or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

170 sl too long??

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
Found dynastar speed sl's for very cheap, wondering if a 170 is too long for me int his ski.
5'7" 140 lbs
Expert skier obviously
looking for a pair of rock skis is all... probly most of you have seen my previous posts regarding this little dilema i have. Thanks for yer answers.

ps. i am still looking for an affordable pair of twins as many of you reccommended for me, i did take your advice, but alls i can seem to find is cheap race skis.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ October 26, 2001 08:08 PM: Message edited 1 time, by Heluvaskier ]</font>
post #2 of 8
LOL... 170 too long... if you posted this 5 years ago... you would have been laughed off of the net.

Some of teh respnces:

"What are you afraid of...catching a tip in your skirt?"

"Afraid you might spill your wine spritzer?"

"Not allowed to ski with the men?"

"Might break a nail?"

Ahh those were the days.. when no respectable male would ski a ski shorter than a 200.
post #3 of 8
If you were racing on the dynastars then maybe they are too long. But if you just want to play around on them, then they should be ok. But,

I think you should wait for a better opportunity. From your posts you seem to want a ski to play on. Maybe you can find a pair of used Head Cyber XT. Great little skis and many instructors were on them last year.
post #4 of 8
You seem to have lots of Salomon's in your quiver, maybe some used X-Screams would be the ticket (they're floating around everywhere)? 1080's would also be good for just messin around, or any other twin for that matter (I've heard great things about the Kneissl Supafly as an all-around ski, stiffer than most twins, and comes in sizes ranging from 170-ish to 192!). For rock skis you could always get some old strait boards for 50 bucks (thats what I'd do hehe )

Those Dynastar slaloms would also be a fun ski, but only for on piste and moguls (maybe trees too). Oh yah, and 170 too short? Not if you're just kickin it and skiing around (which is what you said you want em for), I'd maybe want something shorter for hard core racing, 170 would be fine for just skiin around.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ October 27, 2001 11:32 AM: Message edited 1 time, by Mike B ]</font>
post #5 of 8
those speed sl's aren't shorties. There designed to be skied long, you'd be looking at a 183 probably. I'd bypass them if at all possible and try to find some cheap shorties.
post #6 of 8
Thread Starter 
they are shorties actually, probly the name was wrong but they are shorties. They are the ski that was out the year before the speed 63 sl stc came out, maybe it was called the speeed stc, but its was red much liek the speed sx, and has the little bird on the back. Ive seen them skied and knwo a few instructors that had them so i knwo they are shorties.
post #7 of 8
Based on how you describe them, they would be the STc's, a shorty SL and would be ton's of fun in a 170. Go for it if they're a good deal.
post #8 of 8
brother racer. If you're not hitting gates, get the 170 for sure. My slaloms are a 160 Atomic, and I wouldn't ski the 170 in course, but just dicking around, for sure. The perk to shorties being that you wouldn't have to change the way you ski to rock on them, which is a big plus come time to switch back into the course. You're a salomon man. Had racestock 10 3V's last season, ripping ski. FYI, the 1080 in a 161 has a snap turn to turn (granted you're carving them) scary similar to a 3V, so if you're looking at twins, its a good bet. the 177 1080 also rips an X-screamish arc, just don't play in gates on them. Good luck.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion