Another sizing scenario/question....

[Latigo]

The Background
After getting back into skiing after a long layoff, I did so with pair of 170 Rossignol Bandits (not B1, B2, B3, or X, just the wood core Bandit model). This was two years ago. I ended up last season doing the double diamond terrain at Deer Valley (okay, not the most challenging hill, but still) and then skied a huge powder day over in the glades at the Canyons. I still enjoy the groomers, but really think I'll be spending more time off-piste in the future. As such, I've decided to upgrade to a pair of Bandit B2's. The 2006 versions availble, however, are in 166 and 174 lengths.

The Question
I'm about 5'10.5" and my weight fluctuates around 200lbs (usually just over) and I've skied on a 170 for the past two years. Would I be better off with a 166 or a 174? I'm leaning heavily toward the 174, but using the 'middle of the forehead' rule of thumb, these would be just a bit on the long side. Of course, with a weight of 200+, that might be appropriate. I've also heard comments to the extent that going from 170 to 174 is too small an increment to tell any difference at all.

Any thoughts?

 

[NYDrew]

174 seems right for you, but I've always liked shorter skiis off piste and on the more extreme piste. Saves money on ptex..haha. I'm a lot shorter the you and a lot lighter and I would be getting the 174. (5'6'' 150)

 

[JimG.]

I've also heard comments to the extent that going from 170 to 174 is too small an increment to tell any difference at all.

I believe this is true. In today's market, folks are obsessed with how long their skis should be. It's just ridiculous. 4cm is roughly an inch and a half; I defy anyone to ski those 2 lengths and then seriously tell me they notice a difference.

I see skiers 6 feet tall and taller skiing on 141cm skis and even shorter. My 11 year old's skis (150cm) are longer than that! I don't know who advised these guys to do that and I just don't get it.

I admit I'm a dinosaur...I ski on skis that were designed 6+ years ago that I bought new on ebay. They work great for me. I'm sure there are other newer skis that would work great too.

In fact, because my boots fit well, I could ski on 2x4's and feel pretty secure. That may not be the optimal setup, but I could make it work.

I'd get the longer ski (174) if I were you.

 

[Greg]

In today's market, folks are obsessed with how long their skis should be. It's just ridiculous. 4cm is roughly an inch and a half; I defy anyone to ski those 2 lengths and then seriously tell me they notice a difference.

Well siad. I'm dropping 12cm in length and I don't expect even that to be a dramatic difference.

 

[JimG.]

In today's market, folks are obsessed with how long their skis should be. It's just ridiculous. 4cm is roughly an inch and a half; I defy anyone to ski those 2 lengths and then seriously tell me they notice a difference.

Well siad. I'm dropping 12cm in length and I don't expect even that to be a dramatic difference.

Depending on how dramatic the sidecut is compared to your old skis, they may even ski and feel longer.

But I doubt you'll notice a huge difference in length regardless.

 

[NYDrew]

Jim, your not a dinosaur, your a FREAK!!!!

Park skiis with alpine bindings wearing rando boots.

c'mon man, tell the truth, be proud of the oddity you have created.

oh, by the way, you have inspired me to rig my old alpine ski/bindings to fit my tele boots. Comfort and heel support!!!! (as soon as I actually do it)
Truth is, its really so I can go tele and then immediately teach a lesson without changing boots.

Just to stay on topic, My skiis are the following lenths 210, 172, 170, 157. These are all actively used pairs of shaped skiis, lenth doesnt matter much anymore!