ski length (again) - this should raise the temperature

A snowHead

OK - here we go - snowheads angst-o-meter to 11 ...

In 2003 I picked up an end of season bundle of rental skis from a tech in Les Menuires, and it included some 150cm Verse5 skis - actually in good nick. Looked like they'd be good for my partner, so I serviced them and put them in the garage. She was not interested, so I used them one day as rock skis, instead of wrecking my 160 atomics. They turned out to be a revelation. They held an edge brilliantly, and the more central mounting allowed some silly backwards stuff.

I'm about 5foot 7inches, and 140 pounds, skiing off and on piste, and like steep bumps. From that day, I moved to 150cm skis as my norm - some Rossi 9s Oversizes, some Salomon Crossmax, some Rossi 9x fsi race skis, etc. And some 166 line chronics for powder days - basically equating to 150 when you deduct the rear tip. No problem with flotation at that length and waist.

Roll forward to 2009, and I'm teaching my kids (then 4 and 6). Mucking around on lifts, I select some 145cm scramblers from the back of the garage, and they help me match the turns following my son on his 4m radius skis. Then I use them one afternoon in earnest...and they are great in the bumps and I get reasonable flotation on them in the deep stuff, as long as I keep momentum up.

Spring 2011 and I am replacing some skis in a big equipment store in London, and they argue against 150 length "....far too short for you...." and I notice that EB doesn't even stock the 154 Volkls, only the 163 and above. And everywhere I go in the UK, they sigh and say the same: "...far too short...". I go back onto some 160s for an afternoon and they just do NOT feel as intuitively right as the 150s, in which I have so much confidence on '...I'm going to die....' steep and narrow stuff.

I persist with 150s, feeling that I'm wimping out and am selling myself short. Except on days when I need to really rely intuitively on a pair of skis I reach for the 145s...Am I am a man or a mouse???? Mouse, mouse I hear the snowheads cry. But they are truly great skis; skis to hold an edge at warp speed, charge through crud, and flick through bumps.

Last weekend we get into the lift to the glacier. Only the two of us, two clients and an ESF instructor. A Czech, hardcore woman - she's 6foot 1inch if she's anything, and skiing 155 equipe 10s. That's 155cm. They barely come up to her shoulder - they same proportional length as my 145s. I am beginning to feel vindicated. I remember that slalom skis got very short in 2008 and then short lengths were banned. Later in the day I look around and see pisteurs on twin tips the same length as mine (166) and they are taller and heavier than me. We bump into an instructor friend and he's on really short armadas. A tall guy in peak performance gear carves down a lift access path on 150 fischers.

I appear to have entered a parallel universe, one where radical, hard core skiers use skis way shorter than anyone in the UK would use or recommend, a universe in which speeds are high, carving is done everywhere, and powder remains a joy. I put friends onto shorter skis and they have a ball. A friend with a trashed knee gets 125s rather than 160s and suddenly his knee no longer swells and dislocates.

So...I ski short...and have a very, very, good time.

A snowHead

Nice blog Mouse.

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

You say that you like steep bumps and steep narrow stuff and you're not exactly tall or heavy. So perhaps not that surprising that you prefer short skis?

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

At 5'7" those 150's are just over head hight.

So they are fairly long.

So you're saying longer is better?

Cool

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

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

similar experience myself this year, I'm 6 ft and for the first time thought I'd try some 165 slalom race skis (entry level not the mega stiff factory ones), normally I'm on 170 to 179 lengths. OK these were stiffer than my usual piste skis but overall I loved them, way better on piste for edge hold & speed of edge change and I also felt much better balanced on them and much more connected if that makes sense. In fact so much so that I've used them allover, bumps & offpiste, where they definitely outperformed my usual piste skis (OK, but not the mid fat and wider skis in the deeper stuff).

Maybe a link here to another thread, recommended skis for BASI courses, as BASI have recommended for their L3 and above using a min radius ski of 17m which is normally going to be at least 175 and maybe more.This apparently followed the case when stacks of people were turning up on 165 slalom skis for the instructor courses, i am sure because they felt it gave them an advantage for the piste skiing...but obviously BASI had other ideas

After all it is free

Depends what you want to do. Short skis are (suprise suprise) going to carve shorter radius turns than longer ones.

I'm not sure you can call skiers carving short turns on piste

valais2 for President. I'll back it. I ski short skis. I love them. They make me feel good and enjoy my skiing. For my height and weight, I am probably 10cm shorter than any Snowhead would advise. But I'm loving it, and every time I go longer I find it hard work, catch edges, and struggle down slopes with comments like "if only I was on my short skis this would be great fun"

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Jeez, just ski what you want, who cares what other people think. HOWEVER...

I'm with clarky999 on this one,

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

So you are 140 pounds and 5"7 on 150cms skis, I'm 185 pounds and 6"2 on 175cms skis, reckon that works out about same same...

I would say stick with what you feel happiest on Smile

snow reports

This year my ski buddies seemed to get given much shorter rental skis than usual. I think around 145-150 for the gals and 150-160 for the guys and very tall gal. My 162s seemed mahoosive by comparison. I wondered if this is due to an ongoing trend for shorter skis (over the years I have downsized from 190 to 162) or particularly due to the conditions that week (very spring-like, hardpack in the mornings, heavy and wet lower down by afternoon).

clarky 999 - agree that it's not so easy to look gnarly when toting short skis - or is it? when using the term 'hard core' I was referring to the pisteurs in Crans - and boy they are indeed hard core - both in the bar and on the hill. And they are skiing short. Very short. And the Czech female instructor may have had the looks of a model, but she had the 'put it down' style of a downhiller - yes, she was hard core, no messing, and on 155s, at over 6 foot. Yes, I know she was instructing, and therefore on her day skis rather than pushing it, but it's interesting nontheless.

You know it makes sense.

valais2, I was joking about the looking hardcore bit lol!!

But seriously, if you have more fun on short skis, and if they better suit where you ski, that's cool, ski short skis and have more fun! But if you want to charge straight down a mahoosive face and huck a big cliff (or straightline 'The Strief') there really is no question that a big long straight ski is better. Obviously most people aren't skiing like that, but if you aspire to and imitate that style, a longer ski will also help you.

Reini from Fuerstauer Ski School in Saalbach is about the best skier I know. He's about 5 foot 7, and skis 185 FIS GS skis everyday, everywhere, for everything. Dude's nails.

At the end of the day it's just about what you have the most fun on though.

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

clarky999, I think you're spot on re having fun (and I can see exactly where you're coming from re maniac cliff jumpers - there's one on the front of the latest edition of Summit) - and I guess that's why I did the original post. I'm a bit bothered that relative novices may be being sold skis which reduce their learning and their enjoyment - I saw a woman being sold a ridiculously over-specced set of skis (in a store which will remain nameless) - too long and too much of a handful for her - I overheard her description of the number of weeks which she had been skiing, her level and her aspirations, and she would have had a terrible time fighting them. But I knew one of the senior members of staff, had a quiet word, and he raised his eyebrows and sucked his teeth (expressing frustration regarding the sales staff) and intervened to give the client a much more suitable pair of Lines.

Big respect re guys like Reini.

A snowHead

I normally take 155 sl's & 177 all mountain skis, covers my options, sl's are great for messing around on the hard stuff and up to a point on slightly deeper cruddy stuff, also up to a point in terms of speed, had a few squirrely moments when opening out my turns on these at higher speeds, don't get me wrong I love these on busy pistes, but given deeper, faster, cruddier, quieter conditions, I prefer to go the longer route, they just give me more confidence to push though tougher conditions. Very Happy

A snowHead

Short skis on hard snow, longer skis on anything soft

I'm 5'9, got 160cm as my skinny skis and 177cm for my soft snow skis. I've mainly skied the 177s for the last 2 years, I've been skiing the 160s recently. First day was soft, almost slushy snow with lots of bumps, really enjoyed the 160s, I'm rubbish at bumps but they made it very easy to turn. Second day was much deeper, chopped up slushy snow, found it much harder work, I had to really pick my line and think about keeping my feet closer together as the skis were so easily deflected. I had to be much more aware of my balance as well and think about what I was doing rather than just sliding over things like I do on my bigger skis. It made me realise how lazy I can be on my longer, fatter skis in poorer snow.

If you prioritise harder snow performance and agility go shorter, if you want better soft snow performance and stability go long (and fat, although my S3s are ridiculously quick at turning)

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

Way too much importance put on length Very Happy

Torsional and Longitudinal stiffness makes more difference to the beginner than just length, a shorter stiffer ski can be more difficult for them than a long 'softer one'

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

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Hmm. Pre-carver, my ski length had crept up to 195cm. When I bought my Missions I was a tad worried they were a bit long at 178. At SOPiB11 many skies were far longer than mine - and at La Grave there were a few really ong skis - over 2m in once case, I would say (though I didn't actually measure or read the length of them). I detect a fashion cycle.

You'll need to Register first of course.

achilles,

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

gra, moffatross, I'd done this sum;

[(5x12)+7]2.2=147.4

instead of checking first and doing this one

[(5x12)+7]/0.3937=168.8

Embarassed

After all it is free

I've just got some Atomic GS12 at 185 and was quite worried how easy they would be to ski on at that length (in todays terms) Turns out they are pretty easy, even for short turns but really exciting when you let them fly on the edges. Today I was back out on Atomic SL12 165cm, I've had these a couple of seasons and love 'em but I've got to say the GS skis are probably a more forgiving easier ride, the SLs need to be told who's the boss all the time. I'd say skiing on short skis, slalom one's at least, takes a fair bit of effort, very rewarding but energetic.

waynos,
I think you're totally right that, skiied as they are meant to be, slaloms should take some effort, but I'm a completely none-agressive light-weight slow skiier of only 5 / 6 weeks and I've got on far better with short stiff slaloms than any longer, wider standard intermediate skis. Mainly because of the confidence from the way they turn and grip. So I've just bought some (bargain) Atomic Race ST 156cm after really enjoying a pair of Atomic SL11, but knowing I didn't need and wasn't making any use of that level of stiffness and engineering.
I'm fully prepared to have to buy another more all-mountain pair once I start to progress and want to go on more varied terrain. Razz

So a vote here for short for beginners, but I didn't find the stiffness of the SL11s a problem.

What does puzzle me though is how length relates to turning radius.
I (when deciding on the STs) set up a spreadsheet comparing common piste and SL skis length, ratios of tip/waist/tail, and turning radius and can't work out the relationship. Skis with almost identical physical measurements claim very different turning radii. Is that where stiffness comes into play?

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

Length: lots
Girth: considerable

Anything else is a disappointment. Discuss.

snow reports

wigan,

The following thread may help (or may just add more confusion) Smile

You know it makes sense.

Im 6ft 2 and have two pairs of skis, if its not a powder today i love my 174 salamon guns. Great for everythging, not speed machines but gravity helps me with that, I had foils but they got trashed. On a powder day out come the 192 atomic coax.

Lets be honest it doesnt matter what you ride as long as you enjoy it. 15 years ago glenn plake was rocking 210's with a 68 waist and hucking off cliffs. Unless your pro go with what you like bro.

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

Another vote for an experienced skier enjoying hooning around on short skis. Bought a pair of Icelantic Scouts on Ebay over the summer and they have become my favourite ski this season. 143cm - 140x105x130mm gives 12M radius. Plenty of float for off-piste, plenty of carve on-piste. I'm 175cm tall 80kg. (I also have Scott Missions at 178, Nordica Speedmachine Mach2 at 170, Atomic Pimps at 193 - a full quiver!) Very Happy

A snowHead

To the OP - actually giving a damn about what anything else thinks is probably your main problem but are we to assume you use your pixiestix in conjunction with your Europonce fagpaper between the knees stance referred to on another thread? Interesting.... wink

If you're good (or fat) enough a long ski skis short anyway.

A snowHead

wigan,

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

fatbob, ...I guess I care about first time buyers being sold inappropriate skis...but mainly I'm interested in the trend and the (notional?) science behind it...my anxiety about your comment is that it might confirm the worrying fact that I like short skis because I'm actually crap...which was a conclusion I was trying to avoid...drat.

PS on stance ... everyone blats around Crans, on and off p with their legs tied together. I sneak off when no-one's looking and vary my stance a lot, but try not to get spotted...

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

People never talk about the effective edge length in the context of skis. In my snowboarding days that was always one of the published dimensions of a board. Alpine boards for instance have a much longer effective edge than a freestyle board of the same overall length. My Mission 178s have a pretty long nose and rounded tail so I suspect they have a relatively short effective edge. I think this is what makes them ski shorter on the piste.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

You'll need to Register first of course.

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

After all it is free

For me (6'1", 86 kg) anything shorter than about 175 (except for a race SL ski) feels like a snowblade - and that is not a good feeling. I feel most comfortable on skis in the 180-185 range for most conditions - I find this gives a good balance between high speed stability and agility. I'd only want to ski something shorter if I was racing tight gates or very narrow steeps/bumps - none of which interest me.

I suspect many people who prefer unusually short skis do so either because of the terrain they most often ski (bumps, narrow steeps) or because it helps to mask a deficiency in their basic technique. But if they are having more fun as a result then so what?

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Funny though you can generally pick out the Brits in the French lift queues, we're the ones on longer fatter skis, while most of the locals apart from the racing fraternity are on short sl shaped rentals, for most of them it's something they just do in the winter I doubt if they spend hours practicing, doing drills and discussing it like we do here. It may be a cultural thing for us to ski the latest greatest thing, I'm sure quite a few of us here spend hours at a time throughout the year practicing and preparing for those precious couple of weeks on the real stuff ( if we're lucky ) to see the fruits of our hard graft, that's maybe why a lot of us choose a ski for all conditions a reasonably long soft (ish) mid fat with a nice bit of rocker! Umm emm!

Help!!

ski length (again) - this should raise the temperature

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Equipment Reviews/Questions