The right short ski for intermediate skier

[Clemson]

I started skiing last year after a 15 year hiatus but my old skis where just to long to enjoy sking for a full day as my legs got weak rather quickly. At the start of this season I rented some Salomon XDR 147 and my confidence came back strong as did my strength. I am 6' and 170 lbs. I had so much fun I decided to buy some skiis and purchased a set of Fischer Pro MTN Fire 160, which I spent a day at Wildcat and Sunday River with this week and am not 100% sure they are the best thing for me. My legs did tire some but not terrible and I skied 2 full days. The skis turned with easy and boogied right along but felt floaty at times causing my legs to pull apart and a feeling of an unstable front which pitched my body forward causing 2 minor falls. They are light which seems good in many respects but that paired with less camber may also be what I am feeling.
Does anyone have suggestions. Sales people and many other say I want a longer ski but honestly at 50 years old and only hitting the slopes 5 times per season , I think short is the way to go, but perhaps stiffer.
I have not ruled out keeping my new skis and just adjusting to them, but am hungry for input as I have been reunited with an old love and want it to progress.
thanks

 

[BenedictGomez]

If you're 6 foot tall, 160cm skis are too short unless you're skiing slalom.

I'm just shy of your height, and if I were on 160s at high speed I think I'd feel unsafe. My daily drivers are 179. My tree skis 172.

 

[mriceyman]

I would say low 170s also.. hight suggests 180s but 70s should be a good compromise


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

 

[Edd]

I also recommend something in the low 170s. I’m nearly identical in height and weight to you, and 160 seems a poor choice.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone

 

[Glenn]

If you can, demo. Demo the same ski in a 160 and a 170 and see which skis better.

 

[Scruffy]

172-175cm. Something not too stiff, don't over ski yourself. Something about 80-88mm waist. An intermediate front side carver oriented ski.

Frankly, after reading your post, my suggestion for you is to rent/demo AND at the same time take a few lessons to make sure you're
form is allowing you to ski efficiently (the goal is to ski effortlessly), this will help with your fatigue. Also you can try a few different skis, and your ski instructor may have a suggestion about which ski once they see you ski and work with you. And, if you find something you like, you may be able to, since it's after president's day, either get a killer deal, or purchase the demo skis.

 

[John9]

Like everyone says 160 is way too short. I'm 5"9 and ski a 174cm I want high performance. The simplest guide is chin height for beginner, nose for intermediate, head high for advanced. I am guessing 174 ish would be right around your nose. Keep the waist around 80.

 

[Clemson]

Right, as I said in the thread I have heard that all before, and though I greatly appreciate all the input, I am looking for input on specific short skis that have thin waste and stiffer front than the skis I have. I am not going longer than 160 .

 

[Edd]

Right, as I said in the thread I have heard that all before, and though I greatly appreciate all the input, I am looking for input on specific short skis that have thin waste and stiffer front than the skis I have. I am not going longer than 160 .

Then I suggest this: https://www.head.com/shop/en-IC/supreme-instinct-ti-56.html

I use the 170 length as an easy carver. My daily driver and pow skis are 180s. You can get them shorter than 170. Great for intermediates. They bite with minimal effort but short turns are necessary to make them sing. And they won’t kill you if you hit bumps. Also, you can find them cheap.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Right, as I said in the thread I have heard that all before, and though I greatly appreciate all the input, I am looking for input on specific short skis that have thin waste and stiffer front than the skis I have. I am not going longer than 160 .

Why?

The only people 6 foot tall that ski on 160cm skis, are professional FIS World Cup slalom skiers.

In my opinion, what you "want" is literally dangerous for an intermediate skier, unless you only ski green circles at slow speeds, so I'm curious what your reasoning is?

 

[BenedictGomez]

causing my legs to pull apart and a feeling of an unstable front which pitched my body forward causing 2 minor falls.

FYI, this is precisely what one would expect to happen if you're skiing on skis that are way too short for you.

To fight this, I guarantee you felt forced to retreat to a poor backseat posture. #Physics

 

[Jully]

Why?

The only people 6 foot tall that ski on 160cm skis, are professional FIS World Cup slalom skiers.

In my opinion, what you "want" is literally dangerous for an intermediate skier, unless you only ski green circles at slow speeds, so I'm curious what your reasoning is?

FIS men's slalom is actually 165 cm haha, so not even! I definitely agree with BG here though, unless you are looking for greens at slow speeds or maybe low angle trees (also at slow speeds), 160 is going to be too short at 170 lbs.

I might recommend 168-172 for someone only hitting the slopes 5 times a year as you are correct that short skis will make your skiing experience easier. HOWEVER, 160 I think is just a tad too short.

I would not recommend stiffer skis by any means.

 

[mister moose]

FYI, this is precisely what one would expect to happen if you're skiing on skis that are way too short for you.

To fight this, I guarantee you felt forced to retreat to a poor backseat posture. #Physics

Yeah, no. Legs "pulling" apart and pitching forward are errors. You should be able to ski a 160 just fine with the following compromises:

Less stability at speed.
Less edge length to provide grip when needed.
You may be able to overpower the ski.
The ski will be easier to pivot and steer.

Compromises are not requirements.

Learn to ski the center of the ski, under your arch. Learn fine motor control on your edges. Demo other skis if you aren't happy.

 

[Clemson]

Simple reason is confidence and control= a full day of fun. Not looking for black diamond but if I have to pass through one to the next connection i want total control. As i mentioned I skied on 147 and had a great time, just a little slow and I knew I would get my legs back , to a point will continued trips. Too long is far more dangerous, in my opinion, as they will tire me quicker, combined with a ski which is hard to initiate short carves feels like a recipe for disaster and quickly loosing interest. If in a couple years if I am on top of my game perhaps i will go longer. You got me thinking about some used slalom race skis though, perhaps too stiff but worth exploring.

 

[Clemson]

I did not have either of these happen when I was on even short skis last month, which I was pushing aggressively.

 

[Clemson]

Yeah, no. Legs "pulling" apart and pitching forward are errors. You should be able to ski a 160 just fine with the following compromises:

Less stability at speed.
Less edge length to provide grip when needed.
You may be able to overpower the ski.
The ski will be easier to pivot and steer.

Compromises are not requirements.

Learn to ski the center of the ski, under your arch. Learn fine motor control on your edges. Demo other skis if you aren't happy.

I did not have either of these happen when I was on even short skis last month, which I was pushing aggressively.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Yeah, no. Legs "pulling" apart and pitching forward are errors.

The legs thing I agree with you.

The "pitching forward", however, is likely due to his being on skis way too short for him, the physics of the over-the-handlebars effect.

There are reasons why people 6 feet tall do not ski on 160cm skis.

 

[MEtoVTSkier]

Most definetly agree with all you've been told. I'm 5'8" around 200lb on 164s that come to the center of my forehead. Those work well for me most of the time, but as I skied 185-190 back in the old "straight ski" days I'm probably looking to have another set 168-172. Really much more stable at the higher speeds. Not Tuna speed mind you, but a nice smooth and steady quick pace.

Do yourself a favor like these guys have said, demo some skis. Try some 167s and try to keep an open mind.

 

[sankaty]

Simple reason is confidence and control= a full day of fun. Not looking for black diamond but if I have to pass through one to the next connection i want total control. As i mentioned I skied on 147 and had a great time, just a little slow and I knew I would get my legs back , to a point will continued trips. Too long is far more dangerous, in my opinion, as they will tire me quicker, combined with a ski which is hard to initiate short carves feels like a recipe for disaster and quickly loosing interest. If in a couple years if I am on top of my game perhaps i will go longer. You got me thinking about some used slalom race skis though, perhaps too stiff but worth exploring.

First of all, great to hear that you are getting back into skiing and loving it! That's the most important thing, so please ignore the rest of this advice if it detracts from your enjoyment of the sport. But since you asked . . .

I haven’t had enough experience skiing on really short skis to say for sure that 160 is too short for you, but I do think you are starting with a flawed premise that ski length is the primary driver of ease of turn initiation. In reality, the ease of turn initiation is governed by an interplay between length, side cut, width, rocker/camber ratio, stiffness, and flex pattern. Each of these factors is further nuanced by the body type and skiing style of the skier.

For example, I have a pair of 177cm Blizzard Ones and a pair of 174cm Blizzard Magnum Ti skis. Even though they are 13mm narrower and 3 cm shorter than my Blizzard Ones, the Magnums take far more energy to turn because they are much stiffer and less rockered. The Magnums do hold an edge much better on hardpack, so I prefer them on marginal snow days when I’m relegated to frim groomers. Otherwise, I ski my Ones.

You might find a 160cm ski that suits you perfectly, but I think it’s as likely that you’ll find something a little longer that is just as easy (or easier!) to turn but addresses the stability issues. I’d try to keep an open mind and demo a bunch of skis.

For a while I did have a pair of Fischer RX8 skis in a 165 length. I didn’t love them, but I didn’t find them particularly unstable. That said, though I’m about your height, I’m a lightweight at 145lbs, so I would passively flex them less than you, and speed is not my thing. I didn’t find them any easier to turn than my Ones, though. In fact, in most conditions the Ones are easier to turn because of the rocker.

 

[Bosco DaSkia]

All skis feel and ski differently for every person that skis them.

The best thing to do is go to a larger ski area that you know has a well stocked demo program. Then try as many as you can.

Only take 2-3 runs on each. Eventually a pair will just work for you. Then try that one pair in as many different sizes as you can.

This really the only way to find a pair of skis that work for You. You're the one that has to ski 'em, so take the time to find the right pair.




And go get your boots fitted properly whilst yer at it!