Bear with me--maybe resort skis can be even shorter.. 172--168...

[DavidA]

Ok--I know we all watched the Olympic mogul skiers--I was surprised to to see the men were skiing on boards that looked like they were less than 170 cm's. I want to add something--I have a ski coach/teacher who is a member of Hall of Fame, 2x World Champion, legendary instructor (so he has some bona-fides) who insists that all resort skiers (even the great ones) are skiing on boards that are too long. By the way--without getting too lost in detail--I'm a very advanced skier--and clearly understand that longer skis equal more stability---but I'll tell you---the Olympic bump skiers looked like they were going pretty fast. I also understand that longer skis give you more of a platform--but, in addition, these men and woman are landing very big air. Maybe mere mortals like us actually benefit too.

Personally -I do like bigger longer skis in dimensional snow---but I'll tell you--I am beginning to think many of us (even good skiers) could benefit by taking 8 to 10 cm's off in-bounds. Seems like the best skirts in the world are. Thoughts--Best--David

 

[Josh Matta]

who cares about comp bump skiing.... its displine based on subjective pre determinded form and has nothing to do with function. I am certain that for heel slamming down a perfect bump line that 170cm are probably about all you want. Basically what I am saying is look at people who actual do what you do. If you want to just heel push down bump line, go for some 170 bump skis. If you want to do anything else especially off piste in 3d snow go longer.

Personally my balance is to shit, to ski small skis on anything but groomers, but I guess skiers with better balance and lesser skills than me would enjoy shorter skis.

 

[DavidA]

Josh--in all candor--it does seem like you are at the very least minimizing what elite bump skiers do and suggesting that it bears no resemblance to what the ideal looks like. The real ideal is not to be on edge all the time--but to only use as much edge as you need in any given circumstance (Bode endorses that statement) and from that perspective --there is a great deal of commonality between what great skiers do and what competitive mogul skiers do. Just saying...food for thought..

 

[BGreen]

A 170 cm, 16-18m sidecut, well constructed ski makes a great all-around resort ski, but it really depends on where/what/how you want to ski.

 

[cantunamunch]

Wait ...what are we talking about? Are we talking about bump skiing? Some sort of in-bounds all mountain skiing?

If the latter, I've got a counter-proposal for you: all mountain skis have already lost as much effective edge as they can possibly stand to lose, just by being cambered and rockered to within an inch of having the same contact points as my old skiboards. Taking more off - well diminishing returns jokes would be too easy.

 

[DavidA]

Cantunamunch---meet you in the middle---less rocker---more camber---shorter resort skis.

 

[James]

Is this thread from 2006?

Just start skiing on a 165cm Fis slalom ski. Good for most places. Sort of. No, not trees with 3-d snow.

Aren't they using at least 176 in mogul comps?

Meanwhile, I've been surprised about skiing a 192cm all day. Pretty good. Nice to have some length.

 

[jmeb]

A 170 cm, 16-18m sidecut, well constructed ski makes a great all-around resort ski, but it really depends on where/what/how you want to ski.

Adjust length based on the size of the person. But sure.

Zipper line skiing seeded, uniform bumps, and taking airs off manicured jumps has very little to resemblance the skiing that I'm doing.

Nor does the skiing most instructors I see on the hill are doing inside and outside of lessons resemble what I'm trying to do.

So why would our skis match?

On Friday I skied 177cm, 83mm waisted skis with an 18m sidecut. Had a ton of fun.

On Sunday I skied 187cm, 118mm waisted skis with a 27m sidecut. Still had a ton of fun. Totally different styles of skiing and approaches to the hill.

 

[DavidA]

James--the genesis of thread was that it appeared to me that the men were on 168's ---which I found thought provoking.

 

[Josh Matta]

Josh--in all candor--it does seem like you are at the very least minimizing what elite bump skiers do and suggesting that it bears no resemblance to what the ideal looks like. The real ideal is not to be on edge all the time--but to only use as much edge as you need in any given circumstance (Bode endorses that statement) and from that perspective --there is a great deal of commonality between what great skiers do and what competitive mogul skiers do. Just saying...food for thought..

What I am saying is who skis down the hill pushing the heals all the ways. There is very little in common with comp bump skiing and all mountain skiing.

I personally like it easy so I like longer skis to balance on.

 

[BGreen]

Adjust length based on the size of the person. But sure.

My point is as an all mountain, general resort ski, I could take a 170 Stockli (I think it was the SC) to go ski Vail and be content. I’m not saying it is the only size people should be allowed to ski, just that it makes a reasonable all purpose ski for me and a lot of people I know. I can also take a 190 GS to Beaver Creek and lap Golden Eagle all day and be happy, but that’s not something I would generally recommend.

On Friday I ... Had a ton of fun.

Tough man. That was a little breezy and the light a little flat.

 

[James]

James--the genesis of thread was that it appeared to me that the men were on 168's ---which I found thought provoking.

I see. 168 does seem short for moguls. So much for absorbing with the shovel. Maybe @jack97 will comment.

165cm has been a slalom standard for quite some time. Before that men were using 155's and 160's.

Guessing you missed the Atomic Metron party?

 

[François Pugh]

Horses for courses: 165 SL skis work very well at up to WC SL speeds. 185 to 195 GS skis work better for higher speeds on terrain that has bumps here and there or in 3D snow, and it's not about stability; it's about fore aft balance and pressure application and recovery from mistakes in same.
WC bump competition, tricks in the park, half-pipe, etc....I'm sure there is a best ski for that.
And if your turning, arcing on edge IS the best.

 

[Viking9]

I think it all depends on who your talking about , if someone skis 60 or so days a year then he can ski the longest soft snow lengths and the shortest hard snow length because his skill set never gets compromised.
Now for the weekend warriors I think their soft snow ski should never get over 185 and the 177 length in most consumer frontside rippers is a great length.
Obviously we’re talking about people who’s size is around average.

 

[jack97]

Ok--I know we all watched the Olympic mogul skiers--I was surprised to to see the men were skiing on boards that looked like they were less than 170 cm's. I want to add something--I have a ski coach/teacher who is a member of Hall of Fame, 2x World Champion, legendary instructor (so he has some bona-fides) who insists that all resort skiers (even the great ones) are skiing on boards that are too long. By the way--without getting too lost in detail--I'm a very advanced skier--and clearly understand that longer skis equal more stability---but I'll tell you---the Olympic bump skiers looked like they were going pretty fast. I also understand that longer skis give you more of a platform--but, in addition, these men and woman are landing very big air. Maybe mere mortals like us actually benefit too.

Personally -I do like bigger longer skis in dimensional snow---but I'll tell you--I am beginning to think many of us (even good skiers) could benefit by taking 8 to 10 cm's off in-bounds. Seems like the best skirts in the world are. Thoughts--Best--David

I heard talk from other coaches and former competitors that going long hampers the air they do. Before the inverts were allowed the skis appear to be longer, that most likely will get you better fore/aft balance when you're trying to max the speed component in the run and the pop (height) off the kickers.

As for resorts bumps and natural trails, ymmv.... I like them the same length as my height.... I see natural bumps in all sizes and sometimes I brain freeze on whether I can snake in a turn when the bump formation is so tight.

 

[wyowindrunner]

Took some bump lessons years ago from a very good instructor at Steamboat. He was of a slight stature but had quite short skis, even comparitive to his height. He could carve the troughs between the bumps, no heel pushing. When I went to a shorter ski, I found that my turn options and reaction ability for the asymetrical shape of real world bumps increase a bunch. My hard snow bump ski is a old K2 park ski- no rocker silencer 80-159, my soft snow bump skis are shoguns, 97-164. They work for me. And most of the folks I have skied with consider me a fairly proficient bump skier.

 

[CalG]

When I work on snow, 178 is fine, When I play on snow days, 190 is my choice.
Camber all the way to the tip .! ;-)

Firm and predictable snow allows MUCH shorter boards with confidence. It's the variables I like to cover with length.

 

[François Pugh]

Being a light weight, I like shorter skis for pressure on ice, but it's a trade off with the fore-aft balance issues and smoothing out of rough terrain that is much better the longer I go. I also like longer skis (and wider if the snow is soft enough) for a more supportive platform on snow. This is all regardless of turn radius. Still turn radius is connected to speed. You can only turn so short at a given speed.

 

[CalG]

you can only turn so short at a given speed.

Is the limit in the ski? Or in your legs?

I find the latter ... Straight ski or parabolic....

 

[François Pugh]

@CalG High school physics. Acceleration required to hold the turn is velocity squared divided by radius. F=MA. Critical angle required to carve. Approx turn radius dialed up on a hard surface at that critical angle.