New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

short skis?

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
I'm a fan of Realskiers and I see this year the reference length for his all mountain ski of the year averages 170-172cm.
I remember attending an "all mountain" ski camp where they tried to get everybody on a demo that was at least one size smaller than they used on day one. They really felt that nobody needed a ski longer than their speed or float requirements dictated. They said everything else is just ego.
I'm 6'1" - 165lb and have enjoyed some great days on my iXRC 163s. They are stable at speed and they do just fine in trees and a little fresh snow. I'm usually on something between 174 and 180 but I probably enjoy the 163s more.
What do you think? Are good stable short chubby skis the way to go today?
post #2 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveturner View Post
What do you think? Are good stable short chubby skis the way to go today?
Maybe on some days, but not if you want to ski the entire mountain in all conditions at speed. There are many types of good skiers, but IMO the majority tend to shy away for packed conditions most of the time. If you are skiing on a mountain with multiple aspects on whatever types of snow it has to offer I think the right tool for the job tends to be a longer ski. More fore/aft balance and forgiveness allows relaxing in more types of snow to an extent not possible on short boards.

Short skis tend to chop at the mountain while long skis more easily caress it, or maybe I'm just lazy and don't want to pay attention to the extent required by short skis.
post #3 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveturner View Post
I'm a fan of Realskiers and I see this year the reference length for his all mountain ski of the year averages 170-172cm.
I remember attending an "all mountain" ski camp where they tried to get everybody on a demo that was at least one size smaller than they used on day one. They really felt that nobody needed a ski longer than their speed or float requirements dictated. They said everything else is just ego.
I'm 6'1" - 165lb and have enjoyed some great days on my iXRC 163s. They are stable at speed and they do just fine in trees and a little fresh snow. I'm usually on something between 174 and 180 but I probably enjoy the 163s more.
What do you think? Are good stable short chubby skis the way to go today?
if you ski groomers at slow speeds doing short turns all day long then yes by all means go short. I like my 170 progressors and can ski everywhere on them, but there are speeds and condition that I simply can not do on those skis. IE over 20 mph in powder, over 15mph in crud, straightlining, doubling bumps, gs turning bump fields, smear turns and overall just make me work hard to ski slower. Not fun. but on groomers they carve sweet SL turns, and do short poppt turns like a dream.

for actually skiing though give me length, little sidecut and some girth.

HH is a closed minded nut case BTW and would be owned freeskiing against any comp qualifing skier. sure his technique my be great but his closed mind on what people should be skiing on will keep him from be a great freeskier. Also just because he likes to ski his short supershapes everywhere doesnt mean that is best for you in fact its most likely is not best for you.
post #4 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveturner View Post
I'm a fan of Realskiers and I see this year the reference length for his all mountain ski of the year averages 170-172cm.
I remember attending an "all mountain" ski camp where they tried to get everybody on a demo that was at least one size smaller than they used on day one. They really felt that nobody needed a ski longer than their speed or float requirements dictated. They said everything else is just ego.
I'm 6'1" - 165lb and have enjoyed some great days on my iXRC 163s. They are stable at speed and they do just fine in trees and a little fresh snow. I'm usually on something between 174 and 180 but I probably enjoy the 163s more.
What do you think? Are good stable short chubby skis the way to go today?
Short skis could well be stable enough for you in terms of vibrations at speed; my Fischer WC SCs are. Fat skis might give you enough float. However there are some shortcomings to short skis.

If you ski over small bumps at speed, say 4 to 12 inches high, then the short skis will require a lot of skill to stay in balance regarding for aft movement. A longer ski will sort of smooth out the chop and make things much more pleasant.

If you ski deeper snow and it gets tracked out with a lump here and a pile there, the longer skis will just ski right over that like if it wasn't there, while your shorties will require a lot of skill to manage.

Also consider turn radius. If you are going to go fast at high speeds, you want a longer turn radius; it just feels better arcing a smooth line than tearing along a turn the ski wasn't designed for.
post #5 of 21
I find that I like short (eg, 165-170) carvers for those days when I'm going to stay on groomed and the terrain or population density dictate lots of turns. And unlike Ghost I'll take the lower inertia and compact fit of a 165-170 any day in bumps, but then my knees don't like doing a zipper "at speed."

That said, shorter skis get to be too much work in chop or powder, and can produce life-before-your-eyes moments at speed unless they're race models. Besides, on smooth surfaces most of us naturally do GS-SG size turns, whatever we like to think. So I may go notch longer than my weight would suggest for skis over 80 mm (That is, a notch below what Highway Star's small bodied girlfriend or Harkin Bank's young son ride.)

Unless they're for trees. IMO tree skis should be shaped like snowshoes, and not much longer.
post #6 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
HH is a closed minded nut case BTW and would be owned freeskiing against any comp qualifing skier. sure his technique my be great but his closed mind on what people should be skiing on will keep him from be a great freeskier. Also just because he likes to ski his short supershapes everywhere doesnt mean that is best for you in fact its most likely is not best for you.
Not HH but JC in Aspen. Spent three days on bumps and in trees with soft turns, very little edging and a lot of what they called drifting. Only a few drills on groomed snow, but there was no accumulation of powder to "float' on either.
I think the issue may be more with speed than with terrain. If the ski you are on is stable at your maximum speed there may be little reason to go longer. Fatter maybe but longer
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
I find that I like short (eg, 165-170) carvers for those days when I'm going to stay on groomed and the terrain or population density dictate lots of turns. And unlike Ghost I'll take the lower inertia and compact fit of a 165-170 any day in bumps, but then my knees don't like doing a zipper "at speed."

That said, shorter skis get to be too much work in chop or powder, and can produce life-before-your-eyes moments at speed unless they're race models. Besides, on smooth surfaces most of us naturally do GS-SG size turns, whatever we like to think. So I may go notch longer than my weight would suggest for skis over 80 mm (That is, a notch below what Highway Star's small bodied girlfriend or Harkin Bank's young son ride.)

Unless they're for trees. IMO tree skis should be shaped like snowshoes, and not much longer.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer the shorter skis for bumps (moguls), just not for the bumps(chop) and crud that you can ski with terrain ignoration.

Granted, if you're doing 50 mph, a lot of what might be thought of as bumps(moguls) by some is merely bumpy(chop). It's like speeding over potholes at 80 mph, verses going into them at 30 mph. Of course if the bumps(chop) grow a little bit, they could become bumps(moguls) that might give you a rough ride at speed.
I recall my son telling me the (challenging for him) run we had just done had moguls on it; I had thought it was just a little bumpy.
post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Unless they're for trees. IMO tree skis should be shaped like snowshoes, and not much longer.
My fastest and most nimble tree skis are my 192cm thugs. So I would never believe this statement...
post #9 of 21
I've seen a few obvious Harb Desciples skiing with thier stubby Supershapes and those ridiculous things comming out of the back of their boots. They looked like they were having tons of fun!

Aside from those loonies, short skis are really good if you like to muscle your skis around instead of skiing.
post #10 of 21
My roommate has never ski'd = fail. He is thinking about coming out to aspen and was asking me about snowblades since he played hockey. I referenced snowblades to figure skating.

my 2 cents
post #11 of 21
Icelantic?
post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by telerod15 View Post
Icelantic?
Getting longer and longer... they make all the way up to a 173 this year!
post #13 of 21
What ever floats your boat. Personally I won't be skiing anything shorter than a 180 any time soon, and those only for coral reef and chicken heads where longer skis get hung up easier.

I got a pair of 200cm Superkarve Legends last fall, and was a little intimidated by the thought that they'd be hard to turn (listening to too many "expert" short ski advocates around here methinks). They were not, just super stable at speed, and easy to snap off short turns with when I decided to try that. The only thing intimidating about them now is how fast I can go on them without any instability.

As for tree skiing, I had a pair of 180 Chubbs that I bought with tree skiing in mind, I sold them last year, as they were too short to feel stable. I have no problem skiing 190s in tight trees, I guess the trick is not to side slip between the trees, but rather point 'em and ride.
post #14 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayPowHound View Post
Getting longer and longer... they make all the way up to a 173 this year!
actually 183

as for snowblades they are great learning tool. but if you stay on them after you can turn them you are a chicken chaser.
post #15 of 21
Steve

The answer to your question is more complex than you think.

The two things that matter are the energy you put into the ski and how the ski is built. For a given skier, a longer softer ski or a shorter stiffer ski will be right.*

Your weight isn't high. We don't know if you are a very high energy hard charging skier or a laid back easy going skier. That alone makes a huge difference in the skis that work best for you. The heavy, high energy skier needs more ski under them than the lighter skier or easy going skier. The more skilled skier can get more out of higher capability skis than the less skilled skier.

So...demo lots of skis and see what puts the biggest grin on your face. The longer skis recommended above might be the ones...or they might be exactly wrong for you.

I (6', 200#) have a pair of medium-soft flexing 73mm waist 170cm long skis that are great on everything except the hardest steepest snow, are a dream in powder, but don't give me the flotation I need, at the speed I like to ski, to get off the base. For this reason only I have some longer, wider just for deep snow.


*And there are many exceptions. The Head SuperShape, among a few, is very capable while being quite soft, so it qualifies along with stiffer skis in the same size.
post #16 of 21
http://forums.epicski.com/showthread...ghlight=volant

See post 5. Length of Machete g was 190, not 195 (can't edit old post).

BTW how do you make a single post link?
post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
My fastest and most nimble tree skis are my 192cm thugs. So I would never believe this statement...
Well, I did say IMO. Far as your beloved Thugs, I can see that; I like my 183 Goats in the trees too. Relatively longer fatter skis do well for certain styles of tree skiing in open trees, glades, landing soft pillows. But have you ever actually been on snowshoes? In close quarters and dense trees, way beyond the lifts, something like an Icelantic would be near perfect. My Prior Doughboys in 175 were amazing in tight trees and the 167 would probably have been even better. The length means you seldom worry about catching tips, and the taper gives the tails a looseness that allowed ridiculously easy smears and pivots. OTOH, too loose and short for speed in crud and not stable enough for landings. So suspect Icelantics are getting longer not because they fail in trees, but because market forces are nudging them toward being "versatile" like everyone else. Whoopee...

And of course, don't much give a s**t about the Harb lovers and haters here, but Jer's comment about "muscling" turns on short skis is hard to parse. Last time I checked, slalom skis were less about muscle than reflexes and timing; blink and you're on edge. Maybe he doesn't believe in carving, which is fine, I guess.
post #18 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveturner View Post
What do you think? Are good stable short chubby skis the way to go today?
I think the thing is that short and fat are both pretty relative, to the line being skied and the skier. I just bought a pair of 185 cm PRaxis Powder skis which to me is a pretty short length compared to other skis I own, given the rocker. Its mostly for inbounds pow / soft snow and touring. I guess to me that makes it a short fat ski. If I skied somewhere else in UT (LCC, snowbaisn) and was going to use them more in bounds then I would have gotten the 195 size.
post #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveturner View Post
Not HH but JC in Aspen. Spent three days on bumps and in trees with soft turns, very little edging and a lot of what they called drifting. Only a few drills on groomed snow, but there was no accumulation of powder to "float' on either.
I think the issue may be more with speed than with terrain. If the ski you are on is stable at your maximum speed there may be little reason to go longer. Fatter maybe but longer
I saw some JC videos a few years ago. They were some of the better mogul skiing demos I had found up to that point and were very helpful to me. I don't think that longer skis help all that much on piste or in bumps. And if it is a stiffer carver then I think 165-170 is a good length for that type of ski. But when you are off trail and in variable snow the longer length helps, alot.
post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
And of course, don't much give a s**t about the Harb lovers and haters here, but Jer's comment about "muscling" turns on short skis is hard to parse. Last time I checked, slalom skis were less about muscle than reflexes and timing; blink and you're on edge. Maybe he doesn't believe in carving, which is fine, I guess.
Bingo - always assume I'm talking about off-piste-type stuff (I should maybe put a disclaimer in my sig or something). I'm fine with hard-snow carving, but I honestly haven't done that for over two decades. Plus we weren't talking about SL racing.
post #21 of 21
Ski lengths are like wine. A 10 dollar might taste good to you but might taste terrilbe to ours. It is what ever you like. I have 160's and I have 180's. It depends on what you want to do. I can fly on either but the 160's do not want to run flat like the 180's. The Icelantics 168cm are great for East Coast trees and work out west also.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion