# how long is too long?



## mishka (Apr 19, 2007)

recently I received barely used 2005 Dynastar Legend 8000 178cm did not had a chance to try them on this season  

  I am 5' 9"  155Lb  intermediate.  my skis right now 150's and 160's and178 looks like big jump. 
What you guys think.


----------



## tekweezle (Apr 19, 2007)

you will only know when you try them.  usually the longer the ski, the longer the turn radius.  as long as you are comfortable making turns on that ski, you would be fine.  some skis "ski long" and some ski "short".  or you might have to simply make longer turns.

also, if you had not gotten them mounted yet, you could get the bindings mounted a little more forward for quicker turning.


----------



## andyzee (Apr 19, 2007)

tekweezle said:


> you will only know when you try them. usually the longer the ski, the longer the turn radius. as long as you are comfortable making turns on that ski, you would be fine. some skis "ski long" and some ski "short". or you might have to simply make longer turns.
> 
> also, if you had not gotten them mounted yet, you could get the bindings mounted a little more forward for quicker turning.


 

Agreed, my skis are 162, 182, 188, enjoy all three. One difference, the longer the ski, the more stable it seems to be.


----------



## mishka (Apr 19, 2007)

tekweezle said:


> also, if you had not gotten them mounted yet, you could get the bindings mounted a little more forward for quicker turning.



they have demo binding and I can set it  forward from center mark. How far forward should binding  be moved?



> usually the longer the ski, the longer the turn radius.  as long as you are comfortable making turns on that ski, you would be fine.  some skis "ski long" and some ski "short".  or you might have to simply make longer turns.


when conditions is well groomed it is not a problem to make long terms but in more challenging terrain long redius terms really difficult.
in deep powder what better short or long skis? 


> you will only know when you try them



my only concern how responsive they will be @20M radius in bumps or on powder because on my 160's Rosi B2 I had difficulties to make  short radius turns in those conditions while on my 150 atomic R10.20 it was much much easier... .


----------



## tekweezle (Apr 19, 2007)

if you got Demo bindings, you can play with it till you get comfortable.

mounting the bindings more forward by say 1 to 2 mm will allow you to initiate turns quicker and easier.  so for groomed skiing, and moguls they say this is ideal.

mounting the bindings more rearward supposedly causes the ski to skid more easily.  it also allows you to balance better in powder by preventing "tip dive".  i think it enlarges the "sweet spot" on the ski too.

binding mounted dead center are sort of the compromise.

check out this article
http://www.techsupportforskiers.com/binding_placement.htm

the usual convention is 

shorter skis for quicker turns

longer skis for more stability, surface area, and maybe edge grip at the expense of turn radius.

you might be using the new skis more for out west trips and in the powder.  i think the legend is an allmountain twin tip.  of course you could ski any ski in any condition using good technique to compensate for the shortcomings of the skis.  the converse is probably true-a ski with favorable qualities might make your day on that condition more enjoyable.  that;s why we all have multiple skis.  you want to have the right tool for the job!

another thing to consider is the waist of the ski.  your B2 skis are probably wider than the atomics.  the narrower the ski, it tends to be quicker edge to edge.  so the B2;s might not be the best ski for carving on ice but better in powder.

goodluck!


----------



## KevinF (Apr 19, 2007)

mishka said:


> in deep powder what better short or long skis?



The longer the ski, the more flotation the ski is going to give you.  More float means you stay on top of the snow more easily, and the more you're on top -- the easier it is to turn.  Once the snow starts getting cut up and turned to crud -- again, a longer ski is more stable.  It's more resistant to getting pushed around by the snow, so you feel like you're much more in control.


----------



## riverc0il (Apr 19, 2007)

The 178 may be slightly more ski than will be comfortable for you and the next size down may have been a better option, but you can certainly make them work. As an intermediate though, you may find the 8000 a little too much ski but only getting on them and trying them out will answer that question for you.


----------



## andyzee (Apr 19, 2007)

mishka said:


> recently I received barely used 2005 Dynastar Legend 8000 178cm did not had a chance to try them on this season
> 
> I am 5' 9" 155Lb intermediate. my skis right now 150's and 160's and178 looks like big jump.
> What you guys think.


 

I think that they didn't cost you anything, you have them, so what's the difference. If you have difficulty with them now, doesn't mean you won't be able to enjoy them as you get better. As riverc0il says, try them out and you will see.


----------



## tekweezle (Apr 20, 2007)

another part of the equation is the relative makeup of the ski.  whether it;s stiff/damp or soft and it;s rebound characteristics.  I think your B2;s have the reputation for being softer which would make them good for bumps and soft snow.  your atomics are probably stiffer so would thrive better on hard snow.

you never know, the longer skis might help you become a more confident and advanced skier and help you improve your technique in other areas.  unfortunately, there is no one perfect ski for all conditions and all abilities.  what works for one person will not always work for everyone.

I have a pair of 167 K2 Axis skis that I purposely got shorter than what I was used to.  it turns well on hard snow and is maneuverable but still very stiff with good edge hold and stability.  however, it;s a little noodley in crud and powder.  so I use it as my east coast ski.

so I got a pair of 170 Salomon Scream limited with 80 mm waist.  edge hold on hard pack is not so great but it is pretty good on crud and soft snow.  so I use this as my west coast ski.

btw, I am 5 10, 205.  most people probably think I am crazy for skiing on such short skis but I like them.


----------



## andyzee (Apr 20, 2007)

tekweezle said:


> btw, I am 5 10, 205. most people probably think I am crazy for skiing on such short skis but I like them.


 
6'0", 245 162 Atomic Metrons  also like them, but prefer longer for stability and speed.


----------



## tekweezle (Apr 20, 2007)

what do you ski with on your out west trips?


----------



## mishka (Apr 20, 2007)

tekweezle said:


> what do you ski with on your out west trips?



this skis I purchased  with west trip in mind but realistically it little likely to happen anytime soon



tekweezle said:


> another part of the equation is the relative makeup of the ski.  whether it;s stiff/damp or soft and it;s rebound characteristics.  I think your B2;s have the reputation for being softer which would make them good for bumps and soft snow.  your atomics are probably stiffer so would thrive better on hard snow.



actually to my personal experience B2s very good on hard snow and on ice  atomics not as good. also I have very little experience in bumps and pow where on shorter atomics even they are much stiffer I felt in better control compare to B2 ....  nothing wrong with the skis  problem with the skier.. ..have a lot room for improvement

I reanalyzed that my original question should be asked differently.Should I keep 178 for the future  improvement in my skills or try to exchange with someone for something like 165 --170 




tekweezle said:


> you never know, the longer skis might help you become a more confident and advanced skier and help you improve your technique in other areas.  unfortunately, there is no one perfect ski for all conditions and all abilities.  what works for one person will not always work for everyone.


with same idea in mind I have one pair longer skis 175 Volkl Supersort five stars


----------



## andyzee (Apr 20, 2007)

tekweezle said:


> what do you ski with on your out west trips?


 
Last time out I started out on the 162 Metrons since they're mid-fats and then purchased K2 Apache Chiefs @ 188 for the powder. Last year I was skiing the Metrons.


----------



## SkiDog (Apr 20, 2007)

Ill tell you..I thought my GUNS were fat....being out in SLC for only a week and I ALREADY know they arent....seems the standard here is closer to 98-100 underfoot average...and about 188+ for length..and these are there everyday skis....the pow ones are even larger...

M


----------



## tekweezle (Apr 20, 2007)

mishka said:


> this skis I purchased  with west trip in mind but realistically it little likely to happen anytime soon
> 
> actually to my personal experience B2s very good on hard snow and on ice  atomics not as good. also I have very little experience in bumps and pow where on shorter atomics even they are much stiffer I felt in better control compare to B2 ....  nothing wrong with the skis  problem with the skier.. ..have a lot room for improvement
> 
> ...



there is not much difference between 178 and 175 in my opinion.  if you ski well on the 5 stars, you might as well keep the Legends unless you could trade them for something not in your "quiver" like a freestyle twin tip.

could be that you were already using good technique to work the powder and hard snow.  some people like a stiff ski on chop, crud and variable powder because the shovels don;t get deflected giving them the feeling of stability.  I certainly get that on my Salomon screams.

i think some people could like a soft ski in those same conditions maybe because it allows them float over the powder.  different strokes for different folks!


----------



## tekweezle (Apr 20, 2007)

SkiDog said:


> Ill tell you..I thought my GUNS were fat....being out in SLC for only a week and I ALREADY know they arent....seems the standard here is closer to 98-100 underfoot average...and about 188+ for length..and these are there everyday skis....the pow ones are even larger...
> 
> M



out there, they are blessed to be skiing 90% powder/10% hardpack with 10000 foot vert....and don;t need to slalom around slow skiers on crowded slopes

usually in the east coast, it;s the other way around.....

so out there, i think my everyday ski would be some sort of 110mm-130mm  waist like the K2 Pontoon!


----------



## andyzee (Apr 20, 2007)

SkiDog said:


> Ill tell you..I thought my GUNS were fat....being out in SLC for only a week and I ALREADY know they arent....seems the standard here is closer to 98-100 underfoot average...and about 188+ for length..and these are there everyday skis....the pow ones are even larger...
> 
> M


 
Here's a good deal on fats for you: http://www.backcountry.com/store/K2S0297/c1/s1/K2-Apache-Chief-Alpine-Ski.html You could just order and drive to their warehouse. I was there numerous times when I was out in Sandy. :grin:


----------



## tekweezle (Apr 20, 2007)

if those came on SAC at under $200, i just might have to take a flyer on them!  i am a sucker for sub $200 hi quality skis.....


----------



## SkiDog (Apr 20, 2007)

andyzee said:


> Here's a good deal on fats for you: http://www.backcountry.com/store/K2S0297/c1/s1/K2-Apache-Chief-Alpine-Ski.html You could just order and drive to their warehouse. I was there numerous times when I was out in Sandy. :grin:



Dude its LITERALLY a block from my office... can you say SCARY?

M

PS I want something over 100mm underfoot....the diff between 90 and 98 aint enough to make the jump


----------



## andyzee (Apr 20, 2007)

SkiDog said:


> Dude its LITERALLY a block from my office... can you say SCARY?
> 
> M


 
Not scary until you go there, loved that place. The only issue is that if you stop in, you may as well just have your paycheck deposited there every week  Seriously, good folks there, no show room to speak of, so if you order anything, you have to do it on line and then just go down and pick it up. Also, don't forget, they are also Steepandcheap


----------



## SkiDog (Apr 20, 2007)

andyzee said:


> Not scary until you go there, loved that place. The only issue is that if you stop in, you may as well just have your paycheck deposited there every week  Seriously, good folks there, no show room to speak of, so if you order anything, you have to do it on line and then just go down and pick it up. Also, don't forget, they are also Steepandcheap




I know the drill and i've been there already...


Dropped of skis at Black Daimond already too...thats close as well..

M


----------



## mishka (Apr 21, 2007)

I find on Internet a person from Colorado who have identical skis in 165 and   looking for 178...:smash:  

 question: how we would make an exchange to assure each other we both receive our part of trade? I intend to carry on this trade, the other side sems like too, but ....we do not know each other, no trail record of transaction will be created, no mediator to resolve situation.
 Any suggestions how to do it with min. out of pocket expense, escrow.com charges $25 per side?


----------



## wa-loaf (Apr 22, 2007)

You can both drive to Iowa and exchange them by hand. ;-)


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Apr 22, 2007)

tekweezle said:


> out there, they are blessed to be skiing 90% powder/10% hardpack with 10000 foot vert....and don;t need to slalom around slow skiers on crowded slopes
> 
> usually in the east coast, it;s the other way around.....
> 
> so out there, i think my everyday ski would be some sort of 110mm-130mm  waist like the K2 Pontoon!



..methinks you need to put down the brochures and spend time out there to realize your scenerio/description is pure fantasy regarding both the east and the rockies.


----------



## SkiDog (Apr 23, 2007)

mishka said:


> I find on Internet a person from Colorado who have identical skis in 165 and   looking for 178...:smash:
> 
> question: how we would make an exchange to assure each other we both receive our part of trade? I intend to carry on this trade, the other side sems like too, but ....we do not know each other, no trail record of transaction will be created, no mediator to resolve situation.
> Any suggestions how to do it with min. out of pocket expense, escrow.com charges $25 per side?



I think in a situation like this you must use some TRUST. I recently had a purchase of skis made through this board in particular. This seller actually sent me the skis BEFORE i paid, and he picked up the shipping. I looked them over and sent out a check same day I received them. 
Your results may vary, but since it seems you may have met this individual through a ski forum type situation I think you can feel safe that you're not dealing with someone looking to "steal" from you. You have like interests. 

M


----------



## SkiDog (Apr 23, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> ..methinks you need to put down the brochures and spend time out there to realize your scenerio/description is pure fantasy regarding both the east and the rockies.



Yeah those Pontoons would be a WASTE on what I skied at alta this past weekend...mostly dust on crust and the reverse camber on those would make that type of snow no fun to ski on...I'd say for an everyday ski anything over 90underfoot should be fine. I will go slightly bigger with maybe a 98-110, but right now I think my 90mm GUNS are fine....

M


----------



## tekweezle (Apr 23, 2007)

in that case, I think I;d do my best to avoid the dust on crust/hard pack.  i read in various trip reports that Alta has 12 inches of new snow so I;d point my skis in that direction.  preferably at some ungroomed bowl....


----------



## SkiDog (Apr 23, 2007)

tekweezle said:


> in that case, I think I;d do my best to avoid the dust on crust/hard pack.  i read in various trip reports that Alta has 12 inches of new snow so I;d point my skis in that direction.  preferably at some ungroomed bowl....



Good luck...and seeing as Altas last day was yesterday...get the skins ready. I figure they got about 7-10 yesterday and last night...but its closed so...

The "dust on crust" was unavoidable. most of the runouts are all chopped up...gets warm during the day and cold at night so freeze is inevitable. Grab the pontoons and i'll meet ya up there... ;-) 

M


----------



## SkiDog (Apr 23, 2007)

tekweezle said:


> in that case, I think I;d do my best to avoid the dust on crust/hard pack.  i read in various trip reports that Alta has 12 inches of new snow so I;d point my skis in that direction.  preferably at some ungroomed bowl....



Besides...you want a lot more than 12" on top of crust/death cookies for those pontoons to be very useful..

M


----------



## tekweezle (Apr 23, 2007)

yeah, I wish I could be there....

anyhoo, the point I was trying to make to the thread originator was that the 178 mm skis are probably not too unwieldy for him and could be useful in different conditions.  besides, he;s already got 2 other pairs of skis in the 160;s so why not try something a little taller.


----------



## ckofer (Apr 27, 2007)

Numbers are overrated. 

Just ski 'em. If you're not sure, just wait till you get on some nice groom. 

This winter I stopped in to a ski rental place (Great American Ski Rental? - N Conway). I asked if they had any Metrons my 14 yr old could rent (powder day at Wildcat!!).

"Oh that would be too much ski for him."

So we left. I have my Metron 11's (162) and thought he might like the M10's in a 150 or so. A few weeks later a found a pair of exactly that, barely used, at Outspoken by Mt Sunapee with nice bindings. $350 seemed decent.

A few trips later into using them his comment: it seems that I can everything better on these. 

My  point: don't worry about it too much. Just get out there and drive 'em. You should see the crap we commanded throught the snow in the 70's!


----------



## mishka (Apr 28, 2007)

ckofer said:


> Numbers are overrated.
> 
> Just ski 'em. If you're not sure, just wait till you get on some nice groom.... My  point: don't worry about it too much. Just get out there and drive 'em. You should see the crap we commanded throught the snow in the 70's!



will do exactly that. maybe   positioning  binding couple cm forward 
thank you all.


----------



## Terry (Apr 29, 2007)

I have got an older pair of Solomon xscreams in 178 that still ski real nice. I skied on them a fair amount last season!


----------

