and short skis suck.

I picked up some supersport 5stars in a 168...for carving on hardpack. cuz it's supposed to be just loads of fun....

...and they do carve. and well. I could really lay 'em over and let 'em run.

skied them all night on hardpack...short turns, medium turns, long turns....and while it beat a sharp stick in the eye, I can't say I had all that much fun. it was boring. They felt like toys in the heavy crud we had on the other side of the hill -- beat the piss out of you if you tried to get up any speed off the hardpack....

I just don't understand the epicskiers...they're a different breed.

Thank God someone else has said it. Short skis do suck. my slalom race boards are 165cm's, the longest on my team, and I still feel like I'm on snowlerblades when I ski them. Gimme back my longer boards and let me cruise. :biggrin:

been on 186 monster boards everyday for the last two weeks....

did some night laps tonight on my 163 BD mira touring setup, and fuck, I could barely ski them.....felt like fucking toys

Just to clarify, what is "short"? If you are like 6'-0" and skiing a 168 then, yes a 168 is probably way too short. A short ski to one might be just right for another. Glademaster was saying in another post that a 179 was short, well not for me. Skiing a tight line through steep trees, a 179 is just right for me. That's why we all have quivers of skis, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Below Zero

Just to clarify, what is "short"? If you are like 6'-0" and skiing a 168 then, yes a 168 is probably way too short. A short ski to one might be just right for another. Glademaster was saying in another post that a 179 was short, well not for me. Skiing a tight line through steep trees, a 179 is just right for me. That's why we all have quivers of skis, right?

---

And if you're short and a lightweight like me that 168 is about as long as I feel comfy with anymore. At 135 pounds with small feet it's just too much work throwing big stix around.

To clarify, I'm about 5'8'' 140lbs. I don't see myself skiing anything under 180cm's ever, except slalom boards, which I really dislike to be on. 185cms+ is where its at.

My "carving" skis are 217 super G's. What's up now, pussies?! :FIREdevil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

I picked up some supersport 5stars in a 168...for carving on hardpack. cuz it's supposed to be just loads of fun....

...and they do carve. and well. I could really lay 'em over and let 'em run.

---

You might have had better luck w/ the 6 stars. They are a bit beefier.

For me the my supersport 6 starts are reserved for when it has not snowed in 1-2 weeks and it going to be a day of cruising, bumps and packed powder in the trees. I really like the 6 stars in tight chutes. I can carve them in places I have to jump turn my 185 Bandit XXX.

I do not make a practice of taking my 6 stars out into heavy crud. I have done it. But, I have other skis that are more fun and usually switch skis if decide to ski some corn or crud in the afternoon.

IMHO: The SuperSports are a ski in the quiver and definitely not a one ski quiver or a true all-mountain. Having grown up skiing VT, I do think the 6 stars would make a good everyday ski there. But, definitely not out in the Sierra.

If you don’t ski bumps at all, you might look into some GS ski in the 180 range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

felt like toys in the heavy crud we had on the other side of the hill

---

Just curious, where were you skiing heavy crud under lights?

5'10" -- 185 lbs. just to clarify, they weren't "too short"....just shorter than I prefer. Laying a big fat stick over just feels better to me.... They're definitely just a quiver ski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StormDay

Just curious, where were you skiing heavy crud under lights?

---

Mont Ripley, Michigan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

Mont Ripley, Michigan.

---

Believe it or not . . .

Size matters not! Judge me by my size, do you?
Craftsmans poor skill made up not by size of tools.

i have an older pair of 184cm SuperSport 5 Stars (the first year they were out and before the 6 star) and i have them in a length which some might consider too long for my 5'8" 150lb frame.

for me here at Alpine Meadows w/ 1800ft of vertical, they are a pretty fun ski on the harder snow groomer days. some days i feel like i can rip like Tomba on them. for crud, they prolly aren't the best but that's why you get something like the Explosiv or some other fat, stiff powder board to plow thru.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shin-to-Win

Believe it or not . . .

---

216" of snow so far this year . . . .

Short Skis Suck Long Skis Truck!!!

FKNA - truth has been pulled out of the dark corner of the igloo and slapped across the face of ski marketing bullshit!!!!!!

Short skis DO SUCK.

Way back in the late last century - I used to run on K2 20muthafuckin5's - and lived to tell about it.

But nooooooooooo - comes to this century and I let some sales rep convince me that 165s are the thing. Go short - he says, they're shaped he says, turn without work he says. Spent 2 seasons sliding around like I was running on flattened out clown feet says I.

Granted - they are slick in trees and okay in the moguls - but christ on a stick - go faster than 20 mph downhill and the poor bastards wiggle like they are going to explode from the shock.

Solution - go long.

Moved up to 185s and have not looked back since - still short enough to swing in tight places - but don't chatter like scared chickens on the downhill.

Before you "whats yer stats boys get going" - I'm 5'8", solid 173 pounds, run 15-20 miles a week and lift weights - so I have legs like trees trunks - so yes, 185s fit me!

Just to dissent with the obvious...
Short skis only suck for the sort of skiing that doesn't demand short skis. If you're racing SL you'll get your ass handed to you, no matter how good you are, if you're not on a 160 SL ski. Likewise, the day I tried the Phantoms last year I was in trees that were so tight I could almost always touch a tree with either hand, and if I'd been on my normal tree skis I would've gotten worked.
The night I was at the 250' vert. hill in NY with Gravitylover he was arcing the hell out of his shorty SL skis, while I was doing everything I could to get a decent carve for just a turn or two out of my GS skis. That night, I would've preferred shorter skis.

All that being said, I would rarely choose to spend a regular day skiing on short skis, and the shortest skis I own are a 186, so obviously I'm not a short ski fan, just wanted to say they don't always suck.

Bump for the props to me -
"The night I was at the 250' vert. hill in NY with Gravitylover he was arcing the hell out of his shorty SL skis, while I was doing everything I could to get a decent carve for just a turn or two out of my GS skis. That night, I would've preferred shorter skis."

Thanks Dex... :biggrin:

I have a pair of 184 salomon x-mountains that are my rock skis, a pair of 184 salomon x-mountains that are my resort skis, and a pair of 184 salomon x-mountains as my AT setup. I definitely helps to have a well rounded quiver for various types of skiing, it makes all the difference. I'm 5'11" and weigh between 165-185, depending on what I did the previous month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glademaster

Thank God someone else has said it. Short skis do suck. my slalom race boards are 165cm's, the longest on my team, and I still feel like I'm on snowlerblades when I ski them. Gimme back my longer boards and let me cruise. :biggrin:

---

Try doing a few runs with your boots unbuckled to find a centered position. [/epic advice]

I ski most of my warm up runs with my boots unbuckled to get balanced. I just don't like the feeling on snow of a short, super-shaped ski.

I think you should go longer to compensate for less at the waist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by focus

5'10" -- 185 lbs. just to clarify, they weren't "too short"....just shorter than I prefer. Laying a big fat stick over just feels better to me.... They're definitely just a quiver ski.



Mont Ripley, Michigan.

---

Ripley rips.

Small steep snowy. Plus, if you're at all like me, you can milk a lot of humor just from being in the town of Hancock.

heh...hancock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YetiMan

Ripley rips.

Small steep snowy. Plus, if you're at all like me, you can milk a lot of humor just from being in the town of Hancock.

heh...hancock.

---

what is it about the name of hancock that always amuses everyone. :cussing: My hometown is hancock (different state), and the first thing I always hear out of people's mouths is "hehehehhe, hand-cock, hehehehehe". :cussing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schuss

what is it about the name of hancock that always amuses everyone. :cussing: My hometown is hancock (different state), and the first thing I always hear out of people's mouths is "hehehehhe, hand-cock, hehehehehe". :cussing:

---

heh...handcock...heh heh

Howsabout the recent missing child is from Homo-sassa Florida

How do the newscasters keep from cracking up, or at least pronouncing it with a lisp.

P.S. - missing child not funny,
But,

Homo-Sasser?
Homo-Sassy?
Homo-Saucy?
not sure how to pronounce that one.

P.P.S. - "Science made me a homo. Science said we're all homos (sapiens)."
who sings that song???

short skis better, long skis better, who the hell cares. the argument is moot since no one makes a long ski anymore. maybe stockli and iggy still make a ski over 200 cm, but try finding even a 198 anymore from most of the major manufacturers.

I'm deviating from this thread a bit - but I thought you Mont Ripley boys would like an old school picture of skiing Ripley. This is just to the lookers left of the T-bar, jumping off the catwalk. Is that bush still there? In the middle of winter when the snow was fast and you could get a good run at it, we used to jump over top of it. As spring hit though, you couldn't get enough speed to do so....

Actually come to think of it, this photo ties right into this thread - I think those old straight boards were 203's or something like that!

Okay... bring on the flames about my JONGish oldschool moves...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fez

short skis better, long skis better, who the hell cares. the argument is moot since no one makes a long ski anymore. maybe stockli and iggy still make a ski over 200 cm, but try finding even a 198 anymore from most of the major manufacturers.

---

I dunno, stating an opinion and stuff...kinda what we do on forums.

my 168 5stars certainly ski a lot different than my 195 lab swallowtails. While you're correct in saying that the scale has shifted a bit, we do still have "short" skis and "long" skis -- just go ask epicski.

As for the bush, there's a lot of bushes over in that area.... don't know if your bush still exists. the little lip off the catwalk does...but I've never tried jumping over any bushes off it. Don't have that kinda steeze. :cool:

im not buying. back in the day skis came 175 to 210, every 5cm. now you get your choice of three or four lengths. they keep saying that with the new designs and what not you dont need as long a ski, personally i think its just the ski industry trying to streamline their production and inventory systems and bullshit everyone into believing that its better for them at the same time.