Ski Club 2.0 Home
Snow Reports
FAQFAQ

Mail for help.Help!!

Log in to snowHeads to make it MUCH better! Registration's totally free, of course, and makes snowHeads easier to use and to understand, gives better searching, filtering etc. as well as access to 'members only' forums, discounts and deals that U don't even know exist as a 'guest' user. (btw. 50,000+ snowHeads already know all this, making snowHeads the biggest, most active community of snow-heads in the UK, so you'll be in good company)..... When you register, you get our free weekly(-ish) snow report by email. It's rather good and not made up by tourist offices (or people that love the tourist office and want to marry it either)... We don't share your email address with anyone and we never send out any of those cheesy 'message from our partners' emails either. Anyway, snowHeads really is MUCH better when you're logged in - not least because you get to post your own messages complaining about things that annoy you like perhaps this banner which, incidentally, disappears when you log in :-)
Username:-
 Password:
Remember me:
👁 durr, I forgot...
Or: Register
(to be a proper snow-head, all official-like!)

169 or 176 urgent help needed/sking short??

 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
I need help deciding what ski length to buy. Spent hours searching for the answer getting more confused. I have no time to try out skis to find out what I like best.
I'm 39, 75kg, 5'10, ski in the Alps 2 weeks a year, have been skiing since a kid and love off piste and on piste. Like to ski as steep as possible off piste when there is powder and just starting to look for drop offs. Also love running down the reds at the start and end of the day.

I have had 164 Metron M9's and found them just fine for what I do but they are now broken! But they do look a little short.
Have decided on the Atomic Crimson TI's - but what size should I get 169 or 176?

I was told when I bought the Metron's that I should buy shorter than I would usually due to the cut. Does this apply to the Crimson too?


Also what does "a ski skis short mean"?


Is the Crimson a good replacement for the Metron? (although I am already decided on them I think!!)

I'm sure this is a pretty common thread but I hope somebody can be bothered to answer!!
Thanks
ski holidays
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
timwiti wrote:
Does this apply to the Crimson too?


No. The Metrons were meant to be sized like slalom skis. Crimsons were not.

Quote:

Is the Crimson a good replacement for the Metron?


Different feel, different purpose. Crimson = noticeably more "all mountain".
ski holidays
 Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
IMV, get 176.

Some makers make skis to ski short and the Metron was one of them. Others like TT's have a turned up tail which isn't in contact with the snow on piste.... so you are robbed of this lenght, I think this is pretty important as the tails add grip, IMV, so to do without it promotes instability on fast turns, IMV. Off piste this is less critical as that turned up tail will still be an influence on the ski as it will retain contact with the snow

Some people like to ski a TT longer than head height for example if they are skiing off-piste all the time as they will get an extra few cms to use in deep snow, but when on piste, the ski remains manageable as it is sort of disengaged.
My personal opinion is that you need to know what the missing 4 cms or so costs you, my feeling is that on a TT it matters as the skis don't have the tail bite of a short SL ski so you need the lenght.

Also, I think it is possible to be between lenghts on some models, so some are just made too short for certain people and if you get the next lenght up, you can experience a whole new ski...which may or may not work for you..

Since the idea now is to ski bigger GS deep snow turns, you need the lenght IMV for stabilty and float, otherwise you will doing little s's which is fine if that is all you want to do...but if you straighten them and point them, you need a solid platform, IMV

When people now say the skis short, they mean that it is more manageable than the lenght would suggest.

In the case of the Metron concept, the ski had a dramatic sidecut and was a very beefy construction so you would need to work it very hard to over-power it. This allowed it to be smaller/shorter to be able to ski it as you normally would. Good and sound idea that didn't really catch on, IMV which was probably mostly down to its weight. New construction materals or ideas might allow the idea to be resurrected sometime but for now the trend has moved onto to lighter and bigger.


Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Wed 4-11-09 8:22; edited 1 time in total
snow report
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
timwiti, welcome to Snowheads.

I don't know anything about this specific ski, but as it's described as all mountain, and you sound like quite an aggressive skier who likes to ski hard and fast, plus considering your height, I'd go for the longer ski.
latest report
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I had the 176cm Crimsons - your height but a bit heavier. I suspect 176 is right for you.
latest report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
why do I find myself wanting the shorter ski despite this advice!?

Will I really notice much difference betweent he two?
ski holidays
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
timwiti, follow the advice, if you really want a shorter ski then buy a slalom style ski - but it won't be as good at what you want it for.
snow conditions
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
timwiti, I have a pair of Metron 10s in 164, which are are great for piste skiing, but when I tested some newer Atomics - the Drive 11s I was told that even for pure piste carving the eqivalent length needed was 172 - I duly tried that length, and they were right, no harder to manage than 164 Metrons, and a really good feel. In looking at all mountain skis going a bit longer would be good idea - I an certainly looking at something in 175 - 180 range (I'm a bit bigger than you, but older and probably less agile)
snow report
 You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
timwiti Here comes my patent Flotation Factor test again!
Crimsons : 86 x 169 / 75kg = 193.
86 x 176 / 75kg = 201.
Range for mixed piste-and-powder skis is 150-200.
So in theory the 169's should give masses of float in powder for your weight.
They will be easy to turn and nippy on bumps.
They weigh about 300g less if that matters to you at all.
176's may run a bit faster downhill and should be more stable in the schuss. But I wouldn't be sure of that because they are quite lively skis and maybe a bit of extra weigh relative to length is good to keep them stable? Just a gut feeling of mine there, no evidence whatsoever.
I am 82kg, 5'11 and ski the 2008 model Crimson 176's and love them. Good edge grip and lively response.* Have just bought pair of 169's for touring and have yet to try them out but pretty sure they will be fine in powder even for my extra weight. ( 86 x 169 / 82 = 177. ) I reckon you are borderline but the 169's should be ok. Not much in it really.

*Watch out if you come onto hard corduroy - they will knock your teeth out!
ski holidays
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Thanks for the responses.

I like the idea of the 169's being that bit easier to handle when conditions are poor and a little easier to turn in the bumps which I am not good at!

It seems they will give me enough float in powder and the downside of being a little less stable flat out - but I can live with that. I also like to ski off piste in tight trees so feel the shorter length may help me here also.


The only thing that does concern me is the weight of newer skis. I liked the heavy Metrons I felt this is what pushed them through when conditions were bad. Apparently the advantgae of the newer skis is they are lighter - is this really an advantage? Apart from carting them to the lift!

I often ski off piste long after the soft powder has gone - I still find fresh tracks or part fresh tracks but the snow is often heavy. Will these lighter skis be more difficult to handle than my heavy short Metrons in these conditions?
ski holidays
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
I ride pretty light skis all the time but to be honest I've found in those conditions it comes more down to tech than weight, don't think a couple of kg's max will make a noticable difference whereas the fore/aft and torsional flex will make a difference.
ski holidays
 And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
timwiti, you really sound like you should try some of those skis...you're vacillating not just between lengths but also between types of ski...and for steep skiing there's a strong argument that you'd benefit from something with less sidecut than the Metrons.

That said, yes, lighter skis can on average get deflected more in difficult snow, and I'd go with the 176 if I were you. (I'm 5'11 in thick socks, have about 10 kgs on you, and ski 180-187 skis).

(on the other hand, my buying strategy over the last four years has been to go for bargains with the general geometry I was after, and make the skis work for me. Exception: the Missions I skied for three seasons, which I had tried before).
snow report
 So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
timwiti, I wouldnt worry about lightness, they are pretty gutsy up front and will chew up most crud. Compared with eg Trabs they are Panzers. 176 or 169 nothing much in it since they both have the float for powder - toss a coin mate. Then just get out there and ski.
snow conditions
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
169s should be grand for you.
snow report
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
my instinct would be the 169. I'm about the same height and a just a little heavier 80kg. 176 would feel too long on me with this type of ski
latest report
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
timwiti wrote:
Like to ski as steep as possible off piste when there is powder and just starting to look for drop offs. Also love running down the reds at the start and end of the day.


Metrons are about the worst choice going for this type of skiing, they are piste focused but even for that the 9 is no where near stiff enough - probably a ski an early intermediate would enjoy on the groomed. I'm really amazed you like them unless you haven't skied many other types of ski in the last few years.

It sounds like you are a reasonably strong and experienced skier looking for an all mountain ski but focused towards off piste. You are on the right track with the Crimson Ti's though there are a lot of other perhaps better choices from Blizzard (the Cronus), Dynastar (the Mythic Rider), Fischer (the Watea 84). Ski weight isn't such an issue for crud busting but stiffness (so they are not deflected) and width (float) is. Piste skis are designed to be skied a lot shorter than skis that will see use off piste. Read some reviews but you are likely to love anything that is more appropriate to the type of skiing you enjoy than the metrons.

I'm your height and weight and would go for something 175ish but this depends on the model, most 'all mountain' skis have a semi-twin tip which makes them ski shorter than their length suggests ie. 'skis short'. Mine are 179.
ski holidays
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Tks for all the responses. Well I have gone for the 169 crimson ti's. Metrons are the only modern ski I have tried. I was told they were all moountain! 50/50. Sounds like for what I want 169 or 176 would both be a big improvement. While I was trying to decide the shop sold out of 176 so that was that! Did think about the blackeye on 172 length but these were almost the same price so stuck with crimson. Not sure why I limited myself to atomic!

Can't wait to try them out. Just hope we get snow - I fly out early this year 15 dec!

Once again thanks for all the info.
latest report
 Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Tks for all the responses. Well I have gone for the 169 crimson ti's. Metrons are the only modern ski I have tried. I was told they were all moountain! 50/50. Sounds like for what I want 169 or 176 would both be a big improvement. While I was trying to decide the shop sold out of 176 so that was that! Did think about the blackeye on 172 length but these were almost the same price so stuck with crimson. Not sure why I limited myself to atomic!

Can't wait to try them out. Just hope we get snow - I fly out early this year 15 dec!

Once again thanks for all the info.
snow report
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
I faced the same dillema, had been on Metron X Beta Pulse 05 in 157 for the last 5 seasons and loved em but was begining to get too fast for the length. I'm more on piste oriented than you, slighty shorter and heavier. I went for the 171 Atomic Blackeye Ti's (looked nicer than the crimsons Madeye-Smiley ). Looking forward to more speed and stability and not having to put 3 million turns in on a run (they were 11m radius)

I think that with Atomics, that once you get used to their incredible edge grip you dont want anything that skid's easier, but I think thats more to do with the factory standard 1,3 edges than anything else. I also think the Atomics are a bit better built than most, certainly rerely see them delaminated (unlike certain other brands)

I think you made a good choice in ski and length
latest report
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I had the same length metrons for the same reasons and have recently replaced them with Head Monster M72s, length 163. Will they do the same job?
snow report
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
dickyb wrote:
timwiti Here comes my patent Flotation Factor test again!
Crimsons : 86 x 169 / 75kg = 193.
86 x 176 / 75kg = 201.
Range for mixed piste-and-powder skis is 150-200.
So in theory the 169's should give masses of float in powder for your weight.
They will be easy to turn and nippy on bumps.
They weigh about 300g less if that matters to you at all.
176's may run a bit faster downhill and should be more stable in the schuss. But I wouldn't be sure of that because they are quite lively skis and maybe a bit of extra weigh relative to length is good to keep them stable? Just a gut feeling of mine there, no evidence whatsoever.
I am 82kg, 5'11 and ski the 2008 model Crimson 176's and love them. Good edge grip and lively response.* Have just bought pair of 169's for touring and have yet to try them out but pretty sure they will be fine in powder even for my extra weight. ( 86 x 169 / 82 = 177. ) I reckon you are borderline but the 169's should be ok. Not much in it really.

*Watch out if you come onto hard corduroy - they will knock your teeth out!


dickyb, Interesting formula.

Where is the "86" derived from?
snow report
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Whitegold, I think it is ski width in middle?

see post at base of this thread

http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=51764
ski holidays
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
carroz wrote:
Whitegold, I think it is ski width in middle?

see post at base of this thread

http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=51764



Thanks, carroz.

When someone can solve a problem with numbers, then it usually shows they genuinely understand what is going on.

This feels like a simple but effective method to reasonably quantify a ski's onpiste and offpiste capabilities.

I am thinking a more intricate formula would divide a ski's entire surface area by a skier's weight, and then factor in things like stiffness, ski-weight etc.

If the Flotation Factor (FF) is dickyb's original work, then mad props to that dude.
latest report
 You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Edit: Didn't see Carroz had posted it.


Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Sat 28-11-09 22:40; edited 1 time in total
ski holidays
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Whitegold, Hi, 86mm is the mid width of Atomic Nomad Crimson and its my personal evaluation method. Take Width x length / weight in kg. Under 150 = piste use only. 150-200 mixed on/off. 200+ = mainly for powder (but not necessarily fat!) arv has pointed to the old thread on this. Much discussion about including other intricate factors, ad nauseam, but my view is keep it simple, its just a broad rule of thumb and works well enough.

Its interesting to play around with the equation and see how much shorter a wide ski can be to give the same float. It explains why it used to be so tough skiing offpiste on the old 55 mm planks, even when they were over 2m long.


Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads on Tue 1-12-09 10:22; edited 1 time in total
ski holidays
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
dickyb, My movement thunders come in at 205 according to your calculation & at 89 underfoot they are far cry from fat powder skis. Working on the basis of your calculation i'd personally reckon it should be something more like 170/180-220 mixed on/of, 220+ fat powder. This is of course purely my opinion.
ski holidays
 And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
frank4short, Thats all good feedback. By 'fat powder' I meant really good for mainly powder skiing at your weight. (I have picked up the word 'fat' from my daughter's teenspeak and it just means 'great'! ) Misleading term, will change it in the post above. 200- 220? Its a broad rule and could depend on personal technique a bit. How do you get 205?
latest report



Terms and conditions  Privacy Policy