Ski length for terrain park

I just bought myself new pair of skis for the terrain park. They are the K2 Press 2012. I just started the doing the terrain park this year and I can get about 1-2meters of straight air with my regular all-mountain skis and I like doing just jumps. I might be doing some boxes and rails later but probably going to stick to jumps.

I'm debating if I should return the skis and get a longer pair. The shop recommended the 159cm. I'm wondering if I should get the the 169cm. I'm 135lbs and 5'9".

I have until next week to decide. Please help out! Thanks!

=====================LONGER===IS===BETTER====================[HTML_REMOVED]
==============================================================[HTML_REMOVED]

Let it be clear that i'm talking about skis here. not weiners. I repeat, NOT WEINERS

223…Anything less is for the ladies

Can someone please provide some helpful insight? Thanks

159 is way too short for someone your height, even if you are a beginner park rider. 169 should be your minimum length. I'm 5'8" and ride 180 park skis.

Short skis are appealing to beginners because they are easier to move around and spin with. Unfortunately, after you begin to build your skills, short skis become detrimental as they are unstable on higher speed jumps and are prone to washing out on landings (less ski area to land on, requires more precise body position.)

Personally, I think all skis should be a minimum of 170 regardless of application. For example, I would hate a 159 ski even for groomed runs. If your AM skis are longer than 170, consider going bigger. The worst that can happen with long park skis is that you are forced to build your skills and adapt to the ski. At least with long park skis, you can use the ski for more than a season instead of advancing beyond a short park ski.

159 seems short to me but i have no idea what they ski in the park. i suspect there's not a lot of park skiers here. 168ish?
edit beat me too it. i stand corrected

you're to tall for 159. i don't think stability for 50-60kph to do bigger jumps would be a problem with good quality wood core skis. precise body position is a fundamental skill that is important to learn when your starting out and shorter skis would emphasize this and keep you from going straight to the big stuff and hurting your self before you're confident in your body position. shorter skis are also easier for the little lips on the sides of runs and for the tight trees on the coast. 169 sound pretty good to me, maybe up to 175.(im 150lbs, 6' and run 175cm all mountain skis)

Don't ski, but I'll add 2 cents,

Did you look at the sizing chart on K2s site?

I would also base your ski size on your weight more so than your height (ski can't tell how tall you are, but it'll know when Fat Albert is clipped in)

k2 sizing chart is awesome. skis can only tell where your center of mass is, which is mostly determined by sex and height. the snow underneath your skis can tell how fat you are and the PSI on the snow shouldn't get to high so a heavy skier can then add length or width to compensate. the skis core material is an important consideration biased on the skiers weight though. steal would be to stiff, foam might work for a 135lbs beginner but it degrades with use and a properly designed wood core would be the best.

Can someone explain what it means when you say that longer skis are more stable at high speeds?

I just moved here and picked up my first pair of skis at the Whistler Turkey Sale… I kind of just bought them in a rush because I was looking for a cheap ski to ride this year so that I could buy some legit skis next year once I figure out what kind of terrain I like to ski. I ended up buying 165cm skis becuase that was all they had in the style and price range that I was looking for. I am 5'11 190lbs, and based on the research I've done after buying the skis, it looks like I should have bought something thats 180cm+. Anyways, I only paid $300 for the bindings/skis so not a huge deal. Will probably get some powder oriented skis next year.

My question is, how will a long ski ride differently than what I am using now? When you say 'more high speed stability', what does that mean exactly?

My skis are fine now, but at the same time I haven't been riding any other skis so I don't really know what I am missing.

159 is way too short for someone your height, even if you are a beginner park rider. 169 should be your minimum length. I'm 5'8" and ride 180 park skis.

Short skis are appealing to beginners because they are easier to move around and spin with. Unfortunately, after you begin to build your skills, short skis become detrimental as they are unstable on higher speed jumps and are prone to washing out on landings (less ski area to land on, requires more precise body position.)

Personally, I think all skis should be a minimum of 170 regardless of application. For example, I would hate a 159 ski even for groomed runs. If your AM skis are longer than 170, consider going bigger. The worst that can happen with long park skis is that you are forced to build your skills and adapt to the ski. At least with long park skis, you can use the ski for more than a season instead of advancing beyond a short park ski.

I can choose between 159cm, 169cm, and 179cm. For my height, 5'9" and 135lbs, would you say 179 is too long for me and should I get 169cm? I just started the terrain park this year. Before I was doing blue/black runs and they are boring now.

I am about your height but a bit heaveier (closer to 165) and am riding a 2007 Public Enemy at 174. They are fine from a stability perspective but there is the odd time they feel a bit heavy. They were the first ski I have ridden under 180 since I was a kid and at times I think about going shorter.

I would add that a lot of it is preference. They guys I ride with are all over the map in terms of size (there are bigger guys riding shorter skis and shorter guys riding bigger skis). Bigger ski will be more stable but less maneuverable (or atleast will force you to ski it properly). Shorter ski is more forgiving on the maneuverability but less forgiving in stability.

159 is way too short for someone your height, even if you are a beginner park rider. 169 should be your minimum length. I'm 5'8" and ride 180 park skis.

Short skis are appealing to beginners because they are easier to move around and spin with. Unfortunately, after you begin to build your skills, short skis become detrimental as they are unstable on higher speed jumps and are prone to washing out on landings (less ski area to land on, requires more precise body position.)

Personally, I think all skis should be a minimum of 170 regardless of application. For example, I would hate a 159 ski even for groomed runs. If your AM skis are longer than 170, consider going bigger. The worst that can happen with long park skis is that you are forced to build your skills and adapt to the ski. At least with long park skis, you can use the ski for more than a season instead of advancing beyond a short park ski.

100% agree with this.

i don't ski the park very much so im not to sure about the spesfic skills for it but i would think short skis would put an emphasis on proper skill and longer skis would just emphasize increasing strength?

longer skis have a longer turn radius so when straight lining you're less likely to catch an edge and if you do it wont veer off in another direction all of a sudden giving you more time to pull it back. im not sure if this is why its happening but longer skis seam to have a lower resonance frequency so when going fast they don't hit a bump and start jumping up and down in resonance.