Advice in deciding on ski length

fbrissette · Nov 20, 2017

bdfreetuna said:
Sorry the OP did not present himself as a World Cup Slalom Skier, I just gave him normal skier advice.

I was referring to your obviously incorrect 'short skis are for beginners' blanket statement.

Telling a 155 pounds guy that anything under 180 is wrong and that short skis are for beginners is not normal skier advice. It is dumb advice. Sorry.

bdfreetuna · Nov 20, 2017

fbrissette said:
I was referring to your obviously incorrect 'short skis are for beginners' blanket statement.

Telling a 155 pounds guy that anything under 180 is wrong and that short skis are for beginners is not normal skier advice. It is dumb advice. Sorry.

OP is 1" shorter than me and the same weight I skied 185cm for quite a while. I believe the other option was 170cm? You want to go ahead and advise ski blade lengths based on some World Cup Slalom skier. OK, I'm just giving him normal advice so he doesn't regret ending up on shitty short skis.

kingslug · Nov 21, 2017

Krikaya said:
Thanks for saying this concisely. I would add that the lemmings are also on skis that are too wide at the waist. The head kores which the OP wants are 105!? which would work well in soft fluffy snow or out west but here in the northeast?

70 underfoot is perfect.

I ski 105 everywhere. Don't see why its too wide. Perfect width for East and West. In my opinion.

Glenn · Nov 21, 2017

fbrissette said:
"too long" and "too wide". Fully agree otherwise.

And in some cases, too rockered. :lol:

cdskier · Nov 21, 2017

bdfreetuna said:
OP is 1" shorter than me and the same weight I skied 185cm for quite a while. I believe the other option was 170cm? You want to go ahead and advise ski blade lengths based on some World Cup Slalom skier. OK, I'm just giving him normal advice so he doesn't regret ending up on shitty short skis.

So 9cm is the difference between perfect length and ski blades (180 vs 171)? Let's not be so dramatic.

Morwax · Nov 21, 2017

Impossible to answer, the one best ski. Conditions vary, pitch will vary, big turns, small turns etc etc.. I have rounded it down to five pairs. Too short? No such thing.. two long? 5'9" used 205s in the eighties!

daverissin · Nov 21, 2017

Thanks for the interesting discussion and useful information, everyone! I am definitely going to try to demo these before buying.

Why are there some opinions out there that 93 mm under foot is too wide for east coast? I can see them being too wide for a race course that is perfectly smooth, but what about the standard crud that you have to bust through? The turning radius of the Kore 93 is still pretty short at 16.4 meters, similar turning radius to the Volkl RTM 84.

cdskier · Nov 21, 2017

daverissin said:
Thanks for the interesting discussion and useful information, everyone! I am definitely going to try to demo these before buying.

Why are there some opinions out there that 93 mm under foot is too wide for east coast? I can see them being too wide for a race course that is perfectly smooth, but what about the standard crud that you have to bust through? The turning radius of the Kore 93 is still pretty short at 16.4 meters, similar turning radius to the Volkl RTM 84.

My opinion is that there are no "absolutes" as some people here seem to be preaching. I'm not going to tell someone their ski is too long, too short, too wide, or too narrow. The only person that should make those statements would be the person skiing on the ski. Do YOU like the ski? Are YOU happy with the ski? If so, then that's what matters. For anyone to find the "truly perfect" ski would require trying hundreds of different skis on the conditions that you want to target...which is simply not realistic.

My personal preference has trended towards wider skis over the years (but not super wide). And I am personally very happy on my current skis. To me 93 under foot is not too wide for the east coast. One of my pairs is 98 and the other is 85. The 98 is just fine (for me) once we have mid-winter conditions. My dad on the other hand has the same skis that I do, and he prefers the 85s on all but powder days. I prefer the 85s only for early season, late season, and hardpack conditions (this is not necessarily due to them being narrower however...the skis I have that are 85 in the waist are also a much heavier and stiffer ski that has excellent edging capabilities).

Jully · Nov 21, 2017

daverissin said:
Thanks for the interesting discussion and useful information, everyone! I am definitely going to try to demo these before buying.

Why are there some opinions out there that 93 mm under foot is too wide for east coast? I can see them being too wide for a race course that is perfectly smooth, but what about the standard crud that you have to bust through? The turning radius of the Kore 93 is still pretty short at 16.4 meters, similar turning radius to the Volkl RTM 84.

Some skis ski wider than others too. From what I have heard about the Kore 93, it still carves pretty nicely.

As for your comment about busting through crud, width can help, but also ski power/weight (depending on the crud and on your skiing style). If you like to ski fast and with power, some wide
and rockered skis will not be the ski for you as they can throw you around a bit when going through crud. Hence why demoing is so important. My personal favorite skis for chop/crud are a little narrower and heavier, but many disagree!

Like cdskier said, demo and just worry about your preference. If you like how the Kore skis and you like how it feels at 170 or 180 or 160... then go for it!

Domeskier · Nov 21, 2017

Krikaya said:
the 16m radius skis are 111-65-93 the slalom skis are 122-67-102 at 11.7m radius

the 16m ski is very stable at speed and on hardpack but initiating the turn is tougher than the 11.7m radius ski which wants to be on edge all the time but is skittish at speed. No surprise there. I guess a lot of things affect how a ski carves.

Ah, thanks. My daily drivers are bump skis - 98-66-88. Since I spend 99% of my time in bumps, they are fine, but out of the bumps they are a pain to carve. Not quite straight-ski era, but close.

Krikaya · Nov 21, 2017

Domeskier said:
Ah, thanks. My daily drivers are bump skis - 98-66-88. Since I spend 99% of my time in bumps, they are fine, but out of the bumps they are a pain to carve. Not quite straight-ski era, but close.

I wish I could ski bumps. Recurring Back problems have limited me to groomers 90% of the time. That's why I love my quasi race skis. It's funny, I can ski full speed on GS type turns and straight down the fall line but as soon as I hit the moguls my back starts spasming.

Krikaya · Nov 21, 2017

daverissin said:
Thanks for the interesting discussion and useful information, everyone! I am definitely going to try to demo these before buying.

Why are there some opinions out there that 93 mm under foot is too wide for east coast? I can see them being too wide for a race course that is perfectly smooth, but what about the standard crud that you have to bust through? The turning radius of the Kore 93 is still pretty short at 16.4 meters, similar turning radius to the Volkl RTM 84.

I'm an ectomorph like you, 150 lbs 5' 10" and was trying to learn about the best length for a new ski. My go to length is 170 in a gs ski but I went smaller for a slalom ski and didn't regret it. Lighter skiers can ski shorter lengths with no problem, if it works for them. I think narrower skis work better than wider skis going edge to edge. If you like to point and shoot or schuss boom or ski into trees or ski crud maybe a wider ski will work better.

And if you're looking for advice who do you trust? Some anonymous blowhard klown on a forum or the most succesful American alpine skier of all time or some salesman in a ski shop? Your choice. I'll go with the knowledgable, experienced expert every time. Here's the full quote from Bode Miller in his interview with the Boston globe.

2. When it comes to ski width, Bode says buck the trend: While wider skis tend to be en vogue at the moment, Miller cautions against them. In addition to putting stress on the bindings, he says, skis that are too wide can also negatively affect performance. “Ninety-five, ninety-eight percent of the skiing should be done on a ski that’s 70(mm) underfoot. It’s the way the physics and the energy transfer from the body to snow tends to work the best.”

KustyTheKlown · Nov 21, 2017

the guy who skis groomers 90% of the time is in here talking shit on people with progressive equipment who ski all conditions and terrain types. that's rich.

Jully · Nov 21, 2017

Krikaya said:
2. When it comes to ski width, Bode says buck the trend: While wider skis tend to be en vogue at the moment, Miller cautions against them. In addition to putting stress on the bindings, he says, skis that are too wide can also negatively affect performance. “Ninety-five, ninety-eight percent of the skiing should be done on a ski that’s 70(mm) underfoot. It’s the way the physics and the energy transfer from the body to snow tends to work the best.”

I do wonder if Bode was including things like tree skiing and ungroomed skiing. For bumps and hardpack, absolutely, but I don't even know of a 70mm ski that isn't a dedicated bump ski or a race/race influenced ski - neither of which I want to take into trees or any kind of crud. Narrowest freeride style ski I know of is the Latigo, which I actually like a lot.

It is also worth nothing that wide skis have become a lot better at carving in recent years. I demoed the Enforcer 93 last season and was shocked at its performance.

kingslug · Nov 21, 2017

A friend of mine out west said it best. Ya need something to stand on ...he said this to my wife while she was standing on her 76's. And yes they have hardpack out yonder just like we do. My friends out there ski on 115's in everything. I even tried my 117's at Stowe this weekend. Just shmeared them all over the place. They do work on hardpack. Ice would be a bit sporty. Most times its the driver..not the car.

KustyTheKlown · Nov 21, 2017

it is definitely the driver, not the car. but the driver does himself a disservice by driving tiny little short toothpick narrow gaper cars.

I have 85s, for park, urban, and the very thinnest of early/late season days
I have 105s which I use every day
I have 118s for lucky days

my 105s lay trenches just fine when I want them to, and are way more fun in even a few inches of soft snow than your lame eastern twig skis.

fbrissette · Nov 21, 2017

kingslug said:
My friends out there ski on 115's in everything. I even tried my 117's at Stowe this weekend. Just shmeared them all over the place.

Just because you can does not mean you should.

kingslug said:
They do work on hardpack. Ice would be a bit sporty.

You can carve 115 on hard pack, but don't try anything outside the natural turn radius. Fat skis are just not a good tool for hardpack and are absolutely useless on ice. We've all seen dudes straightlining icy runs on fat banana skis, but that's not skiing.

kingslug said:
Most times its the driver..not the car.

The macho factor.... You're not a real skier unless you can ski hardpack with 115+. Is it what you're trying to say ? When I was a kid, you were not a skier unless your ski was longer than 200cm. Nowadays it's all about ski width. So dumb.

For the record, my skinniest ski is 88mm at the waist. My fattest is my touring ski at 104 and my go to is 98 mm wide. I hunt powder in the woods all I can. I ski groomers and icy run when I have too and I do it without any problems. I just don't go pretending they're the best tool for the job. They're not.

If you mostly ski groomers (like 90% of skiers), there is no logical or physical reasons to pick anything above 85 mm at the waist.

Not Sure · Nov 21, 2017

Krikaya said:
I'm an ectomorph like you, 150 lbs 5' 10" and was trying to learn about the best length for a new ski. My go to length is 170 in a gs ski but I went smaller for a slalom ski and didn't regret it. Lighter skiers can ski shorter lengths with no problem, if it works for them. I think narrower skis work better than wider skis going edge to edge. If you like to point and shoot or schuss boom or ski into trees or ski crud maybe a wider ski will work better.

And if you're looking for advice who do you trust? Some anonymous blowhard klown on a forum or the most succesful American alpine skier of all time or some salesman in a ski shop? Your choice. I'll go with the knowledgable, experienced expert every time. Here's the full quote from Bode Miller in his interview with the Boston globe.

2. When it comes to ski width, Bode says buck the trend: While wider skis tend to be en vogue at the moment, Miller cautions against them. In addition to putting stress on the bindings, he says, skis that are too wide can also negatively affect performance. “Ninety-five, ninety-eight percent of the skiing should be done on a ski that’s 70(mm) underfoot. It’s the way the physics and the energy transfer from the body to snow tends to work the best.”

I've skied narrow skis for 30+ years an 78mm was wide to me .....But someone posted a great deal on Nordica Steadfasts a couple years ago on AZ , when I got them they looked like 2x10's @ 90mm. I mounted some tech bindings on them and on my first day out I made 4-5 runs on the Old Rossi B2's Which I really loved . My first run on the Nordicas I was very impressed with their ability to plow through the crud and handled better than my old favorites! There was a little adjustment, I tended to clank the tips and inside edges together till I adjusted my stance . I'm thinking you might actually
enjoy them more ? How wide is too wide?

ShadyGrove · Nov 21, 2017

Short skis suck, long skis truck!

Krikaya · Nov 21, 2017

Jully said:
I do wonder if Bode was including things like tree skiing and ungroomed skiing. For bumps and hardpack, absolutely, but I don't even know of a 70mm ski that isn't a dedicated bump ski or a race/race influenced ski - neither of which I want to take into trees or any kind of crud. Narrowest freeride style ski I know of is the Latigo, which I actually like a lot.

It is also worth nothing that wide skis have become a lot better at carving in recent years. I demoed the Enforcer 93 last season and was shocked at its performance.

I'd like to know more about Bodie's theory on why 70 underfoot is ideal but I'll bet he's talking about trail skiing specifically. I've heard so many testimonials to the new wider skis great performance I gotta believe there's something to it.

But I should preface all my comments and observations with the fact that I am not a power skier and not an expert. I can "finesse" turns but could never make a Volkl turn the way bigger and stronger skiers can. I'm a whippet so I ski whippet skis.

Advice in deciding on ski length

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Member

Similar threads