AT-Setup vs Your Height-Weight.

[JayB]

5'10", oscillating between 175-185 these days and looking to swap out an '02 vintage set-up featuring 185s with dimensions something like 100-85-95 for something shorter and fatter.

 

Like the big boards for lift-served stuff, but hoping to go shorter and fatter this time without sacrificing too much flotation. Thinking something along the lines of 175cm that's ~120 at the tails and ~105 at the waist and wondering how other folks that have gone shorter and fatter have fared once they're pointed downhill.

 

 

 

[jon]

I've been pretty much skiing full time on my Gotamas partly because I'm too cheap to buy another set of skis right now and partly because I've become a powder snob, but they ski fine on groomed. Edge to edge they are going to be slower then what you previously had but unless you plan on hotdogging it underneath the chair who cares. I'm a big fan of the PM Gear skis too.

 

http://www.evogear.com/skis/volkl-gotama-2010.aspx

[hafilax]

I only took up skiing again a couple of years ago and have only skied one setup, white 168cm Gotamas (105mm waist) with dynafits. I'm 5'9"ish and about 155#. I like the width but I will go for a longer ski with my next purchase and probably something with a more early rise tip profile and flat tail. If you only have one set of skis for everything I would shy away from the fully rockered skis since the advantages disappear on hardpack and corn.

 

My Gotamas are mounted near the FR line so pretty far back. I find the tails too short and am often fighting to keep from spinning around backwards but I like the length in front of my foot. The early rise tip of my future ideal ski should allow me to add a bit of running length to the tails for turns while still being able to ski pretty centered while going straight. Something like the Coomback or a PM Gear or DPS ski if I suddenly win the lottery. I will probably go to somewhere in the 175cm range for my next ski.

 

jon, are you on the new fully rockered Gotamas? Do you like them? I checked them out at REI a while ago. It's a totally different ski. I'm surprised that they threw away the old design like that.

[JoshK]

5' 10", ~175 lbs and currently skiing on 172s or 175s. I skied a pair of 163s for several years, which are technically way too short for my H/W, but I liked them. Sure you sacrifice some downhill performance, but short skis rule for tight trees or manuevering uphill.

[Bronco]

5'8" - 175lb - 102/72/92 178cm

 

I agree that in the dense Pacific snowpack, a shorter ski is sufficient. Now that I think about it, I should have hung onto my wife's 163's and sold my 178's.

[JayB]

Thanks for the input - just to be clear this would be a dedicated BC setup.

 

Josh - what are the dimensions of your 172's?

[JoshK]

The 172s are 124-90-113.

[Hugh Conway]

5'10" 190lbs 193cm/107mm@waist plenty of fun for powder. For spring volcano skiing shorter + lighter would be nicer, but not for winter

[kevino]

6'1" 165 lbs...186 cm/102mm. I too only afford to have one pair of skis, but about 60-70% of my skiing comes off groomers because I'm to cheap to pay for lift tickets. Stable enough to get through crud, great in everything else. Coreupt Candide Pow.

[dbconlin]

5'9" 145 lbs, 171 cm length @ 99 mm waist. REally good all around (one-ski quiver) skis (Atomic Janak) but I would like to move to a 2-ski quiver with a slightly fatter (not much - 105-ish) ski with mildly rockered tip and flat tail (like the Coomback/Stoke/or one of the niche skis like prior or dps) for winter & general conditions plus a traditionally shaped lightweight ski in the 86-90 mm range for spring corn and ski-mountaineering. I would probably go in the upper 170s for the winter ski (rocker reduces effective length) and lower 170s for the light ski.

[rbw1966]

6'3", 195 and I'm rockin the Mt Bakers in a 181cm length. Dimensions are 120-88-108. I went from Karhu Jaks to these and, frankly, I liked the Jaks better in the pow but the K2s are a better all-around ski for a quiver of one.

[Maxtrax]

5'8" 165 currently on 170 Verdicts (128-98-116). My next pair of skis will be 175 BD Justice (138-111-123). I used to ski 167 or 174 Mt Baker Superlights but got tired of getting bounced around and once you ski a rockered/early rise tip ski it's really tough to go back.

[tanstaafl]

5'9" and oh, I dunno, 140 - 145ish?

 

I went from Dynastar Renegades that were 103-67-88 and 180 - 185ish in length to 160 Miss Bakers at 120-88-108 and found that they were the dream. I never realized how much I fought that old setup until I got the new one and I turned out to be not quite as shitty of a skier as I had always thought. Almost, but not quite.

[plexus]

5-10 & 165 lbs.

 

173 K2 Shuksans with Pure Performance bindings. Love them but you can get bounced around pretty good on Sustrugi on those guys. However I love the touring ability vs performance level these skis equilibrate.

 

If I could add another ski to the quiver, I would go get something a little fatter; would help on the Colorado powder days.

 

[img:left]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_EcJ-vCIJrIw/SfjOPMkWgII/AAAAAAAABWM/AmrFvQvvqzg/s1600-h/DSCN0953.JPG[/img]

[Figger_Eight]

5'8" 180lbs and recently just went in the other direction. I had 98 underfoot / 170's and am now on 108 underfoot and 181's. They have a bit of rocker on the shovel, so ski shorter on hardpack/corn but am pretty happy with the decision.

 

A shorter ski is nice in the trees and have a lighter swing weight if you need to turn your skis in the air...but in the mixed up, crappy snow (and if I'm lucky enough to get out in the good stuff) I'm happy to have a bit more length.

[Maine-iac]

Wow you guys are all skiing short sticks!! Can't handle a big pair

 

Im 5'10, 140lbs and ski 172cm (134-100-124) skis. It all depends on how strong/aggressive of a skier you are. If you get after it (and you all know what that means.... not pussy-footing around) then ski big skis. If I were to buy a pair of rockered skis I would be looking at a pair of 179s or 181 (depending on dimensions) which is larger than half of you ski and I weigh significantly less than all y'all.

 

For you h/w it sounds like you were on right sized skis, just get something a little fatter!!

[Rotary786]

I would definitely go longer then what most of you guys are skiing. While its nice to have a light setup I definitely think its worth the pound or pound and a half weight penalty to have the versatility of a longer ski. I recently made the switch from 170 Mantras to 188 Coombas (I am 5'11", 17o lbs) and was amazed with how much more comfortable I felt on just about every backcountry condition (the only exception being in extremely steep sections requiring jump turns, but even then they still handle fine).

As Maine-iac says, it definitely depends on how strong of a skier you are (although I would consider 172's way to short for his h/w) but I think if you give longer skis a chance you definitely wont regret it. My brother is 5'6" and on a good day cracks 100 lbs and when he made the switch from 155's (not sure what the ski was) to 167 Mt. Bakers the difference was night and day as far as his skiing ability. Longer skis take some getting used to but in the end are definitely worth it.

 

Here is a pretty cool chart with ski weights: http://www.bentgate.com/skidiandwe.html