or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Racing and Big Mountain Competitions › Anybody gone shorter and/or softer in SL
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anybody gone shorter and/or softer in SL

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 

Ive been using the stiff Völkl WC edition SL skis for many years now. Currently im on last years model. Im a big guy, 6foot2, and been using the length 165cm. Now somebody told me on a racing camp in the Alps that in Germany they are using the shorter length 160cm version. It turns easier and its a bit softer. I didnt know such length existed. Must be new for this year.

 

So I have 3 options. Stay on the 165 and stop wining. Get the shorter length and get something new to wine about. Or get the shelf version that is softer, with more side cut and with tip rocker and swap the rental binding/plate combo for a set of PP/Comp20.

 

If you wonder why, its because I would like to get something that turns a bit tighter and are a bit easier to ski racing tracks on.

post #2 of 7

Dunno from Volkl these days. I've been on Atomic almost exclusively for some time. When the flat deck (no D2) SLs came out, I dropped down from 165 to 158 and that's where I've been ever since...

 

:D

post #3 of 7
Thread Starter 

SkiRacer, what are your critical measurements? Im 190cm 95kg... something like 6foot2 and 200.

 

Also, can you tell us a little bit how it was to go down to 155 and what that did to your racing and your ranking. What is the competition on? How about GS skis?

post #4 of 7
Mostly I race Rossi 9GS for beer league, Nastar, and the occasional full FIS-like GS course. 180cm, >19M, quite stiff WC construction. For practice and tighter sets I skied Racetiger WC SL's in 165 but this season switched to the Speedwall non-WC Racetigers in 170 R>14. I'm not as tall as you but similar weight- picture a silverback gorilla on skis.biggrin.gif

I like the longer radius and length of the Speedwalls but they are too soft for me in the course, or perhaps it's just that the camber is not as aggressive. I have improved my times significantly vs. last season on the Rossi GS skis but am slower on the Speedwall SL's than I was on the WC Racetigers. The non-WC Speedwall SL's are definitely an easier ski for variable East Coast conditions on groomers. Not knocking them- I'd say they perfectly meet their design criteria.

YRMV, but at your size I recommend keeping the 165 WC's.

Edit: If you are looking for easier but not necessarily faster, the non-WC Speedwalls would be perfect.
post #5 of 7

There are a few guys on the master's crowd here that are skiing the 155... only a small handful of them are actually fast. You lose a lot of stability when you move to the 155, so if you're a hot mess in a SL course, the 165 is probably a better choice. I will say though, I tried to go up to stiff flex skis and quickly changed my mind. I'm sticking with 'normal' flex race stock boards... softer the better.

post #6 of 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier View Post
 

There are a few guys on the master's crowd here that are skiing the 155... only a small handful of them are actually fast. You lose a lot of stability when you move to the 155, so if you're a hot mess in a SL course, the 165 is probably a better choice. I will say though, I tried to go up to stiff flex skis and quickly changed my mind. I'm sticking with 'normal' flex race stock boards... softer the better.

This!  I find that with the 165 you have that bit more tail to play with when (not if!) you get thrown in the back seat and makes the recovery easier.  Like Heluva says, avoid the 'stiff" versions

post #7 of 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdk6 View Post
 

SkiRacer, what are your critical measurements? Im 190cm 95kg... something like 6foot2 and 200.

 

Also, can you tell us a little bit how it was to go down to 155 and what that did to your racing and your ranking. What is the competition on? How about GS skis?


I'm 5' 8", 185. I'm quicker in the races. I'm 66 (Men's Class 8), and a lot of Older Dudes have gone down to 155 or 158 (I am on 158). It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison across brands, however. I went from a 165 flat deck Atomic SL, which is the size for WC men, to a 158, which is the size for WC women, and it was all good...quicker, still held really well. For GS, Atomic 183 at 23M, with this year's DoubleDeck 3.0 with RampTech...better than last year's plate, IMHO...

 

:D

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Racing and Big Mountain Competitions › Anybody gone shorter and/or softer in SL