Height vs Weight...

[Wasatchman]

I find this discussion interesting. I am 5'8" and 185 lbs my preference is a 170-177 or so length.

Technically, I should be on a longer ski I suppose according to my weight but I like the 170-177 size range as I spend a fair bit of time in the bumps and don't typically decide to go mach schnell on groomers. In fact, a Kastle MX89 in a 173 gives me all the hold I could ever ask for, so just don't see going longer.

Even in my more svelte days, I preferred a ski aalittle shorter than most would recommend.

But ever since I've come to grips with I'm just not very good (and the longer I ski I don't even know what good is anymore as I see so many incredible things) I am fine with it. Now I'm not so defensive when somebody says my skis are too short for my weight. I just shrug my shoulders and say yeah, but I'm not very good, so I prefer the shorter length. Funny how much better I feel when I've just accept the fact I'm not a very good skier

Maybe once I got used to the longer lengths I would prefer it. But if a ski seems stable enough for me at the speeds I typically ski, what is the upside of going longer?

 

[Jean-Benoit]

I find this discussion interesting. I am 5'8" and 185 lbs my preference is a 170-177 or so length.

Technically, I should be on a longer ski I suppose according to my weight but I like the 170-177 size range as I spend a fair bit of time in the bumps and don't typically decide to go mach schnell on groomers. In fact, a Kastle MX89 in a 173 gives me all the hold I could ever ask for, so just don't see going longer.

Even in my more svelte days, I preferred a ski aalittle shorter than most would recommend.

But ever since I've come to grips with I'm just not very good (and the longer I ski I don't even know what good is anymore as I see so many incredible things) I am fine with it. Now I'm not so defensive when somebody says my skis are too short for my weight. I just shrug my shoulders and say yeah, but I'm not very good, so I prefer the shorter length. Funny how much better I feel when I've just accept the fact I'm not a very good skier

Maybe once I got used to the longer lengths I would prefer it. But if a ski seems stable enough for me at the speeds I typically ski, what is the upside of going longer?

Love that kind of honesty... A rare thing on forums it seems. Just to add credence to your point: even as a reasonably good skier (but certainly far from an expert), I too have mostly been using skis that would be considered short for me, if I was to follow charts and usual guidelines. I'm 6'6" 200lbs, and the most fun length for me, for groomer skis, has been 170-175cm (they come up between chin and mouth). For all-mountain, the few skis I tried above 180cm just felt unwieldy and not nearly as much fun. Mind you, I never tried skis with a lot of rocker (Enforcers and the like) - a big factor in length selection.

 

[Jean-Benoit]

For those who haven't read it already, Blister has a great article on choosing ski length:
https://blisterreview.com/recommended/how-to-think-about-ski-length

 

[François Pugh]

Love that kind of honesty... A rare thing on forums it seems. Just to add credence to your point: even as a reasonably good skier (but certainly far from an expert), I too have mostly been using skis that would be considered short for me, if I was to follow charts and usual guidelines. I'm 6'6" 200lbs, and the most fun length for me, for groomer skis, has been 170-175cm (they come up between chin and mouth). For all-mountain, the few skis I tried above 180cm just felt unwieldy and not nearly as much fun. Mind you, I never tried skis with a lot of rocker (Enforcers and the like) - a big factor in length selection.

What skis? 170-175 is short for a GS, but long for a SL.

 

[Jean-Benoit]

What skis? 170-175 is short for a GS, but long for a SL.

I loved the Head Rallys in 170, and now own (and love) the Laser AX in 175.
Blossom White Outs in 182 felt too long for my taste (it was the first ski I bought "for my height").

 

[François Pugh]

I loved the Head Rallys in 170, and now own (and love) the Laser AX in 175.
Blossom White Outs in 182 felt too long for my taste (it was the first ski I bought "for my height").

Head Rally 170 -2nd longest length check
Laser AX 175 - 2nd longest length check
blossom White Outs 182 - Longest length too long
I see a pattern.

 

[Jean-Benoit]

Head Rally 170 -2nd longest length check
Laser AX 175 - 2nd longest length check
blossom White Outs 182 - Longest length too long
I see a pattern.

Good catch Watson.

 

[cantunamunch]

...but what about the retro gear

 

[Wasatchman]

Love that kind of honesty... A rare thing on forums it seems. Just to add credence to your point: even as a reasonably good skier (but certainly far from an expert), I too have mostly been using skis that would be considered short for me, if I was to follow charts and usual guidelines. I'm 6'6" 200lbs, and the most fun length for me, for groomer skis, has been 170-175cm (they come up between chin and mouth). For all-mountain, the few skis I tried above 180cm just felt unwieldy and not nearly as much fun. Mind you, I never tried skis with a lot of rocker (Enforcers and the like) - a big factor in length selection.

Thanks! I'm an experienced skier. But I'm not very good compared to experts I see on the mountain. In fact, the longer I ski, the more I don't know how to even consider what a good skier is. I see so much incredible stuff on the mountains, and I am using good within context of being a local in a ski town.

In that context, I've just found it liberating to just say and accept I'm not that good. Suddenly I don't worry so much if my skis are considered too short, I struggle on ice, etc.

 

[François Pugh]

...but what about the retro gear

My typical favorite size is 2nd longest.
I actually tried the top three lengths of my antique SGs, and ended up with the second longest length; the longest length was too much work in moguls (mind you I didn't have a clue how to ski moguls back then).
Volant Machete Gs (2002) got the longest length (188 cm), and am guessing on shorter would be better.

 

[cantunamunch]

My typical favorite size is 2nd longest..

You sidestepped my ulterior motive in asking, which was to point out that target length is a function of the current-at-purchase ski design fashions.

 

[coachmdd]

IMO nothing of this matter. More important find best ski for the skier regardless of those charts and suggestions.

In my experience designing and building skis. skiers with weight from 150 to 250 pounds ...from 5'3" to 6'5" tall .... boots from 275 to 340, 25 to 75 years old, all strong skiers and like same ski MR-95 which is a relatively stiff and 185 long.

I understand this is monkeywrench into standard approach to the subject.

I believe nothing else matter except..... you, your skis and amount fun you have on them

Absolutely agree with your opinion.

But for those who can’t-don’t have a demo option, there is a need for some baseline metrics.

 

[Africa]

Also, actual lengths vary. Eg: 180cm Blizzard Bonafide measures 177.6 cm, and the 177cm Volkl Mantra M5 measures 178.2

 

[Noodler]

Also, actual lengths vary. Eg: 180cm Blizzard Bonafide measures 177.6 cm, and the 177cm Volkl Mantra M5 measures 178.2

The method of measuring ski length varies. Some manufacturers use chord length (distance from tip to tail along the shortest line between them), while most others now use the length of the base taken directly following along the base material.

 

[LiquidFeet]

I've noticed, that for me the 2nd longest length seems to be the ideal compromise.

The math isn't that complicated. Skis are made for skiers in a weight range for people from lightest person that ski is designed for to the heaviest skiers. Where you stand in regards to your weight relative to the range of weights other skiers who might use that ski determies where you should be with regards to the range of lengths the ski comes in. Go up by one length if you ski very fast, or make high-g turns on soft snow. Go down by one length if you ski slowly and don't demand high g forces from the ski on soft snow.

^^This.
Keep it simple. The manufacturers have already done the math.

 

[Lorenzzo]

^^This.
Keep it simple. The manufacturers have already done the math.

Every good ski I've ever had, except one, turns out I was/am on the second length. Works extremely well with Stockli for me. The exception was Head Titans where I went with the longest length to get a little larger radius.

At this point, I just grab the second length without thinking about it.

 

[mishka]

Absolutely agree with your opinion.

But for those who can’t-don’t have a demo option, there is a need for some baseline metrics.

it's always a option. It's take time and cost money but is a option.

I said it many times. It's only two ways to get perfect skis… Find them, and that means try just about anything in the category you want to buy except for racing skis or custom build them.
Many factors/characteristics, which going into "perfect ski". You looking into only one of them. Maybe you get lucky maybe not

 

[CoOlSlY]

Thread revival... I often read in reviews "if you are a lighter skier, this ski is not as stiff as xxxxx". What is considered "a lighter skier"?

 

[cantunamunch]

Thread revival... I often read in reviews "if you are a lighter skier, this ski is not as stiff as xxxxx". What is considered "a lighter skier"?

Lighter than approx. 90kg for men and 70kg for women

 

[Bill Talbot]

Lighter than approx. 90kg for men and 70kg for women

Really? I know Americans get fatter every year but 154# for Women and 198# Men as the cut off for light skiers seems high to me. I'd guess more like 120# and 160#...