New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ski length opinion

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
so after reading the threads "fat skis on groomers" and "buying skis: limiting yourself vs. too much ski," some people said that a lot of skiers have skis that are too short for them so i started to question my own ski length choice

a little background on myself first, i'm 5'6", 150 lbs and before buying my own set of skis, i normally rented skis that were 168-170 in length. when i bought my metron:10's, i went shorter because of their width and i even asked the person assisting me if i should go with the shorter length and he said yes. i was going to opt for the 164 but the salesperson, who was around the same height and weight as me, suggested 157 and reassured me that if i found out later on that it wasn't the right length for me i could come back and change for the 164

so finally the question, for my size, should i trade in for the 164 or keep the 157?
post #2 of 19
Since your shop is willing to work with you on this, you should ski them and decide for yourself.
post #3 of 19
Absolutely try em BOth then decide! I've done that several times
post #4 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyboy View Post
Since your shop is willing to work with you on this, you should ski them and decide for yourself.
i have skied them and being metrons, they were amazing and i think they're fine but i'm worried that the length might hinder my chances of improving

is it normal for someone who normally skied 168-170 to just go to 157? if you were in my position would you have gone for the 157 or 164? ultimately it'll be my own personal feel but i'm looking for opinions right now
post #5 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by falanx View Post
i have skied them and being metrons, they were amazing and i think they're fine but i'm worried that the length might hinder my chances of improving

is it normal for someone who normally skied 168-170 to just go to 157? if you were in my position would you have gone for the 157 or 164? ultimately it'll be my own personal feel but i'm looking for opinions right now
A lot depends the the ski. I've not skied the metrons, so I have no specific advice with these. For example, at 1.8m and 79kg, I like a 190 in a "big mountain" type stick, but also really want a pair of these:

http://www.rtc-ski.ch/www/4c7119b8f5.../der_38er.html
post #6 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warp daddy View Post
Absolutely try em BOth then decide! I've done that several times
what would you have done?
post #7 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyboy View Post
A lot depends the the ski.
Couldn't agree more. It also depends on what you want to do with it.
I'm 165 lbs, I've got 165 for slalom type skis and skiing, 208s for Super-G / DH type skiing. There should be alot of Metron owners here to chime in on what the Metron is best skied at for your weight, but it also depends on what you want to do with it. Just make sure you have enough length for float (PMans srpreadsheet might help there).
post #8 of 19
I'm 5'10, 175 and went from an old pair of Rossi 177s (fairly skinny) down to the Metron 164. I found the length noticable only the first time I skied with them and adjusted very quickly. I would do what the others recommended though, try them both
post #9 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote27 View Post
I'm 5'10, 175 and went from an old pair of Rossi 177s (fairly skinny) down to the Metron 164. I found the length noticable only the first time I skied with them and adjusted very quickly. I would do what the others recommended though, try them both
would you want to go to 170?
post #10 of 19
How hard do you drive the skis? If you're an easy skier, you need less ski than if you work the ski hard. If the 157s never leave you feeling that you need more backbone in your skis, you're good.

I missed the thread on fat skis on groomers. I prefer a ski with a waist of no more than 72 mm on groomers, and I really like my Head Supershapes with their 66 mm waist. The narrow waist is easier to move from edge to edge. I see no virtue in wide waisted skis on packed snow. The Supershapes are the best ski I've ever skied on everything except more than a foot of fresh snow, then I bring out my fatties. I don't even want super fatties on deep stuff. My next powder skis will likely be Head Monster 82s. Yeah, I like the way Head makes skis. For Atomics on pack, I'd probably try the SX line. I also like Fischer and Nordica skis a lot.


Ken
post #11 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoftSnowGuy View Post
How hard do you drive the skis? If you're an easy skier, you need less ski than if you work the ski hard. If the 157s never leave you feeling that you need more backbone in your skis, you're good.

I missed the thread on fat skis on groomers. I prefer a ski with a waist of no more than 72 mm on groomers, and I really like my Head Supershapes with their 66 mm waist. The narrow waist is easier to move from edge to edge. I see no virtue in wide waisted skis on packed snow. The Supershapes are the best ski I've ever skied on everything except more than a foot of fresh snow, then I bring out my fatties. I don't even want super fatties on deep stuff. My next powder skis will likely be Head Monster 82s. Yeah, I like the way Head makes skis. For Atomics on pack, I'd probably try the SX line. I also like Fischer and Nordica skis a lot.


Ken
i'm an aggressive carver so i like to ride my skis hard. although i agree with you on wide skis on groomers, the metrons perform very well on hard packed snow which i mostly encounter living in the northeast

so with that being said, would you say switch to the 164 or stick with 157?
post #12 of 19

Imo

Quote:
Originally Posted by falanx View Post
so after reading the threads "fat skis on groomers" and "buying skis: limiting yourself vs. too much ski," some people said that a lot of skiers have skis that are too short for them so i started to question my own ski length choice

a little background on myself first, i'm 5'6", 150 lbs and before buying my own set of skis, i normally rented skis that were 168-170 in length. when i bought my metron:10's, i went shorter because of their width and i even asked the person assisting me if i should go with the shorter length and he said yes. i was going to opt for the 164 but the salesperson, who was around the same height and weight as me, suggested 157 and reassured me that if i found out later on that it wasn't the right length for me i could come back and change for the 164

so finally the question, for my size, should i trade in for the 164 or keep the 157?
Having had this decision myself. but with the M9 I can say this. Per the Metron Sizing charts with my weight (165), my skill level (Intermediate/advanced) and my desire for short radius turns I come in at the 157. Now if I wanted medium radius turns and was a bit more to the Advanced then the 164 is what the chart said.

I asked around and was told this: Go longer if speed and float is what you want. Go shorter if technical stuff (trees) and being able to handle steep stuff is your priorty Now mind you it's not that you can't go fast and have float on a 157 or handle tight stuff on a 164. It is just what you want-your focus.

Me? I went with the 157 and I love the fact that I can do steep stuff with much more confidence than before and it does ungroomed stuff well. Also I can go as fast as I dare. But I am no speed demon.

So there you have it.
post #13 of 19
I would probably go with the 164cm in your situation. If you care about stability and grip on hard snow, longer is better. On the other hand, if you want more maneuverability and easier turns, go shorter. A demo of both would be a great way to decide!
post #14 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNPete View Post
Having had this decision myself. but with the M9 I can say this. Per the Metron Sizing charts with my weight (165), my skill level (Intermediate/advanced) and my desire for short radius turns I come in at the 157. Now if I wanted medium radius turns and was a bit more to the Advanced then the 164 is what the chart said.

I asked around and was told this: Go longer if speed and float is what you want. Go shorter if technical stuff (trees) and being able to handle steep stuff is your priorty Now mind you it's not that you can't go fast and have float on a 157 or handle tight stuff on a 164. It is just what you want-your focus.

Me? I went with the 157 and I love the fact that I can do steep stuff with much more confidence than before and it does ungroomed stuff well. Also I can go as fast as I dare. But I am no speed demon.

So there you have it.
awesome advice, thanks!

the last part pretty much nailed the type of skier i am and what i want from my skis
post #15 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post
I would probably go with the 164cm in your situation. If you care about stability and grip on hard snow, longer is better. On the other hand, if you want more maneuverability and easier turns, go shorter. A demo of both would be a great way to decide!
yeah i'm still going to demo the 164 just to make sure i've got the right size
post #16 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by falanx View Post
awesome advice, thanks!

the last part pretty much nailed the type of skier i am and what i want from my skis
Short is fun. That's what I have to say. Long is fast. You have the 157s. Ski 'um. See how it goes. It's not the end of the world if your skis are 7cm short. I got my M9s for $395. Chump change IMO. If 157s are too short, buy longer in 4-07. Enjoy!
post #17 of 19
For the sake of those reading this thread that may not be familiar with ski length issues, the length of skis is clearly a surrogate measure of one's manhood or expertise.

Sorry, couldn't help it. What I really wanted to say was the high performance carving class skis are not sized like the freeride skis. You will see many threads extolling virtues of large (fat) long skis in the 180 to 195 cm sizes. This has nothing to do with Metrons and similar high sidecut carvers whatsoever. Its interesting to note that a 200 lb expert can be happy on a 170 cm carver or a 190 cm freeride depending on his intent for the day. FWIW, the responses above have hit the target pretty much on center for this particular ski.
post #18 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider View Post
For the sake of those reading this thread that may not be familiar with ski length issues, the length of skis is clearly a surrogate measure of one's manhood or expertise.

Sorry, couldn't help it. What I really wanted to say was the high performance carving class skis are not sized like the freeride skis. You will see many threads extolling virtues of large (fat) long skis in the 180 to 195 cm sizes. This has nothing to do with Metrons and similar high sidecut carvers whatsoever. Its interesting to note that a 200 lb expert can be happy on a 170 cm carver or a 190 cm freeride depending on his intent for the day. FWIW, the responses above have hit the target pretty much on center for this particular ski.
so does all that mean stick with my 157 or trade in for 164?
post #19 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by falanx View Post
so does all that mean stick with my 157 or trade in for 164?
Yep.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion