Powder Skis - longer or shorter

[skibum4ever]

I'm currently skiing on 160 cm Lotta Luvs (which I'm told this year the exact same ski is classified as 163 cm), whatever.

I'm looking to purchase powder skis - probably 90-95 cm underfoot as I want a ski that will also perform decently on the packed or even the hard pack. My question is: should powder skis be longer, shorter, or basically the same length as your regular all-mountain ski?

I read a lot about skiing but have never seen this topic addressed, so any help will be appreciated.

 

[pinto]

Longer.

This is what works for me:

1. 163 (77 wide)
2. 172 (87 wide)
3. 177 (94 wide)

I use the 163s for groomers or hard snow, the 172s for moguls or soft snow or just a little new snow, and the 177s for more substantial snowfall or when I know I don't have to ski rock-hard bumps. There is in reality a bit more overlap than that, but that's basically it.

 

[Robyn]

Generally longer is going to better although you don't want to go too long. In powder your skis provide flotation so longer means more surface area which means more flotation. I ski a 163 carver and a 176 mid-fat (89 under foot). I'm 5'5" tall.

 

[volklgirl]

Ditto here. 168cm carver (68w), 177cm twins (87w) and powder (94w) skis.

 

[tradygirl]

I agree - longer.

Also be aware of the ski design. For instance, if the ski is a twin tip, you're going to have less running length than you would for a non-twin tip. Go even longer in this case (I'd go another 5cm or so). Think about nose shape, camber, stiffness, and turning radius as well since they all affect how your ski contacts the snow.

Any sort of reverse camber will require more length as well (Megawatt, Spatulas, Pontoons).

 

[altagirl]

Yeah, I have a pretty wide range -

160 carving skis
175 daily all mountain skis (88 underfoot)
183 powder skis (105 underfoot)
185 reverse camber/reverse sidecut powder skis (130ish underfoot)

But definitely longer for powder.

 

[oragejuice]

I have 150's in my beater skis, and under Diva influence, went with a 163 Aura instead of the 156. We'll see how this goes.

 

[skigrl27]

I'm still pissed that Volkl dropped the 177 Aura for this year. Umm...hellooooo!!!!

 

[HotChocolate]

185 reverse camber/reverse sidecut powder skis (130ish underfoot)QUOTE]

Wow!

 

[oragejuice]

I'm still pissed that Volkl dropped the 177 Aura for this year. Umm...hellooooo!!!!

Yeah... I do not understand that one.

 

[pinto]

Yeah... I do not understand that one.

I would like to ski a 177 Mantra some time and compare the two. Maybe Volkl felt too much overlap? Most women buying 177s are okay with men's/unisex skis?

 

[oragejuice]

I would make the same assumption, makes sense.

 

[altagirl]

I would like to ski a 177 Mantra some time and compare the two. Maybe Volkl felt too much overlap? Most women buying 177s are okay with men's/unisex skis?

That's probably true. I demoed the 177 Mantra and it was really one of the most perfect skis I've ever been on. And no one demoed the Aura in anything longer than a 160, so I didn't get to try those to compare, but I can't imagine that it could get better than the Mantra, so... yeah. If I could ever find a screaming deal on a pair, I'd buy them in a minute.

 

[volklgirl]

I demoed the 170 Mantra and found it to be too stiff and heavy for all day fun on the hard pack here. It was just too much of a freight train to really shine on our little bumps. I'm betting that out west I'd really like it, but here....not so much.

The 177 Aura was the perfect compromise of length, weight, stiffness, liveliness, and float for use here and in the true mountains .

I think their decision to discontinue the 177 is STUPID!