How short is too short for steeps and bumps?

[tball]

I like skiing the shortest ski in a particular model that will work for what the big personal pronoun "I" need.

I love that advice and think it's worth a ton!

I'm just hoping folks will try that shorter ski rather than just buying the size they are recommended or think they need. One also needs to put aside any preconceived notions of length. In many cases, it's a marketing number as much as anything, and also put aside their ego associated with the size of their skis.

 

[Primoz]

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.

Because they have to be.

Both of this is true. GS are 193cm, SG 210cm and DH 218cm because they have to be this long due FIS rules. But nevertheless, they would still be this or very similar length if course setting would be same, but FIS rules wouldn't exist. Years ago, when 27m rule was still in action, men GS skis should be at least 185cm long (if my memory serves me right), yet pretty much every single racer in WC had skis that were few cm longer then this with 2-3m longer radius then dictated by FIS. It's not so uncommon today, that racers pick DH skis for SG races, if course set is more "straight and open". So for racing, look and "being cool" doesn't matter, speed does.
For powder, I'm no expert. I ski a lot of it, but I have probably way too much racing background to be real "cool freerider" , but for me personally, always the longest. But that's me, and I believe someone else has different preference

 

[tball]

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

I thought you were referring to the forum where there is currently a thread: "WHAT'S THE BEST SKI IN A 186CM LENGTH?" because that's the longest that will fit in the car, for an East Coast skier.

 

[mdf]

I thought you were referring to the forum where there is currently a thread: "WHAT'S THE BEST SKI IN A 186CM LENGTH?" because that's the longest that will fit in the car, for an East Coast skier.

I took skis with me when I was car shopping.

 

[dbostedo]

I took skis with me when I was car shopping.

I just took a tape measure.

 

[James]

I just took a tape measure.

Well since @mdf took the skis, he's the empiricist. Your tape measure is a very incomplete system theory.

Since apparently we marry our boots, shouldn't you really take your boots along?

 

[mdf]

I just took a tape measure.

I was downsizing from an Outback to an Impreza. It is a small car and the skis do not fit easily. The tips have to go in diagonally and snuggle up around the edge of the front seat. Not a simple 1-d constraint. If they had to go between the seats (they didn't), wanted to see if they would interfere with shifting.

 

[jmeb]

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

It's funny to call Ellsworth (Blister owner/found) a bro brah IMHO. Dude went to the dweebiest, and one of the most academically rigorous schools in the nation. I met him during my time there. He is a huge ski tech dweeb and was a nerd in general. Not a bro brah. He thinks more about ski gear and putting people on the right ski than most anyone in the game.

But he rips. And isn't a really small dude. So he likes longer skis. Seems a bit straw man to throw them up as a bunch of bro brahs given they produce what are generally the most in depth ski reviews in the game.

 

[Don in Morrison]

I find that my forward-mounted, 80-wide 163 cm skis work fine in up to six inches of powder. If there's more than that, the roads are usually too weird to make the trip up from Denver on I-70, so I've never had the chance to try anything deeper on them. Last time I skied more than six inches was in the 70's, on 204 slalom skis.

 

[James]

It's funny to call Ellsworth (Blister owner/found) a bro brah IMHO. Dude went to the dweebiest, and one of the most academically rigorous schools in the nation. I met him during my time there. He is a huge ski tech dweeb and was a nerd in general. Not a bro brah. He thinks more about ski gear and putting people on the right ski than most anyone in the game.

But he rips. And isn't a really small dude. So he likes longer skis. Seems a bit straw man to throw them up as a bunch of bro brahs given they produce what are generally the most in depth ski reviews in the game.

I think it would be a good thing if they engaged sizing concepts though. Maybe even test different ones. Since they like to be complete. There are sizes that ski much differently shorter. Vompanies have gotten better scaling, but soem in years past really made their shorter lengths too stiff.

I really think companies might be better off with less models and more sizes. You could make one "2cm " longer, but the real difference is the construction. One would be for lighter or less agressive, the other for heavier. They do this with the shorter fis sl skis.

 

[tball]

Here's some great Pugski sizing advice that one probably wouldn't get from the other sources mentioned:
https://www.pugski.com/threads/size-for-head-irally.15227/

A 170 cm ski for a 185lb dude? Yes, absolutely. A 170 cm front side oriented iRally in a quiver that also has an Enforcer 93 in 177, and Enforcer 100 in 185 makes total sense.

That's a great example of wider and longer for soft snow and narrower and shorter for firm snow.

 

[Alexzn]

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.

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.

Nope. Poor technique makes bumps really difficult. Short skis just mask poor technique.

 

[tball]

Nope. Poor technique makes bumps really difficult. Short skis just mask poor technique.

Wow. You really think length doesn't matter in the bumps? Karpy who's taught 12,000 bump camp students is off base about shorter skis making bumps easier?

I have no doubt too long or the wrong skis make bumps more difficult. I've skied every length Kendo in the bumps. Multiple full days on first and second generation 163, 170, 177, and 184 cm's. Also full days on 170, 177, and 184 Mantras. Those pushing long skis for bumps are full of it. Longer skis make bumps more difficult.

I can ski bumps on long skis. It's just not much fun, a whole lot more work, and limits your line choices.

Got any video of you skiing bumps on long skis?

I'm skiing 181 cm 110mm wide Sickles in this video and in the bumps starting at 4:00:


And, on short skis with my old 170 cm 80 mm wide AC30's:


And, in between these are my 177 cm 90 mm wide Steadfasts:


I think I have a pretty good idea what it's like to ski bumps on different length (and type of) skis.

It's a hell of a lot easier to ski bumps on shorter (and narrower) skis regardless of technique or skill. That's been well established, like, forever.

 

[Tony S]

Nope. Poor technique makes bumps really difficult. Short skis just mask poor technique.

Alex, this is the kind of comment that makes me a little pissy. The implication is that @tball and those of us who think he has a useful point must have poor technique. Have you skied with us? If not, then maybe just go a little easier on the pronouncements. We've been around a while. We can hold our own. If you're a better bump skier, great; it doesn't mean that everyone else is operating under a heavy dose of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Video coming when last weekend's videographer gets her act together and uploads the incriminating evidence.

 

[Tony S]

I find that my forward-mounted, 80-wide 163 cm skis work fine in up to six inches of powder. If there's more than that, the roads are usually too weird to make the trip up from Denver on I-70, so I've never had the chance to try anything deeper on them. Last time I skied more than six inches was in the 70's, on 204 slalom skis.

Let me get this straight. You live in Colorado but never ski powder because of the driving. Oh the humanity. You want to do a house swap next winter? Woo hoo. Things is looking up!

 

[François Pugh]

I think it's easier to ski bumps with short skis (155 to 165 for men) because it is easier to control the tips when they are closer to your feet, just like it's easier to spear a one inch hole with a 12 inch pencil than with a 20 foot rod. Farther away tips exert more torque too.

That being said, other factors make a difference too. I have just as easy a time skiing bumps on my 190 cm mid twenty radius Volant Machete Gs as on my 165 cm 13 m Fischer RC4 WC SCs (both of which are too stiff to be a good bump ski for a 140 lb skier, but a heck of a lot easier in bumps than the antique 208 SGs I used to ski everywhere) .

As has been said above, the short skis are recommended for those who don't want to ski fast.

 

[James]

Pretty sure some top wcup comp bump skiers are on 173-4. Like Michael Kingsbury.

I looked it up. IdOne's Kingsbury signature ski is 172. The same ski non signature is either 172 or 177.

Hart's Fusion wcup is 176, 171, 166, 161.

Shaman has a bunch. The longest is 178. To ski that you've got to go zipperline or it will punish you big time.
Probably the most punishing ski outside it's intended use I've ever been on. It's oddly forgiving if you stay direct, if not you could get hurt.
So, most, including me, would go 173 or shorter. They do scale flexes and have different ones for lighter skiers and juniors. Many smaller sizes.

A 170 cm front side oriented iRally in a quiver that also has an Enforcer 93 in 177, and Enforcer 100 in 185 makes total sense.

Except it's a Rally.

 

[markojp]

Nope. Poor technique makes bumps really difficult. Short skis just mask poor technique.

Don't know where to start on this. I skied manky bumps with zentune last weekend. We were both on FIS SL's....

Alex, don't let the interwebz make you all bombastic and stuff.

 

[James]

Short skis just mask poor technique.

Don't know where to start on this. I skied manky bumps with zentune last weekend. We were both on FIS SL's....

So, you mean you were both wearing masks?

 

[eok]

Nowadays, determining the "proper ski length" for an individual is complicated by a number of things, like intended use, skier ability, skier goals and ski design. The first three are pretty easy to figure out - but the last one (ski design) can be tricky. You can thank rocker for that. Skis with just tip rocker (AKA: early rise) may ski shorter than the labeled length. Skis with both tip and tail rocker will almost always ski short. And then there's the case of twin tips, which often ski somewhat short.

I'm fairly conservative when selecting skis and I'm biased towards front side. I'm 5'10" 185lb and an older advanced skier. I like to carve & make lots of turns. I prefer skis with modest-to-no front rocker so I get more effective edge. So, for front side stuff, I tend to land on lengths around 170-177. For wider soft snow skis that have front rocker, I prefer a 180 or so. If front and rear rocker, 185+.

For Head skis, I almost always end up choosing the length just below the longest offered for a model.

Back in the 70s I'd tear up hideous mogul fields on noodly 195 "freestyle" skis. I've no problem in the bumps on "carver" skis in the 170s - so long as the front half of the flex profile isn't super stiff.