Transitioning to shorter skis - shared experience?

[everest8850]

Before my lower leg disabilities, I would ski in lengths of up to 170cm. Recent experiences on skis in the 161-163cm range suggest I should transition to shorter skis to help me with my challenges. I am 5'8" and 155lbs. 2 years ago , i tried some 130cm skis with a 73cm waist and 12m turning radius but found them a bit squirrelly on chop/crud. These were decade-old Salomon Verse 500s. I'm now wondering about transitioning to shorter skis in the 140-145cm range, with twin tip (less hooky), fatter waist (90mm) and a decent rocker and wonder if anyone has made this transition for variety/fun/necessity and what has worked well ( and as not worked well). I dont aimd to ski aggressive or fast, but want to get into the trees at some stage and use th shorter skis for approaches and some ski mountaineering (sometime in the future). Currently looking at these models:
Head Ethan Too 141cm ( discontinued but you can still find the odd one out there)
Fischer Ranger 145cm
and Atomic Punx III Jr

all share a similar profile underfoot and sidecut with turn radii around 10-11m. Views on longboard skiboards welcome too eg Hagan Offlimits (130cm) - thanks for sharing your thoughts and actual experiences; especially if you are around my size!

 

[Jilly]

I worked in a shop that sold the Verse. V - very, E- easy, R-recreational, S-skiing, E - experience. That ski was too soft for you at 155lb and 130cm. I have bad knees. I was skiing a dedicated carver, no rocker etc, at 154. We weight the same. Loved that ski. Now I'm on a tip rocker only, at 161.

So if it's a dedicated carver...150-158. If it has tip rocker then a little longer. IMHO - all of the skis you mention are too short and too soft.

 

[Philpug]

All "tweener" skis in this range are not created equal, some are real soft and frugally build, designed for 120lb and less kids and some are better. I do know the Icelantic Scouts are pretty well build skis.

 

[Tricia]

While going shorter, be careful to not go too short, or you could find them to be squirrelly.
Much like the three bears, you don't want them too long or too short, you want them juuuuust right.

 

[Mendieta]

Folks: @everest8850 has provided a lot of background on his particular needs in this thread.

 

[James]

You might just try a short adult center mounted ski.
All the short skis I've used, 90-133cm were really only fun for carving and they were skinny. Atomic used to make a 123cm but it was prob only low 70's wide.
For you, center mounted just might be the ticket as they pivot rapidly.

 

[Monster]

My $0.02 - Are you sure you want skis that short? To me, skis in that length sound awfully small for someone of your height. The shorter the ski, the less fore/aft stability you'll get from them. It makes you ski much more centered than you may want for a variety of reasons. Short skis let the energy of surface irregularities exert more force on you in less time - more hectic. A longer, soft ski with fronts that will bend to absorb bump impacts are like the shocks in bike suspensions. Depends of what you're going to ski in and how you want to ski it, I guess. For me, the rougher the surface, the more I want a longer soft ski and softer boot with a more upright stance - a total rig that will absorb impact so my body doesn't have to as much. For hardpack and ice, I want the plug boots with their aggressive forward lean, and a tense ski that has the guts to cut bullet-proof. To a degree, if you have a ski with excellent torsional rigidity that's also flexible fore and aft, you can have the best of both worlds. Not so much with boots, I think.

I'm, 5'5" and ski everything from 201 Atomic SG skis that came from a Canadian national team member, to a 160 in a 12.5 meter cut that are only 1 cm wider at the tip than the tail, so less aggressive initiation and less squirrily under foot straight-lining and at speed than an SL race cut. For tiny hills, they are the bomb. It's hard for me to imagine going shorter than that without feeling like I'm going to go over the handlebars if I hit the cuffs hard in the plug boots, which I do love to do. For bigger hills, I'll usually go for a flexible pair of 177s in a 16.5 m cut. They'll do everything from SG to SL radius turns if asked, run comfortably at speed, handle manque with aplomb, and can still carve our delightful eastern ice like a big pair of hockey skates. The Atomics only come out mid-week when the hill is deserted (I'm fortunate enough to have a local hill where Patrol will let you ski like an ass-hat if it's empty and you look competent .

All but the SG skis were built in my shop so I've had the luxury of experimenting with length/width/flex/cut to some degree and am learning what feels good to me under different conditions.

Below :
160/72 underfoot/12.5m
165/88 under foot/15.5
177/68 under foot/16.6
189/68 under foot/20m
(Steven Nyman's cast-offs)

View media item 2394View media item 2393View media item 2392

 

[Ken_R]

Before my lower leg disabilities, I would ski in lengths of up to 170cm. Recent experiences on skis in the 161-163cm range suggest I should transition to shorter skis to help me with my challenges. I am 5'8" and 155lbs. 2 years ago , i tried some 130cm skis with a 73cm waist and 12m turning radius but found them a bit squirrelly on chop/crud. These were decade-old Salomon Verse 500s. I'm now wondering about transitioning to shorter skis in the 140-145cm range, with twin tip (less hooky), fatter waist (90mm) and a decent rocker and wonder if anyone has made this transition for variety/fun/necessity and what has worked well ( and as not worked well). I dont aimd to ski aggressive or fast, but want to get into the trees at some stage and use th shorter skis for approaches and some ski mountaineering (sometime in the future). Currently looking at these models:
Head Ethan Too 141cm ( discontinued but you can still find the odd one out there)
Fischer Ranger 145cm
and Atomic Punx III Jr

all share a similar profile underfoot and sidecut with turn radii around 10-11m. Views on longboard skiboards welcome too eg Hagan Offlimits (130cm) - thanks for sharing your thoughts and actual experiences; especially if you are around my size!

Really hard to make a recommendation without knowing how you ski / like to ski and where and what conditions do you ski in / like to ski in (or want the ski for).

As an example, for relaxed groomer skiing in average to firm conditions here out west I like longer skis that have metal and some heft (also weighty boots) that just smooth out everything. That makes skiing MUCH more comfortable and less jarring on my body than say a lighter and shorter setup.

 

[everest8850]

Thanks for all the responses so far. to answer some helpful queries here -I ski mainly groomers but am transitioning to more AT/off -piste. Ski mainly in north japan where the snow is excellent and consistent and light. Lower leg disabilities mean, I have difficulties dorsi and plantar=flexing the right foot (essentially, the right foot hangs uselessly at the end of my leg) and no plantar flexion on the left foot. That means non-functioning calves (both legs) making getting into a forwardposition mouch harder. Loss of dorsi flexion on the right side also means being unable to crank the shins easily toward the top of my boots. Imagine picking up marbles with your fingers versus a pair of greased chopsticks.... the muscles that help ski direction that work are higher up, and need to control impaired lower legs. All the control is largely from the upper legs. Upshot is that turning a longer, heavier ski is a struggle. As the left leg is 'better', i turn more confidently with it, less so the right leg. On rigs presently in the 161-163cm/90mm width range which is about right based on conventional ski thinking. However, since last March, I've decided to be more heretical -- hence thinking of shorter skis, but is the same 90mm width(for now); with twin tips or a slight rocker on both ends to make turning radius smaller. Most 'normal' skiers here probably wont have that much experience going shorter, as people usually go longer as they progress from the novice stage. I'm looking at adult weight skis that are shorter and turn easy (hence some suggestion in my original post(; and might even include the longer, specialist skiboards like the Hagan Offlimits 130-90-110, or the Spruce longboards (in the 130cm lengths). However, as a yet-to-be-skiboarder, I'm currently more comfy with the idea of toying with shorter adult skis in the 145-150 range. It seems to be an easier progression from where I am now, rather than the leap to the different stances long skiboards demand. I tried narrower, soft 130cm skis and found them too squirrelly. Hence my asking about experiences people have had here....If I'm struggling at 160cm boards that have a slight rocker and tip rise, maybe fidning that middle ground between 130cm and 160 cm might work(?)

 

[Wendy]

Thanks for all the responses so far. to answer some helpful queries here -I ski mainly groomers but am transitioning to more AT/off -piste. Ski mainly in north japan where the snow is excellent and consistent and light. Lower leg disabilities mean, I have difficulties dorsi and plantar=flexing the right foot (essentially, the right foot hangs uselessly at the end of my leg) and no plantar flexion on the left foot. That means non-functioning calves (both legs) making getting into a forwardposition mouch harder. Loss of dorsi flexion on the right side also means being unable to crank the shins easily toward the top of my boots. Imagine picking up marbles with your fingers versus a pair of greased chopsticks.... the muscles that help ski direction that work are higher up, and need to control impaired lower legs. All the control is largely from the upper legs. Upshot is that turning a longer, heavier ski is a struggle. As the left leg is 'better', i turn more confidently with it, less so the right leg. On rigs presently in the 161-163cm/90mm width range which is about right based on conventional ski thinking. However, since last March, I've decided to be more heretical -- hence thinking of shorter skis, but is the same 90mm width(for now); with twin tips or a slight rocker on both ends to make turning radius smaller. Most 'normal' skiers here probably wont have that much experience going shorter, as people usually go longer as they progress from the novice stage. I'm looking at adult weight skis that are shorter and turn easy (hence some suggestion in my original post(; and might even include the longer, specialist skiboards like the Hagan Offlimits 130-90-110, or the Spruce longboards (in the 130cm lengths). However, as a yet-to-be-skiboarder, I'm currently more comfy with the idea of toying with shorter adult skis in the 145-150 range. It seems to be an easier progression from where I am now, rather than the leap to the different stances long skiboards demand. I tried narrower, soft 130cm skis and found them too squirrelly. Hence my asking about experiences people have had here....If I'm struggling at 160cm boards that have a slight rocker and tip rise, maybe fidning that middle ground between 130cm and 160 cm might work(?)

Have you looked at women’s all mountain skis? They will come in the length you need, in an appropriate flex, unlike some junior skis.

 

[Mendieta]

Thanks for all the responses so far. to answer some helpful queries here -I ski mainly groomers but am transitioning to more AT/off -piste. Ski mainly in north japan where the snow is excellent and consistent and light. Lower leg disabilities mean, I have difficulties dorsi and plantar=flexing the right foot (essentially, the right foot hangs uselessly at the end of my leg) and no plantar flexion on the left foot. That means non-functioning calves (both legs) making getting into a forwardposition mouch harder. Loss of dorsi flexion on the right side also means being unable to crank the shins easily toward the top of my boots. Imagine picking up marbles with your fingers versus a pair of greased chopsticks.... the muscles that help ski direction that work are higher up, and need to control impaired lower legs. All the control is largely from the upper legs. Upshot is that turning a longer, heavier ski is a struggle. As the left leg is 'better', i turn more confidently with it, less so the right leg. On rigs presently in the 161-163cm/90mm width range which is about right based on conventional ski thinking. However, since last March, I've decided to be more heretical -- hence thinking of shorter skis, but is the same 90mm width(for now); with twin tips or a slight rocker on both ends to make turning radius smaller. Most 'normal' skiers here probably wont have that much experience going shorter, as people usually go longer as they progress from the novice stage. I'm looking at adult weight skis that are shorter and turn easy (hence some suggestion in my original post(; and might even include the longer, specialist skiboards like the Hagan Offlimits 130-90-110, or the Spruce longboards (in the 130cm lengths). However, as a yet-to-be-skiboarder, I'm currently more comfy with the idea of toying with shorter adult skis in the 145-150 range. It seems to be an easier progression from where I am now, rather than the leap to the different stances long skiboards demand. I tried narrower, soft 130cm skis and found them too squirrelly. Hence my asking about experiences people have had here....If I'm struggling at 160cm boards that have a slight rocker and tip rise, maybe fidning that middle ground between 130cm and 160 cm might work(?)

@everest8850 , I think you may want to reconsider a bit what your goal is. I don't think you are looking for short skis per se, but rather, skis that are easy to steer around given your physical condition. It makes a lot of sense. Shorter skis might help but, as you probably know, some of the most demanding skis out there are short: race, regulation (FIS) slalom skis are a good example of that.

So, what makes a ski easy to pivot around, and maneuver, overall? I am no expert, but raised tip and tail helps for sure (as you noted). Another thing you are probably implicitly considering is weight. That's a biggie. You want something light. That depends on length, but also on materials used. Manufacturers are coming with lighter skis all the time. My Head Rallies (which I wouldn't recommend for your needs) are fairly light, which makes them relatively easy to throw around if needed. Another factor is sidecut. Aggresive sidecut with flat shovel and tail probably means a hooky ski that will be problematic for you.

Finally, please consider effective length. The typical all mountain ski, with raised ends, has a shorter effective length than a flat one. This is because part of it is above the snow except when there is powder and you need to float. That type of design gives you a good compromise with more float when you need it, and shorter length when you don't. Similarly, on the sidecut dimension, there is a ski design that is called 5-point that produces a wider ski at the contact point (before raising tail or shovel) and then narrows down toward both ends. It also narrows at the waist. This helps the ski have a shorted, more manageable edge.

Ok my friend, hope this helps. A lot of people here know a TON more than I do and can recommend actual skis that will fit you, but I thought some basics might help guide the search. You are an inspiration for me. Thank you for the passion!

 

[Wendy]

Some women’s all mountain skis that may work....Elan Ripstick 94w, Rossignol Super7.....both do not have women’s colors and have enough tip rocker for you to easily pivot and smear, and both are lightweight.

 

[everest8850]

Mendieta, Wendy - thanks for your kind thoughts. Indeed, as a ski heretic, I am looking for easy to turn all-mountain skis, with less hook. Weight is kinda tricky as most light skis are touring types, and those are usually sidecut with a larger ( 18-20m) radius - cant have my cake and eat it! I also have looked at women's skis eg Rossi Sassy ( women's version of Smash 7) - but its a biased world! Much fewer detailed ski reviews for women's skis (than men). And even some women's skis dont go shorter than 160cm! In March I skied for a day+ on Nordica's Wild Belle - nice forgving flex - a bit heavy though for its size. I've narrowed my search down to the Head Ethan Too' probably in the 151 as these might take adult bindings without the need for a special reinforcing plate that the 141 needs. And the full twin tips/rockers mean effective working length is still quite short, and I'd have more float on powder; ,--- with the Fischer Ranger 90 (junior) ski in 140s or 150s coming in second. It doesnt have true twin tips or a rear rocker though. Atomic Backland BC Mini is also a contender, but the foam core suggest shorter longevity; and the lack of a rear rise/rocker is also a concern.. All are in the 1.2-1.3 kg category so not too bad from a weight perspective

Coming in from left field might even be the 130cm Hagan Offlimits. A bit rare but at 130-90-110, a fabulous all-round approach ski, on-piste and glades workhorse. Great reviews from "mountaineers who ski" (we generally dont look pretty skiing I suspect!) as well as seasone skiboarders....

 

[James]

If you have limited fore/aft compensation ability than at some point a shorter ski is just worse as there's no support fore or aft. The shorter the ski the greater the balance challenge. Same thing can happen when you introduce lots of rocker and you're not in 3-D snow, especially in the tail. Twin tips effectively shorten your tail.

It's an interesting problem. I don't see the solution as going super short, but something low 160's and experimenting with binding position. That would give you way more choice of skis.
A super short ski to me is just a nightmare. Way too much work, and I don't have your dorsi/plantar flexing issues.

 

[mishka]

in my opinion you making mistake going shorter and shorter in an attempt to find easy turning skis.ski length is only one aspect of ski design and performance, and cannot be taken along.
My pow/chop/crud go to skis was MR100 177 long (skied on the left) for last season MR100 with redesigned to improve pow/chop/crud performance making even easier turning more fun skis… Results MR102 ( skis on the right) they longer… 185.
I can't advise you on specific ski to try I can only suggest widening your search

 

[James]

in my opinion you making mistake going shorter and shorter in an attempt to find easy turning skis.ski length is only one aspect of ski design and performance, and cannot be taken along.
My pow/chop/crud go to skis was MR100 177 long (skied on the left) for last season MR100 with redesigned to improve pow/chop/crud performance making even easier turning more fun skis… Results MR102 ( skis on the right) they longer… 185.
I can't advise you on specific ski to try I can only suggest widening your search

Have to agree.

His ideal length might be 175 ish for all around and longer for 3-d snow or big mtn. All I know is that skis < 130 and especially super shorts really aren't good for anything but carving. So, what's a BigFoot good for? Blech, how horrible, but it has it's fans as do figl skis. You will never, ever rest on those as just going straight is a chore. Same with any super short, but at least the carving ones are fun for carving big turns. Still, balance, which requires fore/aft movement, is a challenge. If you are carving a big turn on a super short, you are way inside the skis. The next turn requires you to be inside the opposite direction. This necessitates fore/aft movement. If one has physical limits on dorsi/plantar flexing I see super short skis as making skiing harder, not easier.

 

[Wendy]

Have to agree.

His ideal length might be 175 ish for all around and longer for 3-d snow or big mtn. All I know is that skis < 130 and especially super shorts really aren't good for anything but carving. So, what's a BigFoot good for? Blech, how horrible, but it has it's fans as do figl skis. You will never, ever rest on those as just going straight is a chore. Same with any super short, but at least the carving ones are fun for carving big turns. Still, balance, which requires fore/aft movement, is a challenge. If you are carving a big turn on a super short, you are way inside the skis. The next turn requires you to be inside the opposite direction. This necessitates fore/aft movement. If one has physical limits on dorsi/plantar flexing I see super short skis as making skiing harder, not easier.

I didn’t consider the fore aft balance issue. Good point.

So, to help direct the OP, what skis might you recommend?

 

[maverick2]

This may be a little off the wall, but you might look for a pair of Blizzard "The Ones" or the "Crush" (identical ski -- women's topsheet) in a 156 or 163 length. Produced 6 or 7 years ago, these things are twin-tipped, ski about 10 cm shorter than their actual length, perform well (and are FUN) over a wide range of conditions, and are extremely forgiving (not overly sensitive to fore/aft pressure, track well thru crud, and easy turning). They've got enough mass that they don't get tossed around, and have bindings mounted on a slider system which allows the skier to adjust mount position (which may be of great benefit to you). I picked up a pair of 156's a couple years ago for my daughter, and she loved them so much we found a pair of 168's for my wife. (After watching the two of them on the snow this past winter, I grabbed a pair of 184's I found a month ago for next to nothing for myself.) At worst, would be a relatively cheap experiment.

 

[mishka]

I didn’t consider the fore aft balance issue. Good point.

So, to help direct the OP, what skis might you recommend?

I can't suggest specific ski but if I would've built the skis for person with OP requirements it would be 4 or 5 point design skis with moderate sidecut, something along 18 to 22 m radius, with decent amount of tip rocker and moderate amount of tail rocker… Moderately stiff … Upper 170 in length…YES 175 TO 180

 

[Wendy]

I can't suggest specific ski but if I would've built the skis for person with OP requirements it would be 4 or 5 point design skis with moderate sidecut, something along 18 to 22 m radius, with decent amount of tip rocker and moderate amount of tail rocker… Moderately stiff … Upper 170 in length…YES 175 TO 180

Sounds like my DPS Wailer 99 in 176......skis from boot center with hardly any fore aft pressure required. Pricey ski. (I splurged. ). On groomers, it feels (sorta) like a friendly slalom ski.