How short is too short for steeps and bumps?

[ScottA]

This thread presents quite a different, and very interesting perspectives regarding ski length, especially compared to the common advice you hear in ski shops, on the internet etc (which seems to state that in general the better skier you are, the longer you go).

I guess in addition to steeps and bumps, I'm just trying to process the above info re ski length from the perspective of crud and/or powder.

I haven't spent a lot of time in powder but this seems like the right thread to ask the question, so apologies if this is a bit simple. Would sizing down skis make it harder to ski in powder? Probably best to illustrate with an example as I know there are a lot of variables. I'm 6'2, intermediate to advanced, skiing 185cms and very capable on piste. But if I sized down to 177cm to build up experience and have lots of fun off-piste in powder/trees etc, would this be a disadvantage in those conditions (obviously I know this will depend on the type of ski but if/can we assume we are talking about a mid-90 underfoot, all-mountain). OR would that difference in length make a relatively small difference in terms of being able to experience most of a what a mountain has to offer (again assuming you had the right ski)?

 

[Tony S]

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.

Yeah, they were exactly the bro brahs I was thinking of.

 

[mdf]

...preference for short stiff skis ... and love 174's at 5'10" and 180lbs:

It would be very interesting to compare the same ski in the same conditions at different lengths. Two points, though:
I generally prefer longer and softer to shorter and stiffer.
I weigh 20 pounds more than you, and 174*(200/180) = 193, which is more than 186.

 

[Tony S]

It would be very interesting to compare the same ski in the same conditions at different lengths. Two points, though:
I generally prefer longer and softer to shorter and stiffer.
I weigh 20 pounds more than you, and 174*(200/180) = 193, which is more than 186.

I think the unstated premise behind your math is wrong. I think you need to start with the practical range of lengths, not zero cm. If a 200lb person skis a 200cm ski, that doesn't mean a 100lb person should be on a 100cm ski.

 

[mdf]

I think the unstated premise behind your math is wrong. I think you need to start with the practical range of lengths, not starting at zero cm. If a 200lb person skis @ 200cm ski, that doesn't mean a 100lb person should be on a 100cm ski.

Hmmm.... OK, that seems to be correct...
Then I fall back on longer & softer vs shorter and stiffer. I can accept that a shorter length might be called for in a stiffer ski.

 

[Alexzn]

Not so fast please... and give Blister folks a break, there is a reason why they ski the skis they ski. In general, a longer ski is better IF you can generate enough force to bend it into a turn you need/want to make. A longer ski is more stable, has a better edge hold, and will get deflected less in crud. Why do you think GS race skis are relatively long? I don't think WC skiers give a damn about their bro-brah credentials, but they need every inch of that edge grip. Ditto for the DH and SG skis, again length = stability and grip. Now, to bend the ski you can either use weight or you can use centrifugal force, which goes up the faster you ski. So a strong skier who skis at a faster speed would naturally want a longer ski because she would get all the benefits and would still generate more than enough force to bend it. A slow(er) moving intermediate will have trouble bending a longer ski, this is why the better skier you are the longer skis you like. Blister folks are all former racers, heli guides, etc. They rip, so they need/like/prefer longer skis. A 174 will be a gross mismatch to their skiing abilities, unless it is a stiff frontside carver, which is not what Blister is typically testing.

Powder skis are the same story- you need leverage to bend the skis and flotation to allow the ski to surface. A short stiff ski is a disaster in powder.

 

[Alexzn]

A while ago back on Epic I started a survey to test the premise that most ski manufacturers make skis in three sizes: S,M, and L that mostly depend on the skiers weight and height. The idea was that you always ski one type of the length (say middle length) and then the manufacturer adjusts the actual length to match the ski design and intended use. For example, I ski a 165 in a slalom ski, 184 in a big mountain ski and 190 in a powder ski, but in all cases these are the longest length offered in a production run for that model.

 

[jmeb]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that on average--the reviewers at Blister ski differently than--on average--the folks of this forum who--on average--ski differently than the folks over TGR way. I say this based on skiing with a number of folks from here, a number of folks from TGR, and trying to hang with a Blister dude one day.

Ain't nuttin' wrong with any of the styles. There are very technically skilled skiers in each group. But it isn't surprising that Blister reviewers are often on longer skis.

The problem is when someone of one style and one skill set buys a length based on another style and skill set. It doesn't end up so well often.

 

[Tony S]

I guess I would just say that if you're a 99.99th percentile skier reviewer trying to gain an audience among the 99.00th to 99.98th percentile, it wouldn't kill you to imagine walking in our pitiful lame ass moccasins for a few minutes. FFS.

Why am I pissy about this? Because I've skied with dozens and dozens and dozens of Pugs and others over a fifty-year ski life (so far). In real life I don't suck any more than the average bear. Probably less. And yet when I come here into this virtual world, there is never a shortage of people ready to testify that if I really knew how to ski I would understand. Yeah. Whatever. Fundamentally I'm with @tball.

 

[James]

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?

I don't read Blister that much, but in the last few weeks I've gone there looking at maybe 5 different skis. All 88 and up. Pretty much the tested length was either 180 or 184. Totally appropriate to the skis and testers. They did talk about other sizes. Based on my very small sample size I have no problem with their recs at all.
Why would a 180 lb guy ski a wide width 174 for soft snow? Sure if you want to screw around, but that's really not a sensible recommendation for the general "I have 2-3 skis" or a 1 ski quiver.

People get hung up on sizes. Numbers. It took me like 8 years to convince someone I ski with to get out of the 150's with her wide ski. Totally hung up on 159 as an uncrossable number. This year got a 169 and actually really likes it.
Years ago guys pretty much wouldn't ski below 200cm.

Would sizing down skis make it harder to ski in powder? Probably best to illustrate with an example as I know there are a lot of variables. I'm 6'2, intermediate to advanced, skiing 185cms and very capable on piste. But if I sized down to 177cm to build up experience and have lots of fun off-piste in powder/trees etc, would this be a disadvantage in those conditions (obviously I know this will depend on the type of ski but if/can we assume we are talking about a mid-90 underfoot, all-mountain). OR would that difference in length make a relatively small difference in terms of being able to experience most of a what a mountain has to offer (again assuming you had the right ski)?

No, plenty of people your size ski that size. The real disadvantage is on low angle slopes. It will be a little harder to maintain speed on runouts. Not that big a deal. You could also go a little wider. Say 100 instead of 95. But, either way that's not a big deal. You're not slaying huge lines where you need lots of stability at speed.
It's good to try different sizes to boost confidence that one can deal with it. Plus notice the difference it makes. Sometimes the outlier ends up the preferred size.

 

[Tony S]

180 or 184. Totally appropriate to the skis and testers.

Luke Koppa is like my size.

 

[James]

Why do you think GS race skis are relatively long? I

Because they have to be.
Men were skiing on 155-160 in sl. Even maybe a 150. That was down from 200-205 straight. Till they mandated. Of course then you change the courses.

@Primoz would have the closest knowledge of what would happen given free reign.

Talk about bro brah. The race world is filled with all sorts of ways things are done just because. That's the way. It's a little better now. I think even Mikaela alluded to it in her podcast. Talking about how some things are progressive like prize money equality, but lots of things are practically medieval.

 

[Tony S]

Like the chain mail. I hate that stuff. One electronic communication with an adult toy business and they're all over you. Email, small mail, chain mail. So heavy and expensive. You can't even run in that shit, let alone aim your crossbow.

 

[James]

Luke Koppa is like my size.

You're in what percentile for weight? Likely not close to an average recommendation. So, I guess they should scale it more, which would make sense.

And yet when I come here into this virtual world, there is never a shortage of people ready to testify that if I really knew how to ski I would understand. Yeah. Whatever. Fundamentally I'm with @tball.

If Einstein was posting here on gravity there'd be plenty of people saying that if he knew anything about gravity he would understand.

 

[markojp]

FW incredibly little IW, I like skiing the shortest ski in a particular model that will work for what the big personal pronoun "I" needs. Sometimes it's the longest production length a la a Head Monster 88. The 177 is fine for piste, but loses stability at speed in off piste crud. 174 Blizzard HRC? Sure! Don't need a 180 something 16r ski. 186 Noridica Enforcer 104? For our terrain and how "I" ski, perfect! A 194 Atomic Backland 117? Sign me up! A 165 FIS SL? Yup. Butanyhow, it's not worth the brain cells to worry about what others think "I" should ski.

 

[dbostedo]

It would be very interesting to compare the same ski in the same conditions at different lengths.

I guess you've never done that at a demo day? I've done it a few times.

 

[James]

I guess you've never done that at a demo day? I've done it a few times.

You did look at who you quoted, right?
He's a theoretical physicist as opposed to an experimental. I think. But, now he and we should conduct an experiment to develop or prove the theory.

 

[dbostedo]

You did look at who you quoted, right?
He's a theoretical physicist as opposed to an experimental. I think. But, now he and we should conduct an experiment to develop or prove the theory.

Yeah... empiricism rules.

 

[James]

Yeah... empiricism rules.

I think the way it goes is the theorists make the rules and the empiricists are the lackeys. (Lab rats?) But, @mdf would have to confirm that sterotype as he knows that world.

Needs a theory to even considering building it. On the other hand, lost in space princess theorists would never get far without testing.

 

[tball]

Would sizing down skis make it harder to ski in powder?

Yes, no doubt length helps in powder. The question is how often do you see powder vs. how often do you see bumps?

Shorter skis are generally better in bumps. A well-respected mogul coach/instructor with 12,000 students suggested crazy short skis.

Ideally one has a quiver. Shorter and narrower for firm snow and bumps. Longer and wider for powder. The question is how often do you really see powder?

Unfortunately, some sources never recommend shorter and narrower for firm snow and bumps, while that's where most spend the majority of their time.

Why would a 180 lb guy ski a wide width 174 for soft snow? Sure if you want to screw around, but that's really not a sensible recommendation for the general "I have 2-3 skis" or a 1 ski quiver.

At 180lbs I would never recommend a wide-width 174 for soft snow. That wouldn't make any sense in a quiver nor if you could only have one ski.

My 174's are 85mm and I ski them on firm and mixed snow. For true powder and leftovers, I ski a 181 cm 110mm Sickle. Nothing but rock skis between right now, and I'm reasonably happy with that. Both skis are versatile enough to fill the gap.

Again, the suggestion to consider shorter skis is about mogul performance. So many people struggle in moguls or outright hate them. I think a lot of that can be attributed to the wrong skis. Wrong in many ways, but too long is one of the primary reasons. Long skis make the bumps really difficult.