Short vs. Long skis

well my new skis are 20 cm longer than my older ones, but i wont ride the new ones til tomorrow, so i guess i let u know tomorrow.

as for my short ones, i've never had a problem with them...or at least never a problem that i would of since i havent ridden the longer ones yet.

overall, that was a pointless post that offered nothing at all, what so ever.
 
well alot of people on here are gonna say OMG LONG SKIS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO BE KOOL but honestly ride whatever u like. i ride long skis... but im also 6 foot 2. ride what ur comfortable on

just no snowblades
 
for the first day of my season, i put on my 158s that ive riden for the past year and a half. and i look down and i say. wow these are short. they just felt weird. so im more confertable with skis that are as tall as me. thats what i have 171. and i like them. its just a confort zone.
 
Both my pairs of skis are exactly as long as i am tall, never really experienced anything too much shorter
 
My skis are 164s and tehy come up to my mouth. I definitely would prefer something in the high 170s for park, and the low 180s for powder/all mountain.
 
im 6'1 and have been on 169s up until last year. i switched to some center mounted 185s cause i find with shorter skis i just get owned when going at high speeds or landing. i probably just wont bring them to any urban assaults.
 
i wil reply again in one weeks time....i am goin from my old 160's to 169s for my park ski...im 5'4" 130lbs so wee will see.
 
for me, i like skis to be about as tall as me cause little skis feel too light and any longer would be harder to be agile.
 
saw theee funniest thing today kid seriously like ehmmm 6'3 give or take an inch had some old ass scratches on but they were liek 140s came up to hiss belly button
 
i like the feel of shorter skis when i am in the park or fooling around but long skis are so much better in the powder, especially if there fat.
 
I used to find that big skis were hard to ski on but now I'd way rather have big skis than short ones. I use my 167's with no edges for jibs and i use my 176's for all around skiing. I think its really an experience thing.... i'm 5'6 - 5'7 for reference
 
is it agreed that the demensions should be used for the following specifics: 6 ft as a reference

rail/jib-

chin or lower-..... 170cm-

jumps/park-

aproximately your height =/- a few cm.....179cm

powder-

several cm taller than you..... 185-190cm
 
haha i'm 6ft and i'm rocking line 1260s that are 164s, its my first year with twin tips though so i didn't know better when i got them, ive been fine so far, maybe next season ill get some that are a lil bit longer
 
I ride anywhere from a 165 to a 185...it all depends on what type ski you are on (pow,park,pipe,mogul,race ect.) fyi I am 6'0 and 185.
 
aah, chris you got your new skis?! sick! anyways, I'm 5'11, 180 lbs and I ski 171 Salomon 1080s (yes I know they're tiny for me) and 185 Scratch BC WRS (hopefully). I also have 178 Chrons for urban
 
I'm 5'6. I have 158's and 172's. For the time being, I can't tell any stability difference between the two skis, except that i can through around the smaller skis alot easier, which is fun. I know most of you guys think long is the only way to go, but its personal preference and so far I like a little shorter ski more...
 
well im 5 foot and i skied on 140's for the latter part of last season, i tried my friends centre mounted 160's for a park run and loved them, so stable, the only thing i had trouble with was spinned was harder and so was getting onto rails cause i had so much more ski in the front
 
i find that whatever goes up to your nose is usually good,  some people go longer for park but it really doesnt make sense, its just more swing weight, more crap to get in the way, and it sometimes looks goofy when they are really long.  im 5'10 and ski 171's. ive had 180's 176's and 179's and out of those sizes around 170 is always the best.
 
yeah i mean there are different purposes for different lengths and advantages and disadvantages. I don't think park skis should be much taller than the height of the person and powder i don't really care how long they are as long as they don't start pushin 200
 
agreed

currently im rockin 190 bloods and 177 chronics

bloods=pow, backcountry, trees, groomers, park

chrons=park, rails, urban, groomers

it personal preference really...longer and fatter skis are fun for rippin on all sorts of terrain and super fast and stable

shorter skis are fun for park cuz theyr lighter, shorter, less swing weight etc...

but if i had to pick only 1 ski length that could do all types of skiing id have to say 185-190

 
i ride 185's all mountain and 181's for park. those are both about as tall as i am. im 6'3" 175. i could probably go longer but i dont think i could deal with anything much shorter than 176. when i was younger my dad mad me ride the same 159 atomics for four years. when i got them they were about 15 cm's taller than i was and when i finally got rid of them they were about 20 cm's shorter than me... well thats probably an exaggeration but needless to say it traumatized me so i will never ride anything too much shorter than me.
 
i'm 5'9" and riding 172's and they are awesome. i've ridden them twice thus far and no real park jumps but as far as rails they are really nice. i've got 161 1080's (the silver ones) for urban skis. i used them in my yard a couple days ago and they were alright as well...will update when i get some jumps at my hill haha.
 
i would have to agree as well

my bloods are about 2 cm over my head

my chrons are inbetween my chin and my mouth

perfect 2 ski quiver IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top