Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
PaulB

Ski Lengths?

Recommended Posts

How much should you dial back the length of a ski as the waist width increases? I'm currently on 188cm Super Stinx (70mm), and am considering Crossbows (82mm). Should I be looking at the 179 or the 187cm? I'm planning to use them in the backcountry, and probably some off-piste at the lifts.

 

What are the consequences of choosing too short or too long? I'm 6', 175lbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much should you dial back the length of a ski as the waist width increases?

 

From old school skinnys to modern mid-fats with shape? About 10-15cm, depending on aggressiveness, intended usage, weight, etc, etc, etc. From relatively modern skinnys (like the Supers) to fatter boards, maybe a little less, but still a pretty significant decrease. 10cms or so.

 

I'm currently on 188cm Super Stinx (70mm), and am considering Crossbows (82mm). Should I be looking at the 179 or the 187cm? I'm planning to use them in the backcountry, and probably some off-piste at the lifts.

 

Almost certainly the 179. The combination of b/c usage and your height/weight makes a 180cm by 82mm ski just about right, unless you are SUPER aggressive or haul ass solely in open bowls, etc. The shorter length is better for touring (weight), and better for varied conditions, which I assume you'll be hitting in the PacNW b/c (trees, bowls, chutes, etc).

 

What are the consequences of choosing too short or too long?

 

Too short = loss of float, loss of stability at speed, less platform for landing burly hucks wink.gif

Too long = loss of control/manueverability, more weight, etc.

 

The real question is what type of terrain and snow conditions you plan to use this setup for. If the answer is "whatever's out there," then the 179 Crossbow is a great choice. Light, stable, not too fat, and the shorter length allows short hop turns for dicey sitchmos, easier kick turns while skinning, etc, etc. If the answer is POW POW POW, and nothing but POW, then you've got the length right, about 180cm, but why not go fatter underfoot? Today's fatties are remarkably responsive. In that case, if you like Black Diamond, look into the Crossbow's new big brother, the Havoc, at 88mm underfoot. Be warned, however: once you go fat, you'll never go back. Or so they say. smile.gif

Edited by Cletus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S.

 

5'10" 180-185lbs.

Tele setup is 180cm, 84 underfoot (Fischer Big Stix 84).

AT skis are 184cm, 84 underfoot, and I want to downsize to 177cm (Atomic 10.EX).

All around alpine skis are 181cm, 80mm underfoot.

My only pair of skis at the 190cm mark are reserved for epic POW days in bounds and for when I go to Utah, Tahoe, and other places where you can point em and let them run.

 

My 2 cents.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the real question is why would anyone want to get rid of their super stinx. Those are some sweet boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also say it depends on the tip of you skis too... I also ski a 80mm waist, but my tips are 110... I'm 5'8" and I ski a 171cm ski... I skied knee deep, and steep powder in the trees yesterday and they are great... Landing narl huck, sure you lost a platform, but a shorter ski actually gives you better balance.... There is not a huge difference between a 179 and a 181.... I also have a set that has 76mm waist and 98 in the tip, they a 183cm... my 171cm skis are lighter, more agile, better ballanced... It also depends on where the bindings are mounted, for balance that is. they measure they back from center. my 171s are 74mm back from center.

wave.gif

 

Edited: My bad, disregaurd all comments, I know nothing about touring......

Edited by Fejas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was talking with a ski instructor buddy on ski lengths today (I'm shopping for alpine, all-mountain). With respect to the above posters' comments - the shaped ski length you want is based on the 'effective length' of the ski - that is, the length of the edge based on the amount of sidecut. So you'll want to look at not only the width of the waist of the ski, but also the relative width difference between the waist and the tip - e.g. greater difference = more effective edge = recommended shorter ski.

 

Just one more thing the muddy the waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
glacier said:

Was talking with a ski instructor buddy on ski lengths today (I'm shopping for alpine, all-mountain). With respect to the above posters' comments - the shaped ski length you want is based on the 'effective length' of the ski - that is, the length of the edge based on the amount of sidecut. So you'll want to look at not only the width of the waist of the ski, but also the relative width difference between the waist and the tip - e.g. greater difference = more effective edge = recommended shorter ski.

 

Just one more thing the muddy the waters.

 

If you actually read the above posters comments, you'll see that they are basically the same as yours, and actually give a ballpark answer instead of a vague calculation. wink.gif More often than not, "modern shapes" have sidecuts that result in longer running lengths, which in turn mean shorter skis, by around 10-15cms.

 

This really isn't that hard. If you ski a straight stick in 190, you should be on a wider curvier stick in about 175-180, unless you want to make slalom turns (go shorter) or rip deep pow and turn a lot less (go longer), are particularly light (go shorter), or heavy (go longer), the ski is super stiff (go shorter), or a wet noodle (go longer), etc, etc.

 

No, wait, it is that complicated after all - what about twin tips? Oh shit, the turned up tail is going to change the effective running length, so I'm going to have to do all my calculations over!!!! I take it all back. Disregard everything I said! laugh.gif

Edited by Cletus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just saying that it's a bit more complex than "go 10 cm shorter" - that's an ok rule of thumb, but just like our old straight boards, turning radius and terrain need to be factored in - which will tweak the target length up or down a bit, as Cletus said. Back to the original questions, then - do the potential new boards you are looking at meet the criteria for the type of terrain you typically ski, and are they appropriate for your sking style and weight?

 

Add to the fact that the manufacturers measure everything slightly differently - ex. my buddy's 176's and 181's (k2 vs. rossi) are more than 5 cm difference in length.

 

Have fun shoppin'

 

...picks up stick and continues to stir waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PaulB,

 

I am skiing on 188 "Totaly Piste"...K2's hardpack, megasidecut tele ski.

 

I'm 170lbs and 5'9"

 

They feel big, but they sure are fun! I had some 180 Atomic shapers and didn't like them short. I'd faceplant in the powder alot more.

 

I had to upgrade to T1 boots because the T2's were too wimpy.

 

I'd say go with the 188's, shape or no shape...short skis are for girls. the_finger.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

short skis are fine.

 

I am 5.9 190 lbs and ski 183's.

 

I would take on a set of 165's if I wanted to hike solid snow and ski it in the spring \ summer \ fall \winter if I was a year rounder but I aint... Mostly it would depend on how far I would like to lug my skis.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 200+ pounds (all fat), and ski 188 Miras. Then again, they don't make em any longer, so it's not like I have a bunch of choices. bigdrink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd recommend trying the crossbows in the BC, these are some deadwood feeling planks, more suited for piste than off IMO, was also talking with a tele rider sunday at crystal that was experiencing this same feeling, felt better in the bumps and crud than surfing pow.

 

that said,

 

ski length? whatever...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, wait, it is that complicated after all - what about twin tips? Oh shit, the turned up tail is going to change the effective running length, so I'm going to have to do all my calculations over!!!! I take it all back. Disregard everything I said! laugh.gif

 

yellaf.gif OK, I WILL!

 

Twins are actually really nice in the powder... when you lean back to pull the tips up the tails still have surface area to slide on instead of cuting into the pack under neith the powder. specialy since the tails on twins are usually wider than regular shaped skis... Plus when a boarder cruses by thinkin he's really cool riding one of those manual things, you can just kick back and ride nothing but the back 5 in. of the ski... I ripped by one doing this on sunday, gave him the west side hand sign and he was like what the fuck!... hahaha.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rolleyes.gifgirls the_finger.gifbigdrink.gif

 

Long sticks are for Dinosaurs and FOPs' hahaha.gifthe_finger.gifboxing_smiley.gif

We aint' talkin bout these!

http://www.utahescapes.com/longboards.htm

 

hellno3d.gif Holy shit!!! skinning on those would be so hard... 12ft WTF....

 

LongBdMe.jpg

The ones to the far left got to be longer than 12 ft.

 

No way dood not happenin... Although i'd buy some just to display like it said, for a pinch of gold dust...

 

The lodge at willamette have some on the wall that are like 9-10ft...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×