or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Lesson Learned with long skis - I am going short
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lesson Learned with long skis - I am going short

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I have been on the volkl p50 F1, The p40f1, all in a 193cm and 188cm . I have even owned the wc verison of the p50 in a 188 so I though I could handle the Fischer world cup in a 188 to free ski on . Well, I have never been beat up so much . On the groomers they were great but when I went chasing my friends down runs with the slighttest amount of powder , I found myself doing face plants .
I have been on the phone with the stockli Rep about ordering next years Stockli Cross Pros in a 188 but after this ski experiece I am going down to a 180 ( if any asks me I will just tell them they are 188x..lol)
I think its time to swallow my pride and get a ski thats not work all the time and enjoy sking again .
Whats so funny is the fastest I have ever skied was on a pair of 178 Volkl G4s but I was not about to go that short .
well next year I will have me a pair of cross Pros in a 180 with the marker piston plate and I dont plan on ever going back to a 188 .
That Fischer in a 188 is made for Bode Miller and I am not about to kill myself ( I normally ski all day when we go , this time 2 hours and I thought I needed to go see a doctor )
post #2 of 25
Why do some men drive Porsches and Ferraris? The same reason some still use long skis. Fast cars and long skis have their purpose, but freeway traffic jams and skiing inbounds don't require it. Get a platinum card, works better for picking up chicks.

I only use a 180 in the skiercross catergory ski for on-piste playing. I just lick my eyebrows to pick up the bunnies.
post #3 of 25
My big all-mountain skis are now 170cm, down from 180. Two years ago my club race ski was a 178. The past two years it was a 168. I just bought two new pairs, a 156 slalom and 158 hybrid. I'm tired of getting whipped by club skiers running 155 to 160cm slaloms on modified gs sets. Shorter skis hook up better, don't skid and therefore overall faster in the gates. I hope by now I've learned my lesson too.
post #4 of 25
Thread Starter 
I am pretty sure I have learned my lesson . I know someone who went down from a 193 on the volkl p40 to a 182 in the 5 star and he is so much faster all over the mountain now . I think going from a 188 to a 180 is a pretty big step . The next size in the cross pro is a 172 that may be too big of a leap for me .
post #5 of 25
This is my take. A 170-175cm performance non slalom ski from any manufacturer may well work best for anything that most average build male skiers are likely to encounter at any ski area in the West. Reduce that by 10cms and you should be good to go on the east coast.

If you are racing in speed events or Big Mountain skiing in Alaska or something you may want to go longer. Otherwise, go short or find yourself buying a lot more skis than you planned as you inch downward. I did.
post #6 of 25
"I am going down to a 180 ( if any asks me I will just tell them they are 188x..lol)
I think its time to swallow my pride and get a ski thats not work all the time and enjoy sking again ."

This is a strange attitude that I guess I can't relate to. Phallic perhaps?

Why is it not "manly" to ski anything shorter than xxxcm.?

I dunno, I skied a bunch of skis, then decided what worked for me. Call me nuts.
post #7 of 25
Thread Starter 
Well, I have always thought that longer skis are more stable but really if you were to lay a ski on its side , you are not talking about giving up a lot in terms of edge from a 188 to a 180. It's not a manyly thing for me , its more of not knowing just how great the new skis are but I am getting the 180s and never touching anything over that again ..lol. It is really going to be interesting to see how much easier it is to ski .
post #8 of 25
Betcha' this David guy is 175cm or shorter in one more pair after the 180cm.
post #9 of 25
Thread Starter 
well, the next size is a 172cm but since the cross Pros are not so wide I plan on getting the 180s as advised by the Stockli Rep . I have been on the 5 star in a 182cm and the 175cm . I would say the 182 felt the best for me . But that's about as long as I am going in any ski. I have a pair the the offroad XLs in a 184 and they are fine .
post #10 of 25
I dropped from a 193 cm K2 X15 to a 174 K2 Axis XP this year. I am 6'3" and 210lbs (or so). All I noticed was a ski that I could a lot more with. A major step up in carving, powder, crud and ice.

I don't really think that length has anything to do with the perceived quality of the skier, but to what use the skier wants to put the ski to. When I skied on 165 race skis this year, they were much more demanding than longer ski's I've been on.

The only time I would increase the length of ski at this point is when I'm heading into bottomless powder.


Rob
post #11 of 25
I purchased a 180cm Atomic SX-9 this year as an all around ski. I am pretty sure I will sell this ski in the fall and replace it with a 162cm Atomic Metron. In the past I would have purchased the 172 longest length Metron.

But the new mindset I'm trying to adopt is why?
I ski most of my days on a short hill(750 vert, ft. on the long side of the resort) and like to make short turns. The shorter Metron will probably be a better choice for the turn radius which delivers the most enjoyment on a short hill.
I never thought the day would come when I thought 180cm was too long. I think I've reached that point. I wished the Metron came in a Volkl size of 168 cm though.
Anybody else going really short next season?
I'm 6 ft 190 lbs. The speed at which I ski is not very fast because I like to turn across the hill.
Witnessed a bunch of the Ski Magazine testers last week in Vail skiing short skis very hard and aggressively. Looks like the way to go. I also believe a shorter ski is more conducive to a two footed - equally weighted stance. Its my opinion carving turns with a 180 cm ski with equal weight distribution is not very conducive to a two foot stance.
If I'm wrong about the shorter ski delivering this type of performance and enjoyment I made a very expensive mistake.
I can see myself flinching at the ski rack and picking up the 172 Metron!
Somebody help me.
post #12 of 25
Thread Starter 
It was funnly last year when I went to the shop to demo a pair of voklk G4s . I wanted the 188 but they were all out so I just took the 178s - I have never carved so hard in my life and the turns I could make were short medium or long . In all honesty , my turns were a lot cleaner than my 193cm skis and I was moving at a much faster pace .
if they made the cross pro in a 175cm , that would be the one I would purchase but they drop from 180 to 172cm .
My 182cm Stormriders are great in light powder but seem a little big on the groomers but they are somewhat of a wide ski compared to the cross Pro .
I will be the first to admit that I have been missing out on a lot by keeping longer skis but at least now I know . If any shop tries to sell me a 188 or 193 cm ski again because they are on some super sale and " I can grow into them " sales talk " I am going to just laugh . I dont want any ski that is over the top of my head .
post #13 of 25
Its funny when you go into a ski shop now and see those HUGE skis in the back row. When you take one out and look at it its a 180. They just look like monsters compared to all the 160's and 170's.

roundturns...get the 162. You know you'll regret it if you don't.
post #14 of 25
You're so right, Arby! I still can't believe I progressed (regressed?) from 197 to 180 to 174 to 160 in little over a year's time. Amazing! And I enjoy skiing now more than ever after 30+ years on the slopes.
post #15 of 25
I have been skiing on Olin Radius K Pro 195's for the last couple of years. This year I bought a pair of Nordica SUV 12X's. I was really hesitant about the length because I was sure I should get the 180's (longest length) because I did not want to go so short. The owner of the ski shop I go to suggested I ski the 170's first. He is about 6'1 230, said he had skied them and loved them. I am about 6'0 210. I tried them out and never looked back. They have no chatter or loss of stability at speed and carved great. I couldn't be happier.
post #16 of 25
Mid-season this year I bought a pair of Dynstar Omelglass skis in 157 cm lenght and I've never had more fun. I am about 6'0" and 190lbs. I look at my "old 172's" that I bought last year they look huge and they feel heavy and slow compared to the shorter skis.
post #17 of 25
Thread Starter 
I just skied a stockli laser Sc in a 178 and that ski was all the ski I would ever need . if it has a top end - I sure could not find it . The 178 lenght felt almost too good for me . My next ski will be in the 178-180 range for sure
post #18 of 25
Just to buck the trend of this tread, I still see some advantages to long skis. In powder you don't have to be as centered fore and aft--a short ski can plunge if you get too forward or the tails sink if you get too far back at the end of a turn. I skied powder in the trees on successive days on a 165 and a 186 and for going fast in light snow, I'll take the big one.

Simple geometry tells you slamming into bump on a short ski gives you a more abrupt hit than a long one. It always amazes me how smooth the big boards can feel. If you want to cruise and not get tired and beaten up, look for an easy turning long ski.

Now, if you want to make round carved turns that's another story. A pair of 160's with a radius under 15 m will leave you shaking your head in disbelief at just how much fun a simple featureless groomed rum can be. Mr. Roundturns post is on the right track for fun on a smaller hill.

I spent a month in Europe this year, skied 16 resorts. On the big trams the tips of my 180 Dynamic Mystics (Atomic R10 or 11 clones) frequently stuck out as the longest boards in the cable car. The Euros really don't go off Piste that much and except for Pra-Loup, where they all use old 207's and rear entry boots (is there a time warp there?)most of them are going short with tight radius
post #19 of 25
Well, everything is relative to the eye of the observer. I still define 186-188 skis as "short".
Even though 183-178-175 is the lenght I'd try to get my hands on for a GS ski, 170-175-180 for an "European" freeride ski (50% on and 50% off piste, 70 to 75 waist width) 160-168 for an all purpouse ski (like the 6* as an example) and 160-165 for a slalom ski.
These dimendsions are based on my height, weight
and personal preferencies.

Since I don't have that much money, I'll stick to my 198 GS skis and TNT boots (it's the next thing near to rear entry boot and "straight" skis, according to someone here)
[img]tongue.gif[/img]
post #20 of 25
Yeah, it wasn't long ago I thought 200's were short, and it took me a long time to learn to go fast on the new skis. I will say that now a 180 is pretty long. I was in a shop in Colfasco last month and the longest ski there was an Atomic 190 cm GS ski, slightly used, only 90 Euros with demo bindings and gathering dust on the rack. I would have not brought skis had I know a deal like that would be available. Obviously not many people in Italy like a 190 these days.
post #21 of 25
P.S. I'm 175/73 (that's cm/Kg) that should equate to roughly 5' 8"/161 (ft in/pounds) according to here
http://www.simetric.co.uk/metres_to_feet.htm
post #22 of 25
You were in Colfosco in March? I've been there end of January...
Yeah, 190 is now being perceived as too long I guess, still it would have been an improvement for me, what with my 198...
Which hotel were you staying at (or were you sleeping in a Garni house)?
I usually spend my nights in a Garni, but my mother and her brother, being older people, prefer to stay at the "Gran Ciasa" hotel, and now that they have the "mini spa" too...
post #23 of 25
Hi Matteo!

We spent a week in Colfasco, staying at the Garni Larix. Colofasco was a nice place, much friendlier and less crowded than Selva. I was a bit disappionted that the only lodging we could find was for the whole week, but there was a lot of new snow and we only had one clear day to see the fabulous scenery of the Sella Ronda, so it was good that we stayed.

I think next time I'll go to Arabba...that was my favorite skiing.

Ciao,

Doug
post #24 of 25
short skis are for pansys. real mean use skis that are 200+ cm.

not quite.

I'm 5'10" and my 176 scratch BCs are WAAAAAY to short. I demoed 190 xploders and they will soon be the replacement. they're not as good in bumps. d'oh. screw bumps. They own the scratches in everything else.

go 190 and up or go home.
post #25 of 25
I'm kind of with Newfydog on this whole subject.

My two favorite skis this past winter were probably both on the long side of what the consensus of this thread seems to be. I'm 6'1", 195#, and two different skis really lit me up this winter. One was the Fischer 8.6 in a 190cm length. I loved it for deep snow and junk. The other pair were Head I.C. 200's in a 177. These were absolutely fantastic on anything groomed, bumped, or skied off. They even worked great in crud to about boot-top depth.

I think a lot of this depends on where you ski, how often, and what kind of conditions you typically experience. Here in Jackson Hole, we spend a *lot* of time skiing junk and crud for days after powder storms. I really feel that longer skis cut through junk better. They don't experience quite the front-end deflection that's pretty common with shorter skis in deeper junk. It feels (to me) like a longer ski smooths out the terrain and snow variations quite a bit more than a shorter ski does.

So, while I agree completely that short is the way to go when you're skiing on *top* of the snow, I'm not at all ready to abandon longer skis when I'm skiing *in* the snow - aka powder or crud.

Bob
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 › Lesson Learned with long skis - I am going short