or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski length

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
I know that everyone seems to be going to shorter skis in the last couple of years. I would like to relate my experience with shorter skis this season.

I bought the AK Rocket in a 190cm and the Crossmax 10 Pilot in a 185cm. My skiing buddy has both these skis in a 200cm for the Rocket and a 190 for the Crossmax 10. The skis were tuned the the same. We both like to ski fast and ski the entire mountain. He is a stronger skier than me.

After skiing his skis and mine back to back I came to the following conclusion. I screwed up. I prefer his longer boards to mine. Both lengths turn fast enough, but his are more stable at speed and just felt smoother.
post #2 of 18
Lucky, or not so at this point, I am a true beliver in getting the longest length ski possible. Now your shorter Rockets are probably wonderful in the tree's and better in the area than the 200's. But any open glade or bowl and the 200 will just shine on.
I relate most of this to my experience from switching from a 204 Morrison and a 195 Mod X Pro. The Mod is a much friendlier ski in the area, and overall a better ski. But get in to wide open spaces and the Mod lacks due to the difference in surface area. The 204 Morrison has no speed limit in any conditions, especially when maching through crud. The Mod at hi-speed through crud can get a little wiggly.
If I could only have one of the two ski's I would probably pick the Mod because of it's versatility. But there are times when I max out the ski due to it's length.
Let's just hope that next year they do not remove the 195's and 200's from the line up. The companies are going shorter but it will leave the bigger aggresive guys out in the cold.
post #3 of 18
Ski stiffness is a factor here -- both the Rockets and Pilots are soft flexing skis. In Argus' case, the Mod X pro is still considerably softer than the Morrisons.

An alternative approach that provides greater high-performance versatility is to stay at the relatively shorter lenghts, but go with a stiffer board.
post #4 of 18
I agree with Argus. Shorter is not better. My favorite terrain is steep trees. I demo'ed alot of skis before buying. Instead of going shorter I went softer which, to me, meant quicker. That worked great. I am an equipment geek, so I actually ski a softer AND a recently bought a mid-stiff ski. Depending on conditions, I ski the appropriate one though the softer one gets the most use.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ December 10, 2001 12:28 PM: Message edited 1 time, by worldfishnski ]</font>
post #5 of 18
Amen to the long skis! I can't believe all of the people out there on 160's these days. Depressing is what it is. This is just a fad. 200 is never too long, never. In another 2 years, and mark my words on this, lengths will be increasing. It all comes from racing. Someone will start using a longer slalom and win. Companies will follow suit.
post #6 of 18
k2chad, those short ski's aren't just a passing fad. They are here to stay. Why in the world would a racer go back to a longer ski if a 168 SL is performing great for him now.

post #7 of 18

What exactly is depressing about short skis? Everyone who tries short skis says that they are fun. So they may not be stable going 40-50 mph. Big deal! After all 200 cm skis are not exactly a breeze in the bumps or in the trees or carving short turns. It is all about compromise and what your preference is. One thing is certain: if SL courses remain as tight as they are today, you will never see 200cm skis on a SL course.

Have you ever tried a short ski?
post #8 of 18
I don't quite understand everyones problem with stability. I've been skiing "stable" on 150s this past season and i'm 6'1'' and 185lbs! Stability depends on a couple of things other than speed and length. 1st- What conditions you are skiing in? A race ski or a purley carving ski will feel wonderful on the groomed surface, but when taken to the bumps and glades they find themselves out of their element(not stable).
2nd- What level skier are you? I noticed that when i let people try my 150s(atomic 9.10s pure carving monsters!) some felt comfortable with them and others did not. The ones that did, seemed to be much closer or equal to my level. I also have a pair of 180s(atomic 9.20s), which are a much less radical ski than the 9.10s. I also let many peole ski on them. I got the same reaction as the first time. Although, many more people could enjoy the 9.20s over the 9.10s.
If i kinda loss base in my ramblings for the second part, i basically mean that the more experience you get and the better skier you become will allow you to ski on short, long, skinny, fat, or anything out there and feel completely stable.
post #9 of 18
Forget short skis vs long skis. Neither is better than the other all the time, they just belong in different places. Short, stiff skis with a small radius excel in slalom courses, just like 201 Roids work best on huge powder lines and avy debris.

It's all about getting the right tool for the job - you like railing it on groomers, get a short slalom ski or a radical carver - you want to go 60 mph on groomers, get a 180 GS ski - you want to ski like Dominique Perret or Jeremy Nobis, get some 201 roids or 194 bigs.

How bout we just forget about whether you ski a 190 or a 150, and remember in what kind of conditions you ski, how aggresive you are, and what your preferences are.

P.S. - Despite what some poeple say a 190 will ALWAYS be more stable in cut up pow and crud and straitlining chutes than a 150, just like a 150 will ALWAYS be quicker in a slalom course or between trees assuming the pilot is the same.
post #10 of 18
Before you expend too much energy on long/short arguments .... like the old Chevy vs Ford.... The early posts on this were from western skiers who have a few acres to complete a turn in. In the east, shorter and narrower skis equal survival due to the less than ideal conditions and narrower trails. My longest are 188 and shortest are 170.

If I lived out west I'd be singing the praises of the longer wide bodies. Focus on the proper tool for the job at hand.
post #11 of 18
Right on. Finally some sense in the long vs. short dilema.
post #12 of 18
I completly agree with you. A longer board will always be more stable than a short one. But, i was trying to get across the fact that as you become more experienced, skis lengths become more an more irrelevent. I believe(now, w/the new technology of skis) that as you go down in length the more experienced you are. Let me put it another way. I don't mean any Joe skier can buy a short set of boards and be called an experienced skier. I mean that the new skis on the market today are much more responsive then they used to be, so as you go down in ski length you have to go up in "skier" stablility. The more and more stable(comfortable) you become, has a direct correlation with how much experience you have. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #13 of 18
Lbrother - short skis do teach the skier certain stability issues, they are great tools - for the right conditions. All I'm saying is that someone shouldn't think one type is better than the other, I mean, no one in the right mind would be racing slalom on 204 Morrisons or something, just like no one would want to be straitlining a 45 degree chute on 150 Atomic 9.10s.
post #14 of 18
Mike B,
Gotch ya.
post #15 of 18
Mike B,
For straightlining a 45 degree shoot i would use my atomic 9.20s(180cm). What a wonderful thought!
post #16 of 18
LOL nice!!!
post #17 of 18
I've slowly over the years moved from straight 203cm , to mildly parabolic 188cm, to Atomic 9.20s at 180cm to my current 170cm super carvers. Shorter is definitely better for us eastern skiers! My 170s have as much edge or MORE biting into the snow than my old 203cm skies ever did! Also, their more than fast enough at high speed. No chatter, much better control, and way more fun. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Also, my old knees don't ache anymore like they did when I was horsing my stiff 203s around all day!

My next pair of skies? Atomic 9.16s, 160 cm long.
post #18 of 18
Mike B: Right On!

I think we should not mix racing/piste carving with freeskiing/off piste when talking about ski lenght issue. It is quite clear that a turn radius required for modern slalom technic is not suitable for 2 meter skis!

And..there's also this one thing that makes a total difference in these two categories, namely, surface roughness/variation. It is clear that when skiing out of bounds the snow can vary much more than on the slope; this is where a 200cm is almost always more stable that 180, if the skis otherwise have similar charasteristics (think e.g. the mentioned avalanche debris when coming out from the chute full speed or landing drops to soft spring slush ...)

It seem hard to many people to understand that a fat&long ski can actually be the most forgiving for some people and their style!Really.

Look at the snowboarding. Even freestylers (and I mean good freestylers) these days are riding boards about 10cm longer than back in the early nineties. With latest technology improvements they can ride longer and more stable (&better floating) boards that are still relatively light and allow going as huge as the todays level/style requires.

I would say that in freeskiing we'll see longer(& also wider in some cases) twin-tips for higher speeds&all mountain capability and for (even) bigger hits in couple of years. And in general bigger skis (=very wide,190ish) for going big in the back country. Look at the new atomic freeride skis for example, they're pretty huge...Big Daddy - not 200cm but at 193cm and 107mm in the middle, this is definitely a BIG ski!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion