Check out Viome yourself by going to tryviome.com/lucas110 and using the promo code LUCAS110 to save off your first test! Hope you maybe learned some differences between ski lengths based on my experience with the Whitewalker at 116mm underfoot. As stated in the video, I really need a lot more time on the longer length ski to have an accurate comparison, but hopefully this shed some light. Let me know your thoughts.
Awesome, you are improving my friend. I grew up in Breckenridge, My family owned the Breckenridge ski shops, I love seeing you getting on the longer skis, you should go as long a ski as you can dude. I started skiing 64 years ago. I'm 5'7, in my short skis were 203's. I know your father remembers all of that, ask him what his short skis used to be laugh out loud. I love watching you bud puts me back on the slopes, I can't ski anymore. Love your show.
I think you nailed the pros and cons. I moved from a 174cm Moment Wildcat 108 to a 192cm Dynastar Mfree 108 and noticed all the same things you did (but even more so because of the bigger size difference). After 2 seasons... I still love having the 174cm for days where I'm just puttering around with friends, or skiing easier stuff, but when it's time to ski hard, the 192s are incredible. Charge through chop, the sweet-spot for landing airs makes things feel effortless, and honestly you adjust to the increased work pretty quickly IMO. Only additional note from me is tuning. Im running 1.5 degree base /2 edge bevel and it really helped the ski feel easier to work with in tight terrain. That gets into personal preference skiing style, but worth mentioning i think as it can really transform how a ski feels.
Good to know for the future. We've got similar builds, but I think you're both stronger and a lot more experienced than I. Will consider a 192 in a few years
I used to us a Kestle 213 super g as my daily driver. Pro patroller at a small mountain. One of the ways we made long days and night skiing fun. Late 80’s and early 90’s. I think in retrospect working hard to make a long ski turn like a salmon ski made me a better skier.
Congrats, a very well thought-out comparison. You're dead on about sidecut length, the 192 is longer, 185=134.6cm, 192=138.8. And both have equal rocker 37% (19tip/18tail), running length 114.4cm and 118.9 respectively. An interesting difference that may explain you're feeling they differently is binding 'set back': the recommended mounting point in relation to true ski center. For the 185 SB is 4.1cm. SB for the 192 is 5.7cm. An informative experiment would be to remount the 192 1.6cm forward and see how they ski. Keep up the good work.
Dude, Just Got Back From Snowbird…was there for a beautiful Blue Ski Sunny 6 Days…Last Day Saturday …POW DAY…I Can see why you love it so much…will definately go back….and People were Very Nice !!!
right on, cool topic to address. I went from a 185 and 127 underfoot with no camber (during the big Hellbent and fatter-is-better days), to a 184 and 106 underfoot with camber and rocker and it's been a real sweet spot for me. I'm a lighter skier though as well so longer I think would be like driving a boat for me. Though I will say this year with less snow I've noticed the chatter a lot more on those ice-rink days. anyways, yeah man this was great!
Thank you.. I am really glad that you did this video.. I am 5.9 240.. My longest ski is 184.. Then 179.. Then 177.. I don't want to say apples to apples because I think that even with you having the same Make and Model skis they probably change a little with the longer that you go.. My 184 has the shortest turn radius and the most rocker.. What I struggle with on them is really narrow catwalks where it is a challenge to scrub off speed.. The other thing with them is that if I am not forward on the skis then they like to turn and spin me around.. These are the only skis that my feet actually move around in the boot.. I think they have more torque.. I went skiing on 1-28-2025 and it was the last time I skied since my wipeout on 12-12-2024.. I decided to use my Nordica Enforcer 104 Free x 179.. Going into it I decided it was more of a Gratitude Day than a Lap day.. The Enforcer line is designed that you have to be on top of it all the time but I would say that these skis were amazing at just taking it easy.. I was intentional on all of my turns and yes they are big heavy skis but it is so nice to have a ski that matches your ability whether you want to give her or not..
As I progressed in my skiing, I found myself not happy on my shorter all-mountain skis, as it just wasn’t supportive enough at speed (174cm) and when I went up to 180 it provided me with enough substance to really drive into the edge on groomers, while still retaining the ability to dump speed when needed and be playful. Size is tough to truly nail, given so many skis come in different size options, and obviously different skis are for different conditions. Love the insight here, Lucas. Wish we had as much powder so I could have the time to test a WW or ARV 116, but Maine is struggling so far this winter. Cheers
I agree with you Lucas, ski length is very subjective... I know guys in BC that absolutely rip, who will not go past 178cm, even though these guys are around the same height as you... they like a soft and forgiving ski that is nimble enough to get in and around the trees... Josh Daiek, who we all agree is a legend skier, was using the QST 106 as his daily driver in a 181cm length, so again not a particularly wide ski, but obviously gets the job done for him. Really I think the go is to try as many skis as you can, use the demo skis and find something that fits your style and ability... wouldn't you agree?
I've really noticed a lot of this recently. The lines I really want to hit in a day, on the right day, I want my 186 QST Blanks or my 188 corvus. However those skis really tire me out in a long day with friends when its hard etc. It's tough because sometimes a big line is perfect for a big ski, and the rest of the mountain is hard pack
I was just blasting groomers on my mana 4 190cm skis. 0 camber, 119mm waist and had a blast. I think we need to start choosing ski lengths based upon how and what we are skiing way more then what we "should" be doing. Same goes for width, profile and stiffness.
Eric, don't you think the vast number of skiers choose their skis by what they're going to ski, then go to width, profile(incl. rocker), stiffness, length. I would think the only skiers that pick a ski by what they 'should' be doing are the very high end extreme skiers looking for a particular ski, for a specific purpose.
@NoahLuce I think a lot of skiers choose a ski based upon what they WANT to do, not what they are able to do. Any ski can get you down the mountain, but some people think a specific ski will make what they want to do come to fruition. A ski is a tool, getting a tool that does what you are GOING to do easier or better is the point. I'm not getting on an ARV 95 and doing a cork 10, because I can't do a cork 10. Someone who can do a cork 10 will do it on any ski, but the right ski will make it easier.
@@ericmehling3620 I think we're just splitting semantic hairs here. I said ''skiers choose their skis by what they're going to ski'', you're saying ''skiers choose a ski based upon what they WANT to do''. That pretty much the two ways of saying the same thing. A skiers honest about his abilities is another matter all together.
I started on ski blades. I also played hockey through college so getting hurt on ski wasn't an option. I ski advanced on blades - there isnt much I can't do. Now i'm at the point I want to ditch these forever and go full length. My issue is I'm 6'1 210 pounds and ski very aggresive. My thought is to buy a shorter full length (168) and ski it around for 5-10 days and then go up to full length like 184. I got blade optic 92 in 168 to start - what's your thoughts? I know it seems too short but I want to learn the difference quick. Thoughts? Also - don't stop posting. This and sage are the best channels!
Been skiing on 190+ length skis since 2016. My Rossignol Squad 7's are 190 cm long and those skiis can shred anything in all conditions. I'm skiing the BentChetler 120's now which are 192 long and love them. They also can shred anything I throw at them. Exhibit A (ua-cam.com/video/f561mv5pyfo/v-deo.html)
You can always spot the Americans skiing at Kicking Horse they have shorter skis 😂....ski big mountains you need to have longer skis for stability 192cm and 108mm under foot
Twin tips feel shorter than there length. How nice is the 191 / 116 when you can go full gas and straight line out of anything....⛷ Pow is setting up for you in BC. Let's go!!!!!!
Check out Viome yourself by going to tryviome.com/lucas110 and using the promo code LUCAS110 to save off your first test!
Hope you maybe learned some differences between ski lengths based on my experience with the Whitewalker at 116mm underfoot. As stated in the video, I really need a lot more time on the longer length ski to have an accurate comparison, but hopefully this shed some light. Let me know your thoughts.
❤. I’ve seen you grow tremendously over the years. So proud of ya. Many blessings. 😊
Awesome, you are improving my friend. I grew up in Breckenridge, My family owned the Breckenridge ski shops, I love seeing you getting on the longer skis, you should go as long a ski as you can dude. I started skiing 64 years ago. I'm 5'7, in my short skis were 203's. I know your father remembers all of that, ask him what his short skis used to be laugh out loud. I love watching you bud puts me back on the slopes, I can't ski anymore. Love your show.
"...ski what you want to ski..." 💯👏 Thanks for the content! 😎
I think you nailed the pros and cons. I moved from a 174cm Moment Wildcat 108 to a 192cm Dynastar Mfree 108 and noticed all the same things you did (but even more so because of the bigger size difference). After 2 seasons... I still love having the 174cm for days where I'm just puttering around with friends, or skiing easier stuff, but when it's time to ski hard, the 192s are incredible. Charge through chop, the sweet-spot for landing airs makes things feel effortless, and honestly you adjust to the increased work pretty quickly IMO. Only additional note from me is tuning. Im running 1.5 degree base /2 edge bevel and it really helped the ski feel easier to work with in tight terrain. That gets into personal preference skiing style, but worth mentioning i think as it can really transform how a ski feels.
Good to know for the future. We've got similar builds, but I think you're both stronger and a lot more experienced than I. Will consider a 192 in a few years
I used to us a Kestle 213 super g as my daily driver. Pro patroller at a small mountain. One of the ways we made long days and night skiing fun. Late 80’s and early 90’s. I think in retrospect working hard to make a long ski turn like a salmon ski made me a better skier.
Congrats, a very well thought-out comparison. You're dead on about sidecut length, the 192 is longer, 185=134.6cm, 192=138.8. And both have equal rocker 37% (19tip/18tail), running length 114.4cm and 118.9 respectively.
An interesting difference that may explain you're feeling they differently is binding 'set back': the recommended mounting point in relation to true ski center. For the 185 SB is 4.1cm. SB for the 192 is 5.7cm.
An informative experiment would be to remount the 192 1.6cm forward and see how they ski. Keep up the good work.
Dude, Just Got Back From Snowbird…was there for a beautiful Blue Ski Sunny 6 Days…Last Day Saturday …POW DAY…I Can see why you love it so much…will definately go back….and People were Very Nice !!!
Great stuff as always!
right on, cool topic to address. I went from a 185 and 127 underfoot with no camber (during the big Hellbent and fatter-is-better days), to a 184 and 106 underfoot with camber and rocker and it's been a real sweet spot for me. I'm a lighter skier though as well so longer I think would be like driving a boat for me. Though I will say this year with less snow I've noticed the chatter a lot more on those ice-rink days.
anyways, yeah man this was great!
Thank you.. I am really glad that you did this video.. I am 5.9 240.. My longest ski is 184.. Then 179.. Then 177.. I don't want to say apples to apples because I think that even with you having the same Make and Model skis they probably change a little with the longer that you go.. My 184 has the shortest turn radius and the most rocker.. What I struggle with on them is really narrow catwalks where it is a challenge to scrub off speed.. The other thing with them is that if I am not forward on the skis then they like to turn and spin me around.. These are the only skis that my feet actually move around in the boot.. I think they have more torque..
I went skiing on 1-28-2025 and it was the last time I skied since my wipeout on 12-12-2024.. I decided to use my Nordica Enforcer 104 Free x 179.. Going into it I decided it was more of a Gratitude Day than a Lap day.. The Enforcer line is designed that you have to be on top of it all the time but I would say that these skis were amazing at just taking it easy.. I was intentional on all of my turns and yes they are big heavy skis but it is so nice to have a ski that matches your ability whether you want to give her or not..
As I progressed in my skiing, I found myself not happy on my shorter all-mountain skis, as it just wasn’t supportive enough at speed (174cm) and when I went up to 180 it provided me with enough substance to really drive into the edge on groomers, while still retaining the ability to dump speed when needed and be playful.
Size is tough to truly nail, given so many skis come in different size options, and obviously different skis are for different conditions. Love the insight here, Lucas. Wish we had as much powder so I could have the time to test a WW or ARV 116, but Maine is struggling so far this winter. Cheers
Makes a lot of sense. A longer boat spans more waves and rides smoother vs a shorter boat. Same physics applies to skis.
I agree with you Lucas, ski length is very subjective... I know guys in BC that absolutely rip, who will not go past 178cm, even though these guys are around the same height as you... they like a soft and forgiving ski that is nimble enough to get in and around the trees... Josh Daiek, who we all agree is a legend skier, was using the QST 106 as his daily driver in a 181cm length, so again not a particularly wide ski, but obviously gets the job done for him. Really I think the go is to try as many skis as you can, use the demo skis and find something that fits your style and ability... wouldn't you agree?
Great data brother L
I've really noticed a lot of this recently. The lines I really want to hit in a day, on the right day, I want my 186 QST Blanks or my 188 corvus. However those skis really tire me out in a long day with friends when its hard etc. It's tough because sometimes a big line is perfect for a big ski, and the rest of the mountain is hard pack
What binding are you running on these? Looking at ordering a pair, does the 115mm brake on the looks fit the whitewalker?
I was just blasting groomers on my mana 4 190cm skis. 0 camber, 119mm waist and had a blast. I think we need to start choosing ski lengths based upon how and what we are skiing way more then what we "should" be doing. Same goes for width, profile and stiffness.
well said.
Eric, don't you think the vast number of skiers choose their skis by what they're going to ski, then go to width, profile(incl. rocker), stiffness, length. I would think the only skiers that pick a ski by what they 'should' be doing are the very high end extreme skiers looking for a particular ski, for a specific purpose.
@NoahLuce I think a lot of skiers choose a ski based upon what they WANT to do, not what they are able to do. Any ski can get you down the mountain, but some people think a specific ski will make what they want to do come to fruition. A ski is a tool, getting a tool that does what you are GOING to do easier or better is the point. I'm not getting on an ARV 95 and doing a cork 10, because I can't do a cork 10. Someone who can do a cork 10 will do it on any ski, but the right ski will make it easier.
@@ericmehling3620 I think we're just splitting semantic hairs here. I said ''skiers choose their skis by what they're going to ski'', you're saying ''skiers choose a ski based upon what they WANT to do''. That pretty much the two ways of saying the same thing. A skiers honest about his abilities is another matter all together.
I started on ski blades. I also played hockey through college so getting hurt on ski wasn't an option. I ski advanced on blades - there isnt much I can't do. Now i'm at the point I want to ditch these forever and go full length. My issue is I'm 6'1 210 pounds and ski very aggresive. My thought is to buy a shorter full length (168) and ski it around for 5-10 days and then go up to full length like 184. I got blade optic 92 in 168 to start - what's your thoughts? I know it seems too short but I want to learn the difference quick. Thoughts? Also - don't stop posting. This and sage are the best channels!
and that you have it...size does matter as conditions vary for agility and speed .
Do you have recommendation on ski boot shop/boot fitter in Vail? Headed to Vail 2/7/25. Thanks!
I don’t know anything about the shops in vail!
Been skiing on 190+ length skis since 2016. My Rossignol Squad 7's are 190 cm long and those skiis can shred anything in all conditions. I'm skiing the BentChetler 120's now which are 192 long and love them. They also can shred anything I throw at them. Exhibit A (ua-cam.com/video/f561mv5pyfo/v-deo.html)
❤
You can always spot the Americans skiing at Kicking Horse they have shorter skis 😂....ski big mountains you need to have longer skis for stability 192cm and 108mm under foot
You always need N + 1 skis. Facts.
5 inches taller than me or i don't want it.
are we still talking about skis
@@Kosaii- take it how you will 🤷♂
I bet one is shorter than the other…
Twin tips feel shorter than there length. How nice is the 191 / 116 when you can go full gas and straight line out of anything....⛷
Pow is setting up for you in BC. Let's go!!!!!!