Transitioning to shorter skis - shared experience?

[everest8850]

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.

Hey Maverick2! what kind of weights were your wife and daughter at that time? I'm 155lbs. Tks

 

[maverick2]

Hey Maverick2! what kind of weights were your wife and daughter at that time? I'm 155lbs. Tks

My daughter started skiing the smaller Crushes (156 cm) on deep snow days when she was just shy of 5'0" and 95 - 100#, and skied them this year as her only ski at 5'4" and 130-135#. She lives in the trees and crud on these things, and I can no longer keep up with her. I've seen zero indication that the skis are limiting her skiing in any way. Will be interesting to see what she skis next year (I'm guessing she'll be 140-145# and 5'6") when she has the 156 Crushes or a pair of 163 cm hand-me-down Volkl Auras to choose from. My wife has been a consistent 5'10" and 165-170# the entire time she's owned the 170 cm Crushes, and they've become her go-to ski.

 

[everest8850]

I didnt like the 130cm narrow Salomon's i bought in 2007 as an experiment as approach skis ( I have 25 years as an alpinist) - and used them only once (in 2014) as the 73cm wide skis lacked directional stability esp once you hit some crud, and probably too soft for my weight.

My feeling is that my ideal kind of ski at this stage that wont' be great of anything specific eg powder. carving etc but good as an overall ski for me for a wide variety of terrain --- and would probably lie in the range of 145 - 160cms; maybe 90mm underfoot (just wide enough to have some flexibility over terrain other than stiff groomers); softer flex, and a front rocker, maybe even a rear one, or (more realistically) a low rear rise;or partial twin tips to reduce hookiness. Racing /slalom skis definitely out for me. I'll want to use the skis to eventually do more slackcountry, but presently around 80:20 piste/offpiste. Ski nice and easy - no aggressive moves, speed or hucking off ramps and cliffs!

 

[Wendy]

I didnt like the 130cm narrow Salomon's i bought in 2007 as an experiment as approach skis ( I have 25 years as an alpinist) - and used them only once (in 2014) as the 73cm wide skis lacked directional stability esp once you hit some crud, and probably too soft for my weight.

My feeling is that my ideal kind of ski at this stage that wont' be great of anything specific eg powder. carving etc but good as an overall ski for me for a wide variety of terrain --- and would probably lie in the range of 145 - 160cms; maybe 90mm underfoot (just wide enough to have some flexibility over terrain other than stiff groomers); softer flex, and a front rocker, maybe even a rear one, or (more realistically) a low rear rise;or partial twin tips to reduce hookiness. Racing /slalom skis definitely out for me. I'll want to use the skis to eventually do more slackcountry, but presently around 80:20 piste/offpiste. Ski nice and easy - no aggressive moves, speed or hucking off ramps and cliffs!

Besides my DPS Wailer 99 recommendation (I own these skis), you could also consider something like the Black Crows Captis or Captis Birdie (shorter women’s version). 90mm underfoot, soft forgiving flex, double rockered ski with camber beneath that turns easily and can handle any terrain. You may also find them at a good discount this time of year, so not as much of a money risk, if you’re experimenting. Black Crows also makes an AT version of their ski models that is lighter.

@maverick2 ‘s post is interesting to me...this past winter, I was sick about every month, and as a consequence, didn’t have much stamina. So, during my trip to Utah, I found it very tiring to ski my normal skis. I ended up skiing demos that were softer and easier.

 

[James]

One does not need a twin tip to prevent hookiness in the tail. In the last 10 years designs have evolved significantly. Whereas once your choice was twin tip or flat square tail or flat rounded tail there are a whole new class of ski designs.
A twin tip in 3-d snow is actually going to be more hooky in odd ways because of the forces coming from the snow pushing on the curved up tail. I'm trying to think of one powder ski with an actual real twin tip. Going off cliffs switch would be the use.

It's also a complete waste of length for someone with fore/aft balance challenges. A curved up tail supplies no support when you get way aft.

Notice the tail design. The widest part is significantly in front of the back. In the previous Cham series they probably went too far with this design.
There is also taper compared to the front widest point. This design has quite a bit of sidecut. You might want less.

Dynastar Legend 96

@mishka could tell you more about designs.

 

[maverick2]

The Dynastar Legend series could have even less impact.
What her experience going shorter shows though is force coming back from the ski. Longer skis float better in soft snow, but as one moves through clumps or cut up powder, slush, etc, there's more force transmitted back to the skier. If one is sensitive to impacts in the back then you'd certainly feel it.
Op's issues are different.

I don't disagree at all with the benefits of long skis vs short and differences in the feedback. My wife's situation is probably a bit more relevant than I made clear though. Her back healed to the point that there is no sensitivity/pain/etc in her back resultant from forces transmitted from her skis (or any exercise for that matter) -- basically her back is now fine. Her injury did affect some nerves in her leg however, that has resulted in one calf significantly weaker than the other, and an altered alignment in her knee due to what the muscles are doing. If she chooses the wrong skis for the conditions, that calf and leg fatigues a lot quicker than the other, she begins compensating more with the other leg, and her knee tends to go further out of whack. The result is that her ski control diminishes quickly as the fatigue snowballs, her skiing day gets shortened, and she deals with a lot of knee and calf discomfort throughout the night. Transitioning to shorter skis than she would normally choose (she's 1-2 ski sizes shorter than what she would normally choose) has helped with minimizing the fatigue, and she's much more sensitive to selection of the right skis for her style and conditions of the day.

 

[mishka]

@mishka could tell you more about designs.

I can and I can't…we can talk forever on ski design features and how they affect performance and it will be pointless,
Truth to the matter is to achieve specific results in ski performance I know what work and what doesn't ONLY within one ski "brand"
sense @everest8850 putout some decent description of what he looking I'll post later on today couple ski designs which IMO WILL work for him

 

[mishka]

I didnt like the 130cm narrow Salomon's i bought in 2007 as an experiment as approach skis ( I have 25 years as an alpinist) - and used them only once (in 2014) as the 73cm wide skis lacked directional stability esp once you hit some crud, and probably too soft for my weight.

My feeling is that my ideal kind of ski at this stage that wont' be great of anything specific eg powder. carving etc but good as an overall ski for me for a wide variety of terrain --- and would probably lie in the range of 145 - 160cms; maybe 90mm underfoot (just wide enough to have some flexibility over terrain other than stiff groomers); softer flex, and a front rocker, maybe even a rear one, or (more realistically) a low rear rise;or partial twin tips to reduce hookiness. Racing /slalom skis definitely out for me. I'll want to use the skis to eventually do more slackcountry, but presently around 80:20 piste/offpiste. Ski nice and easy - no aggressive moves, speed or hucking off ramps and cliffs!

you can see 2 designs here
orange (top) 125 88 105 in 164cm tip tale rocker, progressive side cut
yellow (bottom) 135-100-118 in 168cm also, tip and tail rocker only bigger.I will make the design longer in tipand tale for better stability in soft snow

Both designs similar but with some small differences. Also this designs is not finished and under different circumstances I would put more time to better define shape
ether one will do what you need

good luck in your search.

 

[everest8850]

you can see 2 designs here
orange (top) 125 88 105 in 164cm tip tale rocker, progressive side cut
yellow (bottom) 135-100-118 in 168cm also, tip and tail rocker only bigger.I will make the design longer in tipand tale for better stability in soft snow

Whoaaa....thanks Mishka! Impressed! Are you a skibuilder? Those designs look like they are straight out of SnoCADx software. The orange design in the 125-88-105 is very close to both the profiles of my Fischer Transaclp 163cm and Salomon Q90 161cm. And I've struggled with both, though I ski a bit easier with the heavier salomon, possibly because of the more pronounced rocker, slightly wider shovel and different turn radii ( 13.8m vs 18m for the Transalp). For Japan snow ad an all-mountain ski, the waist is about right in the 88-90s range, but the big debate here or main points of contention is:...shoudl I go shorter to compensae for the lower leg disabilities creating challenges in controlling the ski in the fore-aft plane? Not super short, but maybe a similar rockered design, but around the high 140s or even 151 /152/153 range. Remember, I'm not trying to ski fast or aggressively, but have some planks good for most of the mountain with turn-yy abilities in some easy powder; possibly some slackcountry//skinning work too. Everything I've read from those who have skieed shorter skies than conventioanl wisdon dictates suggests going somewhat shorter. And with my weigh at 155lbs and 5'8", will not lose too much float in softer conditions

 

[mishka]

Whoaaa....thanks Mishka! Impressed! Are you a skibuilder? Those designs look like they are straight out of SnoCADx software.

Yes I decided and build custom skis. yes SnoCAD.
We will get back to rest of your post late.... Meanwhile you can read this thread Mad Russian skis

 

[Fishbowl]

@everest8850

Because many skiboarders came from a skating background, you do see a “low stance” style from some of the old school bladers. However, most of the newer generation skiboarders have adopted a more upright and centered stance that promotes a pivoted and slarved style of turn over the forward press clean carve. The equipment they use has also adapted to this style with flat underfoot rocker, wider boards, center mounts and upright, softer boots. It’s a style of riding that is somewhat similar to what we see from the younger park riders. Almost lazy in appearance. As you have already discovered, this group has also adapted equipment to accommodate a wide range of bindings, including backcountry options.

Again, coming from an in-line background, most skiboarders don’t perceive an issue with fore/aft balance, as it is a skill that have already mastered. Of course as a ski shortens, you are generally trading stability at speed for maneuverability and ease of turn initiation. Although shorter skis will allow you to go many places that longer skis won’t, you pay the price in hard work, especially in variable terrain and changing conditions.

It seems clear that your technique will be dictated by your physical limitations, especially your inability to get forwards on a ski. I do think you are on the right track looking at shorter skis that are easier to turn, as well as wider skis for stability and rocker for usability. As others have mentioned, you may have to find a length that compromises ease of turning with fore/aft stability.

Of the products I own, I think the Spruce Sherpas or Ospreys may suit your needs. I have the E II’s in 161cm and find them very easy to ride in a variety of conditions. I’m sure the 141cms would be even easier to turn without giving up too much fore/aft stability.

Good luck.

 

[mishka]

Whoaaa....thanks Mishka! Impressed! Are you a skibuilder? Those designs look like they are straight out of SnoCADx software. The orange design in the 125-88-105 is very close to both the profiles of my Fischer Transaclp 163cm and Salomon Q90 161cm. And I've struggled with both, . Remember, I'm not trying to ski fast or aggressively, but have some planks good for most of the mountain with turn-yy abilities in some easy powder; possibly some slackcountry//skinning work too. Everything I've read from those who have skieed shorter skies than conventioanl wisdon dictates suggests going somewhat shorter. And with my weigh at 155lbs and 5'8", will not lose too much float in softer conditions

when posted my designs and dimensions I wanted to warn you not to take numbers literally and comparing to skis you have or to skis you interested in because it wouldn't work.
While posted dimensions are similar. skis I designed for you is substantially different in many ways and they will work for you.… Hypothetically speaking, after getting one of those two you would regret not to go longer. As in my example on previous page with MR100 and MR102 in order to get easier turning skis in most soft snow conditions I went longer. As strange it sounds yes longer. However they were specifically designed to be long-short skis and conventional wisdom doesn't work here only mad wisdom.

sorry I didn't know what else off value to add which would help you in search of new skis except suggest go custom or try everything and I mean everything with binding on them

 

[everest8850]

@everest8850
.....

It seems clear that your technique will be dictated by your physical limitations, especially your inability to get forwards on a ski. I do think you are on the right track looking at shorter skis that are easier to turn, as well as wider skis for stability and rocker for usability. As others have mentioned, you may have to find a length that compromises ease of turning with fore/aft stability.

Of the products I own, I think the Spruce Sherpas or Ospreys may suit your needs. I have the E II’s in 161cm and find them very easy to ride in a variety of conditions. I’m sure the 141cms would be even easier to turn without giving up too much fore/aft stability.

Good luck.

Thanks Fishbowl! Your post is probably the best summary of what I should be trying ( and I have tried quite a few womens skis, short skis etc). Leaning right now towards a 141 or 151cm pair of E2s(hard to find). Maybe those longer skiboards in the future. Hard to find them on demo or rental in Japan where I mostly ski. You might find the sub100s but not the specialty Spruce boards. I've been told the Ospreys are more flexible vs the Sherpas, and the new Crossbows are getting great reviews - for another time definitely....

 

[everest8850]

just circling round to say I took my two experimental ski rigs to japan for a few days and here's what happened: The tradeoff in fore aft stability on the approach skis ( hagan offlimits at 130cm) was greater than I wanted, so while they turned on a dime, i was spending quite a bit of energy just staying balanced. My 2nd rig was a pair of womens Dynastar Cham 87s at 156cm and these were sweet, they did well in boot top powder, and groomers as well, and turn initiation was way easy. Fore-aft balance was good for me so these will be my go-to all-mountain skis for the near future. I got back to tropical SIngapore and saw another expat skier wanting to sell their Liberty Envy powder skis in 156cm - kicked myself for waiting too long as at US$150 for a lightly used pair from the 2014 era, a steal in terms of a really lightweight powder ski. They were sold within a fortnight, haha. So - thanks to all here who contributed their thoughts an ideas. I'll be looking our for more used or new ladies skis in the 152-157 range for sure as I expand my quiver of skis

 

[James]

Thanks for the report! Forgot about this.
I still think you should try a center mounted park type ski. -Longer like 170. See Devastaor below.

Your experience with the Cham shows what design can do for turn initiation.

Skis to try: Rossi Soul 7. Goodness, the original turned practically by moving your eyeballs. I'd actually try this in a 172, but move the binding more forward. How much? No idea, 1-3 cm I would think. Don't know the new hd model.

4Frnt Devastator. 164cm This could just be it. It has quite a forward mount, it's slightly reverse camber. 102 wide. Pivoty -quick, but stable.

See @Josh Matta 's review and Blister's review. There was a women's version , Aretha, but I don't see it now. I suppose being in Singapore shipping could be crazy, but a freight forwarder might be cheapish.

 

[everest8850]

Thanks for the report! Forgot about this.
I still think you should try a center mounted park type ski. -Longer like 170. See Devastaor below.

Your experience with the Cham shows what design can do for turn initiation.

Skis to try: Rossi Soul 7. Goodness, the original turned practically by moving your eyeballs. I'd actually try this in a 172, but move the binding more forward. How much? No idea, 1-3 cm I would think. Don't know the new hd model.

4Frnt Devastator. 164cm This could just be it. It has quite a forward mount, it's slightly reverse camber. 102 wide. Pivoty -quick, but stable.

See @Josh Matta 's review and Blister's review. There was a women's version , Aretha, but I don't see it now. I suppose being in Singapore shipping could be crazy, but a freight forwarder might be cheapish.

Hey James - yeah - in SIngapore, you can touch, feel or demo skis and shipping from US/UK/EU is spendy unless dealing with a larger retialer like SPort COnrad who have negotiated ridiculously cheap economy courier shipping around EU50 per pair of skis. Elsewhere, its silly money and none of my freight forwarders wont ship anything over 1.5m in length. i think those odd shapes demand a separate shipping pallet adding to costs. I'll probably be happy sticking to this ski length range unless its a low 160s with twin rockers. A short minute + video of my all too short trip mucking about on the Dynastars enjoying Ja-Pow in Furano and Asahidake in Hokkaido, Japan is here-

 

[James]

Look for Soul 7 164cm. The new one is the HD so likely there's older ones around. Also comes in 156. But, skis very short. Get a demo and try going forward a bit with the binding.

Otherwise, look for a center mounted ski. Not much turns quicker than a center or near center mount.

 

[everest8850]

Thanks James- that idea of centre mounting hadn’t crossed my mind as you’d probably need symmetrical twin top
Type park skis for that! Shifting the mounting point on a standard Uni directional ski might also be the way to go to tweak fore-aft handling and turn initiation. And yes, I have a shortlist of shorter powder skis in which the Soul 7 is there( a bit heavy though - looking at those closer to 1500 grams per ski in the 155cm range ). Cheers