or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ski lengths; yet again

post #1 of 4
Thread Starter 
Hey Everyone, (anyone?)

I realize that this is a question probably asked far too often in these forms but still it would be great to get a couple of opinions.

Oh, I'm 150lb about 5'10" and fairly aggressive advanced:

I recently got to demo Salomon's 1080 in 161cm (the yellow one). Before I tried them, or even had the oppourtunity to, I had the idea that given their width and the soft flexing of earlier models (as you would expect from a park ski) that it wouldn't really perform well outside the park.

How wrong I was! I loved them, I skied them through lots of different terrain, both foward and backwards, short through to long carved turns and in the park, tho I'm fairly new to park riding and as yet can only do basic spins and straight airs.

I never got the chance to try the same ski in 171cm and am wondering if there would be any advantge to me getting the next size up? The snow when I was skiing on them was light and fresh and am concerned that the stability would be shot when tackling heavier, mabye spring conditions at speed.

Is 161 too short? I don't know, but I would be interested to hear anyone else's opinions or experience.

Thanks, Bender.
post #2 of 4
with the technology out there today, i say the shorter the better.
post #3 of 4
I think 161 is too short for an all around freeskiing ski. I skied a pair of Atomic 9.12 (160cm) for two months in a wide variety of conditions, and although they were decent in light fresh stuff like you experienced, I definitely could have used the extra 10cm when trying to cruise through heavy, soft, chop/crud at speed.

The 171 will still spin well, and perform in the park, plus you'll have the added stability when you hit the loose stuff.
post #4 of 4
161 is too short. 171 would be OK and 181 would work too.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion