Originally Posted by tch
I'm 175, level 7/8. I tried these for a day at Vail. I only had one day on these skis, but thought 172 was just right for me if I had liked the ski. I'm not quite sure why you would want to go longer myself; I found them to be plenty stable at fairly good mach schnell.
But, everyone has an opinion.
That might be the difference. :)
To be completely truthful, I was a little ho-hum about them in the first few days of my ownership. They seemed to be competent but a bit boring, stable enough for mach schnell, but why?
It wasn't until more days that I started appreciating their strengths and started exploiting them. Like being able to do mach schnell (or at least carry good speed) in conditions that would otherwise be challenging for me at those speeds, like high angulation GS turns over soft bumps. Flying bulldozer. Sometimes I'd lose a bit of balance and do a carve-limbo knuckle-drag. Nothing to the skis. Sometimes I'd bounce a downhill ski off of a harder bump in the midst of a deep carve... and nothing to the skis. They just came back and resumed whatever they were doing. Very difficult to perturb.
And it's not like the 172cm was cumbersome or hard to turn at slower speeds. Maybe at a beginner crawl, but I wouldn't care about that anyways.
All this was on a demo day, so this was not fawning in a vaccum. That was when I realized the brilliance of these skis at their recommended length (a very well-known and reputable pro Bear who skis the same places I do recommended them). A shorter length would have had many of the same characteristics, but would have decreased the skis' brilliance in their strengths.
I mean, this is an 18 m radius (for 172 cm) ski. That's a cheater GS sidecut. Why does anyone presume that they would work better in the sizing of a mid-to-short radius AM or slalom carver?