New posts

Should I retire my skis?

Nov. 7, 2010, 11:07 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: April 14, 2007

you need longer skis. I have 5'11" and I am on 175s

Nov. 8, 2010, 7:52 a.m.
Posts: 6328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

if there was snow, this world would be a better world.

there is snow, what's your point?

Looking to ride the shore but don't know where to go?

Get a copy of the Locals Guide to North Shore Rides!

Follow MTB Trails on Twitter

Follow Sharon and Lee on Twitter

Nov. 8, 2010, 8:23 a.m.
Posts: 4297
Joined: June 1, 2009

Let's swing some dicks!

I'm 5'11 and ski 188s… And it's a tele set up!

Bam! Mine just hit the floor! :lol:

Nov. 8, 2010, 8:48 a.m.
Posts: 4874
Joined: July 9, 2004

Lol.

Posted via Mobile Device

Nov. 8, 2010, 8:53 a.m.
Posts: 9747
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

Let's swing some dicks!

I'm 5'11 and ski 188s… And it's a tele set up!

Bam! Mine just hit the floor! :lol:

5'8 - 192

Nov. 8, 2010, 8:58 a.m.
Posts: 108
Joined: Aug. 1, 2008

there is snow, what's your point?

no snow in da 'loops that I know of. I think ill get 195's, give or take?

Nov. 8, 2010, 8:59 a.m.
Posts: 9747
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

its all about the girth. girls aren't into the length anymore,

Nov. 8, 2010, 9:02 a.m.
Posts: 108
Joined: Aug. 1, 2008

you mean the phatness?

Nov. 8, 2010, 9:20 a.m.
Posts: 4297
Joined: June 1, 2009

Check out the Rossi s3 or volkl bridge. both are pretty versatile, have rocker and are fat without being crazy fat. the s3 is also pretty cheap. I think they both come in a 186… which would prob be fine.

Nov. 8, 2010, 9:20 a.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: June 15, 2008

no snow in da 'loops that I know of. I think ill get 195's, give or take?

No, don't get longer skis just because you're taller than some of these guys. The length of ski you want has more to do with your weight, skill level, terrain and skiing style, although height does play some role too.

Long skis, in general, are more stable at speed, but harder to turn and manoeuver going slow. Unless you're charging alaskan-style steep, open lines, a longer ski will be harder to ski and you might even like it less. They espacially suck if you get into tight trees.

For what it's worth, I'm 6'-5", 218lbs buck naked, skied my whole life and raced through high school. You can put me on any ski and I can handle it, but I ski 184s in the backcountry. They're lighter, easier to kick turn, and handle pow, trees, steeps and little hucks just fine. I don't charge huge lines or drop anything crazy when help is multiple hours of hiking/driving away. Save that stuff for the resort.

The best thing you can do is try some demos and see what feels good to you, but if you don't know what you want, then you're probably fine on what you've got.

Nov. 8, 2010, 10:18 a.m.
Posts: 14984
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

ok so you are 185lbs/ new skier/ wana tour /presently on 170's

I would bet you are on NARROW 170's that are on the small side for your weight,IMO go by weight cuz a ski doesnt know how tall you are but it can feel how much you weigh ,there are all kinds of arguments for tall people going longer due to extra leverage thro in skill levels/rocker/twin tips yada yada but keep it simple

IMO you gotta look at the mfgers recommended weight range and cuz you are a newbie go for a length on the lower end of their recommendation which will make them easyier to handle which for 185lbs … would likely be 180ish

So a ski which is a little longer and lots WIDER but not too wide 90-100mm width under foot preferably with an early rise tip would give you good float but the extra width would not be too hard to handle

what about boots [HTML_REMOVED] bindings?

Nov. 8, 2010, 10:29 a.m.
Posts: 108
Joined: Aug. 1, 2008

boots=rolbello something like that. bindings= atomic. Should put it out there, I dont ski at resorts simply because waste of money when you could go right up your nearest mountain. I also do like hucking cliffs and doing senders/gaps. I just put myself in a complete different category, am I right?

Nov. 8, 2010, 10:38 a.m.
Posts: 18529
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

No, don't get longer skis just because you're taller than some of these guys. The length of ski you want has more to do with your weight, skill level, terrain and skiing style, although height does play some role too.

Long skis, in general, are more stable at speed, but harder to turn and manoeuver going slow. Unless you're charging alaskan-style steep, open lines, a longer ski will be harder to ski and you might even like it less. They espacially suck if you get into tight trees.

For what it's worth, I'm 6'-5", 218lbs buck naked, skied my whole life and raced through high school. You can put me on any ski and I can handle it, but I ski 184s in the backcountry. They're lighter, easier to kick turn, and handle pow, trees, steeps and little hucks just fine. I don't charge huge lines or drop anything crazy when help is multiple hours of hiking/driving away. Save that stuff for the resort.

The best thing you can do is try some demos and see what feels good to you, but if you don't know what you want, then you're probably fine on what you've got.

1. don't go slow
2. turning is for pussies

meh

Nov. 8, 2010, 10:40 a.m.
Posts: 108
Joined: Aug. 1, 2008

I think ill get some cheap 180's, just to experiment with larger skis, because larger skis means less versatility when comeing to sharp corners and booters/hucks, am I right?

Nov. 8, 2010, 11:28 a.m.
Posts: 108
Joined: Aug. 1, 2008

switch atomic bindings from atomic skis onto other atomic skis should be no problem right?

Forum jump: