Advice in deciding on ski length

[bdfreetuna]

181cm is perfect for you. I ski 185cm on any skis and 6 foot 200lb. I would go longer but never shorter.

Depends if you want to rip the mountain with a sense of stability or not. Short skis are for beginners.

 

[KustyTheKlown]

Demo bindings have come a long way. I have demo bindings on several pairs of my skis, and I notice no difference in my skiing. They're not even that much heavier anymore (if at all).

gapetastic

 

[BenedictGomez]

gapetastic

Well apparently if you're a decent skier you can hack it. Sure doesn't hold me back.

I have skis with non demo (i.e. standard) bindings too, doesnt faze me either way. I have friends who are a helluva' lot better skiers than I am that also use demo bindings on a few of their pairs of skis. Doesn't faze them either.

Perhaps it's more gapetastic if you cant hack it - food for thought.

 

[fbrissette]

181cm is perfect for you. I ski 185cm on any skis and 6 foot 200lb. I would go longer but never shorter.

Depends if you want to rip the mountain with a sense of stability or not. Short skis are for beginners.

So simplistic... World cup slalom skiers typically use 165cm for example.

 

[Jully]

So simplistic... World cup slalom skiers typically use 165cm for example.

And there are minimum ski length requirements in GS and SL or else everyone would use much shorter skis than they currently do.

 

[kingslug]

Longer. I'm 6 ft and like 185's. My Kore 117 are 189 but thats a powder ski where longer is always better. You'll have no prob turning.

 

[BenedictGomez]

So simplistic... World cup slalom skiers typically use 165cm for example.

Yup.

In the age of the modern ski technology, IMO more people are skiing skis "too long" for them than are skiing skis "too short" for them.

This is a throwback to the old days where longer meant you were a better skier, and that mindset has pervaded & still persists psychologically today even though it no longer applies given today's technology.

 

[fbrissette]

Yup.

In the age of the modern ski technology, IMO more people are skiing skis "too long" for them than are skiing skis "too short" for them.

This is a throwback to the old days where longer meant you were a better skier, and that mindset has pervaded & still persists psychologically today even though it no longer applies given today's technology.

"too long" and "too wide". Fully agree otherwise.

 

[Krikaya]

Yup.

In the age of the modern ski technology, IMO more people are skiing skis "too long" for them than are skiing skis "too short" for them.

This is a throwback to the old days where longer meant you were a better skier, and that mindset has pervaded & still persists psychologically today even though it no longer applies given today's technology.

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.

 

[cdskier]

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.

The OP wanted the Kore 93, not the Kore 105. While I agree 100+ is too wide for a daily ski in the east...70 goes too far in the opposite direction and is too narrow.

 

[Krikaya]

The OP wanted the Kore 93, not the Kore 105. While I agree 100+ is too wide for a daily ski in the east...70 goes too far in the opposite direction and is too narrow.

A guy who knows a hell of a lot more about skiing than 99% of the people on this forum said

“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.” Bode Miller

He's talking groomed or hardpack conditions.

When I first saw this quote it confirmed what I had learned through trial and error. Wide and long skis are a fad but if it makes you happy and contributes to the size of your peni.... er I mean quiver, go for it.

 

[cdskier]

A guy who knows a hell of a lot more about skiing than 99% of the people on this forum said

“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.” Bode Miller

He's talking groomed or hardpack conditions.

When I first saw this quote it confirmed what I had learned through trial and error. Wide and long skis are a fad but if it makes you happy and contributes to the size of your peni.... er I mean quiver, go for it.

A racer saying a narrow ski is ideal...shocking! Under those exact conditions (hardpack/groomer), then I'll agree that a narrow ski is good (although I still wouldn't go much under 80 no matter what Bode says). Those conditions however are what many of us on this forum try to avoid if at all possible.

 

[andrec10]

The OP wanted the Kore 93, not the Kore 105. While I agree 100+ is too wide for a daily ski in the east...70 goes too far in the opposite direction and is too narrow.

84 underfoot is very good for the northeast and the occasional powder days and crud. Volkyl RTM 84 BTW. Demoed them last March and liked them so much, just bought a pair.

 

[cdskier]

84 underfoot is very good for the northeast and the occasional powder days and crud. Volkyl RTM 84 BTW. Demoed them last March and liked them so much, just bought a pair.

Yup...my Volkl AC50s are right around that in the waist and what I use early season, late season, and anytime I expect hard/firm conditions.

 

[KustyTheKlown]

bunch of pansies with short narrow skis who hate powder in here.

 

[Krikaya]

A racer saying a narrow ski is ideal...shocking! Under those exact conditions (hardpack/groomer), then I'll agree that a narrow ski is good (although I still wouldn't go much under 80 no matter what Bode says). Those conditions however are what many of us on this forum try to avoid if at all possible.

I think Bode is talking about recreational skiing under conditions that are the NORM in the northeast. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in the northeast so hardpack is a fact and impossible to ignore. it's great especially if you like speed. My skis are 67 and 65 underfoot which makes them very narrow focus.

I just find it absurd that so many people are obsessed with the big big fat skis when they are exact wrong tools for the job, I wouldn't bring my beer league race skis to Utah. I'd rent powder skis there.

 

[bdfreetuna]

So simplistic... World cup slalom skiers typically use 165cm for example.

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

 

[Domeskier]

My skis are 67 and 65 underfoot which makes them very narrow focus.

How wide are they in the tip and tail? The fattest ski I've been on is 77 under foot. It carved a turn better than my daily drivers, but I'm wondering if that is the result of more side cut rather than width.

 

[Krikaya]

How wide are they in the tip and tail? The fattest ski I've been on is 77 under foot. It carved a turn better than my daily drivers, but I'm wondering if that is the result of more side cut rather than width.

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.

 

[cdskier]

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.

Those dimensions are extremely close to two previous pairs of skis I had and mine performed very similar to what you describe as well. They were both great back when I skied the Poconos all the time. Now in VT I wouldn't enjoy either for the conditions and terrain I encounter most of the time.

But this is why ski manufacturers make so many different skis...everyone likes different things and has different skiing styles.