• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Well I ski moguls on Slalom skis all the time. Agrump, often uses 157's sl's - at Taos.
But now I'm wondering how a 188/30m gs ski will be in the bumps next season. At least the tip is narrow, and the ski is 68mm.
A narrower ski with a soft tip is what bumpers like.
I've heard Glen Plake wants to have elan bring back the long skis.

Many carvey type skis have such bloated tips these days it's ridiculous. This hurts mogul performance. Look at the Rally. You'd be much better off on the version made the first two years than the last 2-3. The tip is more like a slalom ski.

I'm also not a fan of the sidecut going up the surve of the tip. That makes it hit in moguls.

As for Karp's short ski manifesto- depends. I mean people ski snow blades on big terrain. I'd find it a nightmare.
I skied short skis for years. Mostly 155-172. With rentals 176-184. Some of that was being worried about knees after 3 operations. I've gone longer in the last several years. 180, 183, 192. It's nice to have some length. I actually like the 192 for short turns because of the tip.
 

KingGrump

Most Interesting Man In The World
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,209
Location
NYC
Much also depends on the ski.
I can rock a 186 cm Gotama (106/108 underfoot) in the bumps all day while a 173 cm 100Eight will kill me in couple of runs.
Or a gen 2 Mantra 170 is brutal in the Taos bumps while the new M5 in the same size is a dream ski there. Almost as good as the out going Kendo.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
My perception is that for every skier that is on skis that are too short there are ten on skis that are too long.

A number of other websites seem to gravitate toward skis that are way too long for a skier's weight and abilities. That's compounded by the endless overestimation of one's abilities.
 
Last edited:

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Much also depends on the ski.
I can rock a 186 cm Gotama (106/108 underfoot) in the bumps all day while a 173 cm 100Eight will kill me in couple of runs.
Or a gen 2 Mantra 170 is brutal in the Taos bumps while the new M5 in the same size is a dream ski there. Almost as good as the out going Kendo.
This^
Also, there's a reason bumpers ski bump skis. They're narrow with relatively soft tips. You can push that tip into the bump and have it absorb.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
This^
Also, there's a reason bumpers ski bump skis. They're narrow with relatively soft tips. You can push that tip into the bump and have it absorb.
No doubt. I'll just suggest that even accounting for ski variations, folks will far too often choose a ski that is at least one size too big.

A ski that is too long is just no fun. I skied every length of the first and second generation Kendo back when it was my goto ski the many years I had a season pass for demos. I hated the 184 cm Kendo. The 163, 170, and 177 were all fun in different ways. Really, the 163 was the most fun until I went over the handlebars hard, which I could have been avoided skiing at common sense speeds. So, it does depend on how you ski too, as others have previously mentioned.
 

mdf

entering the Big Couloir
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,220
Location
Boston Suburbs
This^
...with relatively soft tips. You can push that tip into the bump and have it absorb.

Like this?
20190330_141730_070_01-01-jpeg.70082


In the spirit of transparency, I did not quite get my skis back under me after that. Almost...
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Like this?
20190330_141730_070_01-01-jpeg.70082


In the spirit of transparency, I did not quite get my skis back under me after that. Almost...
Yep. Nice photo! (Now the 175 might possibly be better than your 183?)

The body's suspension system has to absorb too though...ogsmile
 

mdf

entering the Big Couloir
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,220
Location
Boston Suburbs
Yep. Nice photo! (Now the 175 might possibly be better than your 183?)

The body's suspension system has to absorb too though...ogsmile

Well, if you stopped the sequence after this next photo you might think it did....
20190330_141730_084_01-01-jpeg.70083


Couldn't quite get them back underneath me... but almost.

[photos by @Tony S ]
 

Alexzn

Ski Squaw
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,956
Location
Bay Area and Truckee
I'd have to call BS on this concept of everyone past certain age skiing 160 cm skis. Yes, it works if you are skiing groomers only and the ski feels like a detuned slalom ski. Take that off-piste and you will pay a penalty right away. Too short and it won't hold you on anything remotely steep unless it is as stiff as a slalom ski. Good luck skiing slalom skis in moguls. Short stiff skis suck big time in cruddy conditions and they are a nightmare in moguls. A lot depends on a skier too. In general, I think the target should be the balance of length, stiffness and sidecut, adjusted for the preferred terrain and ability. Having a one-size fits all rule is ridiculous and counterproductive.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
I'd have to call BS on this concept of everyone past certain age skiing 160 cm skis.

Short stiff skis suck big time in cruddy conditions and they are a nightmare in moguls. A lot depends on a skier too. In general, I think the target should be the balance of length, stiffness and sidecut, adjusted for the preferred terrain and ability. Having a one-size fits all rule is ridiculous and counterproductive.
Pretty much agree with the rule being ridiculous.
Sidecut is really dependent on the flex pattern and overall stiffness. I really am curious about say the Blossom White Out with 15m at 176. To me, that's too much sidecut, but it seems they've worked it out with the flex as people who I know how they ski love it.

Slalom skis def can be a nightmare in moguls or a whole lot of fun. Sometimes both. On the plus side, if it's icy, you can always ski the tops to the bridges because they're easy to get around and it's quick to carve the back.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Well, if you stopped the sequence after this next photo you might think it did....
20190330_141730_084_01-01-jpeg.70083


Couldn't quite get them back underneath me... but almost.

[photos by @Tony S ]
That flexion, or more was needed coming in to the bump. Yeah I know, easy to say.

That's your skis taking off without you?
Now if you can pivot them sideways quickly in that position, before significant ground reaction force, you'll be centered.
 

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
12,630
Location
Maine
That flexion, or more was needed coming in to the bump. Yeah I know, easy to say.

That's your skis taking off without you?
Now if you can pivot them sideways quickly in that position, before significant ground reaction force, you'll be centered.

Meh. You're over analysing. A minor change in facial expression would have taken care of everything.
 

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
12,630
Location
Maine
@tball, Seems like it just depends on how big a wedge of your skiing pie chart goes to the terrain and conditions that favor shorter skis. If you're skiing steep troughy bumps most of the time, and the rest is on hard surface groomers, then yeah. Totally.

Personally I find really short skis a bit limiting when I'm skiing crud or any kind of soft snow more than a couple inches deep. Even in lower angle and rounder bumps I like the cushion effect of a normal length ski for my size, as long as it's not crazy stiff. Makes me feel more prepared to exercise my dolphin flukes. ;)
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
I'd have to call BS on this concept of everyone past certain age skiing 160 cm skis. Yes, it works if you are skiing groomers only and the ski feels like a detuned slalom ski. Take that off-piste and you will pay a penalty right away. Too short and it won't hold you on anything remotely steep unless it is as stiff as a slalom ski. Good luck skiing slalom skis in moguls. Short stiff skis suck big time in cruddy conditions and they are a nightmare in moguls. A lot depends on a skier too. In general, I think the target should be the balance of length, stiffness and sidecut, adjusted for the preferred terrain and ability. Having a one-size fits all rule is ridiculous and counterproductive.
To be fair to Karpy he's not saying one size fit's all. He's saying: "150cm - 160cm length for men and 146cm - 150cm for women." So, down to 150cm for men. :eek:

Yeah, that seems crazy short to me. I also haven't taught 12,000 students in bump camp like he has.

What I'm saying I'm pretty sure many if not most skiers should be on the next size down. So skiers on a 184 would ski better and have more fun on a 177. Folks on a 177 should probably be on a 170, and so on.

Most never even consider yet alone demo the next size down. Their preconceived notion of proper length is set in stone by what they read on other sites that rarely review or discuss skis under 184 cm, or is influenced by the kid in the shop of the same ilk.

I've spent something like six seasons exclusively skiing demo skis in all different sizes with season passes for demos. I couldn't have a greater appreciation for how much length of skis matters. That experience makes me believe others would have more fun skiing, particularly in the bumps, if they gave shorter skis a chance.

Spend some time on some shorter skis. Demo a couple of sizes of a ski before you buy it, and try to overcome your belief about what size you should be on.

I generally have a preference for short stiff skis and I'm happy to ski them just about everywhere. Here's a long ass POV video where I'm on what most would consider short stiff relatively narrow skis for the off-piste terrain I'm skiing. I ski steeps, crappy bumps, powder, trees, and nice bumps on 85mm Blizzard 8.5 Ti's and love 174's at 5'10" and 180lbs:

 
Last edited:

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
12,630
Location
Maine
I ski steeps, crappy bumps, powder, trees, and nice bumps on 85mm Blizzard 8.5 Ti's and love 174's at 5'10" and 180lbs

Okay, those aren't THAT short for a ski like that. I'd say you were only a half size down from where the average Pug would put you. The bro brahs are a different matter. Tempest in a teapot.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Okay, those aren't THAT short for a ski like that. I'd say you were only a half size down from where the average Pug would put you. The bro brahs are a different matter. Tempest in a teapot.
Agreed. I think folks get great recommendations here with multiple points of view. But it's not just the bro brahs elsewhere that recommend too long.

Blister consistently suggest skis that are too long, IMO, and would never touch a 174 whatsoever, let alone for off-piste. It always has to be the longest ski even for reviewers my size. 190 cm or longer is even better. I think that makes their reviews reasonably useless for most skiers, even the few and far between experts (in reality) they seem to target.

Aspirational length skis? :rolleyes:
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top