# Please, help me with ski length....



## danpop (Aug 8, 2006)

I need your input on choosing the right ski length. Here are the details: I am athletic, 6’2½”, 205 pounds, strong intermediate (and very motivated to improve further). At this point, I mainly prefer to carve fast on groomers but looking to explore more diverse terrain in the future.  For the upcoming season, I decided to pick up a new pair of Volkl S5 Supersport (the 5 Stars replacement for ’07 season). What length should I go with: 168 or 175? 

Thanks.

BTW, my current skis are Fischer RX6, 170.


----------



## thaller1 (Aug 8, 2006)

danpop said:
			
		

> I need your input on choosing the right ski length. Here are the details: I am athletic, 6’2½”, 205 pounds, strong intermediate (and very motivated to improve further). At this point, I mainly prefer to carve fast on groomers but looking to explore more diverse terrain in the future.  For the upcoming season, I decided to pick up a new pair of Volkl S5 Supersport (the 5 Stars replacement for ’07 season). What length should I go with: 168 or 175?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> BTW, my current skis are Fischer RX6, 170.



I would personally go w/ the 175...  I'm 5 '10", athletic and went from 168 to 175 ..from Volkl 5 stars to Fischer Big Stix...  I feel I have more control and more speed!  Enjoy!


----------



## SkiDog (Aug 8, 2006)

Agree...go with 175...you'll be sorry if you dont...

M


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 8, 2006)

Welcome to the boards, Danpop.  

OK, here is some general advice.  First, I see that you want *this year's* ski (correct me if I'm wrong...).  You are going to pay big $$$$$ for those.  If you can, get holdovers from last season and save a few bucks.  Same performance, different graphics.  Are you getting a deal?  Pro deal?  

That said, the line for buying skis is, demo, demo, demo.  Have you tried the skis you are going to buy?  That is the BIGGEST way to determine if the ski is right.

Now LENGTH is a very important aspect of today's skis.  The general rule of thumb was that the experts should be on longer skis because of better handling at speed while others should opt for "easier" turning short skis.  But shaped skis changed that.  The same general rule still applies though...for on-trail, long GS, high speed turns, a longer ski might work better.  But in general, the market is going to "shorter is better."  So as for length, if you want "an all terrain" ski, I would not go above say 170 or so.  But then again, you haven't really said, "I want to spend 70 percent on trail, 30 percent off..." 

The BIGGEST variable nowadays is the waist size of the ski.  What are the dimensions of the ski you desire?  The sidecut, shovel width, waist width, radius, etc. tell us what the ski is designed to do.  Shorter radius = more of a "turning" ski that wants to be on trail and on edge.  Longer radius with less shape is better off-trail and in the bumps.  The average expert may want something in between...or if he/she can, one pair for each terrain type!  

So *for length*, in general, shorter is better for terrain diversity.  In terrain, I often wish for shorter skis and rarely longer skis.  *If you want to discuss this model* and if it fits, give us the dimensions of the ski, radius, etc.  

Good luck :beer:


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 8, 2006)

Ohhh...just saw the 170 length on your current skis.  How do you like the performance of that ski?  Are they still skiable?  If so, those can be the "fool around in the trees and bumps" ski (since it is probably a softer ski) and go for the 175cm length.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 8, 2006)

danpop said:
			
		

> I need your input on choosing the right ski length. Here are the details: I am athletic, 6’2½”, 205 pounds, strong intermediate (and very motivated to improve further). At this point, I mainly prefer to carve fast on groomers but looking to explore more diverse terrain in the future.  For the upcoming season, I decided to pick up a new pair of Volkl S5 Supersport (the 5 Stars replacement for ’07 season). What length should I go with: 168 or 175?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> BTW, my current skis are Fischer RX6, 170.



I'm the same height, 190 lbs.

I've demoed the S5 Supersports in both lengths. I'd buy the 168 ONLY for bump skiing. A nice quick ski, and great in bumps at that very short length, but they were very twitchy on groomed hardpack. They're too short for your preferred type of skiing.

Go with the 175's.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 8, 2006)

if you can't demo both sizes, i would suggest going with the 175 based on your specs provided. fwiw, i ski a 178 and am close to your physical specs, just a tad smaller at 6'1" and an expert skier. but what works for one person doesn't always work for someone else, so demo each size if you can. but i really think the 175 would work out better for you.


----------



## danpop (Aug 9, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Ohhh...just saw the 170 length on your current skis.  How do you like the performance of that ski?  Are they still skiable?  If so, those can be the "fool around in the trees and bumps" ski (since it is probably a softer ski) and go for the 175cm length.



I like my Fischer in 170. But I do feel that they are too light and sometime I overpower them (I am not sure it is the right word). I think I would like to get a ski a bit heavier and with more muscle and bite than the RX6. That is why I am leaning toward picking the Volkl in 175. Everyone else seems to think the same.

Now the question is, would the extra 5 cms be a burden if I get off the groomed terrain? I would probably think that it would not make a big difference. In any case, I have the Fischers as back-up…


----------



## roark (Aug 9, 2006)

danpop said:
			
		

> I like my Fischer in 170. But I do feel that they are too light and sometime I overpower them (I am not sure it is the right word). I think I would like to get a ski a bit heavier and with more muscle and bite than the RX6. That is why I am leaning toward picking the Volkl in 175. Everyone else seems to think the same.
> 
> Now the question is, would the extra 5 cms be a burden if I get off the groomed terrain? I would probably think that it would not make a big difference. In any case, I have the Fischers as back-up…


 
Not familiar with these skis but check out the sidecut/turning radius to get a rough idea.


----------



## danpop (Aug 9, 2006)

roark said:
			
		

> Not familiar with these skis but check out the sidecut/turning radius to get a rough idea.



Sidecut: 115-69-100 mm
Radius:  11.9@154, 13.3@161, 14.7@168, 16.1@175


----------



## roark (Aug 9, 2006)

16.1 is still pretty "turny", so manuvering around tight spaces shouldn't be a problem.  What might be a burden is the 69 waist if you get into some deeper snow. Should rip up the groomers for sure. 

Sounds like a great ski for the kind of skiing it sounds like you're into. Demoing is always better, but of course all the deals are in the off-season.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Aug 9, 2006)

danpop said:
			
		

> I need your input on choosing the right ski length. Here are the details: I am athletic, 6’2½”, 205 pounds, strong intermediate (and very motivated to improve further). At this point, I mainly prefer to carve fast on groomers but looking to explore more diverse terrain in the future.  For the upcoming season, I decided to pick up a new pair of Volkl S5 Supersport (the 5 Stars replacement for ’07 season). What length should I go with: 168 or 175?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> BTW, my current skis are Fischer RX6, 170.



I usually like to disagree with the majority, but I can't here. 175 is the way to go especially with your size and the fact that the ski you're getting isn't very stiff. You don't want to overpower your skis.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 9, 2006)

roark said:
			
		

> 16.1 is still pretty "turny", so manuvering around tight spaces shouldn't be a problem.  What might be a burden is the 69 waist if you get into some deeper snow. Should rip up the groomers for sure.
> 
> Sounds like a great ski for the kind of skiing it sounds like you're into. Demoing is always better, but of course all the deals are in the off-season.



Dan--

My thoughts exactly here.  The waist size may not work too well in off-piste stuff....it is a bit narrow.  My all terrain ski has a 74.89 mm or whatever waist and it works well.  

Now as for the ski you are on, you say that it does not perform too well.  *Remember that this may be a function of stiffness of the ski* since the RX6 indicates to me that it may be an intermediate/low expert ski that is not as stiff.  Softer skis bode well for bumps and trees while stiff skis "dampen" the ride for higher speed cruising and on trail performance.  

If you are going to keep the RX 6's, use them for off-trail stuff.  And if you are going to be skiing a majority of the time on trail, go with the new skis.  You are looking at a ski that wants to be on groomed stuff.  That said, it will of course work in all conditions, but maybe not as well.....

Have you demoed them?


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Aug 9, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Dan--
> 
> My thoughts exactly here.  The waist size may not work too well in off-piste stuff....it is a bit narrow.  My all terrain ski has a 74.89 mm or whatever waist and it works well.



Sure certain skis and dimensions are more conductive to certain conditions, but if the ski isn’t working too well off piste it’s probably because the skier can’t work too well off-piste. Ain’t no magic skis. I know I’m an old feller in here, but back in the day we use to have to ski deep snow on Head Competitions and the like.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 10, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> Ain’t no magic skis. I know I’m an old feller in here, but back in the day we use to have to ski deep snow on Head Competitions and the like.



Word bro!

When the shaped ski phenomenon started, I tried a pair and didn't like them, mostly because I'm a bump fanatic and I didn't like the way they skiied in bumps. I stuck with my 203cm K2's. And I considered those VERY short.

The technical director at Hunter's ski school noticed this and referred to my skis as "mortal skis". So I asked him if he thought he skiied better because of his skis and he said "of course".

From that moment on I referred to him as "crappy skier". Skis don't make the skier. A good skier can rip on a pair of 2x4's.


----------



## thaller1 (Aug 10, 2006)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Dan--
> 
> My thoughts exactly here.  The waist size may not work too well in off-piste stuff....it is a bit narrow.  My all terrain ski has a 74.89 mm or whatever waist and it works well.
> 
> ...



I skied the 5 stars for a year and outgrew them quickly...  I didn't like them in soft snow or powder....they were great on groomers, but required constant turning which I didn't like.. I wanted to glide and make big wide GS turns and found that difficult to do w/ these skis... IMHO


----------



## JimG. (Aug 10, 2006)

thaller1 said:
			
		

> I skied the 5 stars for a year and outgrew them quickly...  I didn't like them in soft snow or powder....they were great on groomers, but required constant turning which I didn't like.. I wanted to glide and make big wide GS turns and found that difficult to do w/ these skis... IMHO



This is exactly why demoing is key. I liked these skis for the very reasons you did not.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 10, 2006)

thaller1 said:
			
		

> I skied the 5 stars for a year and outgrew them quickly...  I didn't like them in soft snow or powder....they were great on groomers, but required constant turning which I didn't like.. I wanted to glide and make big wide GS turns and found that difficult to do w/ these skis... IMHO


what do you mean you outgrew the 5 stars? i have no idea what your ability is, but i wouldn't even be able to out grow a 5 star. it is designed to rip the groomers. these skis are made for ripping big wide GS turns. it wasn't that you out grew the skis, you just didn't mesh well with the ski. these volkls make your work and you really need to stay on top of them and drive the ski through the turn. they are certainly not meant for soft snow or powder. like jimg says, this is why you should always demo skis, what works for one person isn't the best for someone else, even folks of a similar ability level.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Aug 11, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> what do you mean you outgrew the 5 stars? i have no idea what your ability is, but i wouldn't even be able to out grow a 5 star. it is designed to rip the groomers. these skis are made for ripping big wide GS turns. it wasn't that you out grew the skis, you just didn't mesh well with the ski. these volkls make your work and you really need to stay on top of them and drive the ski through the turn. they are certainly not meant for soft snow or powder. like jimg says, this is why you should always demo skis, what works for one person isn't the best for someone else, even folks of a similar ability level.



For me your description is 6 star not 5. I found the 5 star a very fun, easy turning ski, best suited for short swing turns in the fall line. I thought the 6 star was much stiffer and a GS ripper.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 11, 2006)

highpeaksdrifter said:
			
		

> For me your description is 6 star not 5. I found the 5 star a very fun, easy turning ski, best suited for short swing turns in the fall line. I thought the 6 star was much stiffer and a GS ripper.



This matches my impressions...the 5 star was the turner, the 6 star the ripper.


----------



## thaller1 (Aug 11, 2006)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> what do you mean you outgrew the 5 stars? i have no idea what your ability is, but i wouldn't even be able to out grow a 5 star. it is designed to rip the groomers. these skis are made for ripping big wide GS turns. it wasn't that you out grew the skis, you just didn't mesh well with the ski. these volkls make your work and you really need to stay on top of them and drive the ski through the turn. they are certainly not meant for soft snow or powder. like jimg says, this is why you should always demo skis, what works for one person isn't the best for someone else, even folks of a similar ability level.



I mean, I overpowered them because of the lenth.. 168..needed a 178..but opted for a different ..because I didn't like to have to keep turning all the time..


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 11, 2006)

ah, word thaller, my bad, i misunderstood. HPD, yea the 6er is defintely the better one for really ripping the mountain, that ski doesn't do small turns, just rips the carve. but i wouldn't exactly call the 5 star a short/small turn ski, it is just a 5 star lite. racetiger slalom would be the volkl ski of choice for quick snappy turns.


----------



## askstowell (Oct 25, 2006)

This will be 3rd year skiing and have been on Rossignol all-mtn 170s the past two years and just picked up new Zenith Z5s at a 162 length. Ski shop said I'd be fine with the 162s as I'm 5-11, 200 lbs or so.  Not into the off the beaten path/glades, etc. yet, with goals this year of learning to hit bumps/mogels better and attacking some steeper terrain. Just a little nervous as I hear others with similar body type with longer skis while I see some with the length I just bought.

So are the 162s ok? Just curious as I'm still learning the in's and out's of all of this and looking for 2nd and 3rd opinions before I break these in (which I'm dying to do!).

Thanks!


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 25, 2006)

it all depends what works best for you, but 162 seems a tad small for someone with your specs.


----------



## askstowell (Oct 25, 2006)

riverc0il said:


> it all depends what works best for you, but 162 seems a tad small for someone with your specs.



Wow...quick response.  Thanks!

What might be some of the things I would notice or be concerned about?  Again, I've been skiing 170s for all of my two years so I really have nothing to compare or go by.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 25, 2006)

For the guy with the Vokls, you may want to look into the AC3's.  They are a bit wider in the waist at 76, and will give you that little bit extra for going off the trail, yet still be a ripper on the trails.  The should be right around the same price as the S5's, so price wouldnt matter.

The guy with the Z5's while a 162 is skiable, I think a 170 would most likely fit you a bit better.  They are a very fun ski for the groomers, and just a tad softer than the Z9's.


----------



## NYDrew (Oct 25, 2006)

danpop said:


> Sidecut: 115-69-100 mm
> Radius:  11.9@154, 13.3@161, 14.7@168, 16.1@175




no matter what it is, a 5star will never be something you would really want in the trees.  So you might as well go with the correct size at 175.  Your size simply put you there.


----------



## NYDrew (Oct 25, 2006)

askstowell said:


> This will be 3rd year skiing and have been on Rossignol all-mtn 170s the past two years and just picked up new Zenith Z5s at a 162 length. Ski shop said I'd be fine with the 162s as I'm 5-11, 200 lbs or so.  Not into the off the beaten path/glades, etc. yet, with goals this year of learning to hit bumps/mogels better and attacking some steeper terrain. Just a little nervous as I hear others with similar body type with longer skis while I see some with the length I just bought.
> 
> So are the 162s ok? Just curious as I'm still learning the in's and out's of all of this and looking for 2nd and 3rd opinions before I break these in (which I'm dying to do!).
> 
> Thanks!



Z5's are a great ski and the length would be just fine for you.  I am 5'7'' 160lbs at professional level.  I love my 162 Z9's on the bumps, glades and steeps, they are a great one ski.


----------



## danpop (Oct 26, 2006)

Thanks guys for all your replies. I ended up buying the Volkl Supersport S5 (the new 5*) in 175. Cannot wait to try them next month @ Killington; Thursday, Nov. 23 @ 8:30, first chair.... THINK SNOW & COLD.


----------



## Birdman829 (Oct 27, 2006)

You'll be fine with 162s. That ski is meant to be skied rather short.


----------



## Brettski (Oct 30, 2006)

No ain't this a hoot

I demoed the 6 star at loon last april....what a big fun ski that was...on the groomers...in the slop, it wasn't much fun...so.....it comes down to a quiver

I alrewady have my dynastar 203 vertical assaults for bumps...not very good for gs...tail won't hold

Pocket Rockets freeriders, big fun there too, just don't try to edge on steep, hard pack..they chatter and skip, but the sides of the trails always have snow, and then the 6 stars...I swear I was horizontal to the snow when slamming out some big heavy carves at speed..very fast...I need to pick up a pair

oh and my rockets are 185...who ever said go smaller is wrong....


----------

