New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do K2's ski shorter?

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
havin trouble picking out my ski and i need to act fast no time to demo. i heard that k2 may ski shorter cause of the rounded bottom....how much shorter? im pretty sure im gonna go with the 160 recon...will that be ok for a 158 lbs 5'7 relatively advanced skier? i have always been a more confident skier on shorter skies than long skies. i would bump up to the 167 but i really need something that will let me turn on a dime in tight icy tree conditions im scared the 167 will be too bulky for me to turn in time. help!!
post #2 of 25
I think you should be in the 167, because you are close to my weight and height. 160 would be way too short in my opinion. Of course, tight ICY tree conditions might demand a different ski entirely. Although the Recon seems better than the XP was in ice, it's not the ski I'd pick for ice, either.
post #3 of 25
Why on god's green earth would you ski icy trees?! Or are you from the west and really mean "icy"?
post #4 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingers View Post
havin trouble picking out my ski and i need to act fast no time to demo. i heard that k2 may ski shorter cause of the rounded bottom....how much shorter? im pretty sure im gonna go with the 160 recon...will that be ok for a 158 lbs 5'7 relatively advanced skier? i have always been a more confident skier on shorter skies than long skies. i would bump up to the 167 but i really need something that will let me turn on a dime in tight icy tree conditions im scared the 167 will be too bulky for me to turn in time. help!!
You owe it to yourself to go to a shop and put any pair of K2's next to any other brand of ski of the "same" length. K2 measures their skis differently and they usually run 3-6 cm longer than the same length of other brands of skis.
post #5 of 25
You have gotten good answers already. As someone who tests over 50 different skis annually, here are my thoughts.....

K2's measure long and ski long. This is because they are very damp skis and fairly heavy.

K2's are nice smooth cruiser type skis but would not be a first choice on icy conditions.

Tight icy trees.............??????............how about a root canal instead?

SJ
post #6 of 25
Thread Starter 

haha

thanks everyone for ur responses and yeah i do hate icy trees myself but when my friends and i go to killington that seems to be popular lol. but seriously as someone who is 5'7 160 can i get away with skiing the 160's?? or am i doing myself a disservice and should i get the 167's? i probably wont be skiing them in anything deeper than knee deep powder......also if u look at the bottom of a k2 ski it is rounded.....so even though it looks taller than other ski's the surface area that is actually carving the snow is less than the full length of the ski

also by skiing long do u mean that a 160 would feel like a 163? cause if the 167 feels like a 170ish than i guess i would like the 160.....help someone make up my mind for me before my incedible deal goes off!! i could also consider the crossfire but im only gonna have 1 ski for awile and im going out west this year......help help!
post #7 of 25
I am no expert ski analyst, but when I went kicking and screaming from 193's to 167's instead of the 174's that I thought would be right as I got into a more shaped ski, it was because I was amazed at the stability of the 167 in the XP. Other 167's that day I practically threw at the demo guy as being all over the place at speed. The XP's (now the Recons) were steady. So, from that experience, I'd say they ski longer than they look. But I was going from Rossi Vipers, an ice ski, to a mid-fat. I think the additional width has an impact on the perceived length of the ski.
post #8 of 25
The material length on a 160 cm K2 is pretty long. The damp, no surprises ride equates to a fairly heavy, somewhat sluggish feel hence the "skis long" comment from me. This is not a bad thing, and this is what endears K2's to a certain group of skiers.

When someone seems stuck on a particular ski model or brand I seldom suggest something else. However, in this case, I think you could make a better choice than a K2. If you want a mid fat for the conditions you describe, I think that a lighter more nimble ski is in order. I'd suggest a Dynastar Legend 8K in a 165 cm. Aside from the additional manuverability, you will get somewhat better edge grip and a lot more 'pop'

SJ
post #9 of 25
Thread Starter 

hehe

yeah the crappy store i work at only really carries k2 so i get a proform on that.......i would be asking people at the store but im supposed to be the expert rofl its more of a tennis and golf store anyway

thanks guys so again can 5'7 160 lbs get away with the 160 recon??? or should i really move up to the 167 cause im doing myself a desservice....again i could go with the crossfire but then what size? argggg whats worse not being able to afford skis or having to make a decision between two???? thanks!!!!!!!!!!
post #10 of 25
Do you own another pair of skis that you can use for these icy trees? Are these truly the only two pairs of skis that you can get? If you own another pair of skis, fine, then add the Recons for your trips out west and get them in 167's. Otherwise, I think your money is best kept in your pocket until a more appropriate ski comes along... I am saying this in spite of the fact that I own only the Recons and use them for everything, but we really don't get that East Coast ice here.
post #11 of 25
There are a few possibilities here, either:
1) you don't know what ice is
2) you don't know what trees are
3) you don't know what skiing is
4) all of the above

I say this because in my experience, there is no possible way to ski the woods when its a sheet of ice. I don't care how good you are.
post #12 of 25
I do wonder why you are skiing this type of thing. The whole point of going in the trees should be because it's better than the groomers, not because you want to die. Around us, the powder is found in the tree areas, but I know that if there is a lot of freezing rain in the East you could get ice back in the tree areas, in which case I myself would want to stay on the groomers where at least something crunches it up for you. Unless of course it is the TREES that are covered in a coating of ice, but not the snow surface.
post #13 of 25
Thread Starter 
well its not a sheet of ice, icy patches perhaps with crud surrounding them....not fun but i gotta do it to keep up with my friends......only got to ski powder once out west im thinkin about just manning up and getting the 167 so i can be confident on it when i go out west
post #14 of 25
Well, the Recons are good in crud and okay if kept tuned on some ice, but if it was MidAtlantic Pocono PM stuff, I'd get something else.
post #15 of 25
I'm 5' 8" 175 and I have skied both lengths :Like 160 for short radius medium speed turns. 167 for faster med radius. Both are very solid and go where you point them. I am a professional skier:
post #16 of 25
Thread Starter 
you skied the 160 too Dan at your height and weight?
post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingers View Post

i really need something that will let me turn on a dime in tight icy tree conditions im scared the 167 will be too bulky for me to turn in time. help!!
What you need is too get out of the trees if it's icy.
Unless you're looking for injury, and if you are the "blind cliff huck" is preferable to the "icy tree run".
Be sure to have a friend document it on video, and the friend upload it here.
Documenting the icy tree run would also be fun (for us).

Not sure what SierraJim would say about Atomics but I'd choose them if I had to ski ice.
post #18 of 25
Thread Starter 
alright i can just use my crappy 155 salomans if i really wanna ski in "crappy east coast conditions with trees". lets move onto the size im wondering about the pros and cons of choosing either the 160 or 167....im thinkin the 167 will feel big at first but will help me when i go out west and need some extra versitility and float.....but when i tried the rossi b3's at 160 found the tips got alittle squirrely at high speeds for me but i like them on cruddy stuff....i guess im scared im gonna be cruisin on the 167s and hit a bump and i wont be able to recover the tips cause they are too big for me
post #19 of 25
I thought you were an advanced skier? The Recons do expect a strong skier. I am sure that if you are a strong skier that you should be on the 167's. You're working at a shop, ask the rep. I am the same size as you, but a woman, and that's the size I was put on. Depending on your abilities and strength, you may even want to go to the 174, but the 160 is too short.
post #20 of 25
Thread Starter 
thanks sib i am pretty sure i am what u call a strong skier.....maybe not the greatest form when i get flustered but i been down all the doubles at killington (i can almost bomb outer limits if its not moguled out), most of the doubles at snowbird and pretty much all the doubles at brighton especially on the right side where it got nice and steep and gnarly...so i think i have the qualifications to be called a strong skier....what i liked about ur post is that u say that i should even consider the 174's so that makes me confident that the 167's are for me cause i was concerned i was inbetween 160 and 167 lol funny the way my mind works i guess..... anyway as soon i graduate i think im gonna try to drive out west with my buddy and make a season out of it....or until i run out of my already limited funds.....
post #21 of 25
Yes
post #22 of 25
c'mon,

Here in the east in VT & NH these days the trees are more often ICY MOGULS than not. (Except way up north at Jay, but that's not what's being discussed here.) When it snows (IF it snows), people bump it up in the trees, then it warms up, melts, & compresses under its own weight, then freezes overnight. That's the way it stays. And it doesn't snow for a LONG TIME. It's really icy, and the bumps are solid rock hard ice.

People do ski this stuff, and it's a badge of honor to be able to do it. So give the guy the advice he needs, and quit questioning his icy trees.
post #23 of 25
Thread Starter 
yeah liquid! way to save my ass bro i was beginning tho think i was nutz...we on the east coast have not been blessed with the geological features and posistioning of the rockie mountainers but we make do with what we have....u think the west is hardcore? try coming to killington spending 77 dollars to wait in long lines on a iced up mountain while dodging kommakazeee new yorkers with jeans on....its a wonder u can actually get enough practice to be good before u get ur ACL take out from behind. so please dont knock our icy trees...come try them i hope to move out west after i graduate....any suggestions on boomtown thats cheap to live with alotta job options??? hehe
post #24 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidFeet View Post
c'mon,

Here in the east in VT & NH these days the trees are more often ICY MOGULS than not. (Except way up north at Jay, but that's not what's being discussed here.) When it snows (IF it snows), people bump it up in the trees, then it warms up, melts, & compresses under its own weight, then freezes overnight. That's the way it stays. And it doesn't snow for a LONG TIME. It's really icy, and the bumps are solid rock hard ice.

People do ski this stuff, and it's a badge of honor to be able to do it. So give the guy the advice he needs, and quit questioning his icy trees.
Maybe the woods YOU ski get skied in.. As I said before, no ski is going to give you the level of control required to ski through REAL uncut trees on REAL rock solid ice, end of story.
post #25 of 25
I'm similar size - 5'8'' 165lbs. Skied the 174 Recon. Short turns - no problem at that length.

Go with the 167 at least, if not the 174.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion