The Great Length Debate

[SnowGlider]

QUESTION: Is the tendency toward shorter skis being carried to extremes?

Introduction for beginners or intermediates: YES, 6 cm (about 2.5") DOES make a significant difference in how a ski works---it will affect your comfort, safety, speed, and technique.

I just bought new skis (Fischer Vision 70) and had a heck of a time (1) figuring out what length is right for me and (2) convincing the shop to sell them to me at that length.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but I want to share some observations and hear what others think.

There are many factors that go into determining the right ski length:
Age
Height
Weight
Ability
Style preference: Fast or slow? Aggressive? Large or small turns?
Terrain: snow type; groomed or ungroomed; depth
Athleticism
The ski: composition; stiffness; shape

So that's at least EIGHT factors that go into the mix. They don't always balance out perfectly, and I think the debate about length arises partly from that fact.

I think a dilemma arises when one factor is out of balance with the othes. In my case, it's my weight. I would like to do short snappy turns, which means a shorter ski, but my weight precludes a short ski. Also, I'm more muscular than most women (longer ski), but older (shorter ski). And so on.

So my first point is that it irks me when a salesman says, You HAVE to get THIS length," without considering the delicate balance of all of the above factors.

MY EXPERIENCE
I determined that the Fischer Vision 70 was the right ski for me as a high intermediate/low advanced skier. I'm 5'5", 175 pounds. So what length did I need?

SO YOU CAN COMPARE TO YOUR OWN SKIS:
152: comes up to just below my lower lip.
158: comes just above the tip of my nose.

The shop insisted vehemently that I needed 152 cm. They were so convinced of that that they weren't willing to mount up a 158 for me to demo. They gave me a 158 in the Vision 73, which is a much stiffer ski. I couldn't conclude a thing by demoing 2 different skis in 2 different lengths.

In fact they actually convinced me to buy the 152 and I did. But I went home with gnawing doubts.

So I did some more research. Results:

5 instructors insisted I should get the shorter ski. Reasons: more maneuverable for shorter turns; this is a stsable ski so you don't have to go as long.

Experienced shop owners said I needed the longer ski. Reasons they gave:
- Greater stability at speed and in choppy snow, especially for a heavier person
- Weight is more important than height. Overweight people need 5-10 cm longer.
- Better edging on hard snow because there is more ski to grip the snow
- Room to grow as I improve
- Will be off balance on a shorter ski (fore and aft)
- Can make more relaxed turns and fewer turns; therefore less fatigue at the end of the day.
- This specific ski doesn't "ski big" in 158 because of its small 70 mm waist, so you don't lose maneuverability with the longer ski.
- Stiffer skis should be shorter, and this is not a stiff ski
- These skis are light, o 6 extra cm won't be hard to turn.

I mulled all that over, returned the 152s to the store, and said, "Gimme the 158s. I'm buyin' 'em and that's that."

The salesguy was distressed and said, "OK, here, take BOTH skis and demo 'em. I'm SURE you'll prefer the 152."

So he mounted the 158 (wish he had done that the day before instead of giving me the Vision 73) and I took both skis out to test.

TEST RESULT:
Short ski: did nice snappy short turns. Unstable in soft, choppy snow on long turns and at higher speed. I felt like I was about to topple over the tip of the ski. I actually felt unsafe on anything but short fast turns.

Long ski: Short turns were very acceptable---no significant difference from the shorter ski. No, wait, they were BETTER: I was able to put a lot of power into the short, steeper turns and the tails came around nicely. Very stable on long turns and deliberately traversing through piles of soft snow. Held edges very nicely. Felt safe in lousy snow and at higher speed.

And that's that. Period. End of story. I tried both and the difference was very clear: for my weight and style, I needed the longer ski. Jeepers, what's to argue about??

LESSONS:
- There may well be 3 skis that would work for you: short, medium, and long. Question is which of those is best. You CAN ski shorter, but is that the BEST ski for you?
- You really MUST demo the exact ski and length that you intend to buy.
- And demo a shorter and/or longer ski for comparison.
- Do lots of research about the specific ski and the topic of length before you demo.
- List where you stand relative to the 8 factors above. Choose your priorities among those if they're not all in harmony.
- Listen to all opinions, but don't let yourself be bullied into a specific length.
- In the end the only thing that counts is: How do you actually feel on one length compared to another?
- Ski each length 2 or 3 times, then switch back and forth between them until you feel a clear difference. Vary your speed, power, length of turn, and terrain.

Seems to me that some folks have a preconceived bias toward short skis, regardless of an indivual skier's profile and the characteristics of a specific ski.

I was saved from disappointment by Skigirl, whose length recommendations were exactly right (because she sleeps nightly with this ski wrapped tenderly in her arms). Initially she was the lone voice against all those guys telling me I needed the short ski.

P.S. Of course, I also consulted my astrologer while agonizing over this purchase and she said, "You are going through a Neptune transit, and that means you have to trust your intuition." HA HA! Seriously, she really said that.

 

[Pequenita]

I say, trust your intuition - if you have one. Most of us (myself included) are so bullheaded that convincing ourselves of something other than what we already believe will take more than a few runs on a slope, and we'll keep on finding ways that length A or ski A is worse than length B or ski B. So, I guess, the lesson is, go into demo-ing with an open mind and as few preconceived notions as possible.

I never understood the age factor in figuring out ski length, though. What is it supposed to affect?

 

[num]

Interesting point, SnowGlider. Since so many people on here either got or tried this ski recently, I think it would be interesting to see what length people who have (or haven't) tried these would suggest for me based on the points of reference you gave.

Age 22
Height 5'4ish
Weight 170
Ability intermediate (low 6?)
Style preference: fast, varied turns but short are my favorite
Terrain: midwest groomers, often icy, sometimes cruddy, sometimes slushy
Athleticism very athletic
The ski: fischer vision 70

 

[Cambridge Kate]

apples to oranges

I don't think you can compare across different skis. The design has everything to do with the length at which they are best for you. So this discussion should rightly center around the Fischer 70's and nothing else.

Quite apart from that, my personal odyssey in ski length has been to wean myself from length little by little - from 172's to 168's to 163's to 154's. Each time I was convinced that I was buying too short a ski, and the seller tried to convince me that I was buying too long a ski. The convincing factor that decided me for buying the 154's was the incredible stability of the ski at speed. Clearly, the technology has reached the point where short does not mean squirrelly, at least for some skis.

Ultimately, only demoing can determine what is the right size for a given ski.

I will say this too: I'm amazed that my legs are no longer beat at the end of the day, and sore the next day. It's not because I'm in better shape! (I'm not.) Shorter skis are a lot easier on the body.

CK

 

[skigirl]

That is simple, the 158cm is right for you.

 

[volklgirl]

My own personal odyssey

My straight skis were 190...my first set of shapes (Olin Kinetic V) were 180...my next set (Volkl Vertigo G20W) were 168...Volkl 5* at 161...Volkl 6* at 161...Volkl P60 SL at 155.

That brings us up to 2 years ago when I purchased my first true race ski, the Volkl P60 GC at 173. I thought they would be too long for me and fought with them for most of 1 race season. I then demoed the P60 GS racestock ski in a 180 and found it wasn't the length I was struggling with, it was the model of ski itself (construction, sidecut, stiffness, etc). I found the racestock model at 180 to be way easier to coax into even the smallest turns and it stuck like glue to the iciest courses.

This year I've been skiing on the Volkl Karma at 177 and racing on the Racetiger GS at 180, and have found them both to be an absolute joy. I've also stolen my husband's 6* at 168 and sold my 161.

After my day of side-by-side comparison on the same ski in 2 different lengths, I'm a firm believer that 6cm make a ski feel like an entirely different beast and that demoing is a must. I'm also less afraid to try a ski in a length longer than is probably "the best" length for me. Each of us must do some serious soul searching to determine which factors are most important to our own ski selection, then stick to our guns when others try to talk us into (usually) a shorter length.

 

[skigirl]

Ski Length

Let me see if I can explain ski length in plain english. When we start as beginners we need really short skis because they are just easy to learn to turn and stop on. They are easy to get around on in general for beginners, such as learning to get up when we fall, getting on the lift, learning to walk with skis on our feet etc...

Skip to intermediate skier and above. You have learned to ski a basic parallel and want to get better on Blue and Black trails. You are skiing faster and want to ski even faster. This is when the correct ski length becomes important. At this point it really comes down to one simple thing, YOUR WEIGHT.

Let me back track to explain. When we skied old straight skis they were long because they were narrow. Now skis are a lot fatter so they need to be shorter. It all comes down to the total surface area of the ski and the amount of pounds per square inch we apply to the surface area of the skis. Example: I used to ski on a 185cm old straight ski, now I ski on a 152cm. I am still on the same amount of ski but it is shorter because it is fatter, but it is still the same amount of surface area. Add to this the fact that we ski on both skis so you add more surface area. Keep in mind that I am 125lbs. The reason for someone who weighs 170lbs to go up in length is because you will need more surface area to apply the same amount of pounds per square inch that I do to the ski.

If the person that weighs 170lbs is on the same length ski I am on they will apply too many pounds per square inch to the ski and it will not perform correctly. The ski can skid out from under you at speeds along with many other problems.

The opposite is true if someone who weighs 125lbs in on a ski too long it will be too much ski becuase they will not be able to appy enough pounds per square inch to make the ski bend and turn the way it should.

In the end it really comes down to the amount of surface area of the ski and the amount of pounds per square inch that you can apply to the ski to get it to turn.

Before you jump on me about stiff vs soft skis and everything in between. All that is about personal preference, the type of skiing, how agressive you ski, and conditions you ski in. The ski length remains basically the same.

As far as turn size goes that is all about the size of the radius of the ski. If you want a ski that turns short, get a ski with a 13 meter radius or less and for long turns get a radius of 14 meters or greater, but the length remains the same.

I think I got it all. I hope this helps.

skigirl

 

[Jilly]

Like volklgirl, I've gone from 190 straight, to 189 Dynstar X9, to 178 Dynastar SF, to 160 Rossi Vipers and Atomic C-9's to 154 Rossi Z5's. All the skis I demo'd this year for 08 were 160. I tried the Salomon Origins in 154 because they looked so wide like my Z5's. I found the ski too soft and not stable at speed. Next day tried in again in 160 - much better. Yet I didn't like the Z5' in 160. So the length isn't everything it must be combined with the rest of the makeup of the ski - torsion stiffness, turn type, speed and edge hold.

 

[ski now work later]

Wow, that was some sexist salesperson you dealt with. Skigirl has helped me a lot (in the other direction, convincing me that the shorter length is best for me for my height, weight, and skill level) and she knows her stuff! I would have guessed the 158s based on what you wrote, so I'm glad you finally wound up with the right skis. In general I've been very underwhelmed by advice from sales persons at ski equipment shops. This site has been great (in fact I found it googling "ski length").

 

[SnowGlider]

Reply to Num re ski length for her

"I think it would be interesting to see what length people who have (or haven't) tried these would suggest for me based on the points of reference you gave."

Age 22
Height 5'4ish
Weight 170
Ability intermediate (low 6?)
Style preference: fast, varied turns but short are my favorite
Terrain: midwest groomers, often icy, sometimes cruddy, sometimes slushy
Athleticism very athletic
The ski: fischer vision 70"

Num, the factors that stand out for me in your case are your weight, athleticism, and less than ideal snow. Also, if you're that young and aggressive, that tells me that you hope to improve and you need a ski that you can grow with. I think those all point to the 158. Like me, you would only know for sure by demoing the 152 and 158.

The 152 for you would be a casual messin'-around ski.

 

[altagirl]

I personally feel like the weight of the ski itself has something to do with it (there's more to it than that, but it's a factor). I've skied on very lightweight and soft skis in a 178 that feel unstable to me. Yet I have a pair of 160 Atomic SX-9's that are quite stable at speed. They're also (by far) the heaviest skis I own, even compared to my 183 Gotamas.

I think the key really is to demo and figure out what works for you. Once you have a basis of what works and what doesn't you can somewhat transfer that to other similar skis to make an educated guess on what will work best. Not to mention, I wouldn't want the same length skis for everything - different uses warrant different lengths.

 

[Native Vail Gal]

My straight "vintage" rossi's are 180's and my K2 One Luvs are 167. I demoed a shorter ski and I was not liking it at all! I didn't feel like I was skiing. It felt more like skating! It's just my personal preference.

I'm 5'6" and 128 pounds, but I do like a longer ski!

 

[num]

My current skis (only one pair :( ) are 158 and I'm quite happy with it. My instinct for demos is to go try a 158 (or the closest that the ski I'm trying comes in) as well as one shorter and one longer, if I've got the time and I'm seriously considering the ski. It's nice to hear different people's takes on it though, to see if I'm thinking within the same ballpark of what others would recommend, or if I'm way off.

 

[num]

I never understood the age factor in figuring out ski length, though. What is it supposed to affect?

I'm wondering as well. I understand age as a determining factor for binding release settings, bone density and all, but I didn't know about the relation between age and ski length.

 

[SnowGlider]

I assume age is related to muscle mass, agrgessiveness, and overall conditioning.

 

[Thatsagirl]

Demoing really is the key. The same ski is NOT the same ski at different lengths, in fact, it will handle completely different sometimes. Though as altagirl said, I can now pretty much figure out what length I'm going to like in "similar" skis.

I have always skied on longer skis than what most people "recommend." I am 42, 5'4", 145-150 lbs., very athletic, a strong skier but rely more on finesse and technique. I don't like to go below a 165 (most try to tell me I need a 155). In fact, I would probably go longer if I lived out West and skied open bowls more often, but since I live in the East, I mostly ski trees and like the "shorter" ski at 165.

On straight skis, I had a 195, my first shaped ski was 177. I was perfectly comfortable on the 177 on trails but thought they were too long for trees, not quick enough to react. So when we move out West (within next couple years), I'm going to add a ski to my quiver that is a longer fat ski.

All that said, I do know women who love skiing on a shorter ski. And if that's what makes them happy, and keeps them out on the mountain more, then it's GREAT! :D

Thatsagirl

 

[abc]

I believe weight is the first and most important factor. But how you ski also play a big part too.

I should know, I'm a physics major. The faster you ski, the more pressure is automatically put on the ski. So a ski you can't bend tooling around, you can bend it flying down the hill.

I, on the other hand, go slow and even slower in moguls, where I turn a lot! When I got on a stiff ski, I know I need to go fast to bring out its full potential. The only trouble is, that's not how I like to ski.

So, here's typical tug-of-war in the shop when I ask for a ski to demo:

Me: I'd like to try ski X
Sales: (look at me) 146 (or 148 whatever)?

Me: No, I'm 162 cm tall.
Sales: But you only weight, what, 90lb dripping wet? You can bend the longer ski!

Me: Nop, I weight 120!
Sale: OK, 150-155. But wait, what level of skier are you? Black or blue?
(see, now the salesman start noticing, wow, she's really fit and muscular, need to consider the skill & ski style factor...)

Me: mostly black
Sales: Well, in that case, maybe you like to go to 158-160? Especially if you like going fast.

Me: No, I don't think so, I like moguls.
Sales: OK, 155 it is.

I do find it amusing.

I hope this illustrate how length is a function of more than one factor and how they interplay

 

[SnowGlider]

This is exactly what I was trying to bring out: that ski length is a balancing act between many different factors that need to be assessed. Your example shows that salesguys make length decisions before they even ask the critical questions, based on their assumptions about typical women.

 

[altagirl]

This is exactly what I was trying to bring out: that ski length is a balancing act between many different factors that need to be assessed. Your example shows that salesguys make length decisions before they even ask the critical questions, based on their assumptions about typical women.

One time I had a sales guy tell me a ski was too big for me when all I did was ask the price. He didn't even ask if it was for me, let alone ask what/where I ski, etc.

 

[Thatsagirl]

From what I understand, when shop folks are taught how to sell skis, they're told to start with the "middle of the road" or "typical" length based on height, then start adding in all the factors that will affect whether the customer will go shorter or longer. In fact, that is what the salespreson in abc's example is doing.

HOWEVER, problems arise when a) the salesperson doesn't explain this method of figuring out the length, so as the salesperson's recommendation keeps changing it looks like he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about, and b) the less-skilled skier often doesn't know how important it is to provide ALL the necessary information to help the salesperson figure out the length (which means that if the salesperson forgets to ask about one of the deciding factors, such as how fast you like to ski or how much you weigh or how aggressive you are, the customer doesn't know they NEED to volunteer that information and there is a very good chance the wrong length is bought).

Thatsagirl