EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski length and performance
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski length and performance

post #1 of 5
Thread Starter 
I (hight: 175cm or 5'10"; weight: 170 lb) bought Dynastar Speed Carve 63 178cm (slightly longer my height) last year. I almost bought 170cm, but ended up sizing up because the Dynastar website was showing I could go either way. I understand that the turning radius for 178cm is 17m while 170cm is 16m.

Is there significant difference between 170cm and 178cm?

The 8cm difference in the total length means probably 5cm longer in the tip and 3cm longer in the tail. I am a advanced skier, but not a racer. I was looking for versatility, but someone said these skis are more like GS skis, i.e., larger turns.
post #2 of 5
I suggest 178 all the way. I'm same height and about 20 lbs heavier than you. I would personally go 186 on that ski but know lots of guys who like it in 178. 170 is too short for your size is my feeling. they are more of a GS ski but are still pretty versatile. The skicross 66 or SC9 is a similar ski that is more short radius friendly and gives some more float/tracking for crud.
post #3 of 5
First post, welcome Konayuki.

post #4 of 5
Originally posted by Konayuki:
I was looking for versatility..
Go with the 170s, I'm 6'0 185, and that's what I'm skiing on right now. I find that 8 cm makes a huge difference in the manuverability of a ski. If I was looking for a GS / Speed Cruiser I'd probably go 178-184 but. For where I ski, I wanted a ski that could do it all, a ski that turns quick, and can also cruise at speed, for that 170s suit me better. The increase in manuverability will be greater than the decrease in "straight line" performance 170 vs. 178.

Hope this helps.


[ December 04, 2002, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Powderhoundin ]
post #5 of 5
Thread Starter 
Thank you for the comments, guys. I went over the past topics in this forum and realized that there were quite a few discussions regarding Dynastar Speed Carve 63. This is a great site.

In any case, based on the information that I gathered, I would choose 170 cm next time around. (I just bought the pair early this year and haven't used them too much, so I will keep them and try to enjoy them for a while.) Plus, my wife would not be very happy if I bought a new pair this season!) While I still like what I have got very much, I kind of miss the sensation that I had when I demoed shorter and softer skis, that is, 160 cm Speed SX? (red one). They were great for short turns, but I felt that they were not very stable in high speed. So, I felt I should go longer and/or stiffer. Perhaps I should go longer OR stiffer, not both.

Since I normally ski in East, I need to make a lot of shor turns to avoid crowd.

Thanks again.
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 › Ski length and performance