New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Choose the Right Ski Size?

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
How in the world do you pick out the right size ski? I've heard they should come between the nose and chin. Others have told me they should be between nose and forhead. Which is correct?

I'm 5'9" / 190 lbs. I'm a 2nd year intermediate skier (level 7). I go 2-3 times a week, so I imagine I'll be considered "advanced" by the end of this season. I've had people tell me that 163-165 is best, and others tell me I shouldn't be on anything smaller than 170.

Any suggestions?


Reverend Poppy
post #2 of 29
I'm no expert here but I can't help thinking that a spread of 7cm isn't much.
post #3 of 29
With shaped skis, I've heard that 7cm can make a huge difference in how a ski performs. Because of the deeper sidecut, changes in length have significantly more impact on the turning radius.
post #4 of 29
I'm 5'7" & over 200.

I ski a 167 T-power.

Dunno if that's useful information, but there it is.
post #5 of 29
Much of it depends on the terrain you ski - for groomers 170-180 I imagine would be good for you, maybe even in the 160 (but only for a shapely slalom ski). For freeriding go a bit longer 180-190 for better stability in the crud and float in the pow. Much of it also depends on your skiing style (aggresive -> longer , easygoing -> shorter)

Or you can just demo various skis and see what sizes work for YOU.
post #6 of 29
170 cm or greater. Perhaps as much as 180 cm.

Happy Skiing
post #7 of 29
Don't go below 170 cm, for yor height, weight and ability level.
post #8 of 29
Just my 2 cents. I skied 205-210's for years. Bought a pair of 198cm high dollar shape-skis start of last year. I am 185# @ 5'10", salesmen said they would be to much for me. Think he was right. They are way 2 fast on the groomers. However, I do like them off-piste.
From the fringe element of the web
post #9 of 29
I have some real misgivings about entering this discussion but here goes:

1) Whether the length of a ski should be based on height or a person's weight has been debated for decades and the debate still continues. When I first started skiing the wisdom that held the greatest sway at the time was to extend your arm straight up above your head. The ski was supposed to just reach your wrist as I recall.

2) Height based calculations later lost ground to weight based calculations coupled with experiance considerations. Good skiers of average weight and (sometimes less) were skiing 205-215cm GS skis. Slalom skis at 205cm or even longer were quite common until just a few years ago. One of my all time favorite skis is a Fischer RC4 203cm slalom ski. This period is now regarded as the "phallic era" of skiing.

3) With the advent of shaped skis we have also seen a diversification of ski products. Until the mid-nineties retail skis really came in only three general configurations GS, slalom, and "all-mountain".

Today we have Fats, Mid-Fats, Race GS, Race Slalom, recreational Short Slalom, Carvers with a generally GS bias, Pipe&Park, Mogul and probably a few others I've failed to mention.

4) Total ski surface area has now joined the height and weight debate as an additional factor to be considered. And then there are flex pattern, relative longitudinal stiffness and torsional ridgidity factors which bear on the length issue particularly the latter.

5) You can see why so many folks say;

a) DEMO, DEMO, DEMO(unfortunatly a lot of great ski makers have limited Demo programs or model selections) or,

b) pick a brand you like or stick to it like I did and adust to the trends based on sidecut. All things being equal the deeper the sidecut the shorter you can go with consideration given to the total surface area of the ski and the other factors mentioned in 4)above.

c) buy whetever length is available as long as the graphics are cool (which a lot of folks do though they may deny it).

6) But back to your question. Your profile indicates that you ski in Utah a lot. If You mostly like the groomed and like short turns and medium turns you might look at a short slalom or shortish carver ski. By today's standards skiing in the west I would be thinking around 170-175 for a short slalom or 180-190 for a GS, Carver or Mid-Fat but you could go down to 160 or so for a short slalom and stay on the 180sh side for a Carver or mid-fat and maybe find turning a little easier. The only sacrifice you will probably make is some stability at high speeds and in skiing crud and some flotation in powder.

I have never tried Fats.

7) If you like to go off piste a lot I would go longer especially if you like big fast sweeping turns. At 5'11" and 180lbs I have a 191cm which is basically a GS ski for multi-purpose use and am now skiing a 174cm short slalom ski which does almost everything my GS ski does except that it is not made for big turns at quite the same speed or with quite the same stability as the longer skis.

Racers are down to 155-160cm slalom skis and Mid-180 cm's for GS but they are making fairly specific turns on very hard courses (think ice). So are a lot of eastern skiers.
In the west for greater versitility I would go a little longer than that.

If you want to stay short then I would look for a ski with a little more surface area that is torsionally rigid with a fairly even flex.

8) If all else fails extend your arm straight above your head and pick a ski that will reach your wrist... only now you will have to perform this excercise on your knees.

Hope this helps a little. I'm afraid you will never find unanimity on this issue but it does make for some interesting discusssion.

You might just ask your instructor for his/her recomendations based upon their observations of your skiing and what you tell them about the conditions you best like to ski in. Come to think of it that is the best advice I can give on the subject. It just means holding off on that all important ski purchasing decision until there is some snow on the ground.
<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by Lostboy (edited September 23, 2001).]</FONT>
post #10 of 29
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>5) You can see why so many folks say;


I think this is the only possible correct answer to "what length...". Once you've decided on the model, you should try it in different lengths if you have any doubts. Also, if you're changing ski technology, take a lesson while you're demoing the skis.
post #11 of 29
I think the value of demoing is way over rated. Really. Demoing skis tell you what matches your present technique. If you are not used to skiing a short shaped ski, and have yet to blend your skills properly for modern skiing, you will buy the ski that lets you get away with whatever technique you presently have. This usually means getting the ski in too long of a length. A skilled pilot will find more performance in a shorter ski.

Keep in mind that proper length is also dependant on what kind of ski we are talking about. T powers, Machs, and other shortie slalom type skis are meant to be skiied short. Unless you are really wanting max floatation, and speed off piste, you can low ball yourself quite well with mid fats, and fats. Carve skis also work really well in very short sizes, especially with lift. All the Euros at my ski school (Mammoth) are skiing on 160 cm or smaller. This includes two 6'+ Czech girls, who ski scarey fast all the time, off piste and on.
post #12 of 29
Don't listen to the rest of this nonsense. Take any of these recommended lengths and then add at least 20 cms to what you've been told.
If you're not on at least 205s you might as well buy some snowlerblades and wear a tutu.
post #13 of 29
I'm maybe level 6 and demoed and wound up with a 170 shaped (from a 170 straight). Can't argue the mechanics. Just like 'em. I'm about 5'4". Never felt they were too big (or at least that wasn't my problem).

post #14 of 29
> Lostboy: "All things being equal the
> deeper the sidecut the shorter you can go
> with consideration given to the total
> surface area of the ski and the other
> factors mentioned in 4)above."

I don't agree with this. For a given length, a deeper sidecut gives a smaller sidecut radius. OTOH, for a given sidecut, a shorter length also gives a smaller sidecut radius. Thus, the two effects operate in the same direction and don't partially cancel as you seem to suggest. Decreasing both parameters simultaneously would result in a ski with very different handling characteristics.

BTW, if you were referring to the fact that for a given waist, a deeper sidecut means wider tips and tails which does increase the load bearing area, since overall ski widths (for a given type of ski) tend to stay within a fairly narrow range, sidecut usually doesn't make that big a difference in area. Waist width is the much more important factor here.

Tom / PM

<FONT size="1">

[This message has been edited by PhysicsMan (edited September 24, 2001).]</FONT>
post #15 of 29
Here is the big dilemma:

If you are not an advanced skier you will find a very short ski (160 or less) to be somewhat unstable because you may not have the skill to work those edges. Furthermore, skidding a short shaped ski may be harder than skidding a longer, straighter ski, so you get additional challenges . That is why you should not go too short until your skills improve a little. If however you do decide to go very short, don't get a stiff slalom ski (like an Atomic 9.16 or 9.12 or TP Viper S) because you will be very unhappy.

My suggestion is to go to a 170-180 mid-fat unless you have demoed a short ski and actually loved it. In general, select skis based on where you ski and what type of skiing you like to do.

The higher the skill the more you know what you like in a ski. Despite the odd person that still advocates long skis regardless of terrain, there is a good reason why so many experts select shorter skis. They are simply more fun, more maneuverable and actually enhance your skills in most in-bound conditions. Obviously, for off-piste conditions (deep powder, crud, etc) longer skis are better for exactly the same reason why short skis are better everywhere else: because they make it easier for the rider! The way I look at it, skiers need longer skis off-piste because they cannot handle the powder, crud and speed with short toys. Actually they can handle it, but it is harder, in the same way that it is harder to carve short snappy turns on a 190 cm ski.

Personally I am 5'7'', 160lbs, ski in the East and ride almost exclusively on a Salomon AxeCleaver 152cm ski. I am looking at getting the Atomic 9.12 or Mach S in 160cm as my next all purpose ski. I love short skis in everything except deep powder (rare animal in the East) and very high speeds (which I rarely do).
post #16 of 29
> Lostboy: "What I was refering to in my
> post above is that the deeper the sidecut
> (all other things being equal) the easier
> it is to bend the ski ..."

If I'm not mistaken, I think you are probably saying that with everything else held constant, specifically narrowing the waist of a ski should make it easier to flex. This is indeed true, but is not what is important or what happens when a mfgr designs and manufactures a particular model of ski.

By adjusting the thickness of the ski and method of construction (eg, torsion box, glass wrapped, wood / foam core, cap vs sidewall, etc.), the mfgr has essentially total and independent control of the flex without changing the sidecut or width of the ski by one iota. The designer usually decides on (among other things) the desired flex, sidecut and waist width first, and then adjusts parameters like the thickness and construction to achieve those goals simultaneously.

> "...with the result that more of the ski's
> total available edge is being engaged at a > given time throughout a turn."

I believe that what you are saying is that you think that if you make a ski more flexible, more of the edge will be in contact with the snow. Unfortunately, this is not generally true.

Lets first assume the simplest case of icy/hardpack conditions on an absolutely flat, smooth slope. In this case, what actually happens is that an edged ski with no force applied to it will be supported only at its tip and tail. (Try this at home, with a ski on a hard floor).

However, when you apply a modest force (say fifty pounds or less at any reasonable edge angle) perpendicular to this edged ski, the tip and tail of course stay in contact with the snow (floor), but now, the waist of the ski is also forced into contact with the floor. So, now you have three points of the ski in contact with the floor.

From this point on, no matter how much harder the boot presses down in the center of the ski, the fraction of the edge in contact with the floor never changes. Realizing this, I think it should be pretty easy to see that for the exact same reason, no matter how much you adjust the longitudinal flexibility of the ski, so long as the waist is touching the floor, you never change how much of the edge is in contact with the floor (snow) - it will always be the same three points.

No modern alpine ski is so stiff that the waist doesn't touch the floor (ie, snow) under the typical loadings applied by skiers (ie, his weight plus any centrifugal force he might be generating). Thus, in the case of hardpack, the overall flex of the ski almost nothing to do with how much of the edge is in contact with the snow.

Rather, what is critical to bringing as much of the edge as close to the floor (snow) as possible is the exact shape of the sidecut. If the sidecut is wrong in any way, only three points contact the floor. However, if the shape is correct, the whole edge can be arbitrarily close to the floor.

I should note that the distribution of flex along the length of the ski does determine the exact shape (in the other plane) of the fully reverse cambered ski, but the optimal flex distribution is essentially dictated by other design / performance goals (eg, soft forebody and stiff tail; soft tip and tail with a firm mid; etc. etc.), so getting as much of the edge in contact with the snow still boils down to the exact shape of the sidecut and not the overall flex.


> With a conventional sidecut ski more human
> effort, higher edge angles and more speed
> is required to cleanly carve a turn ...

This part of your statement is absolutely correct.

> ... because proportionatly less of the
> ski's total edge length is in contact with
> the snow at any given point in the turn.
> That is in large part what the shaped-
> short ski evolution is all about, at least
> I thought that was what it is about.

Unfortunately, the reason you hypothesize for the correct observatons in the first part of your sentence is not quite correct.

The main reason for less effort (say in terms of foot-twisting needed in skidded turns) is simply that the differences in angles of attack of the snow on the forebody uphill edge versus the aft uphill edge is so much larger with shaped skis, that these skis automatically generate a much larger twisting torque, so the skier doesn't have to apply so much manual foot steering.

The main reason for the ability to carve turns at lower speeds with shaped skis is simply that the arc formed by the decambered edge (as viewed perpendicular to the snow) has a much smaller radius than with old straight skis. Thus, to achieve a given centrifugal force (and indirectly, a given edge angle), a much lower speed can be employed.

The extra fraction of the edge in contact with the snow is a side benefit of care taken in modern ski design. It may account for part of the ability to go to shorter lengths, but is not the reason behind the major performance changes mentioned above (ie, less foot-steering, carving at lower speeds, etc.)


> I do however assume that a shorter wider
> ski will compensate to an extent for
> longer narrrower traditional skis. That is
> what Mid-Fats and Fats with their also
> wider waists are about I thought.

This is absolutely true in soft snow. In this case, the relevant issue is the pounds per square inch it takes to compact a specified type of snow by a given amount. To a good approximation, as long as the number of square inches is held constant, the depth to which you sink is independent of whether you get those square inches from a long skinny ski or a short wide one.

I hope my long winded explanations clarified things a bit. Unfortunately, sometimes I just can't figure out how to make my explanations any shorter.


Tom / PM
post #17 of 29
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the help so far. You guys have been great.

I was on 173's last year. The main reason I'm questionning whether or not they're too long is that I seem to get my tips tangled together on the bumps. I would thinking this might be easier to avoid with a shorter ski. Perhaps I should be concentrating more on technique and less on ski length. :
post #18 of 29
Reverend Poppy.

Sounds like you need to work on bump technique. Listen to what the other folks have to say about length.. and re-kindle a bump skiing thread on technique! (I like those posts)
post #19 of 29
Physics man,

No Mas! :

But I still can't quite let this go. :

What I was trying to convey correctly or otherwise is that with a straight side-cut ski the the snow will push against the entire edge of the ski so that it will not describe an arc much different from its actual sidecut absent a lot of centifugal force or pressure to decamber the ski beyond just the weight applied against it since most of that force is still underfoot and not distributed strongly enough along the length of the ski to bend the whole nearly straight ski very much.

With a conventonal ski, to carve a turn of a given size much smaller than its sidecut would otherwise suggest, the tip, then the center and finally the tail have to in their turn be engaged, angled and pressured with the result that the whole ski eventually follows in the same track (more or less) that was initiated with the tip. The result is that the edge of the ski must itentionally be engaged only in stages to produce a carved turn much less than the stated sidecut.

Shorter, deeper sidecut skis with their wider tips and tails require only that you more or less just stay centered over the middle section of the ski. When you pressure the center of the ski nearly the whole ski easily decambers with little resistance before encountering and being pushed against by the force of the snow.

In a deep sidecut ski the wider tip relative to the center of the ski also acts to help pull the ski cleanly and more tightly into the arc and the wider tail out of the arc than than it the case when applying the same degree of force to a coventional ski.

At any given point in the turn a different point along the edge is being technically being engaged but for practical purposes the entire edge of the decambered ski comes in contact or at least very near contact with the snow with a deep sidecut ski almost simultaniously.

This would still be true up to a point if the flex pattern were stiffer than a conventional ski. That is why I conclude that a shorter ski with a deeper sidecut
skis like a longer ski with less sidecut- it's the sense that the entire edge is being engaged more or less simultaniously instead of successively.

Shorter skis with deep sidecuts and softer flexes all contribute to making smaller radius carved turns at slower speeds easier than is the case or even possible in small turns with longer skis with less sidecut even given the same flex. But The feeling that a shorter deep sidecut ski is the equivelent of a longer ski with less sidecut is not so much radius based IMHO but rather based on the degree to which the entire length of the ski is engaged or nearly so throughout a carved turn.

Although different ski construction materials have resulted in torsional and longitudional variables becoming relatively more independent than they once were, I did not intend to infer that deeper sidecuts make a ski easier or harder to bend because they are per se more flexible if the designer doesn't otherwise intend it to be so.

I again repeat that I don't claim to be the last word on the subject (just a lot of them sometimes [img]smile.gif[/img] ) or a physics guy but that is how short deep sidecut skis appear to behave on the snow.

P.S. Spinheli and Ott Gangl thanks for your responses regarding my height/weight question in this topic. Unfortuatly they are frozen in time (at the moment at least) on the old Epic ski forum. :
post #20 of 29
Lostboy -

What we are discussing is right at the very heart of understanding how you make a turn on skis. I'm very interested in this, and I'd love to respond in full right now, but (1) my boss is paying me a first-ever visit on Thursday from the west coast, and I've got to get ready; (2) The tornado that hit College Park Maryland yesterday was only about 2 mi away from here, and my lab got partially flooded; (3) I'm running around like the proverbial headless chicken all day tmmrw (Wed) doing other things that can't be put off, etc. etc.

Sooo, unfortunately, its going to be at least Fri b4 I can get back to fun stuff and respond to the points you raised .

Maybe someone else (Bob, Todd?) can pick up on this in the meantime?

Tom / PM
post #21 of 29
Physics Man,

I will look forward to your insights when you have the time. Sorry about your lab.

P.S. One additional rather elemenatal thought occured to me. Since staight line is the shortest distance between two points, a relatively shorter deep sidecut ski can have effectively the same or more edge to work with than a straighter side cut ski of of the same or somewhat longer length.

This message edited 5-26-01
post #22 of 29
OK this is gonna really get things going: Last year, I swtiched from 185cm K2 Merlin IV to 123cm Elan PSX Shorts.

I am a certified instructor (PSIA and PMTS). I finally learned how to ski last year.

This year I am reluctantly planning to buy longer skis, so I can look "normal" and pass another PSIA exam.
post #23 of 29
Hi Keno--warmest welcome to EpicSki!

Oops--I was about to say "don't go longer just to pass an exam--your examiner may not be on anything longer than 160 or so." Then I reread your post and noticed that you said 123cm. You're right--that might be a little short to provide the versatility you'll need for all the tasks of an exam. But that 123cm PSX is a fun little ski to rip around on, isn't it!

LostBoy--Unfortunately, I'm also a little shorter on time than I'd like to be. This is a very good discussion about some fundamental skiing concepts. Here are some quick thoughts.

You're right that one of the reasons (there are many) that today's skis can be so stable and hold so well in shorter lengths, compared with "traditional" skis, is that the deeply curved edge is slightly longer for any given ski length.

But other design factors also contribute. Perhaps the biggest change, as PhysicsMan has described, is that the sidecut shapes, flex patterns, and torsional stiffness (resistance to twisting) of some of today's skis allows the entire edge to work at the same time. I always felt, on my old 203-210cm slalom and GS skis, that I was only using maybe 2/3 of the edge at any time. I could "lever" forward and use the forward 2/3, center myself for the middle 2/3, or lever back to pressure the back 2/3 of the ski.

Today, on most of my skis, I feel like the entire edge engages at once, and the entire ski works--if I can control the pressure accurately and stay in the "sweet spot." That's why I can feel as stable on a 173 as I use to feel on a 210!

This brings me to my main point. You described the need to pressure different parts of the ski in sequence in order to carve a turn tighter than the radius of the ski's sidecut. (I hope I'm not misunderstanding your words.) Here's how you said it:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>With a conventonal ski, to carve a turn of a given size much smaller than its sidecut would otherwise suggest, the tip, then the center and finally the tail have to in their turn be engaged, angled and pressured with the result that the whole ski eventually follows in the same track (more or less) that was initiated with the tip. The result is that the edge of the ski must itentionally be engaged only in stages to produce a carved turn much less than the stated sidecut.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While you can indeed tighten the radius of a turn by levering foward, thus bending the tip of the ski more, the result is not a very clean turn. As the tip bends more, the tail straightens out, causing a skid and loss of grip.

But you CAN, in fact, tighten the radius of a carved turn, without levering forward or back, to almost any degree! It's important to understand that SIDECUT DOES NOT CARVE A TURN! Sidecut simply allows a ski, tipped on edge and pressured, to bend into an arc. That bent ski is what carves the turn. To understand how sidecut works, try this:

Take a small piece of cardboard or plastic--a business card or old credit card works great. Cut one side of it in an arc, to resemble the edge of a deep-sidecut ski. Leave the other other edge straight.

Put the straight edge on a hard table and tip the "ski" up at an angle. Note that the entire edge touches the table, regardless of the edge angle. And notice too that, no matter how hard you press on it, the straight "ski" still won't bend into an arc.

Now put the curved edge on the table. Notice that once you tip it up a little, the edge only touches the table in two places--the "tip" and the "tail." Now gently press on the middle and watch the "ski" bend into an arc until the whole edge contacts the surface. If you press harder, the curve doesn't change.

But if you tip the card to a higher edge angle, it will bend into a tighter arc when you press on it, right? You can clearly demonstrate that the card will bend to almost any radius of arc, depending on how much you tip it (assuming you also press hard enough to keep the edge in contact with the table).

So pressure is not the key--as long as there is sufficient pressure to decamber the ski (bend the ski until its whole edge contacts the surface), more pressure does not bend it any further. Edge angle is the key--more edge angle, combined with sufficient pressure, tightens the arc that the ski will carve.

Of course, you might also notice that your card is probably not perfect. Depending on the shape of the "sidecut" you cut out of it, it may or may not contact the surface completely smoothly. The ends might lift up off the table, for example, or there may be little voids along the length. But this is all a function of the shape of the arc, and the "flex pattern" of your cardboard "ski." A little scientific modification of your shape would result in an edge that precisely contacts the table evenly along its entire length. And controlling the flex of the card could even distribute the pressure along the edge evenly. Of course, your card probably also has a bit of a torsional flex problem--it twists a little too easily for truely high performance! Independent control of these and other variables is what allows ski engineers to design skis that work incredibly well, even in short lengths.

I hope this little "visual aid" helps. I often carry a little plastic card with one edge cut out in my instructor's jacket just for this demonstration. I've also just torn a curved piece off the edge of a business card--crude, but effective!

I should point out that this experiment demonstrates only what happens on hard snow or ice. It is a different situation when the snow is soft and the ski sinks into it. If you take your "ski" and try the same experiment on a soft surface--an upholstered chair or cushion--you can obviously bend it just by pushing on its center. The straight edge will bend into an arc just as well as the curved edge. And more pressure will now bend the "ski" more. Ski design--especially sidecut shape--is much less critical in soft snow. Overall flex, and surface area (for flotation) become more important. But that's another story (at least until December)!

Summary: Any ski, as long as it has SOME sidecut, can carve virtually any radius turn with sufficient edge angle and pressure, without the need to lever (pressure different parts of it).


Rev Poppy--to your original question about "proper" ski length--you can see it's not as easy as it used to be! For what it's worth, I currently ski skis from 123cm to 193cm. They all work great, although they don't all work great in all conditions and situations! I'm 6'1" and light--155 lb.--and my "normal" skis 15 years ago were 203-210cm. If I were to choose one ski (God forbid!) with a good all-around length now, I'd probably go with 178-183cm.

I hope this helps!

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #24 of 29

Nice job. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Hey. What else you got in that thar ski instructor jacket pocket of urz? Any anti-SCSA devices?
post #25 of 29
What's funny about the mini plastic ski in the pocket is I used to carry one back in the 80's when I started to get to the point that I was the better skier than most of my friends. They would ask how I could turn "so well" with little effort. To show them what a ski did when you "levered" on the tip how the ski would create the curve I carried a little plastic card ski. I should probably make a new one with more side cut and put that back in my little ditty pouch.. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #26 of 29
To Bob Barnes,

Thank you for a very clear discussion of the subject and for the credit card example. Now I better understand why progressivly levering a ski along its length produces in my own words a <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>result that the whole ski eventually follows in the same track (more or less). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The less is when my tails skid .

Again, thank you for taking the time to clear this point up for me.
post #27 of 29
You're most welcome, LostBoy. I'm glad it made sense!

Dchan--me too! I probably first started using a cut-out card at least 20 years ago as a new instructor at Breckenridge. The skis didn't have nearly as much sidecut then, of course. But they had SOME, and they worked the same, if not so obviously. Today's skis have so much sidecut that the demonstration is clearer. I've even seen a leader of an instructor clinic actually take a ski inside and use the ski itself on the table for the demonstration over lunch!

I also used to carry a little green "Gumby" in my pocket. It was a great, amusing, little toy that I could bend and move in a lot of ways to illustrate a point. Unfortunately, his legs finally broke off, and I've never replaced him. He lost my favor anyway when I was turned down for a date by a woman who said she doesn't go out with guys who carry little green men in their pockets.... :

Best regards,
Bob Barnes
post #28 of 29

Ski the skis that work for you, if I took advice from the people I talked to when I switched from snowboarding to skiing 5 years ago, I'd have a pair of 8 foot long 2x8's on my feet.  I'm 5' 11" and a solid 230#'s with a size 12 C foot.  My current setup is 166 Dynastar Big Trouble's, Mojo 11's and for boots the 2010 Nordica Hot Rod 85, and I have no trouble going anywhere on the hill.  It's all about personal preference, some people like shorter skis some people like longer.  Just take the info you get here as more of a guideline than some guys opinion of "how it should be."

post #29 of 29
Originally Posted by oefdevilvet View Post

Ski the skis that work for you, if I took advice from the people I talked to when I switched from snowboarding to skiing 5 years ago, I'd have a pair of 8 foot long 2x8's on my feet.  I'm 5' 11" and a solid 230#'s with a size 12 C foot.  My current setup is 166 Dynastar Big Trouble's, Mojo 11's and for boots the 2010 Nordica Hot Rod 85, and I have no trouble going anywhere on the hill.  It's all about personal preference, some people like shorter skis some people like longer.  Just take the info you get here as more of a guideline than some guys opinion of "how it should be."

Welcome to EPIC. 

Notice the date in the top left corner of the posts. 

Cheers, smile.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion