# Did I buy the wrong skis??



## beefstew177 (Oct 8, 2019)

Im an expert skier, who spends most of his time skiing with his beginner wife...so mostly groomers for me, but there are some pow days here and there, and I like skiing the glades at Sugarloaf and Sunday River....

So I wanted an all mountain ski. After extensive research and trying a few skis out last year, I decided on the 2018 K2 pinnacle ti 95...191cm. and when they arrived, they seemed long. They definitely are taller than me. I'm 6'2, 210 lbs on a good day, and so I debated back and fourth on the 184 and 191...but ultimately decided 191.

I'm nervous that I was overzealous and purchased more ski than I actually need..am I going to wish I went with the 184? I haven't mounted bindings yet cause I'm not sure if I'm gonna try and sell them. On one hand, the 191 gives me the flexibility to hard charge down some backside--but I don't want to feel clumsy or out of place on the groomers with my wife. What should I do??


----------



## cdskier (Oct 8, 2019)

What were you skiing previously? What lengths were the skis you tried out last year?

I don't necessarily think it is too long. I ski a 177 as my primary ski and am 5'8. So the difference between our heights and ski lengths is about the same. Of course there are many other factors than just height.


----------



## beefstew177 (Oct 8, 2019)

The past few years I've been on blizzards which were 180-- pretty snappy skis but borderline too short and beat to sh*t...and I tried out line and rossignol last year which were in the 180 range as well. The 191s are definitely the longest I've had. When I purchase (online) them I felt like I was making the right call, but when they arrived they were longer than expected. I have looked at some other 190's and they didn't feel as big. The pinnacles are relatively light so I'm hoping I still feel as nimble as before. I usually buy new then sell the old ones, but maybe I should just start a collection so I can select the right one for the day



cdskier said:


> What were you skiing previously? What lengths were the skis you tried out last year?
> 
> I don't necessarily think it is too long. I ski a 177 as my primary ski and am 5'8. So the difference between our heights and ski lengths is about the same. Of course there are many other factors than just height.


----------



## Sirbannedalot (Oct 9, 2019)

Dude definitely does not sound like an expert.  Classic rookie mistake.  Knew he was full of shit when he said I'm an expert but I spend most of my time on the groomers with the wife.  What a joke.  Even the 184 are too long for what you do.


----------



## WWF-VT (Oct 9, 2019)

If you are asking the question then you probably did buy them too long


----------



## Edd (Oct 9, 2019)

beefstew177 said:


> The past few years I've been on blizzards which were 180-- pretty snappy skis but borderline too short and beat to sh*t...and I tried out line and rossignol last year which were in the 180 range as well. The 191s are definitely the longest I've had. When I purchase (online) them I felt like I was making the right call, but when they arrived they were longer than expected. I have looked at some other 190's and they didn't feel as big. The pinnacles are relatively light so I'm hoping I still feel as nimble as before. I usually buy new then sell the old ones, but maybe I should just start a collection so I can select the right one for the day



Which Blizzards were they? 

At this point, you may as well take out the 191s and hope for the best. It’s not hard to sell barely used skis on Craigslist during ski season if they aren’t working for you. 

Your notion of having a quiver of skis is good. Very few people on this board use one pair of skis for all conditions. 

For groomers, shorter skis are better.


----------



## beefstew177 (Oct 9, 2019)

Thanks for your opinion guy, it sounds like you're a real nice dude. Besides, I skied out of the womb mf, I don't need the approval of a keyboard warrior with no friends. Also, when you get married one day, you might understand that your lifestyle has to change if you're expecting it to work out- not that you'll ever be tolerable enough for someone to be interested in you....I digress



Sirbannedalot said:


> Dude definitely does not sound like an expert.  Classic rookie mistake.  Knew he was full of shit when he said I'm an expert but I spend most of my time on the groomers with the wife.  What a joke.  Even the 184 are too long for what you do.


----------



## beefstew177 (Oct 9, 2019)

They were 2014 brahmas. The 191s are definitely going bro be skiable--i just haven't ever owned them that long so I figured I'd ask while their still new for resale purposes. Thanks for the advice!


----------



## cdskier (Oct 9, 2019)

WWF-VT said:


> If you are asking the question then you probably did buy them too long



I don't know. When I bought my Hell and Backs and first saw them after they were delivered I wondered the same thing. My cousin worked in the industry at the time and was very familiar with my skiing style and abilities and recommended the size though, so I trusted him when ordering them. After skiing them I was reassured and I have been happily using them for years now.


----------



## Edd (Oct 9, 2019)

beefstew177 said:


> They were 2014 brahmas. The 191s are definitely going bro be skiable--i just haven't ever owned them that long so I figured I'd ask while their still new for resale purposes. Thanks for the advice!



If you were able to manhandle the Brahmas I’d say your chances are good of the enjoying the new skis. Brahmas are not noodles.


----------



## beefstew177 (Oct 9, 2019)

Sweet, thanks for the advice man. If they're too much I'll convince my Sasquatch of a friend to buy em from me hahah


			
				Edd1026195 said:
			
		

> If you were able to manhandle the Brahmas I’d say your chances are good of the enjoying the new skis. Brahmas are not noodles.


----------



## beefstew177 (Oct 9, 2019)

Exactly. After everyone I talked to I felt like the 191's wouldn't at all be too much ski, but holding them in hand gave me my doubts. I'm sure it'll feel weird at first but after a few runs I'll adjust... hopefully....



cdskier said:


> I don't know. When I bought my Hell and Backs and first saw them after they were delivered I wondered the same thing. My cousin worked in the industry at the time and was very familiar with my skiing style and abilities and recommended the size though, so I trusted him when ordering them. After skiing them I was reassured and I have been happily using them for years now.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 9, 2019)

beefstew177 said:


> After everyone I talked to I felt like the 191's wouldn't at all be too much ski



Keep in mind that in 2019 there are hoards of skiers skiing on skis that are too long.   

Of the three potential cohorts of people:

1) Skis are too short
2) Skis are appropriately sized
3) Skis are too long

I would suggest that group #3 is shockingly large.  

 This is mainly due to the attitudes & beliefs about ski length in the pre-shaped era, which still persists today, even though it is no longer valid.   Get enough people to believe something, and even though that something is false, it may durably last.  You don't have to wait 30 minutes after eating to go swimming, and hair will not grow back thicker after shaving.


----------



## machski (Oct 9, 2019)

First off, I love my Pinnacle 95's (so much, I bought a second pair and are waiting til I kill the first completely to mount them).  I am 5'7", 173lbs and ski the 177cm length for comparison sake.  I find that length extremely stable at speed on both groomed, pow and tracked out crud.  They are snappy enough to ski them good through the bumps (outside of Rock solid, glacial bumps).  I'm not as tall as you are, but I would say that you can't really go wrong with the Pinnacle 95.  They do not require excess length to charge any type of terrain, the long length will drive a larger radius turn from them so if anything, you may find that length to not be as snappy in tight turns.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## kingslug (Oct 9, 2019)

I find 185 is a good length for everything. Shorter is easier in the tight trees though. My 191's are big powder boards but have no trouble on groomers..just not solid ice. Long skis on groomers work great..see how long race skis are.
I've read very good things about the Head Kore line. I bought the 117's in 191 length . The 93 width got very good reviews for all conditions.


----------



## Edd (Oct 9, 2019)

kingslug said:


> I find 185 is a good length for everything. Shorter is easier in the tight trees though. My 191's are big powder boards but have no trouble on groomers..just not solid ice. Long skis on groomers work great..see how long race skis are.
> I've read very good things about the Head Kore line. I bought the 117's in 191 length . The 93 width got very good reviews for all conditions.



Not everyone is Lindsey Vonn. She’s playing a different groomer game than anyone here. Traditional wisdom dictates shorter skis for groomers and trees, longer for pow, blah, blah.


----------



## machski (Oct 9, 2019)

Edd said:


> Not everyone is Lindsey Vonn. She’s playing a different groomer game than anyone here. Traditional wisdom dictates shorter skis for groomers and trees, longer for pow, blah, blah.


With the width out there today and what they are building the ski cores with, no reason to go very long anymore for Pow.  One size up from a skier's optimal length should be enough ski.  Any more, they will get difficult to turn tightly and be even harder should the terrain require jump/pivot turning.  Crazy long skis are only good if you intend to straightline Pow.  And as for race skis, only in DH, which his minimal turning compared to all other disciplines, are long skis still used.  GS skis are not that long anymore and depending on the Super-G set, racers may elect to use a ski closer to a GS length than a DH.  The days of having skis longer than you are tall have mostly faded into the past.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## kingslug (Oct 9, 2019)

When I was in Chile chasing around a friend of mine who is a racer. a 60 year old racer...he had his GS skis..I had my regular skis..could not keep up at all..not even close.
In Jackson I had my big bazookas, everyone else had ..smaller ones..it dumped overnight..they sank..I cruised by. 
To each his own but I think bringing the right ski does have advantages.


----------



## skifree (Oct 9, 2019)

slap them puppys on and have fun.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 9, 2019)

Who cares what length they are!  If you're out on the hill, regardless of how groomed or steep it is, having fun with your wife, that's a great day!   

In the future, if those days turn into on the hill with your wife and kid(s) that's an even better day that won't have you thinking at all about how long or short your skis are, their flex pattern, turn radius, tip width, rocker (or not), etc, etc, etc


----------



## JimG. (Oct 9, 2019)

kingslug said:


> I find 185 is a good length for everything. Shorter is easier in the tight trees though. My 191's are big powder boards but have no trouble on groomers..just not solid ice. Long skis on groomers work great..see how long race skis are.
> I've read very good things about the Head Kore line. I bought the 117's in 191 length . The 93 width got very good reviews for all conditions.



Go slug!

I am about to pull the string on a pair of Kore 93's along with a pair of 117's for powder days. Will probably go 180 for the 93's and 191 for the 117's.


----------



## elks (Oct 9, 2019)

I just changed my daily skis for similar reasons. These days I spend a lot of time skiing with the wife and teaching less experienced skiers so a long/beefy ski was a pain on a daily basis. Last season, I went back to skiing a shorter and less stiff ski, which was a lot more fun.


----------



## da pimp (Oct 9, 2019)

The beauty about the Pinnacle 95 and the entire k2 Pinnacle series is that there is a lot of front rocker, plus a small tail rocker.  They ski short, which means they feel like a shorter ski.  You will engage most of the ski length at high edge angles, and only a portion of the ski has pressure on it when mostly upright.  I have a lot of time on the 95 and 105, older models as well as the gray 2018-2019 version.  Standing upright you will pressure only about 150cm of the ski thanks to the early rise rocker.

The more you get them on edge the more the length rewards you with stability.  Since they are not stiff, the typical descriptive word is playful.  With a 95mm waist and 191cm, it will do everything you want on the East Coast and would be great as a daily ski out west.  And they are lighter than comparable brands.  

When running the groomers with your wife, try to focus on getting them on edge at slower speeds.  You will make effortless round turns, won't intimidate her by ripping away, and you can change your turn shape at will.

As with all rocker skis you don't want to sit back ever.  Stay forward and pressure the tips in everything you do and the ski will reward you.


----------



## mister moose (Oct 9, 2019)

beefstew177 said:


> The past few years I've been on blizzards which were 180-- pretty snappy skis but borderline too short and beat to sh*t...and I tried out line and rossignol last year which were in the 180 range as well. The 191s are definitely the longest I've had. When I purchase (online) them I felt like I was making the right call, but when they arrived they were longer than expected. I have looked at some other 190's and they didn't feel as big. The pinnacles are relatively light so I'm hoping I still feel as nimble as before. I usually buy new then sell the old ones, but maybe I should just start a collection so I can select the right one for the day



I don't see how 180 is too short for you, and for a strong skier I don't think +10cm is going to make that much difference.  5% longer. A skilled skier should feel the difference, but not be overcome by the difference.  One thing worth pointing out is woods and bumps don't elongate for taller skiers.  You're skiing a pattern laid down by the average 165 cm skier on the longest pair of skis in that model.  So you're further departing the groove.

As Da Pimp said, rockered skis ski short on the flat.  However in powder (and when I say powder I'm not talking about a 4 inch freshie) the entire ski is immersed and tracking 100% of the time.

If you recently bought the 2018 model, you must have saved $$, so  not a huge loss if you don't like the ski.  Consider skiing 2 pairs instead of one.  Maybe find an only driven to church on Sundays pair of used Brahmas, since you know and like them.

Looking around some liftlines it seems some guys buy their 1 pair of skis for the 8% of their ski days that are true powder days.  That's a heck of a lot of compromising for the other 92%.  

As for skiing with your wife, kudos.  I say you're doing it right.  However, you can sometimes ski the steep fork that rejoins the Blue cruiser.  You can sometimes take the double Black and meet at the lift. You can hang back and crank turns at speed to catch up if it isn't crowded.  And when she's tired or cold she can go in and you can crank it for 2 or 3 runs.

You say extensive research and trying out a few skis.  This year find some demo days and do less research and more trying.

How many days per season do you ski?


----------



## prsboogie (Oct 11, 2019)

You'll be just fine on the 191s and they do measure long, like 193.5 I think but the rocker kills the length. I say drill'm and rip'm

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## pauldotcom (Oct 13, 2019)

Edd said:


> For groomers, shorter skis are better.



Huh? For real?  I am 5'10 and wouldn't use a ski under 180cm for groomers. I actually use 180s in the glades/woods/bumps and looking for a little longer for groomers. At you're height, 191 is IDEAL. That is if you really are an expert lol..


----------



## slatham (Oct 13, 2019)

da pimp said:


> The beauty about the Pinnacle 95 and the entire k2 Pinnacle series is that there is a lot of front rocker, plus a small tail rocker.  They ski short, which means they feel like a shorter ski.  You will engage most of the ski length at high edge angles, and only a portion of the ski has pressure on it when mostly upright.



Bingo! What length will affect your skiing more - tip to tail, or the amount of edge on the snow? I say the later. And the more rocker, the less edge on the snow. Which is why my rockered up powder skis are about 10cm longer than my cambered front side skis. 

Stiffness also plays a roll but I would guess the skis in question are not radically different, but I don know for sure.


----------



## abc (Oct 13, 2019)

Edd said:


> Traditional wisdom dictates shorter skis for groomers and trees, longer for pow, blah, blah.


I don’t buy that. 

The only time to go “short” is in the trees. On groomer, you can get away with skis “too long” or “too short” easily. Any “expert” should be able to easily adapt to any length of skis on the groomer.


----------



## mister moose (Oct 13, 2019)

slatham said:


> Bingo! What length will affect your skiing more - tip to tail, or the amount of edge on the snow? I say the later. And the more rocker, the less edge on the snow. Which is why my rockered up powder skis are about 10cm longer than my cambered front side skis. .





abc said:


> The only time to go “short” is in the trees. On groomer, you can get away with skis “too long” or “too short” easily. Any “expert” should be able to easily adapt to any length of skis on the groomer.



Everything is a compromise.    The longer rockered ski will have more swing weight.  The rockered ski generally takes higher edge angles to engage, and doesn't engage linearly, meaning the feel changes as the longer edge engages, and the longer rockered edge can feel grabby sometimes in uneven snow.  

Even if you're an expert, it isn't about making do, its about maximizing fun.  Choose the right ski for the day, or if you only have one ski, buy one that suits you most of the time.  For many skiers, that means an "all mountain ski", which means it does everything sorta good and does nothing really good.  

If you're skidding turns, you're not as concerned with edge hold.  If you're carving turns, that by definition means zero skidding, all edge hold, so length matters.  You can overpower a too-short ski.  


Each ski does have its own personality, its own unique set of trade-offs,  so that's why it's better to ski it before buying it.


----------



## urungus (Oct 13, 2019)

abc said:


> I don’t buy that.
> 
> The only time to go “short” is in the trees. On groomer, you can get away with skis “too long” or “too short” easily. Any “expert” should be able to easily adapt to any length of skis on the groomer.



What about bumps ?  I am certainly not a mogul expert, but I struggle with longer skis in the troughs of big or tight bumps.


----------



## kingslug (Oct 14, 2019)

I discovered one thing about big fat skis in the bumps..the good bumps not the ice mounds..you can just glide over them as if they aren't there..


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 14, 2019)

kingslug said:


> I discovered one thing about big fat skis in the bumps..the good bumps not the ice mounds..you can just glide over them as if they aren't there..



You mentioned this last year and pretty much everyone disagreed with you.  I still dont get it.   "Big fat skis" are terrible in moguls.  They're pretty much the opposite of what you want.  The best mogul skis are relatively short, and have a very tiny waist underfoot.


----------



## kingslug (Oct 14, 2019)

Well..have they ever tried it? So lets say your in Jackson cruising around on a powder day on you fat boards and come across a huge mogul field..Jackson has tons of them. What do you do? I cruise right through them. Regardless of that fact that everyone says it can't be done. I do it all the time out there. Are you doing them "the correct way"..whatever that is..no. But it works for me and is a lot less work. At Stowe last year when it dumped a person I was skiing with who was a very good bump skier said " you dont turn  much" Well I don't have to today.
A lot of people out west use these fat skis ALL the time. They get through everything no problem..I ski with them a lot..and they are pretty damn good. I'm just happy to keep up with them. Its where I learned to ski this stuff.The East is different..super hardpack and ice moguls do not like fat boards at all.


----------



## Bumpsis (Oct 17, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> You mentioned this last year and pretty much everyone disagreed with you.  I still dont get it.   "Big fat skis" are terrible in moguls.  They're pretty much the opposite of what you want.  The best mogul skis are relatively short, and have a very tiny waist underfoot.


Couldn't agree more. My absolute favorite bumps skis are the ancient ("straight") K2 KV Comps with 63mm waist. They are 185cm and I'm 5'6". The skis are light and super easy to turn in bumps. Alas, my legs are not what they used to be and 4 or 5 bump runs just simply burn up my quads ( yeah, I'm old). 
My "regular" everyday skis are 80mm in the waist and although I can take them through a nice mogul field just fine, they are nowhere as fun as the KV comps.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 17, 2019)

kingslug said:


> Well..have they ever tried it? So lets say your in Jackson cruising around on a powder day on you fat boards and *come across a huge mogul field...... I cruise right through them. *Regardless of that fact that everyone says it can't be done. I do it all the time out there......*a person I was skiing with *who was a very good bump skier *said* *" you dont turn much" *Well I don't have to today.



I dont even physically understand this.  

It seems that you are saying that on fat powder boards you are essentially straight-lining huge mogul fields?  

The only thing I can think of when this could be possible is if it's such a powder day that what you are calling "mogul fields" really arent mogul fields.


----------



## Sirbannedalot (Oct 18, 2019)

You ask for advice but, once given you get all bent out of shape.  Call me a keyboard warrior yet you are the one calling me a motherfucker.  Actually I am married and my lifestyle is working out pretty well.  My skiing has increased.  Maybe you are the one that made a mistake getting married if your lifestyle had to change so much.  Maybe you could have her take a lesson.  With how short tempered you are, it's unlikely helping you wife with her skiing will lead to anything good.  And yes if you are asking stupid questions like this then you obviously aren't as good as you think you are.



beefstew177 said:


> Thanks for your opinion guy, it sounds like you're a real nice dude. Besides, I skied out of the womb mf, I don't need the approval of a keyboard warrior with no friends. Also, when you get married one day, you might understand that your lifestyle has to change if you're expecting it to work out- not that you'll ever be tolerable enough for someone to be interested in you....I digress


----------



## drjeff (Oct 18, 2019)

kingslug said:


> Well..have they ever tried it? So lets say your in Jackson cruising around on a powder day on you fat boards and come across a huge mogul field..Jackson has tons of them. What do you do? I cruise right through them. Regardless of that fact that everyone says it can't be done. I do it all the time out there. Are you doing them "the correct way"..whatever that is..no. But it works for me and is a lot less work. At Stowe last year when it dumped a person I was skiing with who was a very good bump skier said " you dont turn  much" Well I don't have to today.
> A lot of people out west use these fat skis ALL the time. They get through everything no problem..I ski with them a lot..and they are pretty damn good. I'm just happy to keep up with them. Its where I learned to ski this stuff.The East is different..super hardpack and ice moguls do not like fat boards at all.



Agree!

Granted I'm not seeking out too many bump runs on a true powder day, but for sure, on a warm, spring bump day, I'm 100% on my powder boards, and me and my Blizzard Cochise's are happy campers.

Now, if we were to talk about "firm" mid winter and/or post freeze up with just a light coating of fresh snow on them bumps, I'd want nothing to do with my powder boards and those types of bumps


----------



## skiur (Oct 18, 2019)

Sirbannedalot said:


> You ask for advice but, once given you get all bent out of shape.  Call me a keyboard warrior yet you are the one calling me a motherfucker.  Actually I am married and my lifestyle is working out pretty well.  My skiing has increased.  Maybe you are the one that made a mistake getting married if your lifestyle had to change so much.  Maybe you could have her take a lesson.  With how short tempered you are, it's unlikely helping you wife with her skiing will lead to anything good.  And yes if you are asking stupid questions like this then you obviously aren't as good as you think you are.




Wow, you really seem to be a douche!


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 18, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> I dont even physically understand this.
> 
> It seems that you are saying that on fat powder boards you are essentially straight-lining huge mogul fields?
> 
> The only thing I can think of when this could be possible is if it's such a powder day that what you are calling "mogul fields" really arent mogul fields.



I could be wrong but I think Kingslug is referring to one of the basically 3 ways I'm aware of to ski moguls.

1) zipper line, narrow flexy skis are best
2) slip-zip, basically still using the troughs but also turn/skidding over the top of the bump. Works best in spring or soft snow, any ski will do.
3) skiing moguls as if it's a GS run which involves bigger turns and skiing over the tops of a couple bumps between turns, and variably turning in the trough or over the top of a bump depending on your turn arc. This isn't something you want to do on a <><> run on an icy day..

I ski bumps all 3 ways depending on the conditions and my intentions, using the same skis (90mm Atomics for the last few years). But conditions and terrain dictate this a lot more than my absolute free will in the situation.

My guess is Kingslug didn't start utilizing technique #3 until getting powder boards (which will aid in stability as such).


----------



## mister moose (Oct 18, 2019)

bdfreetuna said:


> I could be wrong but I think Kingslug is referring to one of the basically 3 ways I'm aware of to ski moguls.
> 
> 1) zipper line, narrow flexy skis are best
> 2) slip-zip, basically still using the troughs but also turn/skidding over the top of the bump. Works best in spring or soft snow, any ski will do.
> ...



You can add carve 1 turn per mogul on the shoulder, skarve closer in but not slipping the back face.  Infinite variations of all those.  Wide range of personal styles and stance.  Constantly changing bump shape, spacing, trough depth and bump length.  Wide range of snow conditions.  Add up all the permutations, and it amazes me that anyone thinks "This ski is good for the bumps" or "This technique works in the bumps" as if there's one ski or one technique.   The thing that works best in the bumps is versatility.


----------



## dblskifanatic (Oct 19, 2019)

abc said:


> I don’t buy that.
> 
> The only time to go “short” is in the trees. On groomer, you can get away with skis “too long” or “too short” easily. Any “expert” should be able to easily adapt to any length of skis on the groomer.



Agree!  Longer skis provide more edge and control!  Once someone is used to the length then the trees are easy!  I find trees to be like skiing moguls.  

My wife used to ski skis that were 158 and eventually I had her ski a longer length which was 166.  The result was significant improvement in her skiing as well as terrain she was able to ski.  Last weekend. She used the 158s and she felt that they were a bit squirrelly.

Shorter skis are great for beginner IMO but once you are pretty confident longer lengths have a much better feel.  I used to ski 178 and now ski 186.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Sirbannedalot (Oct 19, 2019)

Like what you think really matters?  Newsflash buddy, it doesn't.


skiur said:


> Wow, you really seem to be a douche!


----------



## skiur (Oct 19, 2019)

Sirbannedalot said:


> Like what you think really matters?  Newsflash buddy, it doesn't.



Still doesn't change the fact that your a douche.


----------



## Sirbannedalot (Oct 19, 2019)

You have a lot in common with the first guy.



skiur said:


> Still doesn't change the fact that your a douche.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 19, 2019)

bdfreetuna said:


> I could be wrong but I think Kingslug is referring to one of the basically 3 ways I'm aware of to ski moguls.
> 
> 1) zipper line, narrow flexy skis are best



The way he's describing it with almost no turns can only be zipper-lining.  

And fat powder boards would blow for zipper-lining huge mogul fields.


----------



## kingslug (Oct 24, 2019)

skiing moguls as if it's a GS run which involves bigger turns and skiing over the tops of a couple bumps between turns, and variably turning in the trough or over the top of a bump depending on your turn arc. This isn't something you want to do on a <><> run on an icy day..

This pretty much. I find skiing every bump exhausting.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 24, 2019)

abc said:


> I don’t buy that.
> 
> The only time to go “short” is in the trees. On groomer, you can get away with skis “too long” or “too short” easily. Any “expert” should be able to easily adapt to any length of skis on the groomer.



Not sure about short + trees = better

I like stopping power in the trees. Like, extreme rapid, hockey-stop stopping power if needed. There's a few spots I can get hung up in with 185 cm skis but these are usually ridiculous shoots that almost nobody can really ski properly anyway.

And when you really need to hit the brakes on the luge track it's nice to have your tips and tails bite into the snow and brush on the sides. (or this can be a real b*tch if accidental)

It's pretty much whatever you're used to for your body type and style though. But for me ideal combo in trees seems to be a long rocker/camber ski that has rise on the tips and tails. Not talking exclusive pow days, then full rocker could be preferable and perhaps even greater length.


----------



## JimG. (Nov 4, 2019)

kingslug said:


> I find 185 is a good length for everything. Shorter is easier in the tight trees though. My 191's are big powder boards but have no trouble on groomers..just not solid ice. Long skis on groomers work great..see how long race skis are.
> I've read very good things about the Head Kore line. I bought the 117's in 191 length . The 93 width got very good reviews for all conditions.



Bought a pair of Kore 93's today:



Pretty stoked to get them out on snow. 180cm nice and light seem perfect for front side. Debated with Keith at the Pro for a bit and decided to order a pair of Kore 105's as well for an eastern pow ski. Got those in 180cm also more for tree action on powder days. 

Thought about the 117's and definitely would have bought those in the 191 length but realistically that's a western pow ski; the 105 is more suited to where I ski.


----------



## kingslug (Nov 5, 2019)

105 width is great in most pow..117 definitely a western ski..though I did use them at Stowe a few times.


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 5, 2019)

JimG. said:


> Bought a pair of Kore 93's today:
> 
> View attachment 25510
> 
> ...



Those are a fun ski ! Demo'd  them and the Enforcer 93, both real good east coast skis !


----------



## big_vert (Nov 5, 2019)

Sirbannedalot said:


> Dude definitely does not sound like an expert.  Classic rookie mistake.  Knew he was full of shit when he said I'm an expert but I spend most of my time on the groomers with the wife.  What a joke.  Even the 184 are too long for what you do.



Don't you know EVERYONE in the Northleast is an EXPERT. Until they go somewhere real and start crying for their mommies on anything beyond blew trails


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Nov 5, 2019)

oh ok...


----------



## JimG. (Nov 5, 2019)

Have heard nothing but good feedback on the 93's.

Very similar to my old Ramp Woodpeckers but even lighter in weight. 

Very interested to get the 105's out on some accumulated snow.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 5, 2019)

In general, I'd say pound-for-pound eastern trails are more difficult than western trails.  

It's the non-trail stuff & the hike-to stuff out west that's the hard terrain.


----------



## kingslug (Nov 6, 2019)

Due to conditions our double D trails are harder to deal with. If trails like the upper front 4 at Stowe had a ton of snow on them they would be a hell of a lot easier. The vertical out west gets you. Birds of Prey at B Creek is usually top to bottom steep bumps and long as hell but in good condition..a run like that here would be murder.


----------



## asnowmobiler (Nov 6, 2019)

JimG. said:


> Have heard nothing but good feedback on the 93's.
> 
> Very similar to my old Ramp Woodpeckers but even lighter in weight.
> 
> Very interested to get the 105's out on some accumulated snow.



I sold mine after very little use. I’m a big guy and I found them too weak for my weight and they felt sloppy.


----------

