Powder skis too short (and other questions)

steezbox

steezbox

Active member
Yes, yes, I know, another ski length question. But the amount of people who recommend against skis that are too short/hate on them has me questioning whether I need to upgrade.

I'm 6'3 (but only 175lbs) and last year I got a pair of powder skis, 2018 JJ 2.0 Zeros @ 185cm. I knew this was short, but it was a sweet deal so I jumped on it. I had a blast on them, super fun ski, but with me being so tall/with the heavy rocker am I missing out on something with the short ski? Would weight not be more of a factor than height? Is the 6-10cm such a big difference if I were to get the biggest ski in other comparable models (Bent chetler, other JJs etc.)?

I'm an east coaster, so this is my first pair of wide skis, but moving out west this year and want to throw some shifts on them for touring. I'm wondering if I'm wasting my time and money and if I just don't know about how much better my life would be with a larger ski.
 
A lot of it depends on your skiing style, in addition to height, weight, & experience level.

If you ski really neutral / centered without putting a ton of pressure on the shovels of your skis, you can often get away with, and potentially benefit from, a shorter ski.

E.g., Dylan Siggers rides on several skis that are pretty short for his size by most people's standards, but he obviously rips the shit out of them.

If you do like to drive the front of your skis, then the thing you'd be missing out on is more stability at speed, more flotation in really deep snow, and a bigger, more supportive landing platform. But if you had a blast on that length last season and didn't have any complaints, I don't see a big reason why you'd need to go longer. And FWIW, I tend to size down on my touring skis since I'm not skiing as hard in the backcountry and the decreased weight is nice.
 
For a pair of burly skis, yeah I would take the 175 lbs into account. But a JJ or Bentchetler is super soft. I am 5'10" and 175 lbs and would generally go for the next size up for myself, which I believe for both of those skis is 191-192. For such a soft and rockered ski, I think that's pretty reasonable.
 
14140681:patagonialuke said:
A lot of it depends on your skiing style, in addition to height, weight, & experience level.

If you ski really neutral / centered without putting a ton of pressure on the shovels of your skis, you can often get away with, and potentially benefit from, a shorter ski.

E.g., Dylan Siggers rides on several skis that are pretty short for his size by most people's standards, but he obviously rips the shit out of them.

If you do like to drive the front of your skis, then the thing you'd be missing out on is more stability at speed, more flotation in really deep snow, and a bigger, more supportive landing platform. But if you had a blast on that length last season and didn't have any complaints, I don't see a big reason why you'd need to go longer. And FWIW, I tend to size down on my touring skis since I'm not skiing as hard in the backcountry and the decreased weight is nice.
Click to expand...

This is a good response. I definitely should be looking at skiing style too. Which is more of a surfy/jibby approach so that works in my favour. Funnily enough Dylan is one of my favourite guys to watch for style alone.

Definitely I want to start skiing terrain that requires more control, but hopefully I'd be able to manage. The one time I was out at revy last year and skied a chute to drop my skis were shaky on the ride out which is probably at least somewhat related to their length.

Hopefully my weight mixed with ski style will help. I just don't want to be developing weird techniques to make up for less control or something. Sounds like this isn't necessarily something that I should worry about too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top