EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › K2 Apache Recon length?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

K2 Apache Recon length?

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
I won a pair of K2s (any model, any size I want) at this year's ESA, so my choice of manufacturer's is kind of limited. I was looking for something that would be nice on those days that it dumps here in New England (not that that's happened recently... and would also be good to take on Western trips. Eastern snow tends to be rather heavy, so it would have to be a decent crud-buster. I've managed to ski 8" of glop on my 5*s , so I'd like to think that the pilot is reasonably capable.

Anyway. I was at Sugarloaf this weekend in spring-like conditions, so I demo'ed the Apache Recon's in a 167 length. I loved them in that length, but unfortunately, they didn't have the 174 for me to demo as well.

I'm about 175, 6'3", level 8 skier, and I tend not to go all that fast (well, except on groomers, and I'm not planning on using this ski on groomers !). How much flotation would I be giving up by getting the 167 vs. 174 length? Any noticeable variation in the "tight spaces" manuverability of the 167 / 174 (read: bumps, narrow Eastern trails and people dodging).

Thanks!
post #2 of 22
I'm 155#, 5'10", level 9 skiier and ski the 174 Recons.
Great all around ski, but I can't imagine the 167 being "enough" for someone your size.

I didn't really find the 167 to be significantly more maneuverable than the 174, but the longer length is definitely more stable at speed & better in powder & crud.
post #3 of 22
Kevin,

Brother! I won the K2s at ETU last year - what a great thing, eh! I am a couple of inches shorter than you and 5 or 10 lbs heavier. I went with the 174 and it was spot on. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the Recon and will use it all the time. The titanal layers give it terrific grip on ice (I keep mine tuned to a 2 degree side/1 degree base) and it is a pleasure off piste. But this is just the beginning, you understand. When going west, well, you're gonna want some 90mm + skis... The Recons are just like marijuana - they're gonna lead you into hard core drugs like The Reverend... set up with Fritschi Freeride bindings...
http://www.genuineguidegear.com/g3_skis_reverend.html

Enjoy those skis! (...and start saving up for the AT rig; it's coming).

Mike
post #4 of 22
I debated the Recon or Crossfire and ultimately went with the crossfire. Took a few days to break em, but now im positively sold on them. have a trip to jackson in a few and was toying with the idea of getting the wider Recons, based alot on the tripa and deep snow. I really dont like a fat ski otherwise, and this is my first pair of shapes other than GS race skis. My only complaint is that they are a little stiff for the skiing I had been meaning to do with them. I would almost say they are a few shades this side of a race ski stiffness-wise, but I think the Recon is a bit softer. I would definately stick with the 174's based on your info. If you like air and jumps and bumps you might like the extra length on the landings for "hanging on". Im flaming, but seriously any of those high end apache's are the real deal and you will be psyched!
post #5 of 22
I have the XP in 174 from the first ESA raffle (Thanks, again, Ric) and the Recon in 167. I outweigh you a bunch and am more than half a foot shorter. But I'm probably more than half again your age too. Anyway, I don't think you'd have a significant difference in performance regarding powering through cut up stuff. The 167s might hold a little less on really hard ice, but, again, not enough to make much difference unless you ski fast all the time. They'd most likely be a bit easier to manipulate in tight spots.
post #6 of 22
I think at your height and weight you would be fine with a 174CM. I demo'd the Recons at Steamboat last month in the 174CM and liked them but actually felt I would have been better off with the 181CM. (I'm 6' and 160lbs.) I had no problems with the 174 CM skis in Christmas tree bowl or in the double diamond chutes at Steamboat, so if you're looking for a good off-piste ski that does well on groomers, then the Recon is an excellent choice. Don't be afraid to go longer.
When you do want to pick up the speed or take the skis out west, then you'll wish you were on the 174CM.
post #7 of 22
At 6'3" you could even go up to a 181' recone I'm only 5'8" and skiing the 174. The Xp/ recon tends to like a long to med turn. short turns even on the 174 are a chore. It's a great ski for out here Nice in Powder and if you stay centered and don't pressure the tip they are really good in crud. They are a really good all around ski. Just give some thought to going a bit longer.
post #8 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearberry
But this is just the beginning, you understand. When going west, well, you're gonna want some 90mm + skis... The Recons are just like marijuana - they're gonna lead you into hard core drugs like The Reverend... set up with Fritschi Freeride bindings...
http://www.genuineguidegear.com/g3_skis_reverend.html

Enjoy those skis! (...and start saving up for the AT rig; it's coming).
Oh, I fully understand the addiction! I'm a firm believer that the necessary number of skis is "N+1", where "N" is the number you currently have. I still need the race skis, the really really deep powder skis, the park skis (yeah right, the day I catch air is when pigs will start flying), the ...
post #9 of 22
Kevin- I would ask Ric (vailsnopro) for advice, too. And, as someone once said here, the ski doesn't know how tall you are- weight matters more. I am 5'8" like Utah49, but am very light, so I am on a 167.
post #10 of 22
At your level, I don't think you'd like the Recon. See my review at

http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=22268
post #11 of 22
Thread Starter 
I wound up getting the Recon in the 174 length -- they showed up on Tuesday, I dropped them off at my shop today (Wednesday), and they'll be going for their first spin on Saturday.

Awesome turn-around time by K2! I figured I'd be lucky if I saw them in time to give them any use at all this year.
post #12 of 22
No Made 'n AK's? You punk!
post #13 of 22

Some advice about right length of Recon...

I've just picked up a pair of last season (06/7) recons in 167cm from a local shop. I'm an advanced intermediate (not sure how you grade your levels - sorry), 5'11" and 205lbs. I have a pair of SX10s in 174cm and get on with them well when I put the effort in. I'm now just querying some other advice I've received that maybe the 167cm might be a size to short for me. The local shop I bought them from have been great and offered to credit back against a set of 174cm if I choose to go that way but he still thinks 167cm is right for me. I don't want to be distrusting of his knowledge but I also want to be sure I've got the right length for me.

Background.... only been sking for 3 seasons but crammed in 12 weeks during those 3 years and already happy to go on almost any piste on the mountain skiing the fal line of everything up to reds with reasonably good technique. Steeper and bumpier causes some problems. Also not done much powder but would like to dabble in that some more in next couple of seasons. Generally ski as the mood of the day takes me... somes days I like to really tear around the mountain, others I like to try short, quick turns and still others I'll cruise and try the long graceful arcs.

Any advice greatly appreciated, key question is should I stick with the 167 length I've got or is my weight just a little too much for that length?
post #14 of 22
Thread Starter 
Wow, my old thread resurrected from the dead.

I'd get at least the 174 length for sure. I'm about 170 pounds, and I can't imagine skiing something shorter then that off the groomed stuff. It'll come around pretty fast in the 174 length, although it'll never do what a little hyper-carver is capable of (in terms of short-turn ability).

It's not "wide" by any modern standards anymore, so it's not going to provide much float in powder, especially in the shorter lengths. So if you're looking for something to help you float in powder when you start experimenting in that -- well, a 167 isn't going to do it. A 174 doesn't do it either for that matter.

It's a fantastic all-around ski though. I've taken mine through about every condition imaginable save bullet-proof ice, and it's never really left me wanting.
post #15 of 22
I ski the Recon in a 167 and outweigh you by 10 or 15 pounds. I skied the XP (basically the same ski as the first-year Recon) in a 174 and found when I switched to the 167 that I hadn't given up much in stability but gained in maneuverability. When I got my new Recons last year, I got back some of the stability. Note that the 06-07 Recon is slightly wider and slightly longer than the introductory Recon. I think you'll like your shop's advice. Telling to me is your comment, "when I put the effort in."
post #16 of 22
Thanks both for your quick replies.... obviously different opinions from each of you which I guess sums up my confusion but it has helped hone in on a couple of important things... notably I am looking for a ski which is a little more manouvreable (particularly in the bumps) and whilst I'd like this to be the ski that helps me dabble a little more in off-piste I was only hoping for something just better than my SX10s (which are a good 12mm or so narrower all along). I'm assuming therefore that these 167 recons will 'float' better than my 174 SX10s and hence develop just that little but more confidence to progress off-piste. If I get bitten by the powder bug after trying a bit more then I guess I'd be looking to buy (or rent) specifc skis for that purpose.

That steers me more towards sticking with the 167s, after weighing up both your points.
post #17 of 22
I am in the 174 camp on this. I demoed the recon 174 and outlaw 174 and bought the outlaw. I am 5'11'' about 210lbs. I liked the recon, but liked the outlaw better. I think it is a better ski (in addition to being wider). It still carves great and is more stable.

If I had to pick the recon only, I might go to 181 for myself for more stability off-piste. The recon was so easy and fun to ski, the longer length is easily handled.

Too bad you can't demo both back to back. You would be fine in the 167, but you will probably find being over 200lbs (like I am) the longer length is much better for off-piste. Depends on what you want the ski for.

I am thinking about trading my outlaw 174 up to a 181 length.

You already have a good on-piste ski. That could factor in unless you are replacing it with another one ski quiver.
post #18 of 22
I am a female, long time skier, 5'8" and I vary between 150 and 160 pounds. I ski the 167 Recon, and before that the 167 XP. I think given your size you need the 174 as well. I also went out and bought (no demo'ing, so this worries me, but what a deal) the Outlaw in 167 just for those days when the Recon is just not wide enough. Enjoy!
post #19 of 22
I would say 174 at the least.

I'm 5'11" and currently 190, but come ski season i usually drop down to 180-175 (i'm opposite others in that i gain weight in the summer and drop it in the winter!).

I demoed the 174 a lot back in 2006. I loved that ski. never tried it any longer but knew that anything smaller than a 174 would be too short.

Go with the 174!
post #20 of 22
I am 6 feet and 200 lbs so the 181’s work best for me. I tried this ski at Alta about three years ago and it was fantastic for powder, crud, chop, and groomed skiing. However I quickly noticed that the shorter version felt like a different ski. To be honest I was not as comfortable on the 174’s.

The 181’s could be taken anywhere with confidence. It should work well in New England but I would definitely like another pair of SL or GS race ski’s for hard snow and fast skiing. For all out attacks in powder or crud the K2 Outlaw is even better. I tried them last year (again at Alta) and loved them.

Enjoy

Mike
post #21 of 22
I also tend to gain my weight during the off-season and lean up during the winter months.

Thanks all for your thoughts... although it's confused me even more now :-)

I've bought these Recons as a second pair to my SX10s to:
A) help me improve my technique by being a little more forgiving and hence tire me out less so that I can concentrate on the technique for longer during the day,
B) Give me something a bit better in off-piste than the SX10s to help make those occasional forays a little more successful,
C) Provide a ski that will 'cope OK' with everything from groomed to crud, powder to bumps, cruising to some spins and jumps; basicaly just a true all-rounder for those days your not sure what mood you are in.

I'm intrigued by Kneale's comments - he obviously loves the 167s and is heavier than me and a significantly more accomplished and experienced skier than I.

I guess what I'm coming down to is that if the longer 174 (or even 181 some of you are hinting at) would give me more stability at high speed and float in powder then I think I'm comfortable trading those if it gives me a more manoureable and forgiving progressor ski to complement my SX10s.
post #22 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristofG View Post
...
I'm intrigued by Kneale's comments - he obviously loves the 167s and is heavier than me and a significantly more accomplished and experienced skier than I.

I guess what I'm coming down to is that if the longer 174 (or even 181 some of you are hinting at) would give me more stability at high speed and float in powder then I think I'm comfortable trading those if it gives me a more manoureable and forgiving progressor ski to complement my SX10s.
CristofG - It sounds like you have made your mind up regarding the shorter length as you keep coming back to your willingness to give up stability for more maneuverability.

I demoed the 181cm Recon last year while at Vail and would not have wanted to go any shorter. I am 6'1'' and about 185 lbs. and consider myself an advanced skier. The conditions were less than ideal with no new snow for a couple weeks (which is why I went with a something narrower). The 181 was quite easy to set on edge and rail the turns on the groomed runs. It also handled the broken crud off piste quite well. Didn't get to try it in any powder, so I can't speak to that. Overall, I really liked the ski and felt it was great for the conditions that day.

If you are looking for maneuverability over stability, then I would not consider the 181. However at your size, I think the 174 would be a better all-around ski that maneuvers well and has stability when needed. Plus, it will provide a better platform for you to "dabble in the powder ...".
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 › K2 Apache Recon length?