no new snow. No float. Hard to pivot in pow.

DPS w99 176cm. Great alround ski. Enough float to enjoy pow but narrow enough to really carve. Moderately soft so chop and crud have moderate speed limit which is fine with me. I got this ski because is ski with the kids in tight trees and groomers and generally alittle slower than with adults only

DPS 178cm w112. In powder significantly more float and speed. Much more whoowhoo's in untracked powder or chop than any of the above skis! In conditions deeper than 1foot of powder i would prefer this ski even longer 184cm. In deep and really steep i would prefer a ski even wider and less side cut too. It's too turny in really deep and steep!

Okay where am i going with all this review.... I would stick to your current skis until next year. Demo even longer wider skis for powder use. Target 180+cm length with a mid waist size in the 105-115mm range. This is to get to the WHOOWHOO's!

I cant underscore how important the whoowhoo's are. You have not tried a ski wide enough nor long enough for your weight or size to truly reach whoowhoo nirvana! Go out next year and start demoing some nice powder skis. Especially since you have the Rossi E88 now for hard snow!

 

Thanks for your reply, avyoung!   It made me laugh, and I think you've got good advice--I was already planning on moving in that direction.  What exactly do you mean by whoowhoo's?  The feeling of floating in powder?

 

In terms of a powder-specific ski in the 105-115 mm underfoot, any suggestion in terms of the material the ski is made from?  The Atomic Access are all wood and a bit noodly--something like the Atomic Benty Chetler seems like a better choice.  Maybe go for a metal/titanium reinforced wood ski? I'd like a powder ski that could handle crud and charge through inconsistent snow, yet of course float through pow effortlessly.  Does such a ski exist?  Would I need to sacrifice some "float" to gain the ability to handle crud and inconsistent snow?   Are there powder skis in this range that will still be fun on groomers?    Even on a day with a lot of fresh snow, I might still enjoy cruising on some groomers.

 

Thanks again!

post #53 of 57

^^ Do not get caught up in materials and construction.  There are skis without metal that are stiffer than skis with metal.

 

And no, you do not need to sacrifice float (width) to handle crud.

post #54 of 57
Lol. Whoowhoo's are when things are so amazingly fun you can stop shouting whoowhoo! I think when you are demoing powder skis next season you will shout out in glee and realized what I was talking about.

All skis are a compromise. You cant have it all. But starting longer and wider is a good start, and you will have a blast testing out all those skis out there!

Soft skis examples:

Dps w112 184cm. I have a feeling you will like these wink.gif
Rossignol Soul 7. 180cm 107mm underfoot. Great reviews for alround soft snow ski. Not a charger. Reviewers love this ski!

Stiffer:

Blizzard cochise 177 or 185cm 108mm underfoot. Less rocker. Not full on pow ski. Easy to ski charger in soft chop
Volkl katana 177 or 184cm. 112mm underfoot. Go straight down my friend! Lol

I would love to demo more. I wished i didnt buy all the skis i had.
I have to say i am happy with the skis i have now tho. Although I would probably get the dps w112 in 184cm now if i was to buy again.
post #55 of 57
Hey Jay

Thanks for the 2014/5 tecnica cochise 130pro boot review. I'm going to get those for my next boot! I got an email from Tecnica that they will come in a smaller 24 boot shell size next year as opposed to the smallest size of 25 in the old model. (I want to size down to see if i can get a more powerful fit! )
I cant wait! Cheers!
post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

^^ Do not get caught up in materials and construction.  There are skis without metal that are stiffer than skis with metal.

And no, you do not need to sacrifice float (width) to handle crud.

^^^this! you need some demo time! even if you don't demo all the skis you will have some base so you can have a clear idea when people compare skis in reviews!

try some metal - blizzard, volkl, line (you will find that metal skis can feel very different from each other)

try some wood - on3p, moment, salomon (you will find the same about wood core skis)
post #57 of 57
Hi folkfan

I realized i didnt describe what makes me go whoowhoo. The fatter wider more rockered skis make you rise to the top of powder much faster and top speed is much higher with less drag. You will feel like surfing unlike being dragged thru snow like on your access skis. You will be able to smear turns using little ski attack angle, or do the opposite and lean the ski over really far and make a big arcing turn with big snow spray. If you are fast enough you can bend the ski enough to pop you into the air. You can attack mounds of snow and jump your way down the slope. So many turn shapes and variety. You cant do this with a ski that is too narrow or short. I havent tried the atomic access (my wife skis it tho) and i think it is a great all mountain ski. Do yourself a favor and try some better powder sticks. They can be remarkably versatile these days.

Demo! You will have so much fun!


Ps some skis hook (catch an edge) on uneven snow more than others. My dps w99 hook really badly if i have razor sharp edges tip to tail. If i detune the tips and tails the ski behaves much more predictably in crap lumpy snow. I would look into edge tuning and detuning so you can make changes to your skis as you see fit. It really can make a big difference to the way your skis handle.
Edited by avyoung - 4/28/14 at 9:55pm
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 › Anyone on here have powder skis shorter than you are tall?