I am an expert skiier. 5'11'' 185 pounds. I ski mostly new england hardpack. I am somewhat aggresive but not a speed demon. I would say I am more of a carver and cruiser as i get older. I usually ski 170cm. Currently I am skiing 170 head monsters 72 and 78's. I found a great deal on 163cm k2 recons. Would going down to 163 cm be a drastic change? If so how so?
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
170cm to 163cm help
- Thread starter tmcc71
- Start date
Bumpsis
Well-known member
My input would be to stay with the longer lenghts, especially if you like stabilty at higher speeds.I'm sure that a lot depends on the ski itself and I don't really know the K2 Rocons, but I did something similar to what you're contemplating.
I bought a pair of K2 Apaches, 163cm at the end of last season just to have something a bit shorter for easy and quick turns when needed (woods, moguls). Although I like that ski quite a bit (also got a nice deal on it), I do miss the stability of my other all around ski which is a Head Cyber World Cup, 185 cm when I'm on the K2s.
The K2 Apache does get a bit squirmy at higher speeds.
The Head is stable as rock, a bit tought to thread through a tight mogul field, but for high speed cruising, it's awesome.
Both skis have some heft to them, so I imagine that it's the length that makes a difference. I really wish I had bought the K2s in 170cm length rather than the 163cm.
I'm about 5'7'', 160 lb and I guess I'm an expert.
Rambo
Member
Not sure about a 163 length in a Recon. But I have talked to guys with 167 Recons and they absoutley love the 167 length. They feel the 167 is very nimble and manuverable and makes it easier to ski bumps well.
RootDKJ
New member
My K2 Apache Crossfire at 167 is way more stable at speed over my Head Monster 70's in a 177.
snowmonster
New member
Based on your weight, you may end up overpowering a 163 ski. I'm about 20 lbs. lighter than you and I had to get rid of a 162 ski as soon as I progressed from intermediate to advanced. That ski had a medium flex and it would chatter as soon as you put in any speed. You may end up feeling unstable at that short length. Just my $.02.
Yea, but which one. There are some really soft low end ones, all the way up to the Recons etc. that are stiff and considered very damp.
I dont think going from a 170 to a 163 would be a drastic change but I would argue that the 170 is to short for your height now.
campgottagopee
New member
Just asking why an "expert" skier would even be asking such a question----I would think 170's are too short, but what do I know.
Bumpsis
Well-known member
Apache Raider. It's fairly soft, so it's not exactly the best for high speed cruising, but it's nice in moguls, spring snow and it actually carves very nicely at low to medium speeds. I'm quite happy with it, but it probably would feel better at longer lenght.
Warp Daddy
Active member
i'm 6"1" 184 lbs , luv to rip and luv hi speed cruisers , ski hardpack mostly, except eastern powder when it s available 
I am older than dirt and ski on Atomic SX 10's @170 . These boards rip and are extremely stable like riding a rail . Just point em south and let em rip
I am older than dirt and ski on Atomic SX 10's @170 . These boards rip and are extremely stable like riding a rail . Just point em south and let em rip 
HD333
New member
I am 6 ft 220 my Recons (177) are perfect. Nice and stable. 163 may be too small.
Don't do it. Short is OK in a stiffer slalom ski but that's not the Recon. FWIW at 170 lbs as an intermediate skier about 5 years ago I grabbed a deal on a 163 cm Volkl G3 midfat - comparable all-rounder to the Recon - and dumped it after a day. With advancing skills, same weight, I now ski midfat/fat skis in the 175 - 180 cm range.
Two useful lessons learned:
1. Now I know what "too little/too short" feels like.
2. It's not a deal of it's not the right gear.
Two useful lessons learned:
1. Now I know what "too little/too short" feels like.
2. It's not a deal of it's not the right gear.
agreed, other than a slalom race ski, I couldn't see myself dipping below 170.
I'm 5'8 200lbs.
highpeaksdrifter
New member
Great post on 2 points:
Short is ok on a stiff ski
Never buy the wrong ski at the right price
highpeaksdrifter
New member
Some folks just like to get other opinions.
A surprising amount of good skiers know dick about the equipment they use.
This might not be the best analogy, but I guess I’m a pretty good driver, but I know dick about cars. That's why before I bought my Subie I kept buggin you Camp. :wink:
gmcunni
Active member
:flag: that'd be me
I'm 215lbs and the Recon I demoed was 170. It was stiff enough. But if I bought I probably would have gone longer.
Having met you in person you don't look 200lbs.
Similar threads
