Men's Masters Slalom Ski Length

cholly

At the base lodge
Skier
Joined
Oct 3, 2018
Posts
8
Hi to all.... Wondering if going shorter than 165 would be ok/advisable for a SL ski. I'm 6' and 200 lbs., age 55, still pretty strong and athletic; have no problem handling a FIS GS ski (188/30). I have seen guys my age on 155 to 160, but in my mind that just seems toooo short!

Any input welcome -- thanks
 

Uncle-A

In the words of Paul Simon "You can call me Al"
Skier
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Posts
3,899
Location
NJ
Hi to all.... Wondering if going shorter than 165 would be ok/advisable for a SL ski. I'm 6' and 200 lbs., age 55, still pretty strong and athletic; have no problem handling a FIS GS ski (188/30). I have seen guys my age on 155 to 160, but in my mind that just seems toooo short!

Any input welcome -- thanks
IMHO at 200 lbs the 165 is short enough. No less than a 163.
 

slowrider

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Posts
2,011
I ski on 151-165 cm FIS SL. About the same stats as you. The 151 & 156 can be a struggle at times(heavy deep PNW mank) but are a delight on the groomers.
 

François Pugh

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
3,325
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
On ski runs there are a lot of drawbacks for going shorter than 165 cm, and only one advantage that I can think of. Due to the shorter length of edge you will have more pressure on the edge and cut into ice better. It would need to be very hard ice to make up for drawbacks. On the other hand you might find the instability, quick response and brutalizing the snow when it isn't hard ice lots of fun. Whether or not it would be an advantage on a SL race course I guess depends on how much of a challenge it is to carve around the gates without the shorter turn radius built into the shorter ski. I'll leave that advice to folks with more experience in SL race courses.
 

hbear

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Posts
775
At your size 165 for sure.

radius difference between the 158 and 165 is not very much and you shouldn’t notice in a course anyway (you plan to bend the ski and not ride the Sidecut right :) ).

I’m 5’6” and 170 and I use the women’s 158 FIS ski. Couldn’t imagine a guy your size on it.....
 

DocGKR

Stuck at work...
Skier
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Posts
325
Location
Palo Alto, California
I am roughly your size and age; based on ScotsSkier's recommendation I went with the Rossi 165 cm FIS SL and could not be any more delighted! The 165 FIS SL skis fantastically well and I cannot imagine being on anything shorter--FWIW, I find the FIS SL much easier to ski than the 188/30 FIS GS.
 

hrstrat57

Skis guitars Mustangs
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
178
Location
Yawgoo Valley RI
I find 165 FIS Volkl Racetigers to be magic slippers. With decent technique they're easy peazy and very versatile at all speeds. I'm close to the OP's specs. I mount one hole forward and shim the toepiece slightly.

Took a run on 157's and found them more challenging to stay centered and unstable as the speed went up. Perhaps the shorter length would be good training wheels but 165's shred eastern hardpack.
 

razie

Sir Shiftsalot
Skier
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Posts
1,071
Location
Ontario
I wouldn't dismiss the 158-160 outright. Give them a try, especially if they are a different brand from your 165s - a more forgiving brand (damp) may ski better in a shorter size. They are a bit twitchier in general, but depending on your skill level that maybe a good thing. I find for me it's more about feel/grip/reactive than absolute dimensions.

Either way, have fun!
 
Thread Starter
TS
C

cholly

At the base lodge
Skier
Joined
Oct 3, 2018
Posts
8
Thanks to all for the input, confirmed what I had been thinking, 165 FIS it will be.
 

ski otter 2

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
1,041
Location
Front Range, Colorado
If I had to choose, I'd pick the 165 FIS. But it's close. Both great. Maybe just as good.

Just for recreational skiing, I have and strongly recommend both, 165 FIS SL (Mine are Rossi, from @ScotsSkier, and at his recommendation - tops); and 157 FIS SL (Mine are Atomic doubledeck, very thin edge by now; a former woman racer's ski - also incredible).

You can't go wrong with either of these lengths, surprisingly - as near as I can tell, provided they are tuned properly, especially with at least a level edge fore and aft, rather than (base) edge high fore and aft - a no no. (Tip edge high and/or with a reverse-tapered base bevel at the tip/tail can make them slightly hooky and a touch unstable - mine were briefly before I fixed them.*)

When I first got the 165 FIS, they were perfect. Man, big smiles.
But I have friends who are race coaches and such, who swear by the woman's FIS 156 to 157, also; and are really big guys. And for recreational use or coaching use, they swear by those woman's spec skis as well as the 165 FIS. I experience why every season now.

The earlier post that said the side radius isn't all that different is my experience also. And often, one can find the women's spec ski at a ski swap priced very inexpensively.

*(For example, a racer might have his SL base bevel set at a shallower zero° underfoot, then gradually increasing fore and aft to a steeper .5° tip and tail. But a SL ski can easily get worn or poorly tuned to the reverse, a steeper base bevel underfoot.)
 
Last edited:

Staff online

Top