Does size matter?

Rob sebenza · Feb 8, 2005

When i started out skiing in 1984 i was on 180s..then in 1990 i went up to 195, now in 2005 im on 178 volkls, but i keep seeing people going real real short. It almost looks silly. Im 6"1 245 lbs and an advanced skier, would 160s be to short. Thanks for the replys.

ALLSKIING · Feb 8, 2005

Rob sebenza said:
When i started out skiing in 1984 i was on 180s..then in 1990 i went up to 195, now in 2005 im on 178 volkls, but i keep seeing people going real real short. It almost looks silly. Im 6"1 245 lbs and an advanced skier, would 160s be to short. Thanks for the replys.

I am 6"1 and 220 and ski 188. I am not an expert in this but I would think 160s would be to short.

awf170 · Feb 8, 2005

ya 160 would be too short im 5 8 and i ski on a 165. I would say like 175-180 would be good but it depends on thr type of terrian u ski too.

skidbump · Feb 8, 2005

i demo'ed the atomic metron b5 at 162 ..at first i thought they were to short but the were perfect..i ski on a rossi zenith5 at 170 and they work fine also have k2 axis"for cruisin" that work great at 181's all worked great for me ..i am 5'8" 230 advanced skier..so there does that confuse ya or what..what it is demo,demo,demo...not all skis are the same one may be great at 160 the othe may be at 180...no set rule...this is only my opinion..

ps
i started on 170 worked up to 204 now on 170 all in the span of 30 yrs

riverc0il · Feb 8, 2005

Rob, you sound like you're right where you should be. i'm also 6'1" and around 215 and an aggressive expert level skier and ski on 183 and 178 size skis. i could scrape by on 172 or so, but would never go lower than that. i really like the 178-183 size for the type of ski and performance i am looking for.

bigbog · Feb 9, 2005

Rob sebenza said:
When i started out skiing in 1984 i was on 180s..then in 1990 i went up to 195, now in 2005 im on 178 volkls, but i keep seeing people going real real short. It almost looks silly. Im 6"1 245 lbs and an advanced skier, would 160s be to short. Thanks for the replys.

By you mentioning "it almost looks silly" ... .you're NOT very advanced. Take some lessons, maybe then you'll begin to realize just how many people are skiing at a higher level than yourself....I bet you'll then develop more of a love for skiing.

Vortex · Feb 9, 2005

I think 160 would be real short. I'm 5 '5" 165lbs I use 160cm. I was on 203's in 2000. Sizes have come way down. Demo a ski at a few different sizes that may help. It does seem funny though in 1969 I started on 160's and here I am again.

BeanoNYC · Feb 9, 2005

5'10' ... 190 lbs. Intermediate/Advanced .... I ski 167cm K2 Apache's.

Now my wife is 5'3'' 120's strict intermediate .... she's on 140 Fisher Visions.

RossiSkier · Feb 9, 2005

5'-10" and 220lbs. Favorite all around ski is a 184cm. I have two pairs of 198's and a 191 that I don't seem to use much anymore. I've switched to shorter skis. The 184's allow me to turn more quickly on steeper terrain, where the 198's are freeriders. Members of my latest ski party used shorter skis which made a world of differernce coming down Ovation. I wouldn't mind having a pair of 176's to try down my favorite plunge. It took me a while to believe my skeptics, but the shorter ski allows more versitality because you can make a shorter turn.

http://www.skibummin.com/ski/killington/ovation.htm#

tirolerpeter · Feb 9, 2005

Ski lengths

I am 5'7" and weigh 165. I went down to a 183 (Volant PowerKarve) from a 205 (Volant FX2) about 5 seasons ago. While my 183's are fantastic as to edge holding power, I now feel that I could go down to a 170-173 range and get equal performance in terms of GS cruising and powder, but gain a little in terms of versitility in moguls. I suspect the key factor is not skier height, but rather weight. If you are heavy, you may need a stiffer ski that will not twist at speed and load and cause you to lose your edge bite.

dmc · Feb 9, 2005

Used to love my 207 K2 SLCs.... Bent them in a mogul comp...

Remember the old saying...???

"Short skis svck... Long skis truck"

Guess we can toss that old adage into the hopper...

tekweezle · Feb 9, 2005

i'm 5-10, 215 lbs and I;m riding on a pair of K2 Axis 167 length. I thought they were going to be too short for me but like them.

Stable and stiff enough ski for the ice and speed with good vibration dampening, short enough for making decently tight turns in moguls.

used to ride on a pair of 183 K2 Merlin 4 and they were just too long for the moguls and cruddy snow . they were great everywhere else though.

ALLSKIING · Feb 9, 2005

dmc said:
Used to love my 207 K2 SLCs.... Bent them in a mogul comp...

Remember the old saying...???

"Short skis svck... Long skis truck"

Guess we can toss that old adage into the hopper...

207 wow I have never even seen 207. My longest were 201 and that was enough for me.

subdude · Feb 9, 2005

5' 11" 185 and ski a 178 which is an ok size but i've been demoing 160-170s and they're even better then the 178s I get far more control and better carving. As soon as the season winds down i'm purchasing a 160-170 ski. Leaning toward the Atomic Metron.

dmc · Feb 9, 2005

ALLSKIING said:
dmc said:

Used to love my 207 K2 SLCs.... Bent them in a mogul comp...

Remember the old saying...???

"Short skis svck... Long skis truck"

Guess we can toss that old adage into the hopper...

Click to expand...

207 wow I have never even seen 207. My longest were 201 and that was enough for me.

Back in the day - I had friends who broke out 215s out west...

skidon · Feb 10, 2005

SkidBump is right - you can do an Atomic Metron B5 in a 162, but not many other skis in that length.

There was a bumpersticker in VT : "Short Skis Still Suck" I agree with that spiritually, if not practically.

I still take out my 223's at least once a year - it's all good

JimG. · Feb 11, 2005

skidon said:
SkidBump is right - you can do an Atomic Metron B5 in a 162, but not many other skis in that length.

There was a bumpersticker in VT : "Short Skis Still Suck" I agree with that spiritually, if not practically.

I still take out my 223's at least once a year - it's all good

Scott Schmidt used to huck cliff bands in the Palisades at Squaw using 215cm downhill skis back in the late 80's. Even back then when I skied 201-205cm skis I thought that was pretty insane.

tekweezle · Feb 11, 2005

different skis for different conditions. if they built the perfect all around ski that excelled in every condition for every skier, i;d have bought it already.

i believe the conventional wisdom is that longer the skis , the longer the turning radius. also, the longer and stiffer the ski, the more stable at speed and more edge hold on ice. these seem to be desireable traits for GS racers.

these don;t seem to be desirable traits for mogus and jumps though as I think you want a shorter, more softer ski for more spring and faster turning. a soft ski would not be desirable for highspeed cruising.

also, the fatter the ski, the more "float" in the powder at the sacrifice of turning ability.. fat skis are too much ski for most people on groomed "frontside" slopes.

so i make due with a 167 K2 Axis. it;s short but has decent stability with the rubber mod core. K2 skis seem to have good flex since they are wood based. my marker bindings also allow me to change the stiffness of the ski slightly.

RossiSkier · Feb 14, 2005

Switched to a pair of 170's. Size certainly matters in the glades. My 184's were hard, 191's more difficult, and the 198's impossible. Also, going down the double diamonds in 170's and making shorter turns makes the ride much easier and enjoyable. Never stop learning about skiing.

Bumpsis · Feb 18, 2005

tekweezle said:
different skis for different conditions. if they built the perfect all around ski that excelled in every condition for every skier, i;d have bought it already..

When "straight" skiis ruled the slopes, I always found that the de-tuned slalom racer was as close as I could get to an all around ski. Great for quick fall line dance, nimble in the moguls and holding steady when haulin' ass straight down.
I'm 160 lb and just recently came off a 200cm onto the "shaped" version of a recreational racer (Head world cup) down to 185cm.
I suppose I could have lost another 5cm but I just love a longer board.
I'm quite comfortable at this length.

The only thing that worries me now that mogul fields are being made by increasingly shorter skis, I'll be forced into a shorter length ski. So far, I can hold my own though.

Does size matter?

Rob sebenza

Guest

Moderator

New member

Member

New member

Active member

Member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Moderator

New member

New member

New member

Moderator

New member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads