EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › I need an opinion on ski length ( Real original post I know)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I need an opinion on ski length ( Real original post I know)

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

Sorry, I know you guys get ski lenght questions all the time, but here it goes. When i ski on piste I like to go hard and fast. I am looking at a volkl ac 30 tiger shark or even a race gs ski, or something similar. I am 5'6 155lbs do you think 180 cm is to long? I have skied similar skis but older models at around 170 cm and find they lose a little stability at high speeds. What do you guys think, will i be able to engage such a long ski at my weight?

post #2 of 21

A 180 won't be too long, but a 175 would be better. 

A modern race ski or near-race ski will not be unstable even at a low length; I've been over 60 mph many times on my 165 Fischer WC skis. 


The ac30 is not a race ski nor a near-race ski.  Going longer in an unstable ski only makes things worse in my experience because you have that much more ski tip flapping up land down like a loose tarp on a flatbed to contend with.

post #3 of 21
Thread Starter 

Nice, thanks is the tiger shark that much stiffer than the AC 30? What other skis would you recommend, I have heard awesome things about the Fischer world cup.

post #4 of 21

Way too long.  I ski the AC50, 5ft. 8 in. /155 lb.  With the serious side cut of new skis like the AC series, you don't need the length you are talking about.  Stick to 170 cm.

post #5 of 21

listen, honestly 180 is too long and just not fun!  Come on, are worried about male compensation?  At your size go and get yourself some Fischer worldcup SC (race stock) and let 'em rip.  They make any size turn, i've ridden these in all conditions and as a patroller. 

post #6 of 21
Thread Starter 

What size should i get the Fischer wordcup ski in? Do you like the SC better than the GS?

post #7 of 21

ac 30, tiger shark, or even a race gs ski, or something similar. Simlar to what? Those are all pretty different.




post #8 of 21

The new guy, SnowChief, is along the right track, a nice cheater GS in a 175 Max. What older skis were you skiing that got "loose" at higher speeds?  Tip loose? (Maybe being in the back seat) No edge control? (How well were they tuned). 

post #9 of 21
Thread Starter 

Philpug I have never skied a true race ski, the skies that were getting squirly on me were really more all mountain skis, The AC 30 seemed to get a little unstable on me at high speeds, but it was 163 i beleive

post #10 of 21
Thread Starter 
post #11 of 21
Thread Starter 
post #12 of 21
Originally Posted by TFull View Post

What do you think of this ski http://www.skiessentials.com/browse.cfm/09-volkl-racetiger-gs-racing-titanium-demo-skis-w-ipt-14.0-bindings/4,4360.html


The volkl racetiger gs at 175cm

Either of those skis would do nicely.


If you really are only skiing at higher speeds, then go for the longer turn radius.  However bear in mind that a ski with a shorter turn radius will give you more practice carving tight turns, more turns per run = more practice.  The trouble with a 13 m ski like my Fischer WC SC, is that if you like speed you will find yourself making high speed larger turns for which it really wasn't designed, the WC RC is a better bet for higher speeds.  The SC will make tear any size turn you want, but one designed with a long turn radius will lock into a long turn and feel better doing it. 


There really are lots of skis that are very well suited for your stated purpose.  A 20 dollar subscription to realskiers.com is well worth the money in my opinion.  They have a speed rating, among other things, for the skis they review.


If you want to feel stable, I recommend head (especially SS speed) or Atomic (GS or older SX). 

If you want a ski that feels playful, go for Völkls.

If you want to feel the snow go for Fischers.

Other skis work well too.


You have to make a choice, or compromise between great small turns and learning, or great long turns.


If you stick to a top shelf race or near race ski, you won't need length for stability.

post #13 of 21

It's all subjective, but fyi I just bought Bushwacker's old Head Supershape Magnums in 170cm for a similar purpose. I'm slightly taller than you and heavier. I also considered Tigersharks. You may be more interested in a race feel than I am/was, though.


To me ... 180cm sounds too long, but to each his own.

Edited by Keith Jordan - 8/19/10 at 9:57am
post #14 of 21
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys, I also found some sick deals on new tigersharks, having trouble deciding between the tiger shark 11 and 12. There are to many options! I imagine they will not be as quick edge to edge as the race skis



post #15 of 21

Fischer worldcup SC... as in Slalom will make smaller turns and will be short in length as its designed.  If i was going to get frontside ripping skis, would go with a head supershape but one that will allow me to ride it in a 168 or so. 

post #16 of 21

Any of the good Slalom or GS skis made in the last few years should not get loose on you while carving a turn until you are going super fast. If it does, then I don't think you are on your edges enough, as even the World Cup'ers are on small skis and they are getting fine edge hold. I don't think you'll need anything over 175cm. The best part of the shorter ski lengths is travelling. They fit into most mid-size cars trunks &  are much more manageable in the airports 

post #17 of 21

I bought a pair of 175cm Tigershark 10 Ft off that web site and have been very happy with them. I'm 6' 4", 195 lbs, so I always buy the longest they make, sorry for no help on your length question. I use them almost exclusively for groomed run cruising to complement a couple of other pairs I have for off piste (Mantra and Kuro). I am a high level skier, although not a former racer, and have yet to find the speed limit on these skis. They are extremely stable at all speeds and are great for GS turns, while allowing me to make quick S turns when I want. My friend that recommended the Tigersharks (sells skis at Cole Sport in Park City, Utah) qualified for Nastar Nationals on the Fischer Progressor 9+, so if you're looking for something a bit more serious, but still not a full blown race ski, this ski might be a good choice.


post #18 of 21
Thread Starter 

Andes thanks for the input, I am having a hard time deciding between the different tiger shark models the 10, 11, or 12 ft. Have you skied any of the others or just the 10 ft?

post #19 of 21

go for the 11.

post #20 of 21

TFull, I have not skied any of the other Tigersharks, but here is what my pal at Cole Sport said,

"Tigersharks are great carving skis. I definitely liked the 10 more than the others. The powerswitch actually works, but I found I only liked it in the stiffer position. If I had owned them I never would have changed it. Thus for me the 10 made more sense. At Cole we have never seen a broken Powerswtch, but I am a little sceptical of it. I think if I ever took the skis into the moguls, like I used to, it would snap. The eights were very quick, but a little too edgy when I really hit high speeds. The 10 seemed to be just about perfect, I wouldn't run a slalom course with them however."


Keep in mind that he is a heavy, very strong skier (qualified for Nastar Nationales last year).


post #21 of 21

I got a pair of Rossignol 9x 175cm with a rossi fks 120 racing plate bindings will sell cheap to you.  Fast, sharp and ran 7 days.  I skied the 185cm at 5'6 and 200lbs.  These ski are great groomer skis.  They are a few years old.  I am looking at rossignol cx10 in a 180 this year for all mountain and Atomic gs ti 182cm for nastar racing.  Longer is better if you can ski well

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 › I need an opinion on ski length ( Real original post I know)