# Advice in deciding on ski length



## daverissin (Nov 16, 2017)

Hi All, I am new to this site, but loving the content so far.

I am looking for some advice on choosing the correct ski length.  I am planning to purchase the Head Kore 93, and I am trying to decide between the 171 and 180. 
I am 5'11", 155 lbs., advanced skier with racing background (high school and some club racing in college).  I was leaning towards the 171 because of my weight, as I am worried I will not be able to turn the 180's as effectively.  That said, I do ski on the fast side, so the 180's would probably be more stable at speed.  
Any input on these skis or general input on what size I should go for would be appreciated.  Thanks for the help!!


----------



## WJenness (Nov 16, 2017)

Demo, demo, demo.
Ski them both back to back and you'll have a much better idea what each length feels like, and which you'd prefer.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Nov 16, 2017)

demo is right answer. 

but in general, 171 sounds really short for your height. granted youre a lightweight. i'm 5'11 195 and anything under 180 feels tiny to me.


----------



## daverissin (Nov 16, 2017)

Thanks, yes I will try to do that.  How do you go about finding out where and when Head will be doing demos?


----------



## WJenness (Nov 16, 2017)

daverissin said:


> Thanks, yes I will try to do that.  How do you go about finding out where and when Head will be doing demos?



Check the mountains you normally ski. When there's a demo day coming up, they will usually promote it very well.
Also talk to your local shops, they can get that info from their Head rep and get you that info.
A lot of times, local shops set up the demo days at a certain mountain. I got lucky and caught a Joe Jones demo day at Loon last year and got to try a bunch of stuff out.

I know that Sunday River usually does their demo days the Saturday & Sunday after Thanksgiving, so that is next weekend if you can get there.

Wachusett just posted a demo day they have coming up on Facebook. I have not read the details about which companies are demo-ing, but you can check that out.

Also, if you're certain you're buying that particular ski, you can probably demo direct from a shop. Demo days are great when you want to try a bunch of different skis out, but just doing a demo-rental from a shop for the ski you want to try could work too.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 16, 2017)

Demo is the right answer if you can.

I'm 5'8 170lbs and my newest skis are 177. My older skis are 170. From my experience, the newer skis with some rocker to them tend to feel a bit shorter than they really are.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 16, 2017)

Demo Day on Dec. 9 at Bretton Woods:


----------



## Tin (Nov 16, 2017)

5'11 and 155? Drink a protein shake. If you are not on 185+ with a 100+ waist youre a bitch.


----------



## andrec10 (Nov 16, 2017)

Demo....


----------



## Dickc (Nov 16, 2017)

Demo is the answer.  I demoed skis at Loon back a few years ago for the first time and found some I really liked, and I could not get to the bottom fast enough to give the Atomic guy back his Crimsons.  Boy were they BAD!


----------



## Bumpsis (Nov 16, 2017)

I find the demo thing rather over rated. In principle I have nothing against demos, but over all, it's hassle. First, you have to aim to be at the place where they have a demo day - so that's a wait. Then, everybody on the mountain seems to want to demo, so it's actually time consuming to get your turn and finally, skis that that are being demoed usually are not that you can get a nice deal on.
Better method, find out if the rental shop has a ski that you're interested in or at least similar in performance to your target ski and just pay for the rental. If you tell the rental shop that you're trying to dial in the length of the ski that may fit you best, I'm sure they will let you try couple of different sizes. Then order the ski on evo. I scored some great deals that way on skis that I absolutely love.


----------



## mriceyman (Nov 16, 2017)

You will regret going small


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 17, 2017)

Bumpsis said:


> I find the demo thing rather over rated. In principle I have nothing against demos, but over all, it's hassle. First, you have to aim to be at the place where they have a demo day - so that's a wait. Then, everybody on the mountain seems to want to demo, so it's actually time consuming to get your turn and finally, skis that that are being demoed usually are not that you can get a nice deal on.
> Better method, find out if the rental shop has a ski that you're interested in or at least similar in performance to your target ski and just pay for the rental. If you tell the rental shop that you're trying to dial in the length of the ski that may fit you best, I'm sure they will let you try couple of different sizes. Then order the ski on evo. I scored some great deals that way on skis that I absolutely love.



Id agree with this almost.......Before Going to Evo Id ask the rental shop if theyd give you a deal on the skis you rented.
when I was out west I rented Soul 7s, they were only out a few days before I got them as a rental. I asked about buying them outright and got a an awesome deal $450 shipped home included.Granted I still blew the sizing and sold them after one season but still got a real good deal so I didn't lose out too much $$$


----------



## Glenn (Nov 17, 2017)

mriceyman said:


> You will regret going small
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



Certainly depends. I went with a 170 vs. a 177. I wanted something I could take in the bumps and in the woods. I felt it was a good compromise. I can still open them up nicely on the groomers. 

Cliffs: Demo


----------



## daverissin (Nov 17, 2017)

Thanks everyone!  I’ll be searching for a way to demo these!


----------



## cdskier (Nov 17, 2017)

Bumpsis said:


> I find the demo thing rather over rated. In principle I have nothing against demos, but over all, it's hassle. First, you have to aim to be at the place where they have a demo day - so that's a wait. Then, everybody on the mountain seems to want to demo, so it's actually time consuming to get your turn and finally, skis that that are being demoed usually are not that you can get a nice deal on.
> Better method, find out if the rental shop has a ski that you're interested in or at least similar in performance to your target ski and just pay for the rental. If you tell the rental shop that you're trying to dial in the length of the ski that may fit you best, I'm sure they will let you try couple of different sizes. Then order the ski on evo. I scored some great deals that way on skis that I absolutely love.



When many of us say demo, that includes the "better method" you list. We're not all referring strictly to formal demo days where the manufacturer reps show up (or at least I wasn't). When you pay and demo from a local shop, they'll also often apply the demo fee towards the purchase price of the ski if you choose to buy from them.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Nov 17, 2017)

JDMRoma said:


> Id agree with this almost.......Before Going to Evo Id ask the rental shop if theyd give you a deal on the skis you rented.
> when I was out west I rented Soul 7s, they were only out a few days before I got them as a rental. I asked about buying them outright and got a an awesome deal $450 shipped home included.Granted I still blew the sizing and sold them after one season but still got a real good deal so I didn't lose out too much $$$



please tell me you immediately put real bindings on and that you don't ski on clunky hand-adjustable demo bindings.

oh, and random, but *FS - Salomon Guardian 16 bindings, used about 30 days, still in totally great shape just normal wear and tear, I just wanted to shed the weight and switched to look bindings without a touring feature. $225 obo. weekdays Brooklyn new York. weekends new England/upstate new York. holler at your boi*


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 17, 2017)

Glenn said:


> Certainly depends. I went with a 170 vs. a 177. I wanted something I could take in the bumps and in the woods. I felt it was a good compromise. I can still open them up nicely on the groomers.



Yeah, it depends what you want them for.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 17, 2017)

KustyTheKlown said:


> please *tell me you immediately put real bindings on and that you don't ski on clunky hand-adjustable demo bindings.*



Demo bindings have come a long way.  I have demo bindings on several pairs of my skis, and I notice no difference in my skiing.   They're not even that much heavier anymore (if at all).


----------



## mister moose (Nov 17, 2017)

cdskier said:


> When many of us say demo, that includes the "better method" you list. We're not all referring strictly to formal demo days where the manufacturer reps show up (or at least I wasn't). When you pay and demo from a local shop, they'll also often apply the demo fee towards the purchase price of the ski if you choose to buy from them.



This.  Demo just means "try out".  Free or not depends on your resourcefulness.

On mountain demo days are usually geared to the masses.  Expect to see the most popular skis available to try.  On occasion I've been offered something to try from the van, so my guess is if you look like you won't abuse the ski and are interested in something special, sometimes you get lucky.

Ski shops will cost more, but sometimes have skis that the on mountain reps don't have.  Or in the length you want to try. So it's a mixed bag.  With some skis they are very close and you'll wonder why you bothered.  Other skis that are described as being the same purpose/design are so different as to make you glad you never handed over your money for the  pair you don't like.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Nov 17, 2017)

181cm is perfect for you. I ski 185cm on any skis and 6 foot 200lb. I would go longer but never shorter.

Depends if you want to rip the mountain with a sense of stability or not. Short skis are for beginners.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Nov 17, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Demo bindings have come a long way.  I have demo bindings on several pairs of my skis, and I notice no difference in my skiing.   They're not even that much heavier anymore (if at all).



gapetastic


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 18, 2017)

KustyTheKlown said:


> gapetastic



Well apparently if you're a decent skier you can hack it.   Sure doesn't hold me back.  

I have skis with non demo (i.e. standard) bindings too, doesnt faze me either way.  I have friends who are a helluva' lot better skiers than I am that also use demo bindings on a few of their pairs of skis.  Doesn't faze them either.  

Perhaps it's more gapetastic if you cant hack it - food for thought.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 19, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> 181cm is perfect for you. I ski 185cm on any skis and 6 foot 200lb. I would go longer but never shorter.
> 
> Depends if you want to rip the mountain with a sense of stability or not. Short skis are for beginners.



So simplistic...  World cup slalom skiers typically use 165cm for example.


----------



## Jully (Nov 19, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> So simplistic...  World cup slalom skiers typically use 165cm for example.



And there are minimum ski length requirements in GS and SL or else everyone would use much shorter skis than they currently do.


----------



## kingslug (Nov 20, 2017)

Longer. I'm 6 ft and like 185's. My Kore 117 are 189 but thats a powder ski where longer is always better. You'll have no prob turning.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 20, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> So simplistic...  *World cup slalom skiers typically use 165cm* for example.



Yup.    

In the age of the modern ski technology, IMO more people are skiing skis "too long" for them than are skiing skis "too short" for them.  

This is a throwback to the old days where longer meant you were a better skier, and that mindset has pervaded & still persists psychologically today even though it no longer applies given today's technology.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 20, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yup.
> 
> In the age of the modern ski technology, IMO more people are skiing skis "too long" for them than are skiing skis "too short" for them.
> 
> This is a throwback to the old days where longer meant you were a better skier, and that mindset has pervaded & still persists psychologically today even though it no longer applies given today's technology.




"too long" and "too wide".  Fully agree otherwise.


----------



## Krikaya (Nov 20, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yup.
> 
> In the age of the modern ski technology, IMO more people are skiing skis "too long" for them than are skiing skis "too short" for them.
> 
> This is a throwback to the old days where longer meant you were a better skier, and that mindset has pervaded & still persists psychologically today even though it no longer applies given today's technology.



Thanks for saying this concisely. I would add that the lemmings are also on skis that are too wide at the waist. The head kores which the OP wants are 105!? which would work well in soft fluffy snow or out west but here in the northeast?

70 underfoot is perfect.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 20, 2017)

Krikaya said:


> Thanks for saying this concisely. I would add that the lemmings are also on skis that are too wide at the waist. The head kores which the OP wants are 105!? which would work well in soft fluffy snow or out west but here in the northeast?
> 
> 70 underfoot is perfect.



The OP wanted the Kore 93, not the Kore 105. While I agree 100+ is too wide for a daily ski in the east...70 goes too far in the opposite direction and is too narrow.


----------



## Krikaya (Nov 20, 2017)

cdskier said:


> The OP wanted the Kore 93, not the Kore 105. While I agree 100+ is too wide for a daily ski in the east...70 goes too far in the opposite direction and is too narrow.



A guy who knows a hell of a lot more about skiing than 99% of the people on this forum said

 “Ninety-five, ninety-eight percent of the skiing should be done on a ski that’s 70(mm) underfoot. It’s the way the physics and the energy transfer from the body to snow tends to work the best.”  Bode Miller

He's talking groomed or hardpack conditions.

When I first saw this quote it confirmed what I had learned through trial and error. Wide and long skis are a fad but if it makes you happy and contributes to the size of your peni.... er I mean quiver, go for it.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 20, 2017)

Krikaya said:


> A guy who knows a hell of a lot more about skiing than 99% of the people on this forum said
> 
> “Ninety-five, ninety-eight percent of the skiing should be done on a ski that’s 70(mm) underfoot. It’s the way the physics and the energy transfer from the body to snow tends to work the best.”  Bode Miller
> 
> ...



A racer saying a narrow ski is ideal...shocking! Under those exact conditions (hardpack/groomer), then I'll agree that a narrow ski is good (although I still wouldn't go much under 80 no matter what Bode says). Those conditions however are what many of us on this forum try to avoid if at all possible.


----------



## andrec10 (Nov 20, 2017)

cdskier said:


> The OP wanted the Kore 93, not the Kore 105. While I agree 100+ is too wide for a daily ski in the east...70 goes too far in the opposite direction and is too narrow.



84 underfoot is very good for the northeast and the occasional powder days and crud. Volkyl RTM 84 BTW. Demoed them last March and liked them so much, just bought a pair.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 20, 2017)

andrec10 said:


> 84 underfoot is very good for the northeast and the occasional powder days and crud. Volkyl RTM 84 BTW. Demoed them last March and liked them so much, just bought a pair.



Yup...my Volkl AC50s are right around that in the waist and what I use early season, late season, and anytime I expect hard/firm conditions.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Nov 20, 2017)

bunch of pansies with short narrow skis who hate powder in here.


----------



## Krikaya (Nov 20, 2017)

cdskier said:


> A racer saying a narrow ski is ideal...shocking! Under those exact conditions (hardpack/groomer), then I'll agree that a narrow ski is good (although I still wouldn't go much under 80 no matter what Bode says). Those conditions however are what many of us on this forum try to avoid if at all possible.



I think Bode is talking about recreational skiing under conditions that are the NORM in the northeast. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in the northeast so hardpack is a fact and impossible to ignore. it's great especially if you like speed. My skis are 67 and 65 underfoot which makes them very narrow focus. 

I just find it absurd that so many people are obsessed with the big big fat skis when they are exact wrong tools for the job, I wouldn't bring my beer league race skis to Utah. I'd rent powder skis there.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Nov 20, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> So simplistic...  World cup slalom skiers typically use 165cm for example.



Sorry the OP did not present himself as a World Cup Slalom Skier, I just gave him normal skier advice.


----------



## Domeskier (Nov 20, 2017)

Krikaya said:


> My skis are 67 and 65 underfoot which makes them very narrow focus.



How wide are they in the tip and tail?  The fattest ski I've been on is 77 under foot.  It carved a turn better than my daily drivers, but I'm wondering if that is the result of more side cut rather than width.


----------



## Krikaya (Nov 20, 2017)

Domeskier said:


> How wide are they in the tip and tail?  The fattest ski I've been on is 77 under foot.  It carved a turn better than my daily drivers, but I'm wondering if that is the result of more side cut rather than width.



the 16m radius skis are 111-65-93   the slalom skis are 122-67-102 at 11.7m radius

the 16m ski is very stable at speed and on hardpack but initiating the turn is tougher than the 11.7m radius ski which wants to be on edge all the time but is skittish at speed. No surprise there. I guess a lot of things affect how a ski carves.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 20, 2017)

Krikaya said:


> the 16m radius skis are 111-65-93   the slalom skis are 122-67-102 at 11.7m radius
> 
> the 16m ski is very stable at speed and on hardpack but initiating the turn is tougher than the 11.7m radius ski which wants to be on edge all the time but is skittish at speed. No surprise there. I guess a lot of things affect how a ski carves.



Those dimensions are extremely close to two previous pairs of skis I had and mine performed very similar to what you describe as well. They were both great back when I skied the Poconos all the time. Now in VT I wouldn't enjoy either for the conditions and terrain I encounter most of the time. 

But this is why ski manufacturers make so many different skis...everyone likes different things and has different skiing styles.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 20, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> Sorry the OP did not present himself as a World Cup Slalom Skier, I just gave him normal skier advice.



I was referring to your obviously incorrect '_short skis are for beginners_' blanket statement.  

Telling a 155 pounds guy that anything under 180 is wrong and that short skis are for beginners is not normal skier advice.  It is dumb advice. Sorry.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Nov 20, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> I was referring to your obviously incorrect '_short skis are for beginners_' blanket statement.
> 
> Telling a 155 pounds guy that anything under 180 is wrong and that short skis are for beginners is not normal skier advice.  It is dumb advice. Sorry.



OP is 1" shorter than me and the same weight I skied 185cm for quite a while. I believe the other option was 170cm? You want to go ahead and advise ski blade lengths based on some World Cup Slalom skier. OK, I'm just giving him normal advice so he doesn't regret ending up on shitty short skis.


----------



## kingslug (Nov 21, 2017)

Krikaya said:


> Thanks for saying this concisely. I would add that the lemmings are also on skis that are too wide at the waist. The head kores which the OP wants are 105!? which would work well in soft fluffy snow or out west but here in the northeast?
> 
> 70 underfoot is perfect.


I ski 105 everywhere. Don't see why its too wide. Perfect width for East and West. In my opinion.


----------



## Glenn (Nov 21, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> "too long" and "too wide".  Fully agree otherwise.



And in some cases, too rockered. :lol:


----------



## cdskier (Nov 21, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> OP is 1" shorter than me and the same weight I skied 185cm for quite a while. I believe the other option was 170cm? You want to go ahead and advise ski blade lengths based on some World Cup Slalom skier. OK, I'm just giving him normal advice so he doesn't regret ending up on shitty short skis.



So 9cm is the difference between perfect length and ski blades (180 vs 171)? Let's not be so dramatic.


----------



## Morwax (Nov 21, 2017)

Impossible to answer, the one best ski. Conditions vary, pitch will vary, big turns, small turns etc etc.. I have rounded it down to five pairs. Too short? No such thing.. two long? 5'9" used 205s in the eighties!


----------



## daverissin (Nov 21, 2017)

Thanks for the interesting discussion and useful information, everyone! I am definitely going to try to demo these before buying.

Why are there some opinions out there that 93 mm under foot is too wide for east coast?  I can see them being too wide for a race course that is perfectly smooth, but what about the standard crud that you have to bust through?  The turning radius of the Kore 93 is still pretty short at 16.4 meters, similar turning radius to the Volkl RTM 84.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 21, 2017)

daverissin said:


> Thanks for the interesting discussion and useful information, everyone! I am definitely going to try to demo these before buying.
> 
> Why are there some opinions out there that 93 mm under foot is too wide for east coast?  I can see them being too wide for a race course that is perfectly smooth, but what about the standard crud that you have to bust through?  The turning radius of the Kore 93 is still pretty short at 16.4 meters, similar turning radius to the Volkl RTM 84.



My opinion is that there are no "absolutes" as some people here seem to be preaching. I'm not going to tell someone their ski is too long, too short, too wide, or too narrow. The only person that should make those statements would be the person skiing on the ski. Do YOU like the ski? Are YOU happy with the ski? If so, then that's what matters. For anyone to find the "truly perfect" ski would require trying hundreds of different skis on the conditions that you want to target...which is simply not realistic.

My personal preference has trended towards wider skis over the years (but not super wide). And I am personally very happy on my current skis. To me 93 under foot is not too wide for the east coast. One of my pairs is 98 and the other is 85. The 98 is just fine (for me) once we have mid-winter conditions. My dad on the other hand has the same skis that I do, and he prefers the 85s on all but powder days. I prefer the 85s only for early season, late season, and hardpack conditions (this is not necessarily due to them being narrower however...the skis I have that are 85 in the waist are also a much heavier and stiffer ski that has excellent edging capabilities).


----------



## Jully (Nov 21, 2017)

daverissin said:


> Thanks for the interesting discussion and useful information, everyone! I am definitely going to try to demo these before buying.
> 
> Why are there some opinions out there that 93 mm under foot is too wide for east coast?  I can see them being too wide for a race course that is perfectly smooth, but what about the standard crud that you have to bust through?  The turning radius of the Kore 93 is still pretty short at 16.4 meters, similar turning radius to the Volkl RTM 84.



Some skis ski wider than others too. From what I have heard about the Kore 93, it still carves pretty nicely.

As for your comment about busting through crud, width can help, but also ski power/weight (depending on the crud and on your skiing style). If you like to ski fast and with power, some  wide 
 and rockered skis will not be the ski for you as they can throw you around a bit when going through crud. Hence why demoing is so important. My personal favorite skis for chop/crud are a little narrower and heavier, but many disagree!

Like cdskier said, demo and just worry about your preference. If you like how the Kore skis and you like how it feels at 170 or 180 or 160... then go for it!


----------



## Domeskier (Nov 21, 2017)

Krikaya said:


> the 16m radius skis are 111-65-93   the slalom skis are 122-67-102 at 11.7m radius
> 
> the 16m ski is very stable at speed and on hardpack but initiating the turn is tougher than the 11.7m radius ski which wants to be on edge all the time but is skittish at speed. No surprise there. I guess a lot of things affect how a ski carves.



Ah, thanks.  My daily drivers are bump skis - 98-66-88.  Since I spend 99% of my time in bumps, they are fine, but out of the bumps they are a pain to carve.  Not quite straight-ski era, but close.


----------



## Krikaya (Nov 21, 2017)

Domeskier said:


> Ah, thanks.  My daily drivers are bump skis - 98-66-88.  Since I spend 99% of my time in bumps, they are fine, but out of the bumps they are a pain to carve.  Not quite straight-ski era, but close.



I wish I could ski bumps. Recurring Back problems have limited me to groomers 90% of the time. That's why I love my quasi race skis. It's funny, I can ski full speed on GS type turns and straight down the fall line but as soon as I hit the moguls my back starts spasming.


----------



## Krikaya (Nov 21, 2017)

daverissin said:


> Thanks for the interesting discussion and useful information, everyone! I am definitely going to try to demo these before buying.
> 
> Why are there some opinions out there that 93 mm under foot is too wide for east coast?  I can see them being too wide for a race course that is perfectly smooth, but what about the standard crud that you have to bust through?  The turning radius of the Kore 93 is still pretty short at 16.4 meters, similar turning radius to the Volkl RTM 84.



I'm an ectomorph like you, 150 lbs 5' 10" and was trying to learn about the best length for a new ski. My go to length is 170 in a gs ski but I  went smaller for a slalom ski and didn't regret it. Lighter skiers can ski shorter lengths with no problem, if it works for them. I think narrower skis work better than wider skis going  edge to edge. If you like to point and shoot or schuss boom or ski into trees or ski  crud maybe a wider ski will work better. 

And if you're looking for advice who do you trust? Some anonymous blowhard klown on a forum or the most succesful American alpine skier of all time or some salesman in a ski shop? Your choice. I'll go with the knowledgable, experienced expert every time. Here's the full quote from Bode Miller in his interview with the Boston globe.

_2. When it comes to ski width, Bode says buck the trend: While wider skis tend to be en vogue at the moment, Miller cautions against them. In addition to putting stress on the bindings, he says, skis that are too wide can also negatively affect performance. “Ninety-five, ninety-eight percent of the skiing should be done on a ski that’s 70(mm) underfoot. It’s the way the physics and the energy transfer from the body to snow tends to work the best.”_


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Nov 21, 2017)

the guy who skis groomers 90% of the time is in here talking shit on people with progressive equipment who ski all conditions and terrain types. that's rich.


----------



## Jully (Nov 21, 2017)

Krikaya said:


> _2. When it comes to ski width, Bode says buck the trend: While wider skis tend to be en vogue at the moment, Miller cautions against them. In addition to putting stress on the bindings, he says, skis that are too wide can also negatively affect performance. “Ninety-five, ninety-eight percent of the skiing should be done on a ski that’s 70(mm) underfoot. It’s the way the physics and the energy transfer from the body to snow tends to work the best.”_



I do wonder if Bode was including things like tree skiing and ungroomed skiing. For bumps and hardpack, absolutely, but I don't even know of a 70mm ski that isn't a dedicated bump ski or a race/race influenced ski - neither of which I want to take into trees or any kind of crud. Narrowest freeride style ski I know of is the Latigo, which I actually like a lot.

It is also worth nothing that wide skis have become a lot better at carving in recent years. I demoed the Enforcer 93 last season and was shocked at its performance.


----------



## kingslug (Nov 21, 2017)

A friend of mine out west said it best. Ya need something to stand on ...he said this to my wife while she was standing on her 76's. And yes they have hardpack out yonder just like we do. My friends out there ski on 115's in everything. I even tried my 117's at Stowe this weekend. Just shmeared them all over the place. They do work on hardpack. Ice would be a bit sporty. Most times its the driver..not the car.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Nov 21, 2017)

it is definitely the driver, not the car. but the driver does himself a disservice by driving tiny little short toothpick narrow gaper cars.

I have 85s, for park, urban, and the very thinnest of early/late season days
I have 105s which I use every day
I have 118s for lucky days

my 105s lay trenches just fine when I want them to, and are way more fun in even a few inches of soft snow than your lame eastern twig skis.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 21, 2017)

kingslug said:


> My friends out there ski on 115's in everything. I even tried my 117's at Stowe this weekend. Just shmeared them all over the place.



Just because you can does not mean you should. 




kingslug said:


> They do work on hardpack. Ice would be a bit sporty.



You can carve 115 on hard pack, but don't try anything outside the natural turn radius.  Fat skis are just not a good tool for hardpack and are absolutely useless on ice.  We've all seen dudes straightlining icy runs on fat banana skis, but that's not skiing.




kingslug said:


> Most times its the driver..not the car.



The macho factor....  You're not a real skier unless you can ski hardpack with 115+.  Is it what you're trying to say ?  When I was a kid, you were not a skier unless your ski was longer than 200cm.   Nowadays it's all about ski width.  So dumb.

For the record, my skinniest ski is 88mm at the waist.   My fattest is my touring ski at 104 and my go to is 98 mm wide.   I hunt powder in the woods all I can.   I ski groomers and icy run when I have too and I do it without any problems.   I just don't go pretending they're the best tool for the job.  They're not.

If you mostly ski groomers (like 90% of skiers), there is no logical or physical reasons to pick anything above 85 mm at the waist.


----------



## Not Sure (Nov 21, 2017)

Krikaya said:


> I'm an ectomorph like you, 150 lbs 5' 10" and was trying to learn about the best length for a new ski. My go to length is 170 in a gs ski but I  went smaller for a slalom ski and didn't regret it. Lighter skiers can ski shorter lengths with no problem, if it works for them. I think narrower skis work better than wider skis going  edge to edge. If you like to point and shoot or schuss boom or ski into trees or ski  crud maybe a wider ski will work better.
> 
> And if you're looking for advice who do you trust? Some anonymous blowhard klown on a forum or the most succesful American alpine skier of all time or some salesman in a ski shop? Your choice. I'll go with the knowledgable, experienced expert every time. Here's the full quote from Bode Miller in his interview with the Boston globe.
> 
> _2. When it comes to ski width, Bode says buck the trend: While wider skis tend to be en vogue at the moment, Miller cautions against them. In addition to putting stress on the bindings, he says, skis that are too wide can also negatively affect performance. “Ninety-five, ninety-eight percent of the skiing should be done on a ski that’s 70(mm) underfoot. It’s the way the physics and the energy transfer from the body to snow tends to work the best.”_



I've skied narrow skis for 30+ years an 78mm was wide to me .....But someone posted a great deal on Nordica Steadfasts a couple years ago on AZ , when I got them they looked like 2x10's  @ 90mm. I mounted some tech bindings on them and on my first day out I made 4-5 runs on the Old Rossi B2's Which I really loved . My first run on the Nordicas  I was very impressed with their ability to plow through the crud and handled better than my old favorites! There was a little adjustment, I tended to clank the tips and inside edges together till I adjusted my stance . I'm thinking you might actually 
enjoy them more ? How wide is too wide?


----------



## ShadyGrove (Nov 21, 2017)

Short skis suck, long skis truck!


----------



## Krikaya (Nov 21, 2017)

Jully said:


> I do wonder if Bode was including things like tree skiing and ungroomed skiing. For bumps and hardpack, absolutely, but I don't even know of a 70mm ski that isn't a dedicated bump ski or a race/race influenced ski - neither of which I want to take into trees or any kind of crud. Narrowest freeride style ski I know of is the Latigo, which I actually like a lot.
> 
> It is also worth nothing that wide skis have become a lot better at carving in recent years. I demoed the Enforcer 93 last season and was shocked at its performance.



I'd like to know more about Bodie's theory on why 70 underfoot is ideal but I'll bet he's talking about trail skiing specifically. I've heard so many testimonials to the new wider  skis great performance I gotta believe there's something to it. 

But I should preface all my comments and observations with the fact that I am not a power skier and not an expert. I can "finesse" turns but could never make a Volkl turn the way bigger and stronger skiers can. I'm a whippet so I ski whippet skis.


----------



## Krikaya (Nov 21, 2017)

KustyTheKlown said:


> it is definitely the driver, not the car. but the driver does himself a disservice by driving tiny little short toothpick narrow gaper cars.
> 
> I have 85s, for park, urban, and the very thinnest of early/late season days
> I have 105s which I use every day
> ...



OH great god of skiing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I fear I have offended thee. Please have pity on my scrawny pansy worthless self!!

To gain back your respect I will immediately build a shrine in your honor and name it The Altar of Saint Krusty the patron Saint of all things Vertical. And next to the altar I will build a bonfire!! And onto that bonfire I will place my lame eastern twig skis and sacrifice them in your honor!!!

And the next time I ascend the mountain I shall do so with snowboards strapped to my feet. Wider is better. And if I see any scrawny, pansy skiers on toothpick skis I will smite them down in your name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cornhead (Nov 22, 2017)

Krikaya said:


> OH great god of skiing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I fear I have offended thee. Please have pity on my scrawny pansy worthless self!!
> 
> To gain back your respect I will immediately build a shrine in your honor and name it The Altar of Saint Krusty the patron Saint of all things Vertical. And next to the altar I will build a bonfire!! And onto that bonfire I will place my lame eastern twig skis and sacrifice them in your honor!!!
> 
> And the next time I ascend the mountain I shall do so with snowboards strapped to my feet. Wider is better. And if I see any scrawny, pansy skiers on toothpick skis I will smite them down in your name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Too funny, by the way, I own a pair of snowboards, 132 underfoot, l was happy to be able to use them somewhere besides Snow Ridge last year. They're not even powder skis, big mountain, pretty stiff, titanal top sheet. They are surprisingly fun to ski on anything but ice, stable as Hell. The lift line conversations are priceless, skis were cheap, $269 new old stock,  I used an old pair of bindings, just had to buy uber wide brakes.

I'm now tipping the scales at 260, I need all the help I can get on powder days. I bought a pair of Blizzard Brahmas for daily drivers, 87 underfoot, two and a half sheets of metal, should be a great every day East coast ski. Got the in 180, maybe 187 would've been better, I don't know.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## kingslug (Nov 22, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> Just because you can does not mean you should.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No macho factor at all. I always will say that whatever works for you is good. I don't care what people ski on. I picked 105 as it can be used on everything. The 117's will be for the deep days. My wife has 3 different width skis because she needs that. I don't. Thats it.


----------



## Bosco DaSkia (Nov 22, 2017)

Cornhead said:


> I'm now tipping the scales at 260, I need all the help I can get on powder days. I bought a pair of Blizzard Brahmas for daily drivers, 87 underfoot, two and a half sheets of metal, should be a great every day East coast ski. Got the in 180, maybe 187 would've been better, I don't know.




I'm surprised you like the Brahmas. I tried a pair at Smuggs at the end of last season and really didn't care for them. At least, not in the heavy wet spring slop I had to navigate that day. I was disappointed with the float, especially in the tighter woods where I really could have used the help.

Maybe I'll give'em another try this year in different conditions.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 22, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> Just because you can does not mean you should.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with this completely.  

Just because you can screw in a Philips head screw with a flat head driver, that doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job.  

My daily driver is a 90.  Wildcat only grooms 50% of their terrain and has plentiful trees. Perfect ski for that mountain. On the days that the natural terrain is off limits, I'd want something 80 or less and will be looking to pick something up for that purpose next off season.  My 84 waist Fischer Motives were designed to be a all mountain ski with a carving bias. I think even they give up a ton in carving performance.  

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## skiNEwhere (Nov 27, 2017)

OP, I wouldn't just keep your weight in mind but your height as well. Seeing as you are taller, your center of gravity will be higher as well. In your case I do think that a longer ski would suite you better.

As others have said a million times, DEMO! If you demo the longer skis, I'd make sure you take them in the trees to ensure you feel comfortable on them in tight places. (I wouldn't share this tidbit with the demo people [emoji38])


----------



## spiderpig (Nov 28, 2017)

Jeez, I'm 6'4" and just went UP to 178. I would not want to go longer since I ski all terrain. The salesman tried to get me to 88 width, but I stuck with 84. Probably for the best in the East.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Nov 28, 2017)

178 is way too short for 6'4"


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 28, 2017)

Bosco DaSkia said:


> I'm surprised you like the Brahmas. I tried a pair at Smuggs at the end of last season and really didn't care for them. At least, not in the heavy wet spring slop I had to navigate that day. I was disappointed with the float, especially in the tighter woods where I really could have used the help.
> 
> Maybe I'll give'em another try this year in different conditions.
> I got a pair of 187 last year and love them.They are a stiffer ski that can cruz high speed while being a mid fat.BTW I'm also about 250 at 6'3" and ski at faster GS speeds.
> ...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 28, 2017)

KustyTheKlown said:


> 178 is way too short for 6'4"



I'd be more concerned with net surface area rather than just the ski length.   Obviously 178 is pretty short for someone his height, but if it was fat underneath it might be okay in the woods.  But at 178/84 for someone who's that tall, it's not going to have much float unless he's Ethiopian.  If he stays mainly on groomers, it might be fine in to-each-his-own fashion.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 28, 2017)

KustyTheKlown said:


> 178 is way too short for 6'4"



This is once again a dumb blanket statement.

It would be true for fast speed big mountain skiing even though skier weight is the primary driver for length.

It would obviously be wrong for slalom racing.

It would also be wrong for a less aggressive lighter weight skier (even if tall) looking for a manoeuvrable ski.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 28, 2017)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'd be more concerned with net surface area rather than just the ski length.   Obviously 178 is pretty short for someone his height, but if it was fat underneath it might be okay in the woods.  But at 178/84 for someone who's that tall, it's not going to have much float unless he's Ethiopian.  If he stays mainly on groomers, it might be fine in to-each-his-own fashion.



Float is only relevant in powder which never lasts very long in eastern resort, even in the woods.  You can do fine in powder with 84mm width although they will not be the ultimate tool in virgin powder.  But then, how many virgin powder runs does one do in a typical eastern on-resort year ?

I've skied virgin powder on ski width from 70mm to 115mm.   It's more work on thin skis but there's a law of diminishing return with width.  At some point more float is not any better, especially at speed.  It's just different.  I'll even say that tip shape and rocker are significantly more important than width for powder once you reach a certain ski width.

Food for thought: For equal ski width, an aggressive 120 pound girl skiing 170cm long powder ski will have nearly 40% more float than a 180 pounds guy skiing 190 skis.  This shows that other criteria are more important than float, even in powder skis.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Nov 28, 2017)

cdskier said:


> So 9cm is the difference between perfect length and ski blades (180 vs 171)? Let's not be so dramatic.



For me it would be. 180 would even be too short. Maybe that's why you guys can't achieve TunaSpeed(TM) !


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 28, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> For me it would be. 180 would even be too short. Maybe that's why you guys can't achieve TunaSpeed(TM) !



The mere mortals on this forum cannot handle Tunaspeed, regardless of ski length.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Nov 28, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> This is once again a dumb blanket statement.
> 
> It would be true for fast speed big mountain skiing even though skier weight is the primary driver for length.
> 
> ...



It's not a dumb blanket statement if it applies to the blanket majority of skiers who are not slalom racers.

There is NO reason to ski 178 at 6'4" other than: 1) suck at skiing, 2) old age and afraid to break a leg

And for the record-- I don't care whatever weird skis or boards everyone likes to enjoy. Awesome. Rip it. I'm talking about peak performance recommendations for the majority of advanced skiers at a certain size and weight.

Go bitch at your local ski shop for giving you the same advice.


----------



## WWF-VT (Nov 28, 2017)

daverissin said:


> Hi All, I am new to this site, but loving the content so far.
> 
> I am looking for some advice on choosing the correct ski length.  I am planning to purchase the Head Kore 93, and I am trying to decide between the 171 and 180.
> I am 5'11", 155 lbs., advanced skier with racing background (high school and some club racing in college).  I was leaning towards the 171 because of my weight, as I am worried I will not be able to turn the 180's as effectively.  That said, I do ski on the fast side, so the 180's would probably be more stable at speed.
> Any input on these skis or general input on what size I should go for would be appreciated.  Thanks for the help!!



The best advice in deciding on ski length is not to ask for advice on a ski forum


----------



## mister moose (Nov 28, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> Float is only relevant in powder which never lasts very long in eastern resort, even in the woods.  You can do fine in powder with 84mm width although they will not be the ultimate tool in virgin powder.  But then, how many virgin powder runs does one do in a typical eastern on-resort year ?
> 
> I've skied virgin powder on ski width from 70mm to 115mm.   It's more work on thin skis but there's a law of diminishing return with width.  At some point more float is not any better, especially at speed.  It's just different.  I'll even say that tip shape and rocker are significantly more important than width for powder once you reach a certain ski width.
> 
> Food for thought: For equal ski width, an aggressive 120 pound girl skiing 170cm long powder ski will have nearly 40% more float than a 180 pounds guy skiing 190 skis.  This shows that other criteria are more important than float, even in powder skis.



This.  I love 84 in virgin powder unless it's cement.  In deep blower 70 is fun.  Sure, 105 or 120 has its place, if there's a crust you don't want to punch through, or if its 3 inches and you want to pretend its a powder day.  Probably all of us can ski 110 on a powder day, how many here can ski 80 in deep stuff well, and are preaching that 110+ is _de riguer_?  I'm thinking that's a low number.

News flash:  Float goes up as the square of the speed.  Speed is the great equalizer in width.   The fun level goes up with the square of the speed as well.  Everything is more dynamic in powder at speed.  Do you ski at the same speed in deep snow, tips submerged, as you do on groomers?  If not, why not?  (Not talking about tight trees)  At 25 mph, 70 mm underfoot provides a lot of float, and at 25mph (and up) if you are immersed the ski tracks like a race car, but if you don't steer with precision you will be going for a divergent ride and over the handlebars.

Also, the width of my size 11 foot at the arch is 80mm.  If the ski edge is inside the edge of my foot I am over the edge, the edge is under my foot.  At 110mm the ski edge is 15mm outside meaning beyond the foot.  It is no longer under my foot.  The geometry of an edged ski in a turn progressively gets worse the wider you go.  Can you make it work?  Sure.  But don't think there aren't some major compromises being made.

If you ski a quiver, and spend any time at all on hardpack days, you will enjoy a narrower ski.  The edge to edge quickness and superior grip will astound you. (If you keep it tuned)  If you only ski one ski and need an all purpose tool, 100 or so may work for you, but you are giving up edge control for slow speed float.  There's a lot of 84-90 carvy favored all mountain skis, (Rossi Experience 88, Volkl RTM 86, Head Titan, etc)  this is the choice for some improved float and still decent edge grip.  But 84 is still a compromise. My narrowest ski is 65mm, and it's a screamer.

So sure, pick the ski that is the most fun for you.  My problem starts when you start telling me my Mazda race car isn't as much fun as your Lincoln town car.

And lets be somewhat honest.  On an average Eastern powder day, I get 2-3 runs (If I don't get hosed) in virgin snow, then another 2-4 runs where I cross tracks and make my turns in a patch of virgin snow, then 2-3 runs in soft crud, trail edges, marginal tree lines,  and then it's mostly bump skiing.  Time spent in powder is short.  Powder days are few.  Your one ski quiver is going to be geared to what you ski 3% of the time?


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 28, 2017)

bdfreetuna said:


> It's not a dumb blanket statement if it applies to the blanket majority of skiers who are not slalom racers.



Not specifying anything is the definition of a blanket statement.



bdfreetuna said:


> I'm talking about peak performance recommendations for the majority of advanced skiers at a certain size and weight.



That's both correct and NOT a blanket statement.    Advanced agressive skiers at peak performance are NOT the majority of skiers.




bdfreetuna said:


> There is NO reason to ski 178 at 6'4" other than: 1) suck at skiing, 2) old age and afraid to break a leg



I know a lot of skiers who are expert and have no interest in tuna speed.  Let me put it this way:

There is NO reason to ski 185+ unless you are 1) expert 2) heavy 3) aggressive.  Anything less and you are a poseur.  And I see a lot more people who should go shorter than the other way around.

Narrower all mountain skis rarely reach 180cm in their maximum available length. That should tell you something.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Nov 28, 2017)

My one ski quiver was previously an 80mm 185 and now it's a 90mm 184 with overall better design.

I think of that more like driving a Subaru WRX than a Lincoln Town Car. Fun, good, and reliable in most conditions.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Nov 28, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> Advanced agressive skiers at peak performance are NOT the majority of skiers.
> 
> There is NO reason to ski 185+ unless you are 1) expert 2) heavy 3) aggressive. Anything less and you are a poseur. And I see a lot more people who should go shorter than the other way around.



I see what you're saying. I just assume most folks on a ski board are advanced skiers or at least aspire to be.

I don't judge people on what they ski, if they want to ski fat or narrow or full rockers on hardpack, I could care less. Just saying from my experience, which I think is in line with typical advice for advanced skiers, will give the best all around performance.

I've learned to muscle a ski if needed to be able to enjoy stability. Some people don't want to do that and don't want to ski fast, that's fine.


----------



## ss20 (Nov 28, 2017)

I'm 5' 7", 165lbs

181cm Icelantic Keeper SKNY skis, 95mm underfoot, rocker/camber/rocker with a massive shovel and is a twin tip.  
172 Dynastar CR 74 skis, 74cm underfoot, camber with tip rocker.  

Just in case the OP is keeping score....


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 29, 2017)

fbrissette said:


> *Float is only relevant in powder* which never lasts very long in eastern resort, even in the woods.  You can do fine in powder with 84mm width although they will not be the ultimate tool in virgin powder.



Well, yes, but that's exactly what I'm talking about for "all-mountain".  And I'm speaking to his exact situation as a really tall 6'4" male.   

I cant imagine a guy that big on 178 with 84 underfoot is going to get very good powder or tree skiing performance unless he's a beanpole.  He didn't give his weight, but figure 220 pounds and factor that in.   Again, however, if he's a groomer skier, then this doesn't matter.  

That said, I do agree the #1 "ski mistake" in 2017 is people skiing on skis that are longer-than-necessary.  But 178 for someone 6'4" is short as heck.


----------



## kingslug (Nov 29, 2017)

I was at Hunter for the storm of the century..7 feet in 4 days. Very heavy, and my 174 x 84 volkyls where a nightmare to deal with. Picked up my 98 twin tips on Saturday, came back on Sunday and had a blast. Its what turned me on to skis like that. Since retired those and went with a 105 as half my skiing is out west. And yes last season was spent in more powder than I could ever remember. Picked up 117's for those days. So I'll just bring both. I do have a pair of Sultan 85's lying around which I'm considering putting back in the quiver for the East coast hard pack days. I'm sure they would be truly better than the 105's in most conditions here.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 29, 2017)

kingslug said:


> I do have a pair of Sultan 85's lying around which I'm considering putting back in the quiver for the East coast hard pack days.



For east coast early season, really bad conditions, or about anytime in the Poconos skiing, I have an old pair of Salomon X-Screams which are 66 underfoot I believe.  I call them my Poconos Skis as that's pretty much the only time I ever use them. 

 My daily drivers are 90 underfoot, and they do very nice on groomed trails, but there's no comparison to the 66.  It's the difference between being in a sedan or on a motorcycle.  Only use them about once a year though as I rarely ever ski the Poconos.  I really should do more night skiing there.


----------



## daverissin (Dec 10, 2017)

I ended up making it out to Wachusett yesterday for the demo day and tested a bunch of skis.  The 180 cm is just about perfect for me for the ski type/shape I am looking for. 

Top 3 for me that I tested were:
1) 180 cm Head Kore 93 
2) 180 cm Rossingnol Experience 88
3) 177 cm Nordica Enforcer 93

I tried the 171 Head Kore and it was too short, for sure.  The 185 cm Nordica Enforcer 93 felt a little too long/stiff in the tails (maybe more because of construction vs. length.  The Head Kore ski is really amazing though.  It carves great and busts through chop and is super light and nimble.  

Either way, best advice was to just suck it up and go demo!


----------

