• 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 [email protected] 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.

The benefits of a shorter ski

Audski

Certified Ski Diva
In January I was blindsided by a reckless skier while standing outside the mid-station lodge at Whiteface (story in injury post). This resulted in my ski cracking down the side wall from the impact ( I was holding them upright at the time I was crashed into). I need to replace the skis as part of the settlement from the kid's parent's homeowner's policy. I need to do this now, so there is no time to demo. Essentially, I am going to replace what I had (the expectation of the lawsuit anyway). I had the 2016/2017 Rossignol Temptation 84s, length 162. I really liked these skis. I'm leaning towards replacing them with the 2018's which are very slightly different, mostly in that they are slightly stiffer (and purple). I'm not a small woman...5"7, 170lbs. I'm an intermediate skier (think: everything at Okemo that isn't all bumps), but would like to continue to advance. So here's my question. Is it worthwhile to actually get these skis in 154cm instead of the 162s? I'm thinking that I might turn more quickly and easily, and what I'd theoretically lose in stability at higher speeds, I'd make up for by it being a stiffer ski. Three inches isn't a huge difference, but I'm thinking that it might improve my skiing to go a wee bit shorter. There are times while skiing on the Rossis that I wondered to myself if I should have gone a bit shorter to begin with. Thoughts to consider?
 

marzNC

Angel Diva
I'm not a small woman...5"7, 170lbs. I'm an intermediate skier (think: everything at Okemo that isn't all bumps), but would like to continue to advance. So here's my question. Is it worthwhile to actually get these skis in 154cm instead of the 162s?
Have you ever skied on skis in the mid-150s? Given your stats and your interest in improving, that seems very short.

For context, I'm 5'0", 112 lbs. As an older intermediate, my all-mountain skis were high 140s to mid-150s. As an advanced skier (10 years later), my all-mountain skis are 159cm and my carvers for Mid-Atlantic and northeast skiing are 148cm. This season I spent a couple days on BP88 demo skis that were 145cm. They were certainly easy to turn on small, soft bumps, and surprisingly stable at speed on packed powder groomers. But I would still be considering the 152 if I were actually going to buy a pair for the northeast. YMMV
 

Jilly

Moderator
Staff member
The Temptation series are rockered both tip and tail. Remember the arrows on the bottom. So longer is better. You're not going to turn any quicker on a 84mm ski shorter or longer. And at speed shorter becomes squirrely and will chatter.

I'm 5'5 and mine (abet the 88's) were 161. And I'm not a tall or heavy as you. I'd stick with the 162's.

Ah, marzNC just posted before I hit enter. So same thoughts on the length.
 

elemmac

Angel Diva
Wish I had time to demo other stuff, but at least I'm getting my skis replaced...that's something.

Not sure if you're done skiing for this year, or how early you get out in the fall...but you could always get the replacement, and sell them new for a pretty solid return...then demo away. Or...you could ask at whatever shop you're getting them from to pre-order the 2019s. Just throwing a few options out there, not sure what the stipulations of the insurance are.
 

MilkyWookiee

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Thanks Ladies, This is exactly what I needed to hear. I'll stick with my 162s as you suggest. Wish I had time to demo other stuff, but at least I'm getting my skis replaced...that's something.

Good decision sticking with the 162s, now what you really need to do is get into one of the Women's Alpine Adventure clinics at okemo. There are many mountains that do them, but I suggest okemo because you seem familiar with the mountain. I did a 2 day and a 1 day this season and went into them thinking a was a confident skier but can't believe how much I gained! We put so much time and money into finding the perfect ski but a few lessons to polish technique really help you get the most out of them
 

Audski

Certified Ski Diva
Milky, that's a great idea. Something I will look into. After my injury I definitely had blow to my confidence. I bet a clinic like this would really help.
Good decision sticking with the 162s, now what you really need to do is get into one of the Women's Alpine Adventure clinics at okemo. There are many mountains that do them, but I suggest okemo because you seem familiar with the mountain. I did a 2 day and a 1 day this season and went into them thinking a was a confident skier but can't believe how much I gained! We put so much time and money into finding the perfect ski but a few lessons to polish technique really help you get the most out of them
 

Tvan

Angel Diva
+1 on the Okemo Women’s Alpine Adventure. I did the 5 day in January and learned a ton!
 

alison wong

Angel Diva
I am almost 5'5" (5'475"), 135 lbs. I have Rossi Temp 80 160cm. It suits me well and I don't find it too long, no issues.
Like others said above, I don't think you want to get shorter skis, esp. if you want something that you can grow into.
I demoed Rossi Experience 84 160 and Experience 88 166 in Alta this April. Both were wonderful and I do think Experience is better than Temptation. (or maybe it is just grass is greener in the next lawn mentality?)
(As others already mentioned, Temp. line will be replaced by Experience next year.)
 

SuperSkiMom

Certified Ski Diva
My 2 cents-
I am about 5'4" and a 130ish, I decided to go a bit shorter, on the Temptation 84 at 146. I opted for the shorter ski, mainly because I ruptured my ACL last December. I am really happy with them. My husband, wants me to go a bit longer, but I feel pretty comfortable, making as many turns as I can. Maybe I don't go as fast as everyone else, but I am teaching them a valuable lesson, waiting for Mom.
 

Audski

Certified Ski Diva
I am almost 5'5" (5'475"), 135 lbs. I have Rossi Temp 80 160cm. It suits me well and I don't find it too long, no issues.
Like others said above, I don't think you want to get shorter skis, esp. if you want something that you can grow into.
I demoed Rossi Experience 84 160 and Experience 88 166 in Alta this April. Both were wonderful and I do think Experience is better than Temptation. (or maybe it is just grass is greener in the next lawn mentality?)
(As others already mentioned, Temp. line will be replaced by Experience next year.)
I had no idea they temp line was being remained Experience W. The 2018 Temptation are now "Temptation HD", which is essentially the same as the Experience. I guess the colors are more "girly". Got my new skis last night. They sure are Purdy.
 

skibum4ever

Angel Diva
I am going from 162, 102 underfoot to 157, 90 underfoot. Tomorrow is essentially my first day on the shorter skis, and I am wondering how I will feel about losing 2". When I put it like that, it seems silly to worry.

Of course, I am heavier than most at 5'2", 150 lb.
 

racetiger

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
My all mtn skis are 163 and I'm 5ft 3 @130. I have no problem with the length except that one time when that kid cut me off in the lift line and forced me into the poles that bordered it. I caught my tip and it spun me around. Bonus points for me though I stayed up right. Didnt embarrass myself falling in front of a bunch of people. If I had my slalom skis on I would have made it past that pole. It was just that close.
 

Abbi

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I've been watching this one. I'm tall enough (shrinking to close to 5'6" .... don't age!) but with icky knees, I'm better on a shorter ski. I own 153s, demoed up to 157s, but didn't like over 160. And I admit to liking a soft ski with a really short turning radius. Not bad since I ski groomers and ice most of the time. If I were in powder conditions more often, maybe a little longer.
 

nopoleskier

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
I am similar height/weight My skis range from 159-168cm. The shorter skis I've demo'd make my knees (old) hurt. I love My Atomic 11's- But, I sold the 157's and replaced with 165's because of pain in my knees. another vote for stay w/162's
 

alison wong

Angel Diva
I have been following this thread.......Please educate me, is shorter ski "easier" on your knee?
Reason for my asking, I have bad knees (one reason is poor stance), my ski is 160cm long and I am 5'5", 135 lbs. Now I wonder, will I be better off with shorter skis? I don't ski fast and I don't like speed.
 

marzNC

Angel Diva
I have been following this thread.......Please educate me, is shorter ski "easier" on your knee?
Reason for my asking, I have bad knees (one reason is poor stance), my ski is 160cm long and I am 5'5", 135 lbs. Now I wonder, will I be better off with shorter skis? I don't ski fast and I don't like speed.
At your size, 160 is already relatively short. I'm five inches shorter and 20 lbs lighter, with one knee that is missing an ACL. My all-mountain skis are 159cm. Working on hamstring strength and improving technique makes more sense to me than moving to even shorter skis. Especially if the goal is to ski more off-piste or on groomers later in the day when the snow has been chopped up and/or scraped off.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
26,237
Messages
497,683
Members
8,503
Latest member
MermaidKelly
Top