or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Salomon 1080 - is 161 too short?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Salomon 1080 - is 161 too short?

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
I recently purchased a pair of new 161 cm Salomon 1808's for what I thought was a steal at $180.

I have been hearing varying responses to my purchase. Some have told me that the shorter length will be a blessing in the park and the moguls, but the employee at the shop where I am having the bindings mounted made a comment saying that he hopes I do not break the skis.

I am an advanced intermediate skier and am about 6'3", 175 lbs. I live in the midwest and plan to use them in both the park and on the rest of the hill. Conditions here are generally no better than packed powder and or ice.

Are these skis going to be a welcome change to my old Head 195 straights, or am I bound to overload them?
post #2 of 10
Well it's true that going a little short is benificial in the park and moguls, but 35cm is pretty extreme. I am 9 or 10 inches shorter than you and and 45 or 50 pounds lighter and I am on a 168cm twin and while a little hard to spin on, I never really have that many problems with it in the park. I'm gonna be honest in saying that they do sound too big for you and I think you probably will end up overpowering them, but what do I know see how you like them. I would always reccomend talking to plenty of people and getting sufficient advice from someone who knoes their stuff before buying.
post #3 of 10
Those skis are way to small for ya. The 177 1080 would be perfect, but the 161 is made for people Vincent Dorian's size; about 5'2", and much lighter. Too bad, it is a super fun all mountain ski, versatile and forgiving. If you want to sell them, my girlfriend might be interested, did you drill them yet?
post #4 of 10
Why do you guys say they are too small? I work with two very good skiers who are on 160 super slalom skis (Fischer RC4 and Atomic 9-16's) and these guys are over six feet and in the 190 lbs range.

How do you account for the number of skiers on the W.C. on 160 cm boards? What would make the ski too short?

MNSkiwolf, the guy who said you would "break" the ski is dillusional. Did he work at K-Mart? I'm not on a salomon product, however, your size is not going to function to break a ski.
post #5 of 10
Yep. Just like I keep telling my girlfriend:

Length doesn't matter.
post #6 of 10
Rusty Guy, the reason people are saying they are too short is because these are twintips, not slalom skis. Guys my height/weight (5'10", 160 pounds) are skiing 177-ish twins.

You might see very young kids on 161s, but never anyone my height, certainly not MNSkiwolf's height. I would put MNSkiwolf on a 177-182cm twin.

As someone who has skied/owned a few pairs of twintips, I can tell you that most twintippers would agree with g-dubs and spinheli here.<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by phUnk (edited September 16, 2001).]</FONT>
post #7 of 10
There is a big difference between a shorty slalom and a all mountain twin. The manufacturers do design skis with certain sized skiers in mind. I am really into going short, but a 161 1080 for a 6'3" 175 lbs dude. Now if it was made to be skied in that lenght.... It was made for Vinnie, not Skiwolf. If he wants a 160, great; get a shorty slalom. If he wants an all mountain twin...
post #8 of 10
I am not going to pretend like I know about slalom skis, but I can tell you that like I said going a little short on strictly-park skis is fine, but this is just a little too short. I'm sure everyone has seen somebody on skiboards try and land a big jump, and the result is never pretty since they always end up on their ass. This is the same thing here, it might be easier to spin and trick a smaller ski, but for a man that size to try and land on hard snow on a extremely short and soft ski is not very easy. I rode 1080's in 161 for a year and a half, and like I said I am a whole lot smaller and even I found them too soft for all mtn. skiing and for landing big airs.
post #9 of 10
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all of the replys. I am going to go ahead and give them a chance for the beginning of the season. If they do turn out to be too little of a ski, I am sure I will have no problem finding someone who would want them. Plus I wouldn't be out that much money...I have a feeling that even after I have put a few days on them their value will still be near what I paid.

The first test will hopefully come in October. I will be in the Denver area over Loveland's predicted opening. I am hoping to get away and get the season's first skiing in, but I am wondering what to expect for the typical opening weekend. How many runs? bare spots? is it worth the ticket price?

Thanks again for all of your help.
post #10 of 10
I try and make it to Loveland opening day, or at least opening weekend every year. To start it is usually 18-24 inches of mostly man-made snow over one run, that is actually 3 named green runs connected, probably a little over a mile long. if a storm comes through a few more runs branching off the original run will be opened. It's not much skiing wise, but its cool to be up there so early in the season and get a few runs in.
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 › Salomon 1080 - is 161 too short?