I started skiing last year, i cannot tell you how much your videos are insightful for someone like me to get a feeling on the activity in general. Never stop!
I have been skiing for some 45 years now and you are EXACTLY RIGHT for ski length for general use. Of course, there will be exceptions depending on personal preference - but you hit the nail on the head - Great vid.
@@RicketySkiReviews Big boys a bit left out, maybe include weight range for skis as weight matters a lot, corresponds to carving and stability in turn. I've grown in fat 95 pounds for the last 8 years and have seen how I outgrow skis first hand :D. Currently at 6'0 295 I'm watching tons of review and can't get a direction of skis that I won't bottom out, and loan options are not an option so testing is impossible.
One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of modern skis, especially twin tips, have a huge amount of tip and tail rocker. That rocker doesn't do anything for you when you are on groomers, so sizing up with skis that have a lot of rocker, like the Salomon QST line could work for a lot of people.
One thing to remember too when correlating your height to where the skis tips land at your head is the fact that you'll have ski boots on. So you can easily add a couple to 3" for that. Correlating ski length to your height with sneakers on doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Other than this omission, I'd say spot on video. I'm 5'8" 170 and had the 169 Theory some years back and found them too short regardless of turn shape, terrain, or conditions. Mid 170 ish feels ideal for everything regardless of width.
Small counterpoint here! I think youre mostly spot on on width; most people (including myself) often ski skis that are too wide. However on length, I think it really depends on the skier personally. I have a race background and I am 5'7 or 170 cm, I weigh 135 lb, and my pow ski is a black crows atris 108 in 184. I ski on the east coast, and I am able to manuver them through the trees with little difficulty except for in niche scenarios. The benefit of the longer skis is that they are much more stable at speed, which I especially notice when carving. I love making fast carves, and I find that because I have the longer skis, I am able to do that and enjoy it alot when I inevitably end up on trail throughout the day. In fact for me, they are a more suitable daily driver on the east than my bent 100s in 172 because of the additional stability on edge. I think it is worth it to try out different ski lengths and widths to see what works best for each person because it will be different, especially for former racers and other strong skiers. I also have a pair of kastle mx83s on the way in 168 to be my main daily drivers going forward, which very much align with your sentiments. So it really depends on the skiers strenghts, weaknesses, and personal preference more than anything.
Fascinating and thank you. Ive always wondered why people questioned why I ski 172cm when I'm 183cm tall and 220lbs. But therein lies the reason. I have extremely strong legs (ex Olympic bobsleigh pusher) and with my weight and strength, i go faster than essentially anyone already and dont want more speed! But also want to retain manoeuvrability. And with the new Enforcers, it skis well off trail as well.
If you are touring, this doesn't exactly work. If the ski has significant early rise rocker, this doesn't work either because the effective edge is different. So I think there are a lot of things to factor and consider.
A mention on rocker and its effect on a skis edge contact length is also something to consider. A longer overall ski with a lot of rocker will tend to ski shorter than one with little to no rocker. Just a thought to throw out there for the comment section. Not all ski legths are created equal.
This really helped. Thanks. I watched a few of your videos and decided on a 85mm K2 Mindbender as my daily driver for the East Coast groomers. Lots of fun and so easy to turn. Really underrated ski. When I want a challenge and there’s a bit of pow, I also have the Enforcer 94s. Again thanks for these videos. Instant subscribe.
The chin, top of nose, top of head thing is the standard thing we tell students in ski school. But you hit on the other considerations. Shorter for a shorter radius speciality ski. Longer if you want longer radius, or if you want more floatation. Somewhere in the middle if you want more all mountain. Spot on.
Carving 65mm to 84mm. Anything more than that is more of an all mountain ski category. Don’t know of a carver that would recommend 90mm. I agree with your ski lengths. Some people equate expertise with length which is bs.
Nice review. Perfect comment about “what do you want of the ski”. I’d add being honest about what terrain and snow type you ski. I think ski shops often over sell people. Feeding the ego of the buyer. I’m on 170’s for slalom skis. 177’s for my all mountain ski. I’m 5’-10” for reference.
I like park, glades, and sking switch/freestyle. I've always gone a little short and also mounted closer to center. Right now I'm 5' 11" and 185 pounds on 173cm skis with a 96mm waist. I might go up to 4 mm wider and up to 180 cm in length, but I'm not feeling that. People sometimes look at my skis and comment that they are short. I just say that I don't buy a ski length in an effort to "compensate for something".
As a 185cm/87kg strong intermediate, I spent so much time debating between a 172ish and a 178ish ski that I primarily intend to use for carving and shorter turns - the Internet is obsessed over the potential loss of stability at speed, but I have no idea how much speed they're talking about. This video is exactly what I needed - I'll go with 172 and I'm sure it'll be good!
@@davisb69 Sorta. I did buy a 173 Stockli Montero AX - but yet to get it on snow. But I'm still confident that the choice of length in a groomer ski, especially one with two sheets of metal, should be dictated by your preference in turn shape. After all, longest slalom skis are 165-170 cm, and very tall people are supposed to somehow ski on them 😀
It's right. I had hard time progressing on longer skis. So I bought another pair of shorter skis. After improving skills, I went back to my longer skis. But I have to say longer skis are lot more fun than shorter skis.
Totally, I think it just depends on the setting, and what you want out of the ski. I do like my longer skis on the big lines and in the deep powder, but I like my zippy turns too.
Well, wish I saw this last week! 50 year old intermediate here, 6-2.5, 200lbs. I pulled trigger on a good deal on Maverick 86Cs at 184cm… was debating that or 176, decided to jump on the good deal and see how it goes. I prob ski 5 times a year. PA ice coast, 99.6% on trail. Anyway, thanks for the great videos!
Elliott I have to say, your length and width guidance seems more applicable to men! My wife who weighs ~120 lbs and is 5'2" does rather well on most Snowbird boot top plus powder days on her 164 cm 92 Armada Declivity's.
That sounds great for Snowbird! That place gets a ton of snow and has big terrain. If you're wife is happy with that ski, then everyone's happy! Cheers from Idaho.
As a 5'6" "midget rugby player" --- It all about being able to bend the ski -- whether that's due to technique, intended application, weight, strength, height / leverage, agression, and the ski itself... height is only 1 variable -- and a 5'6" sumo wrestler might easily bend a ski easier than a 6'2" popsicle stick and want a longer ski...
Agreed, I had a friend who was 5'7" and loved stiffer skis, because he was just that dynamic with his downhill ski pressure. Great insight and cheers from Idaho!
I think you need to differentiate between Rocky Mountain powder and the wetter heavier deeper snows of the Sierras and Coast range. Longer and wider definitely makes a difference once the slopes get a bit tracked out. What has impressed me over the years is how well the "fat" skis have improved beyond just skiing powder. I have a pair of Voile V8's that are actually pretty fun on the groomers as long as there is 2-3 inches of soft snow to set the edge. I end up skiing these things many more days that I thought when I got them 4 years ago.
Thanks for the video. I am 164 cm tall, 140 lb and just completed my first season . I am starting to do blues and mostly plan to do resorts in pnw (specifically Seattle area) over the next 2-3 years. I am looking to get atomic maverick 86c. I am confused between the two ski length options: 153 or 161. 153 seems a little short and 161 seems a little tall :) . Suggestions ?
Do you mean unweighting the skis to initiate a new turn. In my mind "jump turns" only happen on extremely steep and narrow chutes or similar. I learned to ski powder on 210 kastle GS racing skis back about 1979/80. Everyone skied longer skis back then I was 6'4" 190 lbs. Everyone unweighted to turn, sort of a bouncing technique. I ski 195 - 198 cm now still racing stock GS Fischer or Blizzard.
I agree with the multi ski approach for conditions but when I’m going out west on vacation I’m only taking one pair so I need a Swiss Army knife. Im going with ‘24 Rustler 9’s now. They’re pretty fun all over the mountain
Right on! Thanks for sharing! I'm 185cm and run 176 atomic maverick for a daily carver and just got a pair of 182 qst 106's for powder. The Mantras were one of my favorite skis for heavy snow last year.
@@RicketySkiReviews I'm on my 5th pair of Mantras and they just keep getting better each iteration ...I know that are harder to turn in the steep and bumps ... they are heavy but they ski powder and crud like a dream. They make a 191 better I think for speed and they know anyone who drives one will have a few skills
People should choose relative ski length based on the size of ones ambitions. Longer skis naturally want to ski faster more aggressive lines, the most aggressive skiers need the length for stability in chop and at high speeds. If you can rise to the occasion and hang on they will work for you, if not you will always fight them. Wider skis also add stability, even on hardpack but only for experts, they demand even more to roll over and hold that aggressive carve line. Regardless big skis must be worked up to and many people do themselves a disservice by going too big too soon. If your skis are over your head ask yourself, are you really in that top 5% expert level that can actually utilize them, if not, should probably go smaller. It's not like an old lady driving a sports car to the grocery store, big aggressive skis just don't work properly without the proper driver, and most people aren't there yet.
longer skis mean less balancing you have to do. If you can not everything else correctly for and aft balance is the hardest thing to actually do. There is limit to this especially in the east but the reality is if the ski is mostlly tracking tail behind tip the ski will work better especially in variable 3d terrain.
Back in the day you would get escorted off the run if you were skiing a serious mogul run on anything shorter than 200’s. You would be considered part of the problem. But that was way back when. Of course the skis were only 2" wide.
Did I just hear Elliot admit that his opinions are not popular!? I’m 6’ on moment wildcats… progressively mounted, extreme rocker, 118 underfoot and 190 length 😬 this feels appropriate at a place like Alta. It doesn’t hurt my knees much because the turn radius is massive
I demoed a volkl m6 mantra at a 184 (I think) and for me at 5'11" it felt wayyyyy too long. For that stiff of a ski it felt like had a mind of it's own. My skis are a 180 and I dont think I'd go any longer.
The stability of the ski is a multiplication of length x width - surface area. That's why you can run shorter fat skis. Also if you mid-mount bindings then skis get super unstable in choppy snow. Duh!
Good point! I personally don't like the balance on the short wide skis, I personally like my wide skis a little bit longer to kind of balance out the turn shapes. Great comment, cheers!
Hi Rick….I’m so torn about the 88ti. I consider my self advanced (not racing background, yet I learnt with friends who used to race) and picky with my technique. I’m in love with my oldd Atomic Metron 5 from long time ago (if I remember correctly they’re 74-76 under foot) and still rocking them and carving pretty well. I’ve been thinking about renovating them. I love carving…groomers above all. After reading and watching videos, the 88ti are becoming top choice. however, ‘m not sure if they’re the correct choice for me. I understand your perspective but I’m really into groomers….yet I don’t want to miss the rare powder days we get here. For real, the 88ti are that good when pushing and carving? What other choices would you recommend? Under 85mm? Thanks for the patience .
Yeah I hear you, I think they're perfect for what you described, but you might also consider a Fischer Ranger 90 or a QST 92, (neither under 85 lol sorry). If you're back east maybe a stormrider 88 or Stockli Laser, in the west, I bet you'd love the mavericks or the qsts
@@RicketySkiReviews thanks. Ìll give it some thought and try to find some rentals just to get some feel from either. Thanks for your time to read and answer.
I really enjoy your videos, but one big question for me: Why is there zero discussion about skier weight? I get that it's a simple formula with height, but surely a 6' skier that weighs 185 has different needs than a 6' skier that weighs 225 who can bend a ski a lot more, especially off piste, in bumps, etc. So, why are so many testers and manufactures discounting weight and only talking about height when discussing "The RIGHT Size SKI?"
You’ve provided some very helpful information! I have question which you might have already answered indirectly. I learned skiing back in the late 70s, using now outdated straight skis. I was using 190s when I last skied 20+ years ago. I was an advanced moderate skier. I could parallel, even carve a little, although tending to slide in turns. It was all just recreational, no competition. Now I’m 62, thinking about buying some new skis. My skiing would be mostly groomers, occasional crud or milder moguls, and perhaps some moderate glades. All in the eastern states, mostly PA. Given my experience, age, and assuming a typical under foot width, and rocker/camber ski, what general length would you suggest? I’m thinking something 160-170 would be good, but I’m still trying to wrap my head around going back to a length that I started on back when I first learned to ski 50 years ago. Lol. Are parabolic skis easier or more difficult to learn than the old style? And why the shorter lengths compared to years ago? I’m fascinated by all the info you provided! It’s crazy how much technology has changed since I stopped skiing years ago! Thanks, bro!
Definitely shorter than straight skis, I would say the 160-170 sounds smart, I would honestly demo some skis if you can, and then some shops will let you use that demo as a credit towards your purchase. I would maybe start with a Salomon QST or Fischer Ranger, but it totally depends on your style. Honestly start with a one-on-one lesson and get some demo skis just as a primer to figure out what you like. I think this video has a good explanation of shape skis and kind of the anatomy of the turn and how carving works. Hope this helps! Thanks for watching: ua-cam.com/video/AOrxHVJoKLA/v-deo.htmlsi=TGaTQewc_oQsN69K
@flapjackson6077 if you skied 190s on old straight skis -- mid to upper 160s is about right... If you're skiing PA, mid 80s is about right for underfoot all mtn and mid-70s to low 80s is for groomers only. If you think you're going to get some off piste soft stuff away from PA on occasion and like trees, you could go up to a QST 92. Paraboic skis are easier than old skis -- you can still ski them like straight skis if you want (many people do) OR you can use the ski shape and good technique to make skiing MUCH easier.. And the reason you can use "shorter" skis is that the wider tips and tails give you the same surface area and the sidecut and camber creates a more effective edge than old straight skis. And Elliot has the best advice -- rent for a while and try out different skis -- my suggestions are just a starting guide for what to look for.
@@jehjay2600 😂 My man! That was some killer advice! I’ve been researching, and you’re dang near spot on! I’m inclined to the Atomic 88ti, a midrange under foot width. I saw that they might feel a little stiff at rated weight if not carving, but are still great for standard parallel technique. I think for somebody like me, at 6’ 200 lbs. a 176 (the size offered in that range) would be a nice balance. I’m not necessarily interested in off piste or glades stuff, but I might get jiggy and try it out. Been years since I did that stuff! 🤙
@@flapjackson6077 given your size and weight -- that sounds like a good choice -- you'll grow INTO it fairly quickly and won't grow out of it for a while. I haven't skied them so I have no comment other than the sizing choice. At 200lbs a 176 likely won't feel too stiff -- many manufacturers that use weight in their sizing calculations expect intermediate to advanced 200lbs to be on mid 180s -- and intermediates to be mid 170s... manufacturers that use height often put 6footers on 175 to 190s -- so you're choice is right smack in the middle for both rules of thumb.
This was helpful. I’m 170cm and fairly light, skiing on 176cm skis with lots of tip and tail rocker (DPS Foundation Wailer 99). While the effective edge is not super long and they’re great skis for the whole mountain here in the Sierra, sometimes they are just too long to feel manageable especially in trees. Those tips are pretty far away from me!
Ha you're a Mt. Hood summer camp racer there's a small chance we're both there 10 to 20 yrs ago. Haven't skied there since Labor Day 2013. Now I ski Mammoth summer or whenever they close then hang the skis up. No real moguls at Hood unless the camps leave. How cool for you!
I'm 174/82kg and just got the Rustler 9 180. Skiing them first time next week and I'm worried, first time skis that long, I love trees but really value stability at speed too. Words of encouragement? I tried to consider the long rocker, you don't touch on that in this video?
Thanks for your video, i love it! i'm 5'11 for 200 pounds, advanced skier, i love carving on groomers, but where i'm skiing in the afternoon the snow is very soft and melting. I want to buy the Nordica Steadfast 85 DC. i thonk the right size is 174 but maybe the 168 for shorter turn, what do you think? Thenk you 👍
I'm 5'9", 138 lb, beginner/intermediate. I got the Salomon QST 92 size 176, and they stand a bit over my head. I'm curious if the 168's would be better for my purposes. Though their size chart suggested the 176. Any advice?
If it were me I would probably lean towards the 168's but if you like the 176's and they're working for you, I would just go with what feels best on your feet.
I'm out in the east coast, hitting mostly NY, VT, and NH. I'm 5'10" and 190lbs. What specs would you recommend I get for new skis? I started off with a used pair of K2 Apache from a ski shop but am looking to upgrade. I'd say I'm a solid intermediate skiier, hitting only groomed trails.
This is normally a service I do for channel members, but I have a minute so I'll give you a quick answer. I would try out some 172 Fischer Ranger 90s or some Qst 92's and see how you like those to start.
ok, so 5'10 and 250lbs, Advanced. Carving groomers, going fast and Pow float. Not a huge fan of tight trees but more likely to find myself in them that huge open bowls. No park. I think my enforcer 88s are 186. What might you recommend for length in general.Would 180cm be better, say in an Atomic Maverick 95 Ti? A different set of skis than the enforcer 88s might be better for Japan pow. (but I'm only going to take one pair, for a Japan trip, so it has to do for groomers and everything, as well as pow) for Snowboards, there's always a weight range which determines board size. if the Atomic Maverick is the go, did the ski change at all from the 22/23 to the 23/24 model?
@@RicketySkiReviews I've really only been snowboarding a bit in the last couple of years. Most of my skiing was done from the 70s up to spring '93 - skis generally around 200cm, + 203 and 210cm GS skis, so very old school in length and construction. Trying to get my head around the current ski lengths. TBH, skill is somewhere between Int-Adv.
I am 5'6" 150lbs Intermediate skier. I just ordered qst 98 in 169. Is this gonna be a good ski and size for me? I am coming from a enforcer 94 in 173. I found them hard to turn and my legs got sore fast. Was told the qst would be alot easier for me. Your thoughts?
Do you feel like a taller, heavier skier may benefit from wider skis for powder or soft snow over going super long? I’m 6’3” 250 probably 260 with clothes and gear on. I look at most powder skis and it seems like they are made so soft and flexible I wonder if they are going to be to soft for me. I’m hoping I can get out west and maybe try some wider skis of soft conditions this season to see how it feels.
Hey, I'm a similar build and I would say that the length is important, and if you need flotation the width is important. But if you're worried about a ski being too soft, you want to look at construction of the ski. Skis with TI are going to have more resistance and help make sure you're not maxing out the skis flex. hope this helped!
I never understand how there is no accounting for the weight of the skier. I’m 5’11” and 190 lb. I have friends over 6 feet that are lighter than me. Seems like an important factor…
5'8" 155 lbs. Intermediate/Advanced skier now. Been between 155 to 160 on performance rentals. Want turning performance more than speed but don't want to be always pulling up the rear. Ski in Colorado locations with useuall lots of snow. More concerned with improving carving form/ technique, short, medium, and long turns. Also thinking thinner better? Your thoughts?
Yeah go with a 160 or whatever you prefer, thinner skis take less work to go from edge to edge, so go like 80-90width depending on what you want it to do. Would suggest checking out Fischer Rangers. I have a few reviews on them.
geeat vid. I am 184 and weigh 75kg. Really like versatility from high speed carving on piste to powder. generally higher speeds. want to buy qst 92 and need to decide among 176 and 184cm - what do you suggest?
Hey good info ! Thanks for the explanation, I got a question your height your giving is it in gear or with out gear? I’m 5.10 with out gear and looking to get Volkl 106 blaze but not sure if to get 179 or 185 cm I like speed but also like to carve and powder will be new thing for me what are your thoughts? Thank you once again.
If you want it to float and do big powder lines I would go 185, If you want to carve it well I would go 179. Ultimately it's only 6cms so not a huge difference, but me personally at those specs I would grab the 179. Cheers!
Yes, that's one thing. I've noticed Americana ski on shorter skis come to Canada to Rockies where there's a lot more wide open bowls have steeper runs and we seem to be skiing on longer boards you look at the lift line at the kicking horse and the skis are much longer like 192s and the Americans are all standing in line with shorter skis. What's up with that
I‘m planning to get a 110 underfoot ski because I ski mainly in powder resorts in Japan for example and most of the runs are ungroomed. What length would you recommend if I'm 178cm tall and intermediate to advanced skier?
so even as intermediate to advanced skier (not expert) i would still generally need a powder ski around 4-8cm taller than me? quite surprised for that as i was planning to get a 181cm@@RicketySkiReviews
Overall totally agree with you. Most people on the slopes ride skis that are both too long and too much width. Plus, a lot of them have way too long poles its insane ! But a method to decide ski lenght. I feel like we give too much credibility to one's height while we should be looking much more whats one's weight, ski style and level. And what I precisely mean is, ultimately, the determining question we should ask ourselves for ski lenght is : How much Gforce do you apply on your skis when skiing ? So to me height is much less important than the other 3 (weight, style, technique) because they influence applied Gforce much more! For exemple : a father of a kid I coach is approximately 5 feet 7, 260 pounds, is an expert and the name of the game for him is carving while going as fast as he can. This guy applies so much Gforce on his skis he requires longer skis than most. On the contrary, my dad's friend is 6 feet 1, 210 pounds. So still pretty big and much taller than the first. He spends all his time carving short slalom turns. His whole thing is working on his technique and he is also kinda affraid to go too fast. He rides shorter skis than most skiers because he is patient and lets the skis do their job, lower speed and less aggression from his part significantly reduce the Gforce applied on the skis. Ps : I'm not sure if Gforce is the right term, but you get the idea.
I thouroughly agree with you -- as that 5'6" midget rugby blayer --- It all about being able to bend the ski -- whether that's due to technique, intended application, weight, strength, height / leverage, agression, and the ski itself... height is only 1 variable -- and a 5'6" sumo wrestler might easily bend a ski easier than a 6'2" popsicle stick and want a longer ski...
@@lisayist not always, the two exemples I gave yes those guys know what they want. But my take my dad, he doesnt think about that at all. He wants to get recommendations when he buys a pair of skis. Just by asking him questions he gets it since he's been skiing for like 40 years, but he has the feeling that he cannot decides this on his own.
I think too it's to taste, but I think for taller people they have to consider height at least partially, because it could affect their center of balance when in the trees/ powder. But overall you're totally right. There's a lot of nuance, and a lot of mis-sizing going on in the shops.
Totally agree! I’m an advanced skier who prefers off piste, chutes, trees- etc. I’d been told for years that long is better for higher skill level. So I made the mistake of buying a ski that’s slightly taller than me, and had a horrible time on it. I backed off to skis that come to my eyebrows and it’s perfect. I need nimble/agile. It’s more about skier style and terrain preference.
The QST 106 actually has a longer radius than the blank by a good margin. I have 106s though and they carve surprisingly well though. If you really step on it it'll come around, even though the stated radius is longer.
short answer, IT DEPENDS!!!!! every idiot has an opinion, even me. For reference 6'1 230lbs muscular build. Been skiing for 30 years. My skis = 187cm x 96cm NEVER HAD A BETTER SIZE/SKI, fits EVERY part of the mountain. I spend most of my time in the trees in between the blue and black runs, but also hit the powder bowls, moguls, park. disclaimer( i don't slalom). I have a 106 for powder and i also have a twin tip park ski. btw, camera looks to have taken an inch or two off your height, not sure why, camera view? ty for the video!
Ok so I am switching to the dark side this year for my kids after 20 years of snowboarding and been watching a bunch of your vids. Just realized you’re in Idaho, and based on what I saw on your IG I think we ski the same mtn. I’m sure you’ll see me this year… I’ll Be the guy on qst 92s chasing my kid off the deer point lift praying I don’t die 😂😂😂
I’m 6’1” and 184 is my shortest ski. 194 for really deep powder. Everyday ski is QST 106 189. All about preference. I am out west. So that does make a difference. Thx for the video
Yeah for powder, head height and up only. If you are on less you are just porpoising off the bottom likely unless on super wide or just riding your tails with 90 percent of the ski out of the snow
But did you try all of those same skis in the shorter length to determine what size you like, or are you just stating the size that you bought but you don’t actually know which size you would prefer on snow?
your comment about being realistic with yourself about what youre going to be doing is huge. Up until this year I spent all my time watching big mountain skiiers (Nikoli) wanting to do similar things, chasing my fitness level, and skiing skis that were too wide and too long for my skill level and strength. While I had fun in the years past, this year I picked up a set of 175 bent 90s, focused on having fun in bounds, stopped hiking to terrain just to say i did, and I watched my skiing progress more this season than it did in the last 4. Does my ego like to tell people im skiing a 90 underfoot? No, but im having so much fun out there and exploring new terrain and I just dont care
I have watch a few of your ski review videos and I notice you refer to skis being better suited to either “East Coast” or “West Coast” conditions. By “West Coast” it sounds like you are referring to Utah, Colorado, and the Pacific Northwest. I don’t think I’ve ever heard you mention California. In Ca, our snow is usually thick wet crap (called California concrete or Sierra cement). Could mention how well skis you review would be suitable for Ca snow conditions? Thanks!
Totally! I've avoided talking about CA too much, just because I've only skied there a couple times and didn't want to mis-speak, but I will talk with my friend Zach who is from there (and in a couple of the videos). Would you say CA heavy snow is pretty similar to some of the heavier snow that OR sees in the spring?
Great video. How much does weight play a factor in here? I’m the same height as you 6’1 and I’m about 205 ibs. Should I add a few cm to the length numbers considering I’m on the heavier side?
Hey man I love the videos keep up the great work. I’m looking for a new ski to be my all mountain daily driver. I live in the Denver area and mostly ski Copper and Winter Park. I’m an 5’ 11’’ advanced skier who weighs 150lbs. I prefer glades and moguls but also love a nice groomer. I’m thinking of getting a pair K2 Mindbender 99 Tis in 184cm. Let me know if you have any recommendations on other pairs or lenghts I should look at. I picked the Mindbenders from a video you posted a month ago about ski deals.
Very Nice, My friend Zach got the same skis and he's skiing very similar locations. I would probably check out the Salomon QST's I think they make a beautiful tree ski, and there are some great prices atm, but I think either way you'll be happy. I would just watch this review and make sure that all of the features listed are what you like out of a ski: ua-cam.com/video/85dRP7FtgWA/v-deo.htmlsi=4gbHU0rWBRBaIjfI
Hey, thanks for the thorough video as always. I’m currently living in Colorado and my daily drivers are the Head Kore 99, I’m a pretty good skier and looking for something narrower since I feel that for most days 99 underfoot is too wide. I’m stuck between the Black Crows Mirus Cor, the Volkl Deacon 84, Elan Wingman 86cti and the Maverick 88ti. Do you have any insight on the other options? Considering how highly you talk about the Maverick’s. Definitely want a ski more focused towards carving but still be able to go through the whole mountain when there’s not a lot of snow.
Great question, I would say I've only skied 2 out of the 4 there, so hard to give an honest assessment. I do love my Mavericks though, and think 88 is a great daily driver width. It just depends on what you want, I use mine to carve gs/sl turns and hop into powder packs I see just off trail. And I like how they initiate the turn at the front of the ski. But hard to say what you'll prefer. They're my top rated ski though, so definitely worth at least trying. If you've ever skied the Atomic Vantage these are very similar.
Hi, I am intermediate skier want to progress into advanced and expert at the end of the day. 175cm and 135lb, very interested in getting the ranger 90 here, as my current ski is 80mm@161cm. But I felt I am between size for the ranger 90. They offer 170 or 177, with the ranger 96 offering a 173. With the rocker tip it had, would you recommend 177 over 170? Or actually 96@173 the better ? I am 60% east coast, 40% CO. Like to carve but prefer the feel of control if I have to say. I demo the atomic 86c@168 and felt it too stiff, and a Rosi 94ish@172 in a light powder day and find it perfect on crud. Do you think ranger 90 is a good fit for me? Is 177 too long? What length do you recommend ? Thanks!
Finally! Awesome advice. I will be watching all our videos. Your review of the Stormrider weaknesses was dead accurate. Porpoised through some powder at Alta, UT a few weeks ago, wonderful damp but required extra energy to ski with because it erased the energy I was putting into the ski, did not turn particularly well - absorbed chunder reasonably well, but wore me out. Awesome ski in many ways, but a bit of an expensive mistake. Thanks for the awesome, thoughtful, and finally "common sense" analysis of ski positives and negatives. Good job!
Great video! I know im late to the video, but ive been meaning to ask a community with a lot of knowledge on this. Im 6'6" but only around 160lbs, Ill ski pretty much any groomer in ur average Europe resort, but I struggled a lot holding my edges on like say 175 rental ski. Do you feel like this makes sense given my height and weight or am I just looking at a skill issue?
sounds likely to be either a ski boot issue, or perhaps needing a ski made of softer material, you need more pressure on your downhill ski it sounds like there's something going on between your flex and the ski holding it's shape, but I would start with boots, and then try some softer skis. Hope that helps!
Agree. I get SO tired of people telling me I need 100+ mm at waist. Getting those things turned on the groomers sucks. Have skied everything from a 181 to a 203 length. Loved them all as long as I matched them to the conditions for the day. One of my favorites for years was a 198 Fischer World Cup SL.
There is so much more than your height determining the right ski length. In fact height isn't anywhere near as important as weight when choosing your ski length. Throw in effective edge length, skier level, type of skiing they want to accomplish, strength etc. there simply isn't a good recommendation you can give over an internet video. I am 5'10 and have skis that range from 174 to 186. I am a heavier guy with very stong legs that can bend a ski appropriately and can often overpower shorter skis unless they are very stiff. When clients ask about buying their own skis I tell them to go to a shop and talk with a pro. So anyone coming across this video or any other about choosing ski length needs to take everything said with a heavy grain of salt.
Did you watch the video? I said everything you said in the first paragraph. I even have similarly sized skis? Maybe I'm just misreading your comment but it sounds like we agree, lol.
5’8” and I ski 178-182. The only ski I regret having long is a Mx83 at 182 got them half off and really like them but I know mid low 170s would be best for me on that ski
I'm 6'1" and I feel like 180 is a good length for me. If I was skiing deep powder maybe I could add a few, but seriously, that never happens. For more groomer carving, I could subtract a few. So I think I'm in your suggested range. Why do some companies measure the lengths differently?
I'm not sure, I think shops want to move the longer sizes at times, it can also depend on how the ski feels, but that's the main culprit imo. Thanks for watching!
@UCxqDaZ-5QfZ2FmrL74euEZg for example, Elan will measure them longer than say Fischer. I don't know if it's when they measure during the build process (e.g. before or after mold) or similar. It would be nice if they all measured the same way to compare apples to apples.
I'am 6.0ft and my powder ski is 184cm, and my park skis are 180cm.. Your video is spot on. I never bought a ski even close to my height, only my current skis are 184 which are powder ski only because there's huge gap in size 176 and then 184cm. But my last powder skis were 179cm, which was ideal for me. I'am mostly freestyle guy, and trying to be creative on the mountain, and honestly i never feel anybody need to buy skis longer than their height. I've seen people buying longer skis, for powder claiming as an excuse they are too heavy for shorter size. But they don't try to solve the problem, to just lose the weight..
Elliot. I'm trying to decind on new skis and I'm looking at Faction Agents for a 70BC/30inbounds touring skis. Hey Guys! Which lenght would you recommend 177 or 182? I'm 181cm tall and weigh 93kg. 41yo intermediate looking for getting more confidence, not a speed deamon by no means. Last year I had the QST's 98 @183 - love them but these are too heavy and kickturns weren't the easiest.
As a tall, skinny skier I've always considered weight a critical factor when deciding ski length but it tends to get ignored--Probably because mentioning your customer's weight isn't a great way to sell your product. (Realistically, I think it's your center of mass that matters but that's much harder to put a number on; women and tall men tend to have a lower center of mass.) The charts and even the chin/nose/eyebrow scales break down completely for tall beginners, at 6'7", my chin is almost at 180, but 180 skis would be impossibly hard for a beginner, no matter their height. The simple guides are meant to be for beginners, but it's only once they can carve that they will see any non-powder benefits from the length of the ski.
Thx for the insight. I got a great deal of qst 98 at 189. I'm wondering if it will be fine for me due to my weight. I'm 6'2 (187cm), but only weight 143 lbs (65kg). Do you think I will be fine on the 189? I'm advanced and ski only out West (North shore and Whistler).
Should be fine for that area. I have a subscription service on the channel if you want like a specific ski rec or sizing for you or ski coaching feeback. I try and reply but it can be hard to stay on top of.
Helllo, want to buy atomic bent 110, i m 180 cm and 78 kg, want to use them for pretty much everythin, groomers, tight trees, off piste, powder, backcountry, hitting side kickers etc. Would you recommend 180 or 188 lenght on those?
I like the presenter but the information is woefully incomplete and at times miss guiding. In a general sense it’s good but it doesn’t mention about rocker tip, twin tip, etc. and these things have a huge effect on the amount of edge ask he has on groom to rain which is 90% of skier’s out there.
Age, height. weight and skier type, and go to the eyebrows bro. Dependent on how much tip and tail rocker and terrain- Thank you for putting up this vid!
Great video! overall I would agree but for sure I think it comes down to preference and you won’t know your preference unless you try out a lot of different skis. Most ski shops in Europe will let you try out different skis for a small price I’m not sure if the same is true for the US. I’m 5’9/5’10 or 177cm and my daily driver is a 170cm ski with 100mm underfoot. I would say my next ski will be a 177/178 as I think I could benefit from a bit more length but I felt a 180 was too much effort to control. With regards to waist width, I typically ski mainly off piste, finding my own lines only use the trail to get some warm up runs in the morning. So a lot of my time is spent in crud and pow off the trails. I would say for me 100 underfoot doesn’t give enough floatation, it could be bc I’m a bit too heavy for my skis. I’m athletic build but 190lbs or 86kg, but for sure after testing, 108+ is where I started to notice a significant difference in flotation and ease of use. For anyone like me 5’9/5’10 - between 180-190lbs and an advanced skiier, I’d highly recommend looking at skis between 175-179cm with a waist with of 108-112mm if you spend your entire time on piste then definitely something 100mm and less
Im 6’2 and consider myself an intermediate looking at all mountain skis. Last year I was on 170cm and was comfortable with the length.. currently looking at going up to 176 cm as I want to get a little more aggressive do you think this would be a big change?
I just bought a set of the bent chetler 120s 184 length. I'm 6' 0" 195LBS what do you think? There was a great deal on them so I just picked them up since I already ski a set of Kendo 88' 184.
I haven't skied the 120s, only the 100's and they weren't for me, but I've heard people like the 120's alot more, and I'm assuming you're using them as a powder ski? Try them out and hopefully you like them.
Big, wide skis are better in powder. But most days are not powder days. New snow less than 4 inches is not really a powder day. Hence, most ski days are frontside ski days for which a ski that is narrower under foot is better for carving turns and bumps.
I ski on Stockli Laser skis which are 78 under foot. I prefer a ski that will carve on concrete, is nimble in the bumps yet capable for powder days. @@RicketySkiReviews
I started skiing last year, i cannot tell you how much your videos are insightful for someone like me to get a feeling on the activity in general. Never stop!
Thanks for the kind words!
I have been skiing for some 45 years now and you are EXACTLY RIGHT for ski length for general use. Of course, there will be exceptions depending on personal preference - but you hit the nail on the head - Great vid.
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the video!
@@RicketySkiReviews Big boys a bit left out, maybe include weight range for skis as weight matters a lot, corresponds to carving and stability in turn. I've grown in fat 95 pounds for the last 8 years and have seen how I outgrow skis first hand :D. Currently at 6'0 295 I'm watching tons of review and can't get a direction of skis that I won't bottom out, and loan options are not an option so testing is impossible.
One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of modern skis, especially twin tips, have a huge amount of tip and tail rocker. That rocker doesn't do anything for you when you are on groomers, so sizing up with skis that have a lot of rocker, like the Salomon QST line could work for a lot of people.
True, and especially with particularly rockered powders skis which is part of why I suggest a bit more on those.
Sizing up like how much longer from the chin? How many cm? I’m 5’10 and a beginner, and looking at getting the solomon QST. Thanks in advance
Exactly. I'm 178cm tall and ride a 181cm in the Season Kin. Shorter in that model would be strange. I'm intermediate/intermediate plus.
One thing to remember too when correlating your height to where the skis tips land at your head is the fact that you'll have ski boots on. So you can easily add a couple to 3" for that. Correlating ski length to your height with sneakers on doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Other than this omission, I'd say spot on video. I'm 5'8" 170 and had the 169 Theory some years back and found them too short regardless of turn shape, terrain, or conditions. Mid 170 ish feels ideal for everything regardless of width.
Small counterpoint here! I think youre mostly spot on on width; most people (including myself) often ski skis that are too wide. However on length, I think it really depends on the skier personally. I have a race background and I am 5'7 or 170 cm, I weigh 135 lb, and my pow ski is a black crows atris 108 in 184. I ski on the east coast, and I am able to manuver them through the trees with little difficulty except for in niche scenarios. The benefit of the longer skis is that they are much more stable at speed, which I especially notice when carving. I love making fast carves, and I find that because I have the longer skis, I am able to do that and enjoy it alot when I inevitably end up on trail throughout the day. In fact for me, they are a more suitable daily driver on the east than my bent 100s in 172 because of the additional stability on edge. I think it is worth it to try out different ski lengths and widths to see what works best for each person because it will be different, especially for former racers and other strong skiers. I also have a pair of kastle mx83s on the way in 168 to be my main daily drivers going forward, which very much align with your sentiments. So it really depends on the skiers strenghts, weaknesses, and personal preference more than anything.
Fascinating and thank you. Ive always wondered why people questioned why I ski 172cm when I'm 183cm tall and 220lbs. But therein lies the reason. I have extremely strong legs (ex Olympic bobsleigh pusher) and with my weight and strength, i go faster than essentially anyone already and dont want more speed! But also want to retain manoeuvrability. And with the new Enforcers, it skis well off trail as well.
If you are touring, this doesn't exactly work. If the ski has significant early rise rocker, this doesn't work either because the effective edge is different. So I think there are a lot of things to factor and consider.
Great point, I'm definitely not a touring expert.
A mention on rocker and its effect on a skis edge contact length is also something to consider. A longer overall ski with a lot of rocker will tend to ski shorter than one with little to no rocker. Just a thought to throw out there for the comment section. Not all ski legths are created equal.
This really helped. Thanks. I watched a few of your videos and decided on a 85mm K2 Mindbender as my daily driver for the East Coast groomers. Lots of fun and so easy to turn. Really underrated ski. When I want a challenge and there’s a bit of pow, I also have the Enforcer 94s.
Again thanks for these videos. Instant subscribe.
Great to hear!
The chin, top of nose, top of head thing is the standard thing we tell students in ski school. But you hit on the other considerations. Shorter for a shorter radius speciality ski. Longer if you want longer radius, or if you want more floatation. Somewhere in the middle if you want more all mountain. Spot on.
Thanks!
Carving 65mm to 84mm. Anything more than that is more of an all mountain ski category. Don’t know of a carver that would recommend 90mm. I agree with your ski lengths. Some people equate expertise with length which is bs.
Great point, I like an 88/90mm for carving specifically in the west, but the snow's a bit softer and can be finessed a bit more. Cheers!
Nice review. Perfect comment about “what do you want of the ski”. I’d add being honest about what terrain and snow type you ski.
I think ski shops often over sell people. Feeding the ego of the buyer.
I’m on 170’s for slalom skis. 177’s for my all mountain ski. I’m 5’-10” for reference.
Good picks! Yeah I agree
I like park, glades, and sking switch/freestyle. I've always gone a little short and also mounted closer to center. Right now I'm 5' 11" and 185 pounds on 173cm skis with a 96mm waist. I might go up to 4 mm wider and up to 180 cm in length, but I'm not feeling that.
People sometimes look at my skis and comment that they are short. I just say that I don't buy a ski length in an effort to "compensate for something".
Lol great comment! You're right on track with me, and I get comments about my Mavericks, but it's all about what you like at the end of the day.
Really great insight on these two confusing topics!
As a 185cm/87kg strong intermediate, I spent so much time debating between a 172ish and a 178ish ski that I primarily intend to use for carving and shorter turns - the Internet is obsessed over the potential loss of stability at speed, but I have no idea how much speed they're talking about. This video is exactly what I needed - I'll go with 172 and I'm sure it'll be good!
Did this work out? I am 181cm and would also consider myself a strong intermediate and like carving and some moguls.
@@davisb69 Sorta. I did buy a 173 Stockli Montero AX - but yet to get it on snow. But I'm still confident that the choice of length in a groomer ski, especially one with two sheets of metal, should be dictated by your preference in turn shape. After all, longest slalom skis are 165-170 cm, and very tall people are supposed to somehow ski on them 😀
178!
Im going for 186
Good video dude, as an instructor, this is some of the realist advice out there
Thanks so much! This is the nicest comment I've seen in a while.
It's right. I had hard time progressing on longer skis. So I bought another pair of shorter skis. After improving skills, I went back to my longer skis. But I have to say longer skis are lot more fun than shorter skis.
Totally, I think it just depends on the setting, and what you want out of the ski. I do like my longer skis on the big lines and in the deep powder, but I like my zippy turns too.
Well, wish I saw this last week! 50 year old intermediate here, 6-2.5, 200lbs. I pulled trigger on a good deal on Maverick 86Cs at 184cm… was debating that or 176, decided to jump on the good deal and see how it goes. I prob ski 5 times a year. PA ice coast, 99.6% on trail. Anyway, thanks for the great videos!
Elliott I have to say, your length and width guidance seems more applicable to men! My wife who weighs ~120 lbs and is 5'2" does rather well on most Snowbird boot top plus powder days on her 164 cm 92 Armada Declivity's.
That sounds great for Snowbird! That place gets a ton of snow and has big terrain.
If you're wife is happy with that ski, then everyone's happy! Cheers from Idaho.
I agree.
@@saraw6710 My wife now has a pair of Armada Declivity 102 in 164cm ... they were a good upgrade for her skill level.
As a 5'6" "midget rugby player" --- It all about being able to bend the ski -- whether that's due to technique, intended application, weight, strength, height / leverage, agression, and the ski itself... height is only 1 variable -- and a 5'6" sumo wrestler might easily bend a ski easier than a 6'2" popsicle stick and want a longer ski...
Agreed, I had a friend who was 5'7" and loved stiffer skis, because he was just that dynamic with his downhill ski pressure. Great insight and cheers from Idaho!
I think you need to differentiate between Rocky Mountain powder and the wetter heavier deeper snows of the Sierras and Coast range. Longer and wider definitely makes a difference once the slopes get a bit tracked out. What has impressed me over the years is how well the "fat" skis have improved beyond just skiing powder. I have a pair of Voile V8's that are actually pretty fun on the groomers as long as there is 2-3 inches of soft snow to set the edge. I end up skiing these things many more days that I thought when I got them 4 years ago.
I agree! We're in a golden age of ski design imo. Having 100mm width skis that can still carve is amazing to me.
Thanks for the video. I am 164 cm tall, 140 lb and just completed my first season . I am starting to do blues and mostly plan to do resorts in pnw (specifically Seattle area) over the next 2-3 years. I am looking to get atomic maverick 86c. I am confused between the two ski length options: 153 or 161. 153 seems a little short and 161 seems a little tall :) . Suggestions ?
I learned to jump turn in powder in the 80's with straight 2,05m. After that, everything is easy and short.
I mean it's apples and oranges, but I hear you.
Do you mean unweighting the skis to initiate a new turn. In my mind "jump turns" only happen on extremely steep and narrow chutes or similar.
I learned to ski powder on 210 kastle GS racing skis back about 1979/80. Everyone skied longer skis back then I was 6'4" 190 lbs. Everyone unweighted to turn, sort of a bouncing technique. I ski 195 - 198 cm now still racing stock GS Fischer or Blizzard.
@@danblumel Yes, I mean step slopes but at the same time in heavy powder, skis didn't float like today and you had to help them a little.
I agree with the multi ski approach for conditions but when I’m going out west on vacation I’m only taking one pair so I need a Swiss Army knife. Im going with ‘24 Rustler 9’s now. They’re pretty fun all over the mountain
Cool
I'm a old retired ski patroller 191cm tall and over 130kg ... I ski 191 Volkl Mantra's and I'm very happy
Right on! Thanks for sharing! I'm 185cm and run 176 atomic maverick for a daily carver and just got a pair of 182 qst 106's for powder.
The Mantras were one of my favorite skis for heavy snow last year.
@@RicketySkiReviews I'm on my 5th pair of Mantras and they just keep getting better each iteration ...I know that are harder to turn in the steep and bumps ... they are heavy but they ski powder and crud like a dream. They make a 191 better I think for speed and they know anyone who drives one will have a few skills
People should choose relative ski length based on the size of ones ambitions. Longer skis naturally want to ski faster more aggressive lines, the most aggressive skiers need the length for stability in chop and at high speeds. If you can rise to the occasion and hang on they will work for you, if not you will always fight them. Wider skis also add stability, even on hardpack but only for experts, they demand even more to roll over and hold that aggressive carve line. Regardless big skis must be worked up to and many people do themselves a disservice by going too big too soon. If your skis are over your head ask yourself, are you really in that top 5% expert level that can actually utilize them, if not, should probably go smaller. It's not like an old lady driving a sports car to the grocery store, big aggressive skis just don't work properly without the proper driver, and most people aren't there yet.
Couldn't agree more!
Im 184 cm tall. Ski a 188cm Bent 100, and a 192cm Bent Chetler 120. Been skiing for 5 years after a 25 year layoff.
longer skis mean less balancing you have to do.
If you can not everything else correctly for and aft balance is the hardest thing to actually do. There is limit to this especially in the east but the reality is if the ski is mostlly tracking tail behind tip the ski will work better especially in variable 3d terrain.
Great point.
Damned. I am 5’7” and ski 180. Western Colorado skiing mostly. What I have always had. Work fine.
A lot of it's just personal preference, if that's working for you, shred on!
Back in the day you would get escorted off the run if you were skiing a serious mogul run on anything shorter than 200’s. You would be considered part of the problem. But that was way back when. Of course the skis were only 2" wide.
Did I just hear Elliot admit that his opinions are not popular!? I’m 6’ on moment wildcats… progressively mounted, extreme rocker, 118 underfoot and 190 length 😬 this feels appropriate at a place like Alta. It doesn’t hurt my knees much because the turn radius is massive
My SKINNY ski is a deathwish 104
I agree, that sounds totally reasonable for Alta! lol, but for the rest of us maybe overkill
Im 6ft and my main ski is a 184 my pow skis are 191
I demoed a volkl m6 mantra at a 184 (I think) and for me at 5'11" it felt wayyyyy too long. For that stiff of a ski it felt like had a mind of it's own. My skis are a 180 and I dont think I'd go any longer.
Agreed, with a ski that chunky, I think 180 sounds preferable!
The stability of the ski is a multiplication of length x width - surface area. That's why you can run shorter fat skis. Also if you mid-mount bindings then skis get super unstable in choppy snow. Duh!
Good point! I personally don't like the balance on the short wide skis, I personally like my wide skis a little bit longer to kind of balance out the turn shapes. Great comment, cheers!
Hi Rick….I’m so torn about the 88ti. I consider my self advanced (not racing background, yet I learnt with friends who used to race) and picky with my technique. I’m in love with my oldd Atomic Metron 5 from long time ago (if I remember correctly they’re 74-76 under foot) and still rocking them and carving pretty well. I’ve been thinking about renovating them. I love carving…groomers above all. After reading and watching videos, the 88ti are becoming top choice. however, ‘m not sure if they’re the correct choice for me. I understand your perspective but I’m really into groomers….yet I don’t want to miss the rare powder days we get here. For real, the 88ti are that good when pushing and carving? What other choices would you recommend? Under 85mm? Thanks for the patience .
Yeah I hear you, I think they're perfect for what you described, but you might also consider a Fischer Ranger 90 or a QST 92, (neither under 85 lol sorry). If you're back east maybe a stormrider 88 or Stockli Laser, in the west, I bet you'd love the mavericks or the qsts
@@RicketySkiReviews thanks. Ìll give it some thought and try to find some rentals just to get some feel from either. Thanks for your time to read and answer.
I really enjoy your videos, but one big question for me: Why is there zero discussion about skier weight? I get that it's a simple formula with height, but surely a 6' skier that weighs 185 has different needs than a 6' skier that weighs 225 who can bend a ski a lot more, especially off piste, in bumps, etc. So, why are so many testers and manufactures discounting weight and only talking about height when discussing "The RIGHT Size SKI?"
You’ve provided some very helpful information! I have question which you might have already answered indirectly.
I learned skiing back in the late 70s, using now outdated straight skis.
I was using 190s when I last skied 20+ years ago. I was an advanced moderate skier. I could parallel, even carve a little, although tending to slide in turns. It was all just recreational, no competition.
Now I’m 62, thinking about buying some new skis. My skiing would be mostly groomers, occasional crud or milder moguls, and perhaps some moderate glades. All in the eastern states, mostly PA.
Given my experience, age, and assuming a typical under foot width, and rocker/camber ski,
what general length would you suggest?
I’m thinking something 160-170 would be good, but I’m still trying to wrap my head around going back to a length that I started on back when I first learned to ski 50 years ago. Lol.
Are parabolic skis easier or more difficult to learn than the old style?
And why the shorter lengths compared to years ago?
I’m fascinated by all the info you provided! It’s crazy how much technology has changed since I stopped skiing years ago!
Thanks, bro!
Definitely shorter than straight skis, I would say the 160-170 sounds smart, I would honestly demo some skis if you can, and then some shops will let you use that demo as a credit towards your purchase. I would maybe start with a Salomon QST or Fischer Ranger, but it totally depends on your style.
Honestly start with a one-on-one lesson and get some demo skis just as a primer to figure out what you like.
I think this video has a good explanation of shape skis and kind of the anatomy of the turn and how carving works.
Hope this helps! Thanks for watching: ua-cam.com/video/AOrxHVJoKLA/v-deo.htmlsi=TGaTQewc_oQsN69K
@flapjackson6077 if you skied 190s on old straight skis -- mid to upper 160s is about right... If you're skiing PA, mid 80s is about right for underfoot all mtn and mid-70s to low 80s is for groomers only. If you think you're going to get some off piste soft stuff away from PA on occasion and like trees, you could go up to a QST 92. Paraboic skis are easier than old skis -- you can still ski them like straight skis if you want (many people do) OR you can use the ski shape and good technique to make skiing MUCH easier.. And the reason you can use "shorter" skis is that the wider tips and tails give you the same surface area and the sidecut and camber creates a more effective edge than old straight skis. And Elliot has the best advice -- rent for a while and try out different skis -- my suggestions are just a starting guide for what to look for.
@@jehjay2600
😂 My man! That was some killer advice! I’ve been researching, and you’re dang near spot on!
I’m inclined to the Atomic 88ti, a midrange under foot width. I saw that they might feel a little stiff at rated weight if not carving, but are still great for standard parallel technique. I think for somebody like me, at 6’ 200 lbs. a 176 (the size offered in that range) would be a nice balance. I’m not necessarily interested in off piste or glades stuff, but I might get jiggy and try it out. Been years since I did that stuff! 🤙
@@flapjackson6077 given your size and weight -- that sounds like a good choice -- you'll grow INTO it fairly quickly and won't grow out of it for a while. I haven't skied them so I have no comment other than the sizing choice. At 200lbs a 176 likely won't feel too stiff -- many manufacturers that use weight in their sizing calculations expect intermediate to advanced 200lbs to be on mid 180s -- and intermediates to be mid 170s... manufacturers that use height often put 6footers on 175 to 190s -- so you're choice is right smack in the middle for both rules of thumb.
Very good information/ideas, enjoyed it! Curious, you mentioned Mantra, what size would you ski?
For me personally like between a 175 or 180 would be nice, just depends on what I plan on using it for.
boots on or off for these ski lengths?
off
This was helpful. I’m 170cm and fairly light, skiing on 176cm skis with lots of tip and tail rocker (DPS Foundation Wailer 99). While the effective edge is not super long and they’re great skis for the whole mountain here in the Sierra, sometimes they are just too long to feel manageable especially in trees. Those tips are pretty far away from me!
agreed, and in the trees you need that room to turn your skis sideways!
Ha you're a Mt. Hood summer camp racer there's a small chance we're both there 10 to 20 yrs ago. Haven't skied there since Labor Day 2013. Now I ski Mammoth summer or whenever they close then hang the skis up. No real moguls at Hood unless the camps leave. How cool for you!
I don't know what the fuss is all about.. I'm 2m (6'7") and if I know what ski I want, I just take the longest ski available... ^^
Haha, I guess that makes it simple!
I'm 174/82kg and just got the Rustler 9 180.
Skiing them first time next week and I'm worried, first time skis that long, I love trees but really value stability at speed too.
Words of encouragement? I tried to consider the long rocker, you don't touch on that in this video?
Thanks for your video, i love it! i'm 5'11 for 200 pounds, advanced skier, i love carving on groomers, but where i'm skiing in the afternoon the snow is very soft and melting. I want to buy the Nordica Steadfast 85 DC. i thonk the right size is 174 but maybe the 168 for shorter turn, what do you think? Thenk you 👍
5'7", 160 lbs, aggressive skier, Volkl Mantra M5/M6 170cm.
I'm 5'9", 138 lb, beginner/intermediate. I got the Salomon QST 92 size 176, and they stand a bit over my head. I'm curious if the 168's would be better for my purposes. Though their size chart suggested the 176. Any advice?
If it were me I would probably lean towards the 168's but if you like the 176's and they're working for you, I would just go with what feels best on your feet.
@@RicketySkiReviewsthanks 🤙will take into account.
I'm out in the east coast, hitting mostly NY, VT, and NH. I'm 5'10" and 190lbs. What specs would you recommend I get for new skis? I started off with a used pair of K2 Apache from a ski shop but am looking to upgrade. I'd say I'm a solid intermediate skiier, hitting only groomed trails.
This is normally a service I do for channel members, but I have a minute so I'll give you a quick answer. I would try out some 172 Fischer Ranger 90s or some Qst 92's and see how you like those to start.
How do I become a member?@@RicketySkiReviews
@@mbhuiyan223 Go Here: www.youtube.com/@RicketySkiReviews, Under the banner there's a button that says "Join" next to "subscribe"
ok, so 5'10 and 250lbs, Advanced. Carving groomers, going fast and Pow float. Not a huge fan of tight trees but more likely to find myself in them that huge open bowls.
No park. I think my enforcer 88s are 186. What might you recommend for length in general.Would 180cm be better, say in an Atomic Maverick 95 Ti? A different set of skis than the enforcer 88s might be better for Japan pow. (but I'm only going to take one pair, for a Japan trip, so it has to do for groomers and everything, as well as pow)
for Snowboards, there's always a weight range which determines board size.
if the Atomic Maverick is the go, did the ski change at all from the 22/23 to the 23/24 model?
No change in the maverick since it's inception a few years ago. 95 in a 180 sounds great for what you described. What length do you typically like?
@@RicketySkiReviews I've really only been snowboarding a bit in the last couple of years. Most of my skiing was done from the 70s up to spring '93 - skis generally around 200cm, + 203 and 210cm GS skis, so very old school in length and construction. Trying to get my head around the current ski lengths. TBH, skill is somewhere between Int-Adv.
I am 5'6" 150lbs Intermediate skier. I just ordered qst 98 in 169. Is this gonna be a good ski and size for me? I am coming from a enforcer 94 in 173. I found them hard to turn and my legs got sore fast. Was told the qst would be alot easier for me. Your thoughts?
Do you feel like a taller, heavier skier may benefit from wider skis for powder or soft snow over going super long? I’m 6’3” 250 probably 260 with clothes and gear on. I look at most powder skis and it seems like they are made so soft and flexible I wonder if they are going to be to soft for me. I’m hoping I can get out west and maybe try some wider skis of soft conditions this season to see how it feels.
Rittik, Good question! Height is just a general estimate for leverage, weight, and power into a ski. Additionally, each ski is
Hey, I'm a similar build and I would say that the length is important, and if you need flotation the width is important. But if you're worried about a ski being too soft, you want to look at construction of the ski. Skis with TI are going to have more resistance and help make sure you're not maxing out the skis flex.
hope this helped!
I never understand how there is no accounting for the weight of the skier. I’m 5’11” and 190 lb. I have friends over 6 feet that are lighter than me. Seems like an important factor…
It totally is, but it's also kind of paired with ability to flex your boot and flex the ski imo
I agree 100%. Weight is a huge factor that is easily overlooked. I am 180 cm long and 95 kg so I go for longer than thinner skiers go for.
Does this change with rockered twin tips
I'm pretty sure both my skis are too long, but sometimes that used deal is hard to pass up Lol
5'8" 155 lbs. Intermediate/Advanced skier now. Been between 155 to 160 on performance rentals. Want turning performance more than speed but don't want to be always pulling up the rear. Ski in Colorado locations with useuall lots of snow. More concerned with improving carving form/ technique, short, medium, and long turns. Also thinking thinner better? Your thoughts?
Yeah go with a 160 or whatever you prefer, thinner skis take less work to go from edge to edge, so go like 80-90width depending on what you want it to do. Would suggest checking out Fischer Rangers. I have a few reviews on them.
Perfect! Thanks@@RicketySkiReviews
OMG! This video is featured on Powder magazine's website!!!
Woah, wait, what?
geeat vid. I am 184 and weigh 75kg. Really like versatility from high speed carving on piste to powder. generally higher speeds. want to buy qst 92 and need to decide among 176 and 184cm - what do you suggest?
at 6ft 185 pounds do you think 177cm is too much if i dont plan on going into powder that often and I like to carve but also go fast?
No should be fine!
Where in Idaho do you ski?
Hey good info ! Thanks for the explanation, I got a question your height your giving is it in gear or with out gear?
I’m 5.10 with out gear and looking to get Volkl 106 blaze but not sure if to get 179 or 185 cm I like speed but also like to carve and powder will be new thing for me what are your thoughts?
Thank you once again.
If you want it to float and do big powder lines I would go 185, If you want to carve it well I would go 179. Ultimately it's only 6cms so not a huge difference, but me personally at those specs I would grab the 179. Cheers!
@@RicketySkiReviews thank you 🙏
Yes, that's one thing. I've noticed Americana ski on shorter skis come to Canada to Rockies where there's a lot more wide open bowls have steeper runs and we seem to be skiing on longer boards you look at the lift line at the kicking horse and the skis are much longer like 192s and the Americans are all standing in line with shorter skis. What's up with that
Just conditions I would guess, majority of days we don't actually need anything that big in most of US, especially East Coast.
I‘m planning to get a 110 underfoot ski because I ski mainly in powder resorts in Japan for example and most of the runs are ungroomed. What length would you recommend if I'm 178cm tall and intermediate to advanced skier?
For powder? Depends on preference, would say somewhere between 182 and 188, I run a 182, but I also want options when I get into the trees.
so even as intermediate to advanced skier (not expert) i would still generally need a powder ski around 4-8cm taller than me? quite surprised for that as i was planning to get a 181cm@@RicketySkiReviews
👍👍👍👍
Overall totally agree with you. Most people on the slopes ride skis that are both too long and too much width. Plus, a lot of them have way too long poles its insane !
But a method to decide ski lenght. I feel like we give too much credibility to one's height while we should be looking much more whats one's weight, ski style and level. And what I precisely mean is, ultimately, the determining question we should ask ourselves for ski lenght is : How much Gforce do you apply on your skis when skiing ? So to me height is much less important than the other 3 (weight, style, technique) because they influence applied Gforce much more!
For exemple : a father of a kid I coach is approximately 5 feet 7, 260 pounds, is an expert and the name of the game for him is carving while going as fast as he can. This guy applies so much Gforce on his skis he requires longer skis than most. On the contrary, my dad's friend is 6 feet 1, 210 pounds. So still pretty big and much taller than the first. He spends all his time carving short slalom turns. His whole thing is working on his technique and he is also kinda affraid to go too fast. He rides shorter skis than most skiers because he is patient and lets the skis do their job, lower speed and less aggression from his part significantly reduce the Gforce applied on the skis.
Ps : I'm not sure if Gforce is the right term, but you get the idea.
Advanced skiers know what they want. Ski length guide is more for beginners.
I thouroughly agree with you -- as that 5'6" midget rugby blayer --- It all about being able to bend the ski -- whether that's due to technique, intended application, weight, strength, height / leverage, agression, and the ski itself... height is only 1 variable -- and a 5'6" sumo wrestler might easily bend a ski easier than a 6'2" popsicle stick and want a longer ski...
@@lisayist not always, the two exemples I gave yes those guys know what they want. But my take my dad, he doesnt think about that at all. He wants to get recommendations when he buys a pair of skis. Just by asking him questions he gets it since he's been skiing for like 40 years, but he has the feeling that he cannot decides this on his own.
I think too it's to taste, but I think for taller people they have to consider height at least partially, because it could affect their center of balance when in the trees/ powder. But overall you're totally right. There's a lot of nuance, and a lot of mis-sizing going on in the shops.
In reply to your PS, I think the term you’re looking for is angular momentum. 😊
Totally agree! I’m an advanced skier who prefers off piste, chutes, trees- etc. I’d been told for years that long is better for higher skill level. So I made the mistake of buying a ski that’s slightly taller than me, and had a horrible time on it. I backed off to skis that come to my eyebrows and it’s perfect. I need nimble/agile. It’s more about skier style and terrain preference.
Well said! Yes, it happens to me every year, I got put on some really long demo skis last year that were just really unpleasant.
Shorter = better
Real issue is they never make enough of the smaller sizes… 5’8” and under 165 ftw
@@darylfortney8081 Amen to that! It is so hard to find skis for me. I’m 5’6”!
Super helpful. Thanks.
I’m 5’ 11”, 220 lbs, 40 to 50 days a season, pretty good skier.
Slalom Carver, 155cm
All-mountain piste, 160cm
Race Carver, 168cm
Freeride, 178cm
Powder, 189cm
Funcarver, 138cm
Great sizing! pretty similar to my own.
The QST 106 actually has a longer radius than the blank by a good margin. I have 106s though and they carve surprisingly well though. If you really step on it it'll come around, even though the stated radius is longer.
Interesting!
short answer, IT DEPENDS!!!!! every idiot has an opinion, even me. For reference 6'1 230lbs muscular build. Been skiing for 30 years. My skis = 187cm x 96cm NEVER HAD A BETTER SIZE/SKI, fits EVERY part of the mountain. I spend most of my time in the trees in between the blue and black runs, but also hit the powder bowls, moguls, park. disclaimer( i don't slalom). I have a 106 for powder and i also have a twin tip park ski.
btw, camera looks to have taken an inch or two off your height, not sure why, camera view?
ty for the video!
Ok so I am switching to the dark side this year for my kids after 20 years of snowboarding and been watching a bunch of your vids. Just realized you’re in Idaho, and based on what I saw on your IG I think we ski the same mtn. I’m sure you’ll see me this year… I’ll
Be the guy on qst 92s chasing my kid off the deer point lift praying I don’t die 😂😂😂
when the rental shop asks what size skiis do you want? you always reply. "how long ya got?!!
lol, that's great
I’m 6’1” and 184 is my shortest ski. 194 for really deep powder. Everyday ski is QST 106 189. All about preference. I am out west. So that does make a difference. Thx for the video
Right on! Yeah I think the location plays a huge role like you pointed out.
Yeah for powder, head height and up only. If you are on less you are just porpoising off the bottom likely unless on super wide or just riding your tails with 90 percent of the ski out of the snow
But did you try all of those same skis in the shorter length to determine what size you like, or are you just stating the size that you bought but you don’t actually know which size you would prefer on snow?
your comment about being realistic with yourself about what youre going to be doing is huge. Up until this year I spent all my time watching big mountain skiiers (Nikoli) wanting to do similar things, chasing my fitness level, and skiing skis that were too wide and too long for my skill level and strength. While I had fun in the years past, this year I picked up a set of 175 bent 90s, focused on having fun in bounds, stopped hiking to terrain just to say i did, and I watched my skiing progress more this season than it did in the last 4. Does my ego like to tell people im skiing a 90 underfoot? No, but im having so much fun out there and exploring new terrain and I just dont care
Same, I run a maverick 88, but honestly I've improved so much just via mileage as well. Cheers!
I have watch a few of your ski review videos and I notice you refer to skis being better suited to either “East Coast” or “West Coast” conditions. By “West Coast” it sounds like you are referring to Utah, Colorado, and the Pacific Northwest. I don’t think I’ve ever heard you mention California. In Ca, our snow is usually thick wet crap (called California concrete or Sierra cement). Could mention how well skis you review would be suitable for Ca snow conditions? Thanks!
Totally! I've avoided talking about CA too much, just because I've only skied there a couple times and didn't want to mis-speak, but I will talk with my friend Zach who is from there (and in a couple of the videos). Would you say CA heavy snow is pretty similar to some of the heavier snow that OR sees in the spring?
Tell me you're a jerry without telling me you're a jerry
Great video. How much does weight play a factor in here? I’m the same height as you 6’1 and I’m about 205 ibs. Should I add a few cm to the length numbers considering I’m on the heavier side?
A bit, but honestly weight affects the amount of stiffness and rigidity you want rather than length imo.
Hey man I love the videos keep up the great work. I’m looking for a new ski to be my all mountain daily driver. I live in the Denver area and mostly ski Copper and Winter Park. I’m an 5’ 11’’ advanced skier who weighs 150lbs. I prefer glades and moguls but also love a nice groomer. I’m thinking of getting a pair K2 Mindbender 99 Tis in 184cm. Let me know if you have any recommendations on other pairs or lenghts I should look at. I picked the Mindbenders from a video you posted a month ago about ski deals.
Very Nice, My friend Zach got the same skis and he's skiing very similar locations. I would probably check out the Salomon QST's I think they make a beautiful tree ski, and there are some great prices atm, but I think either way you'll be happy. I would just watch this review and make sure that all of the features listed are what you like out of a ski: ua-cam.com/video/85dRP7FtgWA/v-deo.htmlsi=4gbHU0rWBRBaIjfI
Hey, thanks for the thorough video as always. I’m currently living in Colorado and my daily drivers are the Head Kore 99, I’m a pretty good skier and looking for something narrower since I feel that for most days 99 underfoot is too wide. I’m stuck between the Black Crows Mirus Cor, the Volkl Deacon 84, Elan Wingman 86cti and the Maverick 88ti. Do you have any insight on the other options? Considering how highly you talk about the Maverick’s. Definitely want a ski more focused towards carving but still be able to go through the whole mountain when there’s not a lot of snow.
Great question, I would say I've only skied 2 out of the 4 there, so hard to give an honest assessment. I do love my Mavericks though, and think 88 is a great daily driver width. It just depends on what you want, I use mine to carve gs/sl turns and hop into powder packs I see just off trail. And I like how they initiate the turn at the front of the ski. But hard to say what you'll prefer. They're my top rated ski though, so definitely worth at least trying. If you've ever skied the Atomic Vantage these are very similar.
If I'm skiing the trees, rocks etc I use 172. On powder or groomer days I ski 188. My height is 183 and I'm 76.
Right on, I agree! I like a little more room to breath in the trees as well
Hi, I am intermediate skier want to progress into advanced and expert at the end of the day. 175cm and 135lb, very interested in getting the ranger 90 here, as my current ski is 80mm@161cm. But I felt I am between size for the ranger 90. They offer 170 or 177, with the ranger 96 offering a 173. With the rocker tip it had, would you recommend 177 over 170? Or actually 96@173 the better ? I am 60% east coast, 40% CO. Like to carve but prefer the feel of control if I have to say. I demo the atomic 86c@168 and felt it too stiff, and a Rosi 94ish@172 in a light powder day and find it perfect on crud. Do you think ranger 90 is a good fit for me? Is 177 too long? What length do you recommend ? Thanks!
"I want longer and more stability"... That's what she said
lmao
Finally! Awesome advice. I will be watching all our videos. Your review of the Stormrider weaknesses was dead accurate. Porpoised through some powder at Alta, UT a few weeks ago, wonderful damp but required extra energy to ski with because it erased the energy I was putting into the ski, did not turn particularly well - absorbed chunder reasonably well, but wore me out. Awesome ski in many ways, but a bit of an expensive mistake. Thanks for the awesome, thoughtful, and finally "common sense" analysis of ski positives and negatives. Good job!
Great video! I know im late to the video, but ive been meaning to ask a community with a lot of knowledge on this. Im 6'6" but only around 160lbs, Ill ski pretty much any groomer in ur average Europe resort, but I struggled a lot holding my edges on like say 175 rental ski. Do you feel like this makes sense given my height and weight or am I just looking at a skill issue?
sounds likely to be either a ski boot issue, or perhaps needing a ski made of softer material, you need more pressure on your downhill ski it sounds like there's something going on between your flex and the ski holding it's shape, but I would start with boots, and then try some softer skis. Hope that helps!
@@RicketySkiReviews Thanks for the reply! Ill definitely try to experiment with this, coming winter :)
Agree. I get SO tired of people telling me I need 100+ mm at waist. Getting those things turned on the groomers sucks. Have skied everything from a 181 to a 203 length. Loved them all as long as I matched them to the conditions for the day. One of my favorites for years was a 198 Fischer World Cup SL.
Oh those sound awesome!
i love my bent 110s on groomers 😂😂
Your skis are too small!
I don't think so
There is so much more than your height determining the right ski length. In fact height isn't anywhere near as important as weight when choosing your ski length. Throw in effective edge length, skier level, type of skiing they want to accomplish, strength etc. there simply isn't a good recommendation you can give over an internet video. I am 5'10 and have skis that range from 174 to 186. I am a heavier guy with very stong legs that can bend a ski appropriately and can often overpower shorter skis unless they are very stiff.
When clients ask about buying their own skis I tell them to go to a shop and talk with a pro. So anyone coming across this video or any other about choosing ski length needs to take everything said with a heavy grain of salt.
Did you watch the video? I said everything you said in the first paragraph. I even have similarly sized skis? Maybe I'm just misreading your comment but it sounds like we agree, lol.
5’8” and I ski 178-182. The only ski I regret having long is a Mx83 at 182 got them half off and really like them but I know mid low 170s would be best for me on that ski
I'm 6'1" and I feel like 180 is a good length for me. If I was skiing deep powder maybe I could add a few, but seriously, that never happens. For more groomer carving, I could subtract a few. So I think I'm in your suggested range. Why do some companies measure the lengths differently?
I'm not sure, I think shops want to move the longer sizes at times, it can also depend on how the ski feels, but that's the main culprit imo. Thanks for watching!
Depend on the chamber/ rocker ratio. More rocker=longer length.
@UCxqDaZ-5QfZ2FmrL74euEZg for example, Elan will measure them longer than say Fischer. I don't know if it's when they measure during the build process (e.g. before or after mold) or similar. It would be nice if they all measured the same way to compare apples to apples.
I'am 6.0ft and my powder ski is 184cm, and my park skis are 180cm.. Your video is spot on. I never bought a ski even close to my height, only my current skis are 184 which are powder ski only because there's huge gap in size 176 and then 184cm. But my last powder skis were 179cm, which was ideal for me.
I'am mostly freestyle guy, and trying to be creative on the mountain, and honestly i never feel anybody need to buy skis longer than their height. I've seen people buying longer skis, for powder claiming as an excuse they are too heavy for shorter size. But they don't try to solve the problem, to just lose the weight..
Agreed! also I think there's being "able" to ski on long skis, which is different from "skiing the ski well". Cheers.
Elliot. I'm trying to decind on new skis and I'm looking at Faction Agents for a 70BC/30inbounds touring skis. Hey Guys! Which lenght would you recommend 177 or 182? I'm 181cm tall and weigh 93kg. 41yo intermediate looking for getting more confidence, not a speed deamon by no means. Last year I had the QST's 98 @183 - love them but these are too heavy and kickturns weren't the easiest.
Try out the 177's maybe depending on what you like
That was super informative liked the break down
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for watching!
As a tall, skinny skier I've always considered weight a critical factor when deciding ski length but it tends to get ignored--Probably because mentioning your customer's weight isn't a great way to sell your product. (Realistically, I think it's your center of mass that matters but that's much harder to put a number on; women and tall men tend to have a lower center of mass.)
The charts and even the chin/nose/eyebrow scales break down completely for tall beginners, at 6'7", my chin is almost at 180, but 180 skis would be impossibly hard for a beginner, no matter their height. The simple guides are meant to be for beginners, but it's only once they can carve that they will see any non-powder benefits from the length of the ski.
Totally agree. And no matter your height if you're in the trees, longer skis will limit maneuverability.
Great insight, cheers!
Thx for the insight. I got a great deal of qst 98 at 189. I'm wondering if it will be fine for me due to my weight. I'm 6'2 (187cm), but only weight 143 lbs (65kg). Do you think I will be fine on the 189? I'm advanced and ski only out West (North shore and Whistler).
Should be fine for that area. I have a subscription service on the channel if you want like a specific ski rec or sizing for you or ski coaching feeback. I try and reply but it can be hard to stay on top of.
Helllo, want to buy atomic bent 110, i m 180 cm and 78 kg, want to use them for pretty much everythin, groomers, tight trees, off piste, powder, backcountry, hitting side kickers etc. Would you recommend 180 or 188 lenght on those?
Just depends on your preference but I prefer a shorter ski in the trees, I'm 6'1" and ski a 182 for my powder ski just bc I want room to turn.
I like the presenter but the information is woefully incomplete and at times miss guiding. In a general sense it’s good but it doesn’t mention about rocker tip, twin tip, etc. and these things have a huge effect on the amount of edge ask he has on groom to rain which is 90% of skier’s out there.
Hey at least you like the presenter!
I think weight plays a significant role in ski length
Damn I wish I watched this a week ago before left out west I would’ve been happy with my K2 185. I got stuck believing I needed 104.
I'm sure you'll be happy, there's just so much that depends on weather and snow conditions.
Age, height. weight and skier type, and go to the eyebrows bro. Dependent on how much tip and tail rocker and terrain- Thank you for putting up this vid!
Thanks for the nice comment! Cheers!
Skis length is weight/skill dependent. Buyings skis by length is just stupid, but is a lot easier for the shops.
Agreed, there's a lot of different factors
Nailed it.
Thanks Meko!
Great video! overall I would agree but for sure I think it comes down to preference and you won’t know your preference unless you try out a lot of different skis. Most ski shops in Europe will let you try out different skis for a small price I’m not sure if the same is true for the US.
I’m 5’9/5’10 or 177cm and my daily driver is a 170cm ski with 100mm underfoot. I would say my next ski will be a 177/178 as I think I could benefit from a bit more length but I felt a 180 was too much effort to control.
With regards to waist width, I typically ski mainly off piste, finding my own lines only use the trail to get some warm up runs in the morning. So a lot of my time is spent in crud and pow off the trails. I would say for me 100 underfoot doesn’t give enough floatation, it could be bc I’m a bit too heavy for my skis. I’m athletic build but 190lbs or 86kg, but for sure after testing, 108+ is where I started to notice a significant difference in flotation and ease of use.
For anyone like me 5’9/5’10 - between 180-190lbs and an advanced skiier, I’d highly recommend looking at skis between 175-179cm with a waist with of 108-112mm if you spend your entire time on piste then definitely something 100mm and less
Im 6’2 and consider myself an intermediate looking at all mountain skis. Last year I was on 170cm and was comfortable with the length.. currently looking at going up to 176 cm as I want to get a little more aggressive do you think this would be a big change?
Not really, honestly for your height that size makes alot more sense, i'm 6'1 and ski a 176 carver and 182 for powder.
@@RicketySkiReviews went with 176 and they feel perfect thanks for the video it was very informative
I just bought a set of the bent chetler 120s 184 length. I'm 6' 0" 195LBS what do you think? There was a great deal on them so I just picked them up since I already ski a set of Kendo 88' 184.
I haven't skied the 120s, only the 100's and they weren't for me, but I've heard people like the 120's alot more, and I'm assuming you're using them as a powder ski? Try them out and hopefully you like them.
Sounds good man thank you! @@RicketySkiReviews
Big, wide skis are better in powder. But most days are not powder days. New snow less than 4 inches is not really a powder day. Hence, most ski days are frontside ski days for which a ski that is narrower under foot is better for carving turns and bumps.
Agreed
I ski on Stockli Laser skis which are 78 under foot. I prefer a ski that will carve on concrete, is nimble in the bumps yet capable for powder days. @@RicketySkiReviews