or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Yet another sizing question, 01-02 BetaRide 9:22
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yet another sizing question, 01-02 BetaRide 9:22

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 
For betaracer or others... I am 5'10" 160lbs, eastern skier, level 6... I have only been on a couple of shapes (please see my thread in the reviews forum.) Not sure if I should be looking at 170 or 180, I suspect 170? Probably won't be able to demo this model but I like the reviews in terms of light weight & versatility. Thanks and H.N.Y.!

[ January 01, 2003, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: steve1321 ]
post #2 of 9
Steve the 922 is a great ski , I'm 220 and 5ft 10in and ski it in 190cm . Typically the 170 will ski close in feel on groomed to the 180 and you would notice the 180 length in the bumps or trees , it also will handle speed better in the longer length.
post #3 of 9
I ski 2000 9.22's in a 180 cm length. I am 5'9" 180 lb. and about a level 8 skier. I find the length great for the groomers and in the trees. Any shorter and I think that they would be too squirrely on the ice. The 180 length in the trees is not really too much for me. I had previously tried a 190 and they were way too long. This ski is a great all round ski, but skiing mostly in the east on ice, I am looking for a better carver on the eastern hardpack.
post #4 of 9
Thread Starter 
Hmmm... I had heard that this was a good hard snow ski (for a mid-fat) but maybe that's in west coast terms. Sounds like I should definitely demo this one before buying. Thanks all!
post #5 of 9
Thread Starter 
Well, I had a chance to try the R:9 in a 180 tonight... this was probably the nicest overall ski I have demoed. Nimble in the fall line, stable, tracked well. Felt centered and balanced at all times, very relaxing to ski. I had skied a Bandit X in 177 and the R:9 was superior (for me) in every way. My only question is in terms of edge grip, it was actually pretty darn good, but it sounds like y'all are saying the 180 would hold better than a 170. I would have thought having the pressure distributed along a *shorter* length would result in better hold, but maybe I am missing something??? (I tried some C:9.18's in 170 and the R:9's held better, but I suppose this could have been tune. I also tried some Sceneo 400's in 170 which railed around like ice skates, but they wanted to be skied very wide track and always turning... they were a blast but I don't think I could ski that way all day long!)
post #6 of 9
I ski it the 190. Wonderful ski, underappreciated..but overall I got it way too long, would have got a 180 if I had to do it over again..would still not go 170 on it probably, would save a (much) shorter length for my (hopefully soon to purchase) pure groomer fall-line ski. In present lenght its really stable in crud and makes beautiful long arcs, and also handles bumps just fine, but its funny feels like a mack truck compared to SL skis I've skied. Great all mountain ski though, will take you anywhere, and yes, really nice edge hold for a midfat.
post #7 of 9
If I was you, I'd get the 170. Of course, I'm not... so you can get whatever you want. I don't think the 170 will give up much on ice to the 180. After all, slalom racers are skiing 150s on water-injected snow. It's not the length that makes them hold.
post #8 of 9
Originally posted by epic:
After all, slalom racers are skiing 150s on water-injected snow. It's not the length that makes them hold.
No it's not the length, it's the design of the ski. World cup slalom skis are a very specific design to hold on ice at those speeds for that size turns with somewhat capable guys aboard. There is little to no comparison to a 9.22 all mountain ski. This is the reason short skis are getting overly hyped. I'd go with the 180 it's a light nimble ski and the 10 cms will take away nothing but will add stability and hold. Next year the world cup guys will be back on 165+ skis so no doubt every ski sold will jump another 10cms. by this logic
post #9 of 9
I believe that each model of ski has an optimum length for ice grip. Too long a ski or too short a ski will no work as well as the optimum length. If all else is equal (as they say), I believe shorter skis hold better on ice than longer skis.

Also, for you, each model of ski will have an optimum length - and that length will vary from model to model. In the Bandit XX, I do best on the 170 length, but in the X [single X] I tend to do better on the 177. In the Salomon Crossmax Pilot 10, the 170 is great, the 160 is awful. In my Rossi T-Power shorty slaloms, the 160 length is optimum.

As always, actually trying skis, as to model and length, is the best "advice" you can get.

By the way, at the EpicSki Academy, we all got on ski blades for half a day - speaking of short! It takes a few runs to get the feel of them, then they can do very well. They are very demanding. I also got a pair of Elan PSX Short skis with demo bindings from Bob Barnes. These are "training skis" which have some characteristics of the snow blades, but they reall are skis and have release bindings. The length? They are a whopping 123 cm long! Skied right, they kick ass. Skied wrong, they'll kick YOUR ass!!
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 › Yet another sizing question, 01-02 BetaRide 9:22