All at sea re ski length…

A snowHead

I’ve been looking at the ski length charts and it’s doing my head in. Please help.

Five years ago I was firmly told that I should up the length of any skis which I bought due to rocker shortening the effective length. That made sense.
But now I notice that the ski charts are just quoting shorter and shorter skis, and don’t say anything about compensating for rocker, since most are.

I am 5foot 6inches, 167cm - 9.5 stone or 133 pounds or 61kg. Technical skier not a powerhouse - like to finesse my turns rather than smash everything.

I have plenty of park skis in 151 and 155 fully cambered. I like them.
When I ski the 151s people say they are too short. They are sidewall skis. They grip. They are fun.

I have some 154 Volkl piste skis, full camber. I like them. They grip.
But coaches say they are too short.
So I have some 167 heavily rockered Scott Black Majics. They chatter stupidly at speed and bend like noodles on mogul days.

I fancy some new Volkls.

There’s bash 81 in full camber. 158.
Revolt 85 in 157, rockered.
Simon in ski exchange has some bash 85 in 156 and 164, rockered. No idea which to buy.
I tend to mount park skis slightly behind centre to allow them to be fun in the trees as well, rather than one-trick ponies.

I have some Kenja 163s unmounted in the workshop - rockered and about the get them mounted and wonder whether those are right or too long.
Yes I know that they are female skis but for goodness’ sake I’m 5-6 and only 133 lbs - the Kenja are the mighty stiff 2018 model. Layer of titanal.
There are some RTM 76 in 163 - rockered and bought during lockdown and not skied them yet. No idea if they are too long.

I’ve got some Lines and Armadas in the garage in CH but they are mighty powder planks and I have no idea how that translates to what i should be buying in frontside oriented skis.

Argh….advice welcome….

A snowHead

I only know about race skis, if you were asking about FIS SLs then I would tell you to go for 155cm, looking at typical female lengths for other things seems reasonable.

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

As someone quite light - currently 10st 9lbs....but have been 9st 7lbs...and try to be technical, while preferring a more playful ski - I think I have similar tastes to you.

For a Piste ski, I would say 160 - 165. If the ski is very damp, go to the shorter end. If the ski is more playful, you can go longer.

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

Thanks for the replies. That helps....I think I will go ahead and get the 163 Kenjas mounted up and see how they ride.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

OFB - they have three mounting lines on them - are you suggesting that I should use the rearmost one?

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

After all it is free

valais2, The Kenja wont be too long - SWMBO uses em in 170 and shes around 5ft 8 or 9. Dont worry about them being female skis.
I've used em too and they're great -identical to the Kendo, which I use in a 184 length.

We often swap Skis for fun as have the same BSL, or to really throw folks on lifts etc, we'll just swap one ski Toofy Grin

OFB thanks - I didn’t realise about forward marking on female skis and will compare centre line markings on different models to get the right one.

Bones - ah, that’s reassuring…

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Noticed something on the Fischer website some time ago: You ski should be your heigth minus 5-10 cm. You weight doesn’t matter, since the light people should choose a soft ski, and heavier should choose a stiffer ski.

For the last couple of years I have heard, that the ski don’t know your height, but only your weight… Fischer disagree on that point.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Link for reference: https://www.fischersports.com/guide/ski-length

snow reports

Noticed something on the Fischer website some time ago: You ski should be your heigth minus 5-10 cm. You weight doesn’t matter, since the light people should choose a soft ski, and heavier should choose a stiffer ski.

For the last couple of years I have heard, that the ski don’t know your height, but only your weight… Fischer disagree on that point.

Weight is less important than skiing style and ability. An example is when I was skiing with the wife of my business partner in Switzerland (she is a ski coach/guide) and she suggested I try her skis to get a better sense of how my balance was every so slightly off at the end of a turn. She is tiny, and skis with real grace and control. The skis kicked my ass and I am no slouch normally. Turns out they were FIS regulation GS skis. My daughters GS skis are taller than her, weigh a ton, and I just don't get how she can bend them but she does.

For piste skiing I would avoid too much rocker but again this depends on your style and what you enjoy. Less rocker will mean more stability at high speeds, at the cost of taking more skill and effort to initiate turns well. I would advice 5-10 cms shorter than height for a ski with limited rocker. If you like to ski fast, err on the longer side for rockered skis.

I have to say I like to match the tool to the job and will choose a piste oriented ski when I expect to be on piste all day. Especially if skiing with my daighter as the only was to have any chance of keeping up with her! Also when working on piste technique there is no substitute for a stiff, narrow waisted, non-rockered piste ski (I took 2 sets of skis to instructor exams for this reason.

Will take a softer, all mkountain, ski with rocker if messing around with the boys as likely to be some side-piste, bumps, forest tracks and jumps.

You know it makes sense.

@DanishRider, that same article also says that ski sizing isn't an exact science, and gives a range of other sizes e.g. longer than height for off piste skis for an expert.

IMHO any simple guide to ski length is likely to be misleading at least in part, because how someone skis (how fast, how dynamically, what style) has just as much impact on ski length as height or weight.

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

@valais2, I'm a little bigger than you (but only by 4-5 kg) and FWIW I loved the Kendo at 170. I would probably have been happy on the shorter length also. I don't think you'll be too far wrong on the 163 Kenja.

A snowHead

A snowHead

@valais2, they all sound much too short to me.

I'm 60kgs and havered between 173 and 180 for my Bonafides (went 173 as the 180s weren't adding anything) - and Mrs U who is a bit lighter is on 177 Mantras.

@zikomo, I think you have a point, at the margin. But if you are handing out rental skis in a +/- busy shop weight is a good enough heuristic to capture the main factors and height is a good enough heuristic for weight.

Take two otherwise identical skiers, one at 60kgs one at 90kgs and I kind of think you'd have the pie eater up size or two wink

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

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

Guidelines are only guidelines. In the widths you are looking at rocker is usually minimal enough to ignore for purposes of length, but obviously the twintips will take length off compared to the flat tails (many manufactures measure length before the skis are pressed).

IMO a few centimetres doesn't make that much difference, but I generally notice the extra stability of a longer ski more than any increase in agility of a shorter ski (ie 188cm feels much more stable than 180cm, but I can throw the 188 around almost as easily as the 180).

I think you also need to look at contact area more than outright length. Rocker can mean a lot of things. High splay over a short running length skis very differently to a long low rocker that runs well into the ski towards the bindings. With the latter you'd want to size up more than the former.

Flex definitely plays a part too.

Basically there are no rules and certainly none that apply to all types of ski, especially not when you consider the different design philosophies even within categories. You just have to either go and ski, or go and fondle in a shop if that's no possible, different skis and try to work out their character. And work out if that character jives with what you are looking for.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

All VERY helpful - and where there are differences of take and rationale that’s very helpful too.

I have had plenty of ‘adoption’ or ‘adaptation’ challenges in the past, where a change of boot or ski leads to a mild sense of ‘have a made a mistake in changing this’ (or indeed a major panic of the same) just becomes ‘I had to get used to it’ (or ‘had to become a bit less cr+p in my technique’).

Contrast the Grom, who seems to adapt to things in about …. 50 metres. I gave him some new and unfamiliar Scott Scrappers at Christmas and said ‘take care before letting rip on them’. Which he did…for about 30 seconds, and then he was OFF…..vooooom……

In all these posts there are hugely helpful little nuggets of experience and advice on interpretation of charts and ‘what people say’….

Still thinking…and learning….

You'll need to Register first of course.

To a big degree, ski length/type/characteristics is so personal, that all we will realistically do, is give general guidelines, give a reasonable starting point and potentially rule out options that are totally unsuitable.

We can however talk about our own preferences, in case there is anything that can be gleaned from that.

As a light, 1 wk/yr skier, that came from skiing 2m straight skis back in the day, I don't mind skis that are a bit longer, provided they are not too planky for my weight and ability.

I have been totally happy on 157 Atomic SL11 Slalom skis; 170 Head Magnum Piste skis and 180 Scott The Ski. I'm 5 10" and my weight is generally between 10 and 10.5 stone.

I am happy to be on 180 for an All Mountain ski, provided it is light and playful. With a Carving Ski, I would not go above 170, but would not go below 160 (unless a Slalom ski). If I pick the right ski for me - then 170 would be my preferred length.

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

I work off a variation of t-shirt sizing. A manufacturer will make a ski in multiple sizes based predominantly on the amount of force the skier will put through the ski. The force will depend on weight, but also ability, aggressiveness and other factors (height is relevant as it affects the size of the levers, but I don't think it's a simple relationship). So, I make an assessment of where I'd fit on the range of forces , then see where that's fit on the range of sizes for that ski (bearing in mind the range will differ if the ski is aimed at a given gender or not). For example, I'm either side of 80kg, male, and an aggressive skier, which I'd consider an equivalent to a male large t-shirt size. If the manufacturer offers 4 sizes of a ski aimed at males, I'd consider this to be S, M, L and XL, so I'd go for the 2nd longest. In the last 10 years this has meant skis between 170 and 184

All this is based on the assumption that you will use the ski broadly as the manufacturer intends - if not, who knows

Help!!

All at sea re ski length…

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Equipment Reviews/Questions