or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

gotama length question

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
hi folks,

would a 168cm gotama be too short for western powder/crud/soft snow skiing?....tahoe, mammoth..

male, 150#, level 8, med/fast turns and speeds...

if so, what's an appropriate length?

thanks..............4076.
post #2 of 12
There are (conservative estimate) 86,789 posts here about ski length, half of them on Goats. Try the search function.
post #3 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4076 View Post
hi folks,

would a 168cm gotama be too short for western powder/crud/soft snow skiing?
yes
post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 

gotama length

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
There are (conservative estimate) 86,789 posts here about ski length, half of them on Goats. Try the search function.
yes dude,,,i've seen all 86,789 @#^*ing posts, and they are for guys weighing 185 to 86,789 pounds....

what about a 150 pounder?, and i'm not a girl,,yo mama..

what say?? and what length if not 168.....please don't recommend 86,789cm...wont fit in my 86,789 hp miata......thanks.....4076
post #5 of 12
Yes to short. for a level 8 at your size i'd probably recomend a 183.
post #6 of 12
Your height would be a helpful guide for choosing ski length. You more likely belong on a 176, and a 183 is not out of the question. The Gotama skis short due to the twin tips; it is also a very easy turning ski. You have said you ski at Tahoe and Mammoth. Unless you are looking to use this ski for bumps and tight turns, a longer ski is going to ride and float better and soak up the terrain irregularities off-piste. 168 would be short in a Gotama, but if you are 5'-4" or less tall, its a contender. Personally, I think you'd be happier in the long run on a 176.
post #7 of 12
Thread Starter 
thanks, cirque et al.

176 looks like a winner,,,now who has one for sale?






I CAN"T SEE CLEARLY NOW THE SNOW HAS GONE.....4076
post #8 of 12
hey nice josh ritter quote

get the 183 way easy to ski on when i first bought them I was only 160lb and like 5"10 thank to some sort of weird western growth spourt I am now 6foot and a 185lb. The 183 were starting to feel short in chopped up snow but still fun in tight places and smooth snow (powder or groomers).

If you get the 183s and arent quite ready for those you will eventually be good enough to ski on them.
post #9 of 12
Actually, 4076, there a lot of posts about what Goat lighter weight guys, including me (165), Bushwackin and others, ski. The reason I brought up the number of posts is that a) you didn't indicate you searched, and I still don't think you searched very hard or you would have read the posts from lighter guys, and b) there's no reasonable way to decide between any two appropriate lengths for most skis without demoing. If you looked very hard, you'd find a long thread where one respected member has a small son who skis the 176, and another adult male who's heavier than you is pleased he chose the same length for the same areas you ski. And then there are guys who think any ski under 190 is for invalids and gapers. All that this proves is that most answers to length questions reveal far more about the person who answers than the person who asks.

That said, IMO the 176 will work well for you as an all-purpose, the 168 would work if you wanted to do lots of backside trees and tight spaces (or near-boundary AT), and the 183 would feel like a very fast smooth log.
post #10 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
Actually, 4076, there a lot of posts about what Goat lighter weight guys, including me (165), Bushwackin and others, ski. The reason I brought up the number of posts is that a) you didn't indicate you searched, and I still don't think you searched very hard or you would have read the posts from lighter guys, and b) there's no reasonable way to decide between any two appropriate lengths for most skis without demoing. If you looked very hard, you'd find a long thread where one respected member has a small son who skis the 176, and another adult male who's heavier than you is pleased he chose the same length for the same areas you ski. And then there are guys who think any ski under 190 is for invalids and gapers. All that this proves is that most answers to length questions reveal far more about the person who answers than the person who asks.

That said, IMO the 176 will work well for you as an all-purpose, the 168 would work if you wanted to do lots of backside trees and tight spaces (or near-boundary AT), and the 183 would feel like a very fast smooth log.

thanks, beyond...

i didn't mean to be a smarta$$, and i did see the long thread about the young son (looked like a 200 pounder), and the wife and the dog on 204s and sj's reply, and many others ....
i guess, like you said, it's in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.
also there are a couple of 168s on ebay now, hence my desire to snag one, but this is too short a length...so i will keep an eye out for a 176 or 183...
i was also hoping to hear from someone who had tried the 168, possibly a woman (or a midget)...
thanks, mon

DOWN THE WAY WHERE THE KNIGHTS ARE GAY......h.belafonte
post #11 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4076 View Post
thanks, beyond...

i didn't mean to be a smarta$$, and i did see the long thread about the young son (looked like a 200 pounder), and the wife and the dog on 204s and sj's reply, and many others ....
i guess, like you said, it's in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.
also there are a couple of 168s on ebay now, hence my desire to snag one, but this is too short a length...so i will keep an eye out for a 176 or 183...
i was also hoping to hear from someone who had tried the 168, possibly a woman (or a midget)...
thanks, mon
Uh, HB Jr. (12 yrs old, 124 lbs, 5'4", Level 8 skier) thanks you for the flame ("looked like a 200 pounder"). WTF? Not the best way to start things off here.


I forgot who said it (Samuri, BushwackerinPA, ?), it went someting like this - nobody has ever said they wish they would have gone shorter on their Gotama's.

Beyond, thanks for the word up. I agree with you.

HB
post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 
[quote=HarkinBanks;713847]Uh, HB Jr. (12 yrs old, 124 lbs, 5'4", Level 8 skier) thanks you for the flame ("looked like a 200 pounder"). WTF? Not the best way to start things off here.


I forgot who said it (Samuri, BushwackerinPA, ?), it went someting like this - nobody has ever said they wish they would have gone shorter on their Gotama's.

Beyond, thanks for the word up. I agree with you.

HB[/quote

sorry hb, i guess i saw him in a bulky jacket...
at 124#, and a 176cm ski, that's a good recommendation for me.
i wonder why volkl makes a 168cm ski, as this isn't a junior ski..
enough already from 4076
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion