New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Length

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
hey guys. first time posting on this forum, so i assume this is the right place to post. a question about ski length. i'm 5 foot 11, 150 some pounds, and will ski anything. i need a new pair of skis, and i can buy one of two pairs that are being offered to me. one is a 185 scott aztec pro, and the other is a 177 atomic kongur. i just came off a season skiing 168 atomic c5s, which were far too short for what i want to do. i'll be mainly skiing pow, trees, off-piste, and the occasional groomer. i've heard that the scotts are easy to ski, but what is your opinion on the size? are the 185's too long? thanks a lot.
james
post #2 of 14
287cm would probably be ideal.
post #3 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick_91 View Post
... i'm 5 foot 11, 150 some pounds, and will ski anything....168 atomic c5s, which were far too short for what i want to do. .....skiing pow, trees, off-piste, and the occasional groomer. ......

what is your opinion on the size? are the 185's too long? .....
james
IMHO, 185 would not be too long for what you want to do.
post #4 of 14
Thread Starter 
for any of you that have skis in the 180-195 range, can you still maneuver reasonably well through tight trees or is it a serious problem?
thanks.
post #5 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick_91 View Post
for any of you that have skis in the 180-195 range, can you still maneuver reasonably well through tight trees or is it a serious problem?
thanks.
tight tree is utah? or tight trees in vermont?

my favorite tree ski is a 183cm Volkl Gotama that feels to short everywhere...but in the trees.
post #6 of 14
You will have to define how close together your tight trees are.
post #7 of 14

Ski Length

Difference in ski length, i.e., in the trees. Difference between 170 and 180 isn't much. Depends on the ENGINE and how it performs, what it likes and the preferences the engine has. How does the engine turn over; fast and quick or slower and more purposeful.
post #8 of 14
Thread Starter 
this is the description of the 185 aztec pro's by ski-review.com:
Two of my friends ski the Scott Aztec from previous seasons and they were forever singing their praise.


The Aztec’s Scott sent us were the new look 2005/2006 -- quite a plain looking ski, very understated, but I am sure many will like that. The Aztec also seems a little wider than what many of its competitors are offering.

We had a very good session on these skis - all over the mountain just after Dan and Ray and I had thrown ourselves down the Speed Skiing course – the Flying K. The sun was out and as the snow softened up, we skied plenty of terrain of the marked runs – steeps & well-established (hard) moguls.


I found the Scott Aztec to be an awesome, well balanced ski with plenty of grip anywhere you wanted it. Stable enough at reasonable speed on the flatter stuff - plenty of fun on and off the piste. Quite easy to manoeuvre too – I was happily bashing through slush on the lower levels with out feeling it for the après ski.


Something for the kids too - the tails are a little turned up, so skiing switch is not totally out of the question.

The consensus from the public who tried these the next day at our Pure Demo Day were not dissimilar. Most came back asking the price and someone even asked could I ski on them for a little more. I offered him some sun cream for his gums -- he was smiling far too much!

Nice work Scott.

in terms of tightness of trees, nothing absurdly close, just basic trees. i always have those 168's to ski trees if the 185's are too big.

thanks.
post #9 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick_91 View Post
for any of you that have skis in the 180-195 range, can you still maneuver reasonably well through tight trees or is it a serious problem?
thanks.

Ok, to give a serious answer, it depends on much more than the stated length. First, things like twin tips can make a ski feel much shorter. ANTs (listed as 191cm, with a full twin tip) feel pretty similar to 183 Head im103s, which have a square tail, and minimal tip.

Even more than that, flex is what determins how hard it is to muscle a ski around in the trees.

I'm not familiar with the Scotts, but I would consider a soft, 185cm twin tip to be fairly easy to handle in tight terrain.
post #10 of 14
Maverick, where are you skiing?

The Kongurs were reviewed by Newfydog. He is a credible ski patroller in British Columbia. That would settle the Kongurs for me, not to mention they are a very obscure ski. Basically a soft R:Ex at least 3 model years old. If you are considering these they should be really cheap.

The Scott Aztec Pro has a profile of 118/78/106 and a 14 meter turn radius. This was sold as a mid-fat but by today's standards is a 80% on piste ski. Most users your size will choose a 175 in this ski for best results. An excellent member review here by Astrochimp. The link in that thread shows a new pair available for $206, so deals are out there. This ski would be the pick of the two you mentioned. I can think of things that handle "off-piste, pow, trees and the occasional groomer" better, but that wasn't the question. For off-piste, I would think the longer length has advantages in softer snow, and disadvantages in tighter turns, particularly if conditions are firm.
post #11 of 14
Thread Starter 
thanks man, that was exactly what i was looking for. the 185's actually have a 80 at the waist, which is no means wide, but still a definite upgrade from the 70 on my 168 atomics. i really appreciate the advice on the kongurs. thanks.
james
post #12 of 14
yo'

5'-11, and 150#.....:

waah! EAT A BURGER ALREADY!! OR 8 OR 9!!
post #13 of 14
Thread Starter 
i know man, i know. it's ridiculous. football, rugby, hardcore skiing...none of it does anything. stupid high metabolism. lol.
post #14 of 14
Thread Starter 
cirquerider, i mainly ski at lake louise or sunshine up in alberta, but i'm planning on making a trip over to whistler later this year.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion