Powder ski size

PsychicMigration

PsychicMigration

Active member
I ride 171 blends for park and then rip all mountain with 176 Kartels. I want a pair of candide 3.0s to start getting into backcountry type places like tucks but also have a ski that is good for all different types of powder but still can do fine on hard pack and groomers if need be. I was wondering if 182 is to big. I know people that are 5"9 and ride 182 park and Cody Townsend in his recent video who his 6"2 rides a 192 powder ski as a professional. I seem to like my skis a fairly average length and im 5"8.
 
I’m 5’4” and ski 180+ all the time. My smallest skis right now are 174 directional wren 112s. Definitely go longer. Faction skis also aren’t measured true to length or post press so they tend to be pretty short. I have a pair of 176 3.0s and they are short short short and very easy for me

**This post was edited on May 19th 2019 at 10:34:20pm
 
It's probably more important on how much you weigh. I'm 5'9" 150 lbs and prefer something in the 182- 186 length for dedicated pow skis.
 
I'm 5'8" and just started skiing 183s this year but I'm looking at going shorter because it can feel tight in the east coast trees.
 
I think you'd be fine either way. It just comes down to which you value more, maneuverability or stability?

Are you on the east coast? I don't really think of the CT 3.0 as a powder ski.
 
14035121:mystery3 said:
I think you'd be fine either way. It just comes down to which you value more, maneuverability or stability?

Are you on the east coast? I don't really think of the CT 3.0 as a powder ski.
Click to expand...

east coast and 108 is definitely a powder ski
 
Yeah I’m on the East Coast too, the 3.0 is a great option. I’m waiting until next season when they bump it up to 112 underfoot, I’m gonna throw some Shifts on them and get into BC skiing more. I would wait until next year, the new 3.0 is supposed to be more like a slimmed-down 5.0 which is an insane ski for just about any condition
 
14036019:animator said:
Yeah I’m on the East Coast too, the 3.0 is a great option. I’m waiting until next season when they bump it up to 112 underfoot, I’m gonna throw some Shifts on them and get into BC skiing more. I would wait until next year, the new 3.0 is supposed to be more like a slimmed-down 5.0 which is an insane ski for just about any condition
Click to expand...

Not looking to go that fat and I think next years lineup is the ugliest yet but I see where your coming from
 
14036019:animator said:
Yeah I’m on the East Coast too, the 3.0 is a great option. I’m waiting until next season when they bump it up to 112 underfoot, I’m gonna throw some Shifts on them and get into BC skiing more. I would wait until next year, the new 3.0 is supposed to be more like a slimmed-down 5.0 which is an insane ski for just about any condition
Click to expand...

I got the chance to try the new ones :) still with proto topsheets, and I can say they're amazing. I am buying a pair. Any questions, ask me

934054.jpeg
 
14036083:LukeTheWaffle said:
I got the chance to try the new ones :) still with proto topsheets, and I can say they're amazing. I am buying a pair. Any questions, ask me

View attachment 934054
Click to expand...

You tested the new 112 3.0s already???????? I’m jealous I can’t wait to buy a pair. How do they ski?
 
you can go either way but since you said you seem to like your skis kinda average length and you're on the east i'd say 176. that's 4cm taller than you and will handle everything you need on the east. you could definitely do 182 but you really don't have many times on the east where the benefits of that extra length will be serving you
 
14036087:animator said:
You tested the new 112 3.0s already???????? I’m jealous I can’t wait to buy a pair. How do they ski?
Click to expand...

Yes I did, I ski in verbier so ya know. They're like the 5.0, just a touch softer, and more nimble. Fairly chargy, and I was confident doing threes on em.
 
14036098:SofaKingSick said:
you can go either way but since you said you seem to like your skis kinda average length and you're on the east i'd say 176. that's 4cm taller than you and will handle everything you need on the east. you could definitely do 182 but you really don't have many times on the east where the benefits of that extra length will be serving you
Click to expand...

What would the benefits of the 182 be.
 
14036627:DummyBears said:
What would the benefits of the 182 be.
Click to expand...

14036657:mystery3 said:
Stability and float
Click to expand...

Yeah, stability and float, but only at a scale and speeds that you will almost certainly never need on the east. When I’m in the west my biggest skis are significantly bigger and stiffer etc, because there’s just big terrain that makes that helpful there that just doesn’t exist for the most part over here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top