or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Short skis still....hmm. Suck?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Short skis still....hmm. Suck? - Page 2

post #31 of 48
I have skied on boards from 223-130 cm. The later being shaped skis for teaching beginners. It seems like it's the skier not the skis that is the issue. :
post #32 of 48
Man, I found both of the same exact skis I raced in high school still in the wrap on eBay! I am so excited! Got some mid-90's Salomon 1S 203's from Kristen Ulmer, still in the wrap, and some 3S 193's still in the wrap. I think that long, straight skis still rule. They are great for everything, I think the short skis may have issues in some conditions.
post #33 of 48
From the skis I've demoed and the reviews I've read, the skis at the long end of a manufacturer's model line (190, whatever) these days are made for heavy, aggressive, highly skilled skiers. In my limited experience, and I'm a 195# good skier, the longest ski in a line sometimes feels like a different model than the ski of the same model just one size shorter.

What to do?--demo more sizes than you'd imagine you might ski on.

I've seen plenty of older, long, straight skis in very good condition for sale lately--in consignment shops. Buy what ever puts a big smile on your face.
post #34 of 48
I think we should ski on whatever is fun. But as to issues of short skis in some snow conditions - probably don't want to ski the new breed of supershort SL's in bottomless powder . . . but skis around 180cm can rip in any condition just fine, its *skiers* who have issues in some conditions, not the skis generally.
post #35 of 48
My two cents on the whole length issue....

It is a skier thing, but there are skiers that need longer skis. Even a mid-fat or a fat ski in a shorter length just does not provide the same type of stability through crud as the king of crud the 204cm Morrison.
This was a great ski for aggressive adv/experts used to skiing longer length GS skis.
Now with 195cm mid-fats skiing is easier. Quicker edge to edge, more manuverable, but still in the crud making long turns the overall surface area and stability is just not quite the same. For everyday riding the 195cm mid is a better ski, but there are those instances where the longer board would be nice.
Overall the short ski movement is a positive one for almost all skiers. But there are those certain conditions where a big guy 180lbs+ would like to have a mid or a fat in up to a 200cm length.
Everyone needs something a little different. If Joe Diddy from Texas wants to ski on a 165cm cause he thinks it's a fun ski then all the power to him. I bet some of us here would think a 204cm mid-fat would be the most absurd type of ski, but others would relish it.

It don't matter what you ride, as long as you love to glide.
post #36 of 48
Being a big guy who is a great skier doesn't dictate ski length either - there are 200lb muscle-bound monsters on the world cup who ski like we only dream, and are skiing some events on 170cm +/- . . . and turning them *pretty well* [img]smile.gif[/img] However, the same guy wouldn't most likely want to ski that ski in the changable snow conditions off-piste. So it depends on needs as much as anything, which is one of the frustrating reasons why a skier who competes and freeskis has to have a large quiver of snow tools/toys.
post #37 of 48
I hear ya' oboe...the "whatever floats your boat" theme is what makes skiing so enjoyable. So many things in this society are dictated by other forces..without our say in the big picture, but sliding around on a mountain! [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #38 of 48
Two general comments:

First of all, who cares what someone else is skiing on? A GOOD skier can still ski runs that have been "hacked up" by 160cm skis.

Second, I can't believe someone who is 6'2" and skis on 190s is complaining about short skis. I'm 5'6" and ski 200s. Your 190s are SHORT! [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #39 of 48
KevinH said First of all, who cares what someone else is skiing on? A GOOD skier can still ski runs that have been "hacked up" by 160cm skis.

Can it be that a GOOD skier on a 160cm ski can carve SL turns that you can only dream of on your 200cm midfats?

Argus said If Joe Diddy from Texas wants to ski on a 165cm cause he thinks it's a fun ski then all the power to him.

Why is it that you associate short skis with the quintessential beginner from Texas?

Sorry to make those remarks, but your posts have a certain superiority complex, based on the fact that you have long skis. I don't doubt that you are good skiers who can handle 200cm shaped skis, but you won't be any better by continuing to bash skiers who like short ski.
post #40 of 48
There were some good reply's to this topic and unfortunately I didn't have the time to read them all but have to agree with the "Its the Indian not the Arrow" sentiment as well as "who cares what someone else is skiing on".

It's no revelation that some ski's ski better on some condition's than others. That's a fact of life. I'm of the impression that the 'average' skier only has one pair of ski's and skis fewer days than you or I. If she/he did ski as much as we did they would be posting their opinion on this forum, meanwhile, they're doing something productive while we waste our time arguing over whether my 193's make me more of a man than you on your 191's.

To me it come's down to finding the best all around ski for a particular skier. If some 'joe public' goes into his local ski shop, say's he has $xxx to spend, and some informed (hopefully) guy recommends a particular ski in a 'short' length and the guy/gal is having way more fun than he/she was having on their old, longer straight skis, what exactly is the problem?

So the guy ski's mostly groomer's and once in a while venture's off piste and finds he could use a little extra length when he's there? I'm pretty sure he will gladly accept the sacrifice cuz 90% of his ski day is spent on the right ski and he may have to adapt a little for the 10% of the time he venture's into new territory. Likely he becomes a better all around skier as a result of having to adapt.

Isn't it all about people having a good time anyway? If I take my 170 Head Cyber WC SL Ti's (Whew!) out for a day and it turns out to be super deep powder all day do you think I am going to be disappointed I didn't bring my long board out or do you think I'm gonna cherish the fact I had an incredible powder day? I think you know the answer.

The bottom line is that (again, hopefully) most people end up on skis that are suitable for the majority of the skiing they do. I'm pretty sure they don't care if some dude on 190's think's they are wimps. Skis aren't phallic symbols. People don't think their fun factor is correlated with the sum of the number's printed on the sidewall of their skis.

The point is moot, my mom is skiing better on her new 150's than she was on her 170's. I'm skiing better on my 185's than I was on my 205's. Where is the problem? And whoever started this topic is skiing better on his 190's than he was on his 205's.

post #41 of 48
it's not about the ski, it's the skier. also it's not about the size of the ski, but the size of the grin on your face after the run.
post #42 of 48
I have to throw my 2 cents in here!

I bot P40 SL Carvers in 177cm in March. Only got about 5 or 6 days of time on them before the season ended.

I demoed a couple of others that I did not like at all and was almost resigned to skiing my old (7 yrs) Rossi 7XK's that are limp, bent, beat and 198cm for the rest of time!

BTW I am 48, 5'5 and maybe 140# in gear on a good day! (when my mom-in-law makes gnocchi's--my top weight)

An instructor friend called me at work one saturday to demand my presence at the local hill as soon as possible to try a ski he thought I would like---2 hours later (ski time) I bought the damn things.

Too new to form an opinion other than WOW! I am quite new at shapes, If the limited experience I have had on a good one is any indication, I should have done this a long time ago!

They are a bit different to ski on, but not as much as I had been lead to believe.

Being at a small (800ft vert.) hill in western Mass, we don't get pow days. 5 inches is a huge dump most years. But on the snow we had last season, these things were perfect.

DaMtnRider, note the smile!

J [img]smile.gif[/img]

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ November 13, 2001 07:49 PM: Message edited 2 times, by skier_j ]</font>
post #43 of 48
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I think that there should be a minimum length based on height and weight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This seems to me the same sort of argument as old timers use about most things. (Remember the Monty Python skit about hardship: " Handful of gravel for breakfast, sleep in hole in ground in middle of road-luxury!")

Length of skis also seem to be tied up with the whole macho image thing, like 5 liter V8 engines, kicking butt in the Board room, no-pain-no-gain etc etc. ("I've got a 210cm straight ski which kicks sand in the face of your wimpy 170cm shaped ski!")

My (female) partner calls it "willy measurement" and claims that you can't get any sensible discussion in a meeting until the males present have gone through the
(thankfully metaphorical!) size measurement routine.

Seems to me that people who worry about ski length are in the same category.
post #44 of 48
Thread Starter 
Okay, next time I go out (Friday) I'm turning on my 180 WC Slalom Ti's. And to think I was going to get rid of them. You guys talked me out of it.
post #45 of 48
180 is pretty long for slalom these days. :
post #46 of 48
Thread Starter 
I'll do the short ski thing -- 180. I mean, they are kinda fun.

I just can't carry around anything shorter than that!
post #47 of 48
Hey SCSA, have you ver tried a shorter ski, possibly a 170ish sise?? If you get the chance this season, take a pair for a few runs, i dont think you will be dissappointed. Based on your size of course, i dont knwo if you would like a 160 length, as it may feel like your going to fall over. Its worth a try i think. Let me know if you already have tried them because i dont want to beat a dead horse so to say... But try it if you get the chance, you never know you might like them... :
post #48 of 48
I used to ride 210s until about 5 years ago. Now I ski 163s. It's like a whole new world. I was getting bored. Now I look for places to make circles in the snow. They're also pretty fast in a course. [img]smile.gif[/img]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Short skis still....hmm. Suck?