Advice on Ski Length

A snowHead

Hi, wondered if anyone could give me some advise on ski length. For the last few years I have skied on the Rossignol Atraxion VI and they are 162cm. I was told at the time I bought them that as I am tall for a women (5ft 10) I should get the longest version of a model. I have decided to upgrade my ski and am keen on the K2 Ooolaluv. But their longest ski is 170cm which seems like it may feel long if I am happy on a 162cm. I know fully rockered skis need to be longer but what about partly rockered skis? They do a 163cm but will this feel short?

I weigh 68kg. I am an advance skier but not the most aggressive skier.

Thanks for any help.

A snowHead

Hard to know for sure without trying both lengths of the same pair, really. Do you have any opportunity to test skis, either in resort or in a snowdome?

Weight is more important than height really. I'm similar to you and I have 162cm pure piste skis but for something rockered I would go longer.

Incidentally don't feel like you have to have something that's specifically a women's ski, especially if you're fairly fit and strong. If you can test skis, try a bunch of different ones.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

It's all debatable.

http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=88447&sid=f86640ecd8c8f7f56e77d4026fe219c4

I'm a lightish 6'4" male and I would always buy the longest ski available. 7cm isn't a huge difference IMO so I can't see it being an issue.

I take it you aren't able to demo them?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

I wanted to go to the Snowheads ski test day at Hemel but unfortunately had to babysit. I did hear Snow and Rock at Hemel do let you test skis if they have a demo version so I could call them. I'm quite a distant but it is doable.

Funny you should say about non female specific skis as my brother just said the same. Maybe I'll look at some other options.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Go longer. 170. I am female 5ft 5, 60kg. Would call myself an advanced skier. Pure piste ski for me would be around 163, anything rockered definitely longer. Have gone as long as 177 on an all mountain twin tip.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

After all it is free

You will be fine on 170 even if it's a pure piste ski. For powder 170 will be too short for you.

What's up with K2 ski names?? Smile

@chelseafc, with all the variables in ski length/performance these days , i would say its imperative to try before you buy . even if you can find out the effective ski length and flex etc in comparison to your present ski , you still need to get the feel of the ski in miscellaneous conditions , so even if you have to pay a bit more in resort to confirm whats good for you id say its worth it . way to much clamour these days to just go longer Shocked

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

There are many factors to consider, your height, your weight, what kind of skier you are, what style of ski it is ie rocker/camber profile, flex, amount of sidecut etc. With modern skis there is no simple answer like 'between your chin and nose' although sizing up for rockered skis is generally a good idea. A really good explanation here: http://blistergearreview.com/recommended/how-to-think-about-ski-length (Some great in depth reviews that stay away from just regurgitating the manufacturers' hype on there too - although unfortunately not of the Ooolalove.)

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

snow reports

@boac, that's a nice article but I think, IMHO, that it misses our on torsional rigidity which has been a critical element of ski development since about 1988 as far as I am told.

For example, my 165cm FIS slalom skis are much less fun (for me...) to ski in bumps than my 185cm FIS GS skis. Actually, arguably more fun than my 203cm SGs but then the only time I have skied bumps in competition was on 203 SLs quite some time ago.

The critical factor being that the SLs are (leaving sidecut aside) just too grippy for my probably lazy smearing technique, which I attribute to their torsional rigidity.

And this is me skiing bumps in hideous yellow pants on 160cms cheater GS

Leisse Bumps-SD 2006 from Uann

https://vimeo.com/118394482 (a very disturbingly 10 years ago...)

@under a new name, agreed, so many things to consider it's no wonder there's a temptation to just hold them up to our nose and think "yeah that'll do" !!

Blister don't specifically mention torsional rigidity in that article but I have seen them mention it in some of their ski reviews - perhaps they didn't want to throw even more 'complications' into the mix, it is only a 101 after all. Also, you are comparing 3 different skis at 3 different lengths so we're really straying away from the question of which length of one particular ski to go for. I'm no expert, but I think torsional rigidity would have more bearing on which ski I was considering rather than how long that ski should be.

A few years ago I bought a pair of Volkl Mantras. 98mm underfoot, I think it was the first year they introduced a small amount of tip rocker, traditional camber, flat tail, fairly long side cut radius. I'm 196cm tall but I opted for the 184cm rather than 191cm. Why? I wanted something I could use in a wide range of terrain and conditions. It's a fairly heavy and stiff ski, full of metal and I felt that whilst the 191 might be better for big wide open lines I would regret the extra length when things got tighter, in the trees for example. At my weight - about 80-85kg depending on how much I have in the backpack and how much tartiflette I've been enjoying - the Mantra is plenty stiff and and stable enough that I've been able to really nail it through chop without ever wishing I had gone longer.

Now of course, the new Mantra is slightly wider at 100mm, completely flat underfoot, perhaps slightly more rocker than my old ones, my skiing has improved etc... if I was buying now I'd have to make the decision all over again Puzzled

Nice vid btw, nice skiing and love the pants Very Happy

You know it makes sense.

@boac, I think Mantras only acquired any rocker for last season and were significantly softened. Shame as we have Mantras and love them. I'm 165cms and ski the 177. Ms UANN would have preferred, in retrospect the 170s.

Currently, my top pick to replace them, if I was going to (they'll make it through one last season I think) would be the Blizzard Bonafides. Or maybe one of the Zero-Gs... I shall have to have a play Happy

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

@under a new name, what year are your Mantras? AFAIK Mantras went from 96 to 98mm in 2011 and the following year gained a small amount of early rise. It's very subtle, nothing like the more obvious splay you see on so many skis now, it just brings the camber back a little way up the ski compared to the early models which were full camber. It's just enough to give you confidence that the ski will slice through pretty much anything which is nice given how fast they like to go Very Happy

Helps with float in deeper soft snow too although it's not a powder ski.

Last season's changes were more significant in that they lost the camber altogether, increased tip rocker, added tail rocker and another 2mm in the waist and yes, softened a bit as well apparently. Completely different ski!?! Haven't skied it but I would expect performance in powder to be improved, possibly at the expense of edge grip on harder snow. Not sure I would go for the new one, especially now I've bought some Salomon Q105s as my soft snow ski. I too hope to get another season or two out of my Mantras before I have to look for a replacement. I'll definitely be looking at the Bonafides as they are often compared to the Mantras. Don't know anything about the Zero-Gs will have to look into them too... it's a good dilemna to have Very Happy

A snowHead

@boac, I think...!! ours are 2011s - if there's some early rise it's really subtle as you say. I don't want to diss a manufacturer, but some chums who run a well known ski shopy didn't stock the Mantra last year. Discussing at lunchtime the Zero-Gs aren't nearly as beefy but much lighter.

A snowHead

@under a new name, the Zero-Gs are really a touring ski (still though at the heavier/more capable end of the spectrum).

I think I'd look at either the Nordica Enforcer or equivalent Blizzard (Bonafide I think?) to replace the 'real' Mantras.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

@clarky999, yep, that's true. still going to try them though Happy

You need to Login to know who's really who.

interesting review on the enforcers, might have to hunt a pair down to try http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2015-2016-nordica-enforcer-2

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Thanks for all the help so far. Will try to work out a way of trying some skis out as now I've started looking I'm being lured by other skis too. I need to see what I feel happiest on.

My main concern of going too long is big moguls as I always feel more agile over them in shorter skis but maybe it's my imagination. What do other people feel over moguls?

You'll need to Register first of course.

@chelseafc, sort of, in general, shorter skis will help the not so skilled skier in bumps.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

I must be not that skilled then Smile

But means maybe shorter is better for me I guess until I get skilled?

After all it is free

170 is still not too long for you, you shouldn't feel uncomfortable anywhere where you normally ski. I am ok in moguls on skis up to my height; I haven't tried to ski moguls on longer skis and I am not an expert skier. But the shortest skis I ever skied were 156, as a beginner, and I am 168 (5'6?). I am not a fan of towering skis but 162 sound too short for you, go longer, you will benefit from it.

@under a new name, if you have the 2010/11 (graphic with an old chinese guy with a long beard at the front of the right ski) then you have no rocker. Mine are the 2011/2012 (graphic with some kind of ninja dude at the bottom of the ski) which have a small amount of rocker.

Anyway, sorry for turning this into a Volkl Mantra thread.

@chelseafc, FWIW I think you should see Rule 5 and get the 170s, you'll be fine - and if you're not then learning to deal with it will make you a better skier no? wink

and yes I do appreciate the irony of referring someone to Rule 5 to size up having just explained how I sized down, but in my defence the Mantra is quite a lot of ski to handle and you must understand there are so many factors to consider and... er gosh is that the time?...

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

@boac, yup, those are them. my word they are lasting well.

Help!!

Advice on Ski Length

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Equipment Reviews/Questions