New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

176 gotama vs 183

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
I had been skiing the 176 most of the last year but just made a swap for the 183.

I am shocked but I actually miss the 176 much more nimble and quick. The 183 was smoother and felt more solid at top speed but was not that great in the trees and was much more difficult to hit a good tight spot with. I think I like the surfing feel of a shorter ski in hindsight. I also felt that the 183 required much less effort and I a may be unusual but holding an edge on one ski at the bottom of a big bowl it sort of fun.

6' 200lbs

I wonder what the people who ski the 190 are skiing. Heli, wide open bowls, or just like the speed in open terrain.

Anybody else feel the same or am I on an island?
post #2 of 28
Wow - I'm 5' 8" and 180 lbs and ski the 183. I can't imagine anything shorter. For your height and weight I'd think at least the 183 for you. Where are you skiing? For anything deeper than about 1 foot, I would imagine the 176 would be way too short.
post #3 of 28
Thread Starter 
Mt Bachelor with the occasional trip to Big Sky.

The guy that took my 176 was even bigger than me. I think I just like the workout of overturning?

I also like trees and bumps so maybe I am on an island on this one.
post #4 of 28
Personal preference is hugely important, so I wouldn't sweat it. I ski my 183s in the trees too, but I don't go at really high speeds there. Hey - if you like the 176, ski em!
post #5 of 28
Thread Starter 
I actually like both I just am amazed at what difference in feel there is the 176 vs 183.

Either way the Got IMO is the best ski in any type of powder that I have ever skied demo or owned.
post #6 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by USCdownhill View Post
... maybe I am on an island on this one.
Sounds like you know what works for you, which is great. I'm ~171#s and ski 183 Gots. I wouldn't want 176s. 190s? Maybe...
post #7 of 28
Funny how this thread came up because I am on some shorter Gots (168) and have been thinking of going longer (176) to get a bit better float. The 168s tend to ride in the pow rather than surf on top. I prefer the latter, so was thinking that maybe if I went longer it would stay more on top?

After reading this, I wonder if I might be better off staying w the 168's since I also do a lot of tree skiing.

I know... 168's are pretty short, but I'm only 135 lbs.
post #8 of 28
I've been tempted to go longer lengths in skis myself. Especially powder skis but I usually ski in the 180cm range -1or 2 cm. To me I'd rather the increased bump ability and give up a little float. I don't ever feel the need for a longer ski unless ripping super fast on untracted. But I ski mostly east so that means I'm done with my run superquiclkly as well. Like my girl says length is overrated. If you like a certain length go for it.
I hate the "you should be on a 190" people.
I'm 5'10" 205
post #9 of 28
6 foot 3 185 lbs...fairly lean. On the 183s and wouldnt dream of going shorter...would consider the 190s but love tree skiing b/c the snow is so good in there. I still think these feel short due to the twin tip. Ski what works for you...but still surprised you'd go shorter given your size.
post #10 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard View Post
I know... 168's are pretty short, but I'm only 135 lbs.
I am 140lbs and ski the 176.
post #11 of 28
I tried both 183 and 190. 5'11", 185. Bought 190 to compliment my Snoop Dadies and upcoming Alaska trip. Traded some maneurability for stability in speed and floatation. If I would use Gotamas as a "do it all" ski - I would go with 183. It is a twin tip after all - it skis short.

Cheers,

cfr.
post #12 of 28
I tried both 183 and 190. 5'11", 185. Bought 190 to compliment my Snoop Daddies and upcoming Alaska trip. Traded some maneuverability for stability in speed and floatation. If I would use Gotamas as a "do it all" ski - I would go with 183. It is a twin tip after all - it skis short.

Cheers,

cfr.
post #13 of 28
go 183 you will get use to them, eventually once you learn the ski it will be quicker in trees than the 176 could ever hope to be.

FYI my newest go to weapon for powder filled trees is a 192 thug, bigger is more nimble.
post #14 of 28
6' 225# , 190's Found that moving the mounting point slightly forward made it feel much shorter .
post #15 of 28
I just skied my 183's for a week out west, hit everything from serious steeps to frozen crud, tight bumps, and scratchy groomed. These ski SHORT! Wouldn't have needed or wanted anything less and I'm only 164 lbs. As it was, could bend them easily while carving groomed at speed (yes they will).

OTOH, didn't get them to wiggle through small spaces. Have other skis for that.

Incidentally, mounted RF's, tried out multiple fore-aft settings using existing adjustments plus changing boot sole marks on the track. Will try to post a gear report when I get time.
post #16 of 28
Thread Starter 
I did ski the 183 today and it is much smother on longer turns and at speed. I still think I like a short ski for just overall play time but I will say at top speed the 183 was a good upgrade.
post #17 of 28
I'm also shocked you prefer the shorter Gotama. I'm your size and wouldn't consider anything shorter than 183's.
post #18 of 28
So, where did you guys mount your 183's? I see there's a good four cm's between mount points. Maybe OP needs to mount forward? Advantage of moving back? I know the general idea, I just want to hear your experience with this ski.
post #19 of 28
Skied the gots today in some fresh pow. Didnt like how they ride in the pow vs on top when it gets really deep. I think I may go longer the next size up if I come across a good deal. I prefer to surf on top. The Seths & PR's I had in the past all floated on top. I just find it a bit strange for a 105 waist ski to ride in the pow instead of ontop

Outta curiosity, how do the rest of you with the longer gots 183/190's find the gots in pow. Do they float on top or ride in the pow?
post #20 of 28
183s/171#s - ride in pow if it's light, i.e. Aspen end of January this year; a litle more on pow if it's a little denser, i.e. typical Tahoe snow. If I wanted a dedicated pow ski, I'd get the 190s or something else. All around thoujgh, they're a fine one ski quiver.
post #21 of 28
Mine ride IN the snow, like all powder skis made. The relative float - whether they're 2 inches down or a foot - depends on how fast I'm going, what I weigh, and how dense the snow is. Do a search; there were interesting threads on this last winter.
post #22 of 28
5'9 168lbs. love my 176's. plenty stable and floaty, and easy and manouvrable.
tried the 183's and didn't like them nearly as much. so there!
the only people i see going faster than me are the 25 year old locals straight lining on monster skis, so i don't see why i'd need anything bigger.
post #23 of 28
5'9'', 170 lbs.

Use the 183 for climbs/hikes but mostly ski the 190 anywhere (open bowls and tight chutes) in any conditions when mostly lift-accessed terrain. Took me a couple of days to get used to the length but with some technique you can throw them around whenever and whereever. Only thing is wish they were a tad softer just because my knees are getting worn and me getting old.

As said in thousands of threads before the Gots ski short for any given length.
post #24 of 28
Does anyone know if Volkl varies the stiffness on the Gots for their different lengths? ie. is the 183 stiffer than the 176 etc...
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard View Post
Does anyone know if Volkl varies the stiffness on the Gots for their different lengths? ie. is the 183 stiffer than the 176 etc...
The 190's flex feels a slight tad stiffer to me than the 183 but the difference is neglectable IMO.
post #26 of 28
There have been threads on this point. The more surface area a ski has (either via length or width), the less weight and/or force per square cm of area. Therefore, a longer or wider ski will be stiffer for the same weight skier even if the ski has the same flex as a shorter/narrower model. OTOH, a longer ski is usually meant for a heavier or faster skier, so it may be very slightly stiffer in flex in addition to the greater SA. Or if the length increases significantly, like Head mid-fats with 11 cm increments, longer skis could actually be softer flex since there's so much more surface area and stability. All depends on the design targets. Bending a tip will tell you little except the tip flex.
post #27 of 28
I traded my 173 cm Sugar Daddy's for 183 Gotamas. I'm 185 lbs and 6'0".

It's true the Goat's aren't as dipsy-doodly in tight spots. But, their stability and smoothness are well worth the trade-off.

With shorter skis, you can't hit speed, and you feel precarious.

On longer skis, life is smooth, stable and easy. Much better for long arcs.

The Goats also ski short (twin-tips), and are plenty maneuverable on the groomed. If I had to, I could easily use them as my only ski.

You did the right thing.

If I lived in Utah (Snowbird), I'd even consider the 190's.

Length does matter.
post #28 of 28
Thread Starter 
I am used to the 183 and I had it in 22" of pretty good pow this past weekend.

They were very maneuverable and stable. Love the 183's
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion