or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Short pow skis

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 

I recently scored a pair of brand new 2011 K2 Obsethed skis from a friend of mine. But they are short. These are 169. I'm 5'11'' and 170lbs. My normal ski lengths are typically between 178-188. I have a pair of dedicated pow skis with the 2013 Rossignol S7 at 188cm. And I love them. I'm an aggressive skier doing just about everything. 

 

So my options with the new Obsethed skis is to 1) sell them or 2) use as my dedicated tree/pow skis. These skis have extreme early rise. These are 117 underfoot and have the Rocker/Camber/Rocker profile. The tip rocker is even more pronounced compared to my Rossi S7 which makes the contact point even shorter. I would have to assume that if I use these, I could only use for bumps or trees where I need to make quick and tight turns. I suppose being such short skis and with even shorter contact point, it won't be stable on high speeds and turn initiation will be as quick as skiboards (aka snowblades). What do you guys think? Should I mount them anyway and see how they ride? Anyone here tried out really short pow skis for their height/weight/skills? 

 

My current quiver of skis:

 

2011 Line Prophet 90 (179cm) - my all-mountain skis

2008 Fischer Addicts (180cm) - a true twin-tip - my terrain park only skis

2013 Rossignol S7 (188cm) - my all-mountain powder skis 

post #2 of 16

Sell them/give them to somebody in the 5'-5'6" height range.  Those skis would be good for a young teen.  A 174 would be a better tree ski length for you.  Those probably ski even shorter hahaha..

post #3 of 16
Thread Starter 

I know these are incredibly short but I'm actually curious to see how they ride being so short. I've never rode skiboards (or snowblades) but I assume these skis will ski like them. And because they're so short, I figured it would be incredibly easy to ski in the trees especially for tight turns and bumped out trails. I know these are not the right length for me. I'd like to at least mount them and see how they ride. If I really hate them, then obviously I'll sell them to someone who needs them. But I was really hoping for someone who actually tried something like this or if nothing else, if someone here tried riding skiboards, I'd love to read about their experience. I've seen some YouTube videos of people riding on skiboards and it looks like a lot of fun. Obviously not great for high speeds but for just having fun, why not? 

post #4 of 16

There are two things you need from a ski in the trees:  quickness and float.  You won't really get either with this ski.  As short as they are and with extreme early rise, they will ski very short and you will sink deeper and have more trouble turning, meaning you they won't actually be very quick.  But you seem pretty set on trying it out so have a ball, just make sure there is plenty of space between the trees.  I did see some kid head into the trees once on those stupid little short things.  He didn't fair too well and came postholing out because he couldn't turn them in 18-20" of untracked powder.

post #5 of 16
I have 179 Obsethed and I love them. I'm about the same size as you. Yeah, the 169s are shorter than ideal, but keep in mind they are K2s and K2 measures their skis after shaping them, so 169 K2s are the equivilent of mid 170s (174-175 maybe? not sure exactly) from any other company.
post #6 of 16

Highjack: I'm about the same size as the OP here, looking at the 12/13 BD Megawatt. I like the 178 over the 188 as I'm a turn freak and want to use it in trees. Views?

post #7 of 16

Sell them!  I don't see where they fit in your quiver even for bumps and trees.

 

Here's why you don't want a too short rockered ski:  At 5'11" 180lbs I hated the 178 Rossi S3 as it was way too short, but actually enjoyed the 186 S3 in soft snow.   Too short meant it was scary on groomers at any speed.  It also just felt like there was nothing there to keep you from going over the handlebars if you got forward, or from wheeling if you got back, both scary in bumps and trees.  Too short == scary.

 

For context, I normally ski on a 177 Kendo, but I've also skied a lot on the 170 and even the 163.  I'd rather be on a 163 Kendo on a groomer or in firm bumps at high speed than that 178 S3.  There is that much difference, so be careful about getting a rockered ski too short.  You really need to demo to know for sure.

post #8 of 16
Thread Starter 

That's super helpful @Sh4d0w ! Yeah, I definitely would like to try it to see how it feels. I already have enough skis as my everyday skis and as long as I'm careful I'd like to know how they ride. But knowing that you ski on the 179 Obsethed and seem to know a lot about k2 skis, this is very helpful. Thanks! 

  •  
post #9 of 16

I am almost exactly your size (5'10", 170). I ski the 2013 S7 at 178 and love it.  It gives me plenty of float and I can turn it easily. If the Obsethed is equivalent to a 175 or so in most powder skis, then it might give you that quick turning ski you are looking for.

post #10 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by douismaximus View Post

That's super helpful @Sh4d0w ! Yeah, I definitely would like to try it to see how it feels. I already have enough skis as my everyday skis and as long as I'm careful I'd like to know how they ride. But knowing that you ski on the 179 Obsethed and seem to know a lot about k2 skis, this is very helpful. Thanks! 




  •  

 



Why don't you save yourself the money, sell them. Then next season at one of the free demo's get on a short ski and see how much you love/hate it.
post #11 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly View Post

Highjack: I'm about the same size as the OP here, looking at the 12/13 BD Megawatt. I like the 178 over the 188 as I'm a turn freak and want to use it in trees. Views?


 



I'd say 178 at your size. Not knowing how much skill you have ?

http://www.wildernessexchangeunlimited.com/product_detail.cfm?CatID=146&PID=3626&SKU=14673&LinkID=1&gclid=CKLu4cTkl74CFe_m7AodoUAAXw
post #12 of 16

My powder skis perform beautifully at 166 cm but I'm 140 lbs and 5'6".  You probably need more ski.

post #13 of 16

Sell them. At 5'11" 175 lbs, the 179 variant of that ski would be appropriate, and if you were a charger the 189 would not be out of the realm of possibility. 169 is too short.

 

I have a 189 Obsethed in my quiver, but it is near retirement and only comes out in early season powder.

 

Going shorter isn't the ticket to a good tree ski on these- the conventional sidecut and rocker profile makes for an unpredictably grabby tip and tail, because once that tip and tail touch the snow, they will quickly change how the ski is applying force to the snow.

 

Modern 5 point ski designs (Rossi 7 series and many others- tapered tips and tails are the hallmark of this design) make these skis really feel obselete, ESPECIALLY in trees. Sell them and buy a 5 point ski for the trees. Just trust me on this.

post #14 of 16

How does the five-point (I hadn't heard that term before, like that) thing work in terms of length compared to the older style like the Obsethed (which I've basically skipped)?

post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by prickly View Post

How does the five-point (I hadn't heard that term before, like that) thing work in terms of length compared to the older style like the Obsethed (which I've basically skipped)?

Go long. If you ski a conventional or tip rocker ski in the 175 range, a 185 5 point ski would be a good starting point. For most of these skis, about 50% of the ski is rockered. In the specs, the manufacturers will list the running length of the ski. This is the part of the ski that is in contact with the snow with the ski flat. For a 189 ski yuou usually see a snowblade-style running length of around 130cm. The long ski will feel really short until you get in 3d snow.

In my eyes, these skis are a bigger revolution than anything since the transition from straight to shaped skis, and maybe a bigger revolution than that. These skis do everything off-piste, and a hood pair is still more than adequate on the groom. They kill it in moguls for the same reason they kill it in powder- the ski is designed to not hang up in pivot movements, so you can steer right through the minefield with ease.

I was really disappointed with conventional sidecut rockered skis like the Obsethed. The rocker added to float in a mild way, but didn't do anything to allow the ski to surf. My older fat full cambered skis were more predictable off-piste because the tip was more consistently engaged. The 5 point design is what I hoped a rockered ski would be. They even have decent hard snow manners because the tip of the ski is not in the air- the fattest part of the ski is the front of the base contact area, giving you a tip to pressure and drive with. The running length means these aren't going to win slalom races, but you can railroad track these skis and feel confident on harder snow.
post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtcyclist View Post
 

There are two things you need from a ski in the trees:  quickness and float.  You won't really get either with this ski.  As short as they are and with extreme early rise, they will ski very short and you will sink deeper and have more trouble turning, meaning you they won't actually be very quick.  But you seem pretty set on trying it out so have a ball, just make sure there is plenty of space between the trees.  I did see some kid head into the trees once on those stupid little short things.  He didn't fair too well and came postholing out because he couldn't turn them in 18-20" of untracked powder.

 

so true^^

 

yeah the thing is you 188cm Rossi S7 are great tree skis. for just about any averagish sized male skier. You have no reason to keep the obseths. 

 

shawdow is 100 percent correct I owned old school Seth in a 189cm and first gen hellbents in a 189cm and both were by far the longest skis I have ever owned. The hellbents were silly fun in powdery trees at Snowbird the full cambered seths well let jsut say they like to destroy!! 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion