• Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add webmaster@theskidiva.com to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.

Should I be riding on longer skies?

Owl

Certified Ski Diva
#1
Hello!
So I've been preparing to purchase my first set of skis some time this year and after reading what many other ladies are on I'm wondering if I should be riding longer skies than what the guys at the rental shops have been giving me. I'm 5'2" and I can ski blacks comfortably (so an advanced skier?), and I've been riding on rental skies around 150 for quite a while. Now that I've started demoing I've been getting skies around the same size: 152 Rossi Temptations, 149 Volkl Kenja, 152 Black Pearl, and I have a 153 K2 Superstitous to take up to the local hill with me this weekend.

Would it be better for me to get skies in the 155-160 range instead?
 

badger

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#2
Not to appear rude here, but how much do you weigh? I am also 5'2" and find that the lengths you are using are good. However, some of these skis may be a better ride in the next size up. Particularly the rockered skis.

There are many of us shorter women of varying weights and skills who will add their perspective. Some of them ski much longer lengths!
 

Owl

Certified Ski Diva
#3
No offense taken! I weigh around 140lbs.

How much rocker warrants longer skies? I kinda want to try the Rossignol S3, but they start at 159!
 

B.E.G.

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#4
I definitely think that you should go a size up, especially for the rockered skis like the Temptations, BPs, and S3W. I believe the S3W is very rockered and 159 shouldn't feel too long for you at all. FWIW, I'm about your height and 100 lbs, and I have Temptations in 152 and used to ski Kenjas in the 156. I think the non-rockered Kenjas were a bit long for me. I also skied the 159 BP and it didn't seem that long.
 

Little Lightning

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#5
Per the Rossignol Ski Sizing guide for someone at your weight the recommended length on the Temptation 88 is 162 and a 160 for the 82. For the S3W the recommended length is a 168. You could also try the S7W in a 168.

That said, I have friend who is about your size and she skis the Volkl Tierra in the 150ish range. I'm almost 5'2 and 105lbs and ski the Temptation 88 in a 154 and the S3W in a 159. I can't imagine going any longer on these skis.

The guide also states that "length is determined in this order: Weight, ability, height and aggressiveness. If you are less aggressive and an advancing skier you can go shorter while more aggressive and accomplished skiers can move up a size".
 

Serafina

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#6
I have the S3 (mens) and the S7W in the 168 length. I'm quite a bit larger than you are, and probably ought to be riding a longer ski myself. However, that 170 seems to be some kind of magic line in the sand for women's skis. The S3W does not appear to be available in a length beyond 168, and while the S7W is theoretically available in a 178 (and if I were skiing in powder at all often, I'd want that extra length for the float) I certainly haven't ever seen that length, not in person. Special order for all of our ski shops around here, I think. 168 is the longest you can hope to find a women's ski to demo.

The rockered skis ride like a much shorter ski in a lot of ways. You get super-fast turn initiation BUT you pay for that with less edge contacting the slope for braking and such. On the other hand, they're typically fatter than the non-rockered ones, so you still get a lot of float for skiing the loose stuff. And they seem to ski at their actual length for purposes of going fast. I can't speak for slalom-style action, but I can speak for bumps, and you do get a lot of the benefits of having a longer ski without the liability of having longer tails to get snagged in the bump field.

The S3W at 168 was just too soft for me - if I'd insisted on the S3W, I'd have needed to go up to the non-existent 178. I got around this by just getting the men's S3, which offers the same degree of agility and edging but with a stiffer ski that doesn't fall apart on me when I ride it. The sense I get is that the main reason I had this problem with the S3W is because of my size and weight, not because of the ski itself (which is reputed to be awesome). So I don't think you'd have that same issue given what you said about your size.

Don't be afraid of those 159 S3Ws. Give them a shot - if you can find a pair to demo (which also seems to be kind of a challenge). Also try out the S7Ws - this ski is an INSANE amount of fun, and while they look big, you'll find they don't feel that way.
 

Owl

Certified Ski Diva
#7
Wow! 168! I can't imagine being on something so long, but I feel more confident about taking out the next size up from 150-153 for some demos.

It's hard for me to find shops that demo in LA, but they were offering the S3W at Mammoth so next time I'm up there I'll be able to give them a try!
 

Serafina

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#8
Let us know how that goes! The S3Ws have been getting crazy-amazing reviews in the ski press, but I'd love to hear a first-hand report from a Real Person...
 

mahgnillig

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#9
Definitely go longer! I'm the same height as you and a bit lighter, and I just went from skiing a 150cm Fischer to a 163cm Kenja. This year's Kenja has an early rise tip, and the Black Pearls are tip/tail rockered, so you definitely want to size up on anything that even hints at rocker, especially if it's tip/tail (like the S3W). Make sure you tell the demo shop guys what you want, as opposed to what they think you should have. I had a salesman try to convince me to buy a 146 (!?!) a couple of months ago... I left, very quickly!
 
#10
Hello!
So I've been preparing to purchase my first set of skis some time this year and after reading what many other ladies are on I'm wondering if I should be riding longer skies than what the guys at the rental shops have been giving me. I'm 5'2" and I can ski blacks comfortably (so an advanced skier?), and I've been riding on rental skies around 150 for quite a while. Now that I've started demoing I've been getting skies around the same size: 152 Rossi Temptations, 149 Volkl Kenja, 152 Black Pearl, and I have a 153 K2 Superstitous to take up to the local hill with me this weekend.

Would it be better for me to get skies in the 155-160 range instead?
Where are you skiing? When you say "black" that doesn't help that much because green/blue/black are relatively only to a particular mountain.

I'm 5'0", 115 lbs, advanced skier, blacks out west. I'll rent or demo anything from 149-160 depending on the structure of the ski and snow conditions. Tip rocker makes a difference for sure. the 152 Black Pearl would be too short for you. I demo'd the 159 at Big Sky and eventually bought a pair. My Rossi Attraxion 8s are 154.
 

mustski

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#11
Hey Owl, I know you just skied Mammoth. If you were skiing the blacks there, you probably should go up a size ... unless you are a mogul fiend. I am 5'2" and 140 and I ski a 156 in my carver and my Auras (rockered) are 163. The only reason to stay short is if your preference is bumps. If you are skiing groomed runs or powder a bit more length is an advantage and one size up shouldn't affect glade skiing by much at all. Let's meet up at Summit some time and ski! I think a few of us are aiming for Sat, 2/9.
 

contesstant

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#12
Yes, she skied Cornice and who knows what else at Mammoth! Let's just say she followed my brother around and he'll haul down anything! We had a lot of fun. Anyway, I do agree she should probably go longer. We even compared our BP's length (as that's what she was on that day) and the difference is SO minimal. Which means I probably really SHOULD be on a 166. Oh well, I still love mine!
 

eSki

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#13
I'm having the same struggle. It seems that either I'm not clearly explaining the kind of skiier I am or something. I'm 5' and a lot heavier then you (160) but I consistently get recommended 146-150 skis. I would say I'm a intermediate. I'm comfortable skiing mid atlantic blacks. I do like to go a little fast (i'm normally chasing behind ds my 8yo speed demon).
 

segacs

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#14
Owl, I'm about the same height/weight as you and it sounds like similar level, and my skis are 152 length, but they're not rockered. When I bought them two seasons ago, I demoed some skis in the 158-162 range and found them too long for me, too much work on turns and harder to control, so I bought the 152s and am happy with them. But I think with rockered skis, I would be skiing longer lengths. The rocker on some of the skis can really shorten the effective length quite a bit.

But the short answer is that if you feel your skis are chattery, unstable or giving you a speed limit, maybe it's time to go longer. If you feel they're skiing you, going too fast or not turning as easily as you might like, it might be time to try shorter. And of course in both those cases, it could be technique-related (very likely is) so take some lessons!
 

Owl

Certified Ski Diva
#15
Sorry about the experience level thing, I thought describing slopes would be better than the 1, 2, 3 system they have at the rental places. West coast skiing at smaller hills with occasional trips to Mammoth for the foreseeable future.

I'm gonna at least try longer skis! I would like a little less chatter, a little more speed, and a bit of rocker. But I do like the nimble maneuverability I get now. I kinda doodle around when I get to flatter slopes and practice tight little good-technique turns for no other reason than I think it's fun. I might even re-demo the Black Pearls at 159.



Hey Owl, I know you just skied Mammoth. If you were skiing the blacks there, you probably should go up a size ... unless you are a mogul fiend. I am 5'2" and 140 and I ski a 156 in my carver and my Auras (rockered) are 163. The only reason to stay short is if your preference is bumps. If you are skiing groomed runs or powder a bit more length is an advantage and one size up shouldn't affect glade skiing by much at all. Let's meet up at Summit some time and ski! I think a few of us are aiming for Sat, 2/9.

No! I'd love to come with you guys, but that weekend we'll be sight-seeing in San Francisco. :<
 

mustski

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#17
Sorry about the experience level thing, I thought describing slopes would be better than the 1, 2, 3 system they have at the rental places. West coast skiing at smaller hills with occasional trips to Mammoth for the foreseeable future.

I'm gonna at least try longer skis! I would like a little less chatter, a little more speed, and a bit of rocker. But I do like the nimble maneuverability I get now. I kinda doodle around when I get to flatter slopes and practice tight little good-technique turns for no other reason than I think it's fun. I might even re-demo the Black Pearls at 159.






No! I'd love to come with you guys, but that weekend we'll be sight-seeing in San Francisco. :<
I go every weekend. I'd love to meet up and ski with you. Let me know when you are heading up. Have fun in SF.
 

cleopatra

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#18
I am 5'3", 135lb. I bought my first S7W 3 seasons ago and never looked back. I too was freaked out by the 168 length, but it is perfect. The S3 is definitely softer, more nimble, but you will get more chatter from it. Once you get used to the S7s it is really easy to ski them on everything, except steep, icy sections (IMO, but there are many who can).

and while the S7W is theoretically available in a 178 (and if I were skiing in powder at all often, I'd want that extra length for the float) I certainly haven't ever seen that length, not in person.
It is available, we have it up here, and in demo also.

My other skis are a 162 Nordica Conquer, stiff, heavy, fast, stable. Sometimes (mainly bumps) I feel like I would like shorter and softer.

I think my third set of skis will be a mid fat, slightly softer, nimble, shorter ski. For days without new snow, but still decent off piste, with bumps.
 

Celestron2000

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#19
Hey Owl,
I'm taller than you at 5'7", but also weigh about 140 Lbs. Based on the Rossi size chart I bought S3ws in the 168 size, and they really are not too long.... they are afterall, 50% rockered.
I really enjoy them whenever we have new snow (although they handle firm groomers pretty well too.)
Maybe the 168 will still seem like a lot of ski to you (although it sounds like you're a better skiier than I am), but definately don't be afraid to try the 159. Then, who knows...
Actually the guy at the shop sold me the 159s, but I went home and did my research before having them mounted. I found the Rossi size chart and exchanged for the 168, VERY glad I did.
 

maggie198

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
#20
I'm gonna at least try longer skis! I would like a little less chatter, a little more speed, and a bit of rocker. But I do like the nimble maneuverability I get now. I kinda doodle around when I get to flatter slopes and practice tight little good-technique turns for no other reason than I think it's fun. I might even re-demo the Black Pearls at 159.
DO do that! You should be on at least a 159 in the BPs. And I would even try the next length up, the 166s. They're a freeride ski, rockered, and meant to be skied longer. In fact when the BPs first came out they didn't even make it as short as 159. It's an easy ski to flex and turn, the longer length just gives you so much more stability.
 

Members Online

Latest posts