# Ski Length Dilemma



## dlague (Aug 24, 2016)

I am considering a few pair of skis and the offered lengths are either short or longer than my current length.  Currently I ski a Dynastar Cham 97 184  listed below are some of the options I am considering. I used to ski a Rossignol Phantom 87 179.  With the Cham I increased length which was not a problem - seemed a little longer but got over it and it skied great.  Now the following are either slightly shorter or  a little longer than my Chams.  I am inclined to consider 180 length at this time.

Dynastar Cham 117  180 or 190
Rossignol Super 7     180 or 188

I am possibly considering others skis as well.

I am 5'11" and weigh 190 and consider myself to be an advanced skier.


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 24, 2016)

Those are powder skis for the deep stuff for you in CO so I'd go longer...more float.
My EC powder skis are 180's at 100 underfoot however and I don't think I would want them any longer for what we get here.


----------



## bigbog (Aug 24, 2016)

That's often the big "BUT"....  The popular lengths get sold off during the season.... 
 You sound like you're right in with us average guys dlague...it can be a little tougher to find the right length..


----------



## dlague (Aug 24, 2016)

bigbog said:


> That's often the big "BUT"....  The popular lengths get sold off during the season....
> You sound like you're right in with us average guys dlague...it can be a little tougher to find the right length..



Exactly, if they feel too short as a rockered ski then they might feel squirrely, although 180 should not be the case but I would have less surface contact than the Phantom SC 87  which actually were rockered too but not as much.



xwhaler said:


> Those are powder skis for the deep stuff for you in CO so I'd go longer...more float.
> My EC powder skis are 180's at 100 underfoot however and I don't think I would want them any longer for what we get here.



I also considered the 190's for that exact reason for more float but .... the trees and bumps feel trickier as skis get longer for me in any case.  My Chyam 97's at 184 were good in the bumps but I felt a little long.  In the trees I felt the same.  On open trails I loved the length.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 24, 2016)

If still in the east I'd go 180. Out there 190


----------



## Puck it (Aug 24, 2016)

My SkiLogik's are squirrelly with full rocker and 178cm. I wish I had went 188cm. Out 190 would the best.


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 29, 2016)

All the experts out there are on 180cm powder skis, that's clearly the way to go.


----------



## Scruffy (Aug 29, 2016)

Of the two you mentioned, if that's your only choice, go with the Rossi's at 188. With both those skis, compared to your cham 97s, your moving from short radius to medium ( 15M cham 97s to 20M with the Rossis and 22M with the cham 117s ). So, if you feel that the Cham 97 can be a bit much in the trees, then you want something that turns easier in tight trees, comparatively. The Rossi at 188 with it's tip and tail rocker ( compared to Chams with only tip rocker ) should have less running surface in 2D snow - so they shouldn't be too much. But then again you need to ask yourself: do you want a powder ski or a tree/bump ski? These are more pow orientated skis than your 97s. You can't expect to do everything well with one ski. I wouldn't go with the 180's for a pow ski for your size. I'm going to say the obvious: Demo if you can. But it sounds like you're looking to buy a deal untested? Nothing wrong with that, I do it too. Just be prepared to not like what you get.

Edit to add: If it's a pow ski you want, get the 190 cham 117, since you know the ski "type", but don't expect to ski the trees/bumps all that well.


----------



## dlague (Aug 30, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> Of the two you mentioned, if that's your only choice, go with the Rossi's at 188. With both those skis, compared to your cham 97s, your moving from short radius to medium ( 15M cham 97s to 20M with the Rossis and 22M with the cham 117s ). So, if you feel that the Cham 97 can be a bit much in the trees, then you want something that turns easier in tight trees, comparatively. The Rossi at 188 with it's tip and tail rocker ( compared to Chams with only tip rocker ) should have less running surface in 2D snow - so they shouldn't be too much. But then again you need to ask yourself: do you want a powder ski or a tree/bump ski? These are more pow orientated skis than your 97s. You can't expect to do everything well with one ski. I wouldn't go with the 180's for a pow ski for your size. I'm going to say the obvious: Demo if you can. But it sounds like you're looking to buy a deal untested? Nothing wrong with that, I do it too. Just be prepared to not like what you get.
> 
> Edit to add: If it's a pow ski you want, get the 190 cham 117, since you know the ski "type", but don't expect to ski the trees/bumps all that well.



Good advice thanks!  I do not mind going untested when skis cost $250.  I still will have the Cham 97s on those tracked out days.  Like the way they ski.  I guess I am looking for a powder ski that can do ok on groomers getting back to the lift.  My wife is going with the Rossignol Saffron 7 at 98 underfoot or Atomic Century at 102 underfoot both with good reviews.  My self, I am still looking at other options like Icelantic Nomad 105 since I demoed those at Cannon and they are super playful.  I may wait and demo because the Cham 97 are pretty good in powder.  At least spring powder.


----------

