Ok 6 feet tall are 172s to short

if its a lizzie which is what it sounds like and your doin east coast shit i would say its fine. cause the surface area of that ski alone is prob equal to liek 185cm ski thats 80 underfoot.
 
Surface area isn't what matters... when you tower 6 feet over your skis, your body acts as a lever an will overpower your skis if they are short.

I would never buy anything shorter than 180 if you are 6 foot.
 
if you are a beginning to intermediate skier they'll be fine. or if you enjoy spinning 900s off 10ft jumps they'll be fine. if not, get something bigger.
 
i'm the same size, I wanna ride lizzies SOOO bad to see if they are too short or not, but probably pushin it
 
I'm about 5' 9" and ride 181s and they ride so much smoother then shorter skis, If I were you I wouldn't even consider going shorter then 180.
 
Go back and read my post. I explain to you WHY it's too short, I don't just tell you it's too short or "OK if it's lizzies" based on personal preference.

172ss really really are too short if you are an aggresive skier, unless they are slalom skis.
 
im like 5 10 and i ride a 176 in the park and it feels short, if i was getting a new park ski it would be around a 180. however i ride a 169 but its a fat ski and im telemarking through northeastern woods on those
 
im like 5-10 and my park skis are 176 and my pow skis (that are in the mail) are 188. hopefully they wont be too long for me, i think ill be able to handle it
 
I'm 10 pounds lighter than you and I ride 189 Seth Pistols and 186 LP's (which I think are a bit short). Unless the ski you're looking at is 130 at the waist, has no sidecut, and flexes like a 2X4 172 is going to be short. Or if you're a pansy they could be ok too.

But then again, ski length is all dependant on terrain, skier type, ski type, and personal preference.
 
But I think he's considering the Elizabeth, which is designed differently, and meant to be ridden shorter, like a snowboard.
 
so many of you kids ride skis to long for you cause you're so damn light. wieght is a bigger factor in ski size than the leverage from height. and for the kid who hadn't skied 188s before and was unsure about the length, i would be worried if you're hesitant about JPs, they are so easy to ski, like my ideal BC ski for trees and jumps.
 
I'm 5'10 and ski 191 ANTs and they feel fine not long at all, in fact the nose feels a bit short even mounted -2. Remember with a real twintip you are losing a ton of effective edge. 172 twintip is like a damn slalom ski, it will suck outside park if you are 6 feet tall. Even in park it will feel short and squirly.
 
if you center mount your skis, then yes go super long or if you ski big mountain terrain. but if you are setting them up traditionaly or ski in the east, you dont need to go that long. I'm 6ft and my skis are in the 170-180 range. It doesn't make any sense to use skis that are too long if you dont really need to.
 
I agree,

elizabeths are not like other skis. If your looking to butter around and doing slower carved spins off medium sized jumps, they will be sick. If your skiing forward and mostly all mountain, you would probably want a more chronic like ski(stiffer, 85 waist)

I would go demo some if you can and see for yourself.
 
I see a lot of good feed back here, but here’s the thing the skis I'm looking at are the Elizabeth. I ski mostly trees here in Vt, and some park but I have other skis for that. The trees here are kind of tight and I for one don’t think a 186 or any thing over 182 really would be good for skiing the trees here. From word of mouth I have heard that the Elizabeths are a good ski for tight trees, and they are super soft, which is a combo I would like to have for my skis, is there any other skis like them or should I just go with the Elizabeth?
 
just go with it, a 172 should come to about your eyes height. being a lizzie, that's perfect for you. don't listen to all the little kids that are soooooo proud of their skis that are too big for them.
 
whoever said height is a huge factor is retarded. weight is what matters most. A taller person has more leverage? ok but if they are 6 ft tall and only weigh 150 they arent gonna flex a ski diff then a kid who is 5 8' 150. Many of you don't know what the hell your talkin about.....he wants to ski trees on the east coast.....in the trees you want a light and maunverable ski and the lizzie is perfect. So 172 is too short? then what? please dont tell me that a 186 prophet would be better cause it def would not be....people use skis for different shit and on the east coast pow is in the trees and this ski will float well in the trees and its light so what the hell is wrong with him getting it? also what if he prefers a shorter ski like so many of you who prefer a longer ski? I agree with whoever said a lot of kids on here ride skis that are too long for them-because it is so true mainly because they center mount which makes the ski ski shorter. but any ski over 182 on the east coast is retarded unless your skiing powder constantly or are a larger person. Go with lizzies man cuz they will float way better then a reg 182 cm mid waisted ski any day of the week.
 
yeah, it depends on what you are skiing mainly. I got 172's and i'm 6' 3" but its because i ski in tight trees a bunch and just wanted a ski to mess around with, and i love it. However, i've skied on 185 in more open areas and they perform well for what i wanted then, in open areas where i need speed, and where there is deeper snow. The reality is that in the East you will be skiing moguls and glades, not open bowls. So just because you are tall doesn't mean you need a long ski, you need to think about what you will be skiing in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top