how long is too long?

[mishka]

recently I received barely used 2005 Dynastar Legend 8000 178cm did not had a chance to try them on this season

I am 5' 9" 155Lb intermediate. my skis right now 150's and 160's and178 looks like big jump.
What you guys think.

 

[tekweezle]

you will only know when you try them. usually the longer the ski, the longer the turn radius. as long as you are comfortable making turns on that ski, you would be fine. some skis "ski long" and some ski "short". or you might have to simply make longer turns.

also, if you had not gotten them mounted yet, you could get the bindings mounted a little more forward for quicker turning.

 

[andyzee]

you will only know when you try them. usually the longer the ski, the longer the turn radius. as long as you are comfortable making turns on that ski, you would be fine. some skis "ski long" and some ski "short". or you might have to simply make longer turns.

also, if you had not gotten them mounted yet, you could get the bindings mounted a little more forward for quicker turning.

Agreed, my skis are 162, 182, 188, enjoy all three. One difference, the longer the ski, the more stable it seems to be.

 

[mishka]

also, if you had not gotten them mounted yet, you could get the bindings mounted a little more forward for quicker turning.

they have demo binding and I can set it forward from center mark. How far forward should binding be moved?

usually the longer the ski, the longer the turn radius. as long as you are comfortable making turns on that ski, you would be fine. some skis "ski long" and some ski "short". or you might have to simply make longer turns.

when conditions is well groomed it is not a problem to make long terms but in more challenging terrain long redius terms really difficult.
in deep powder what better short or long skis?

you will only know when you try them

my only concern how responsive they will be @20M radius in bumps or on powder because on my 160's Rosi B2 I had difficulties to make short radius turns in those conditions while on my 150 atomic R10.20 it was much much easier... .

 

[tekweezle]

if you got Demo bindings, you can play with it till you get comfortable.

mounting the bindings more forward by say 1 to 2 mm will allow you to initiate turns quicker and easier. so for groomed skiing, and moguls they say this is ideal.

mounting the bindings more rearward supposedly causes the ski to skid more easily. it also allows you to balance better in powder by preventing "tip dive". i think it enlarges the "sweet spot" on the ski too.

binding mounted dead center are sort of the compromise.

check out this article
http://www.techsupportforskiers.com/binding_placement.htm

the usual convention is

shorter skis for quicker turns

longer skis for more stability, surface area, and maybe edge grip at the expense of turn radius.

you might be using the new skis more for out west trips and in the powder. i think the legend is an allmountain twin tip. of course you could ski any ski in any condition using good technique to compensate for the shortcomings of the skis. the converse is probably true-a ski with favorable qualities might make your day on that condition more enjoyable. that;s why we all have multiple skis. you want to have the right tool for the job!

another thing to consider is the waist of the ski. your B2 skis are probably wider than the atomics. the narrower the ski, it tends to be quicker edge to edge. so the B2;s might not be the best ski for carving on ice but better in powder.

goodluck!

 

[KevinF]

in deep powder what better short or long skis?

The longer the ski, the more flotation the ski is going to give you. More float means you stay on top of the snow more easily, and the more you're on top -- the easier it is to turn. Once the snow starts getting cut up and turned to crud -- again, a longer ski is more stable. It's more resistant to getting pushed around by the snow, so you feel like you're much more in control.

 

[riverc0il]

The 178 may be slightly more ski than will be comfortable for you and the next size down may have been a better option, but you can certainly make them work. As an intermediate though, you may find the 8000 a little too much ski but only getting on them and trying them out will answer that question for you.

 

[andyzee]

recently I received barely used 2005 Dynastar Legend 8000 178cm did not had a chance to try them on this season

I am 5' 9" 155Lb intermediate. my skis right now 150's and 160's and178 looks like big jump.
What you guys think.

I think that they didn't cost you anything, you have them, so what's the difference. If you have difficulty with them now, doesn't mean you won't be able to enjoy them as you get better. As riverc0il says, try them out and you will see.

 

[tekweezle]

another part of the equation is the relative makeup of the ski. whether it;s stiff/damp or soft and it;s rebound characteristics. I think your B2;s have the reputation for being softer which would make them good for bumps and soft snow. your atomics are probably stiffer so would thrive better on hard snow.

you never know, the longer skis might help you become a more confident and advanced skier and help you improve your technique in other areas. unfortunately, there is no one perfect ski for all conditions and all abilities. what works for one person will not always work for everyone.

I have a pair of 167 K2 Axis skis that I purposely got shorter than what I was used to. it turns well on hard snow and is maneuverable but still very stiff with good edge hold and stability. however, it;s a little noodley in crud and powder. so I use it as my east coast ski.

so I got a pair of 170 Salomon Scream limited with 80 mm waist. edge hold on hard pack is not so great but it is pretty good on crud and soft snow. so I use this as my west coast ski.

btw, I am 5 10, 205. most people probably think I am crazy for skiing on such short skis but I like them.

 

[andyzee]

btw, I am 5 10, 205. most people probably think I am crazy for skiing on such short skis but I like them.

6'0", 245 162 Atomic Metrons also like them, but prefer longer for stability and speed.

 

[tekweezle]

what do you ski with on your out west trips?

 

[mishka]

what do you ski with on your out west trips?

this skis I purchased with west trip in mind but realistically it little likely to happen anytime soon

another part of the equation is the relative makeup of the ski. whether it;s stiff/damp or soft and it;s rebound characteristics. I think your B2;s have the reputation for being softer which would make them good for bumps and soft snow. your atomics are probably stiffer so would thrive better on hard snow.

actually to my personal experience B2s very good on hard snow and on ice atomics not as good. also I have very little experience in bumps and pow where on shorter atomics even they are much stiffer I felt in better control compare to B2 .... nothing wrong with the skis problem with the skier.. ..have a lot room for improvement

I reanalyzed that my original question should be asked differently.Should I keep 178 for the future improvement in my skills or try to exchange with someone for something like 165 --170

you never know, the longer skis might help you become a more confident and advanced skier and help you improve your technique in other areas. unfortunately, there is no one perfect ski for all conditions and all abilities. what works for one person will not always work for everyone.

with same idea in mind I have one pair longer skis 175 Volkl Supersort five stars

 

[andyzee]

what do you ski with on your out west trips?

Last time out I started out on the 162 Metrons since they're mid-fats and then purchased K2 Apache Chiefs @ 188 for the powder. Last year I was skiing the Metrons.

 

[SkiDog]

Ill tell you..I thought my GUNS were fat....being out in SLC for only a week and I ALREADY know they arent....seems the standard here is closer to 98-100 underfoot average...and about 188+ for length..and these are there everyday skis....the pow ones are even larger...

M

 

[tekweezle]

this skis I purchased with west trip in mind but realistically it little likely to happen anytime soon

actually to my personal experience B2s very good on hard snow and on ice atomics not as good. also I have very little experience in bumps and pow where on shorter atomics even they are much stiffer I felt in better control compare to B2 .... nothing wrong with the skis problem with the skier.. ..have a lot room for improvement

I reanalyzed that my original question should be asked differently.Should I keep 178 for the future improvement in my skills or try to exchange with someone for something like 165 --170

with same idea in mind I have one pair longer skis 175 Volkl Supersort five stars

there is not much difference between 178 and 175 in my opinion. if you ski well on the 5 stars, you might as well keep the Legends unless you could trade them for something not in your "quiver" like a freestyle twin tip.

could be that you were already using good technique to work the powder and hard snow. some people like a stiff ski on chop, crud and variable powder because the shovels don;t get deflected giving them the feeling of stability. I certainly get that on my Salomon screams.

i think some people could like a soft ski in those same conditions maybe because it allows them float over the powder. different strokes for different folks!

 

[tekweezle]

Ill tell you..I thought my GUNS were fat....being out in SLC for only a week and I ALREADY know they arent....seems the standard here is closer to 98-100 underfoot average...and about 188+ for length..and these are there everyday skis....the pow ones are even larger...

M

out there, they are blessed to be skiing 90% powder/10% hardpack with 10000 foot vert....and don;t need to slalom around slow skiers on crowded slopes

usually in the east coast, it;s the other way around.....

so out there, i think my everyday ski would be some sort of 110mm-130mm waist like the K2 Pontoon!

 

[andyzee]

Ill tell you..I thought my GUNS were fat....being out in SLC for only a week and I ALREADY know they arent....seems the standard here is closer to 98-100 underfoot average...and about 188+ for length..and these are there everyday skis....the pow ones are even larger...

M

Here's a good deal on fats for you: http://www.backcountry.com/store/K2S0297/c1/s1/K2-Apache-Chief-Alpine-Ski.html You could just order and drive to their warehouse. I was there numerous times when I was out in Sandy. :grin:

 

[tekweezle]

if those came on SAC at under $200, i just might have to take a flyer on them! i am a sucker for sub $200 hi quality skis.....

 

[SkiDog]

Here's a good deal on fats for you: http://www.backcountry.com/store/K2S0297/c1/s1/K2-Apache-Chief-Alpine-Ski.html You could just order and drive to their warehouse. I was there numerous times when I was out in Sandy. :grin:

Dude its LITERALLY a block from my office... can you say SCARY?

M

PS I want something over 100mm underfoot....the diff between 90 and 98 aint enough to make the jump

 

[andyzee]

Dude its LITERALLY a block from my office... can you say SCARY?

M

Not scary until you go there, loved that place. The only issue is that if you stop in, you may as well just have your paycheck deposited there every week Seriously, good folks there, no show room to speak of, so if you order anything, you have to do it on line and then just go down and pick it up. Also, don't forget, they are also Steepandcheap