Check Out Our Shop
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: and short skis suck.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,787

    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.
    Last edited by focus; 02-24-2005 at 08:14 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In Your Wife
    Posts
    8,288

    Thumbs up

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    People's Republic of Shitshow
    Posts
    7,581
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,917
    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?
    "Can't vouch for him, though he seems normal via email."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Southeast New York
    Posts
    12,595
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In Your Wife
    Posts
    8,288
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Ski-attle
    Posts
    4,217
    My "carving" skis are 217 super G's. What's up now, pussies?!
    ROBOTS ARE EATING MY FACE.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Berkeley
    Posts
    1,255
    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?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,787
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    PacNW
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by focus
    Mont Ripley, Michigan.
    Believe it or not . . .
    "Don't tease me about my hobbies, I don't tease you about being an asshole"

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    132
    Size matters not! Judge me by my size, do you?
    Craftsmans poor skill made up not by size of tools.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    527
    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Shin-to-Win
    Believe it or not . . .
    216" of snow so far this year . . . .

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sawtooth's
    Posts
    1,336
    Short Skis Suck Long Skis Truck!!!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    3rd House on the left
    Posts
    194
    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!
    ADD and damn proud of it.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Impossible to knowl--I use an iPhone
    Posts
    13,182
    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.
    [quote][//quote]

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Southeast New York
    Posts
    12,595
    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...

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    The Ranch
    Posts
    3,792
    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,936
    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.
    Try doing a few runs with your boots unbuckled to find a centered position. [/epic advice]

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    In Your Wife
    Posts
    8,288
    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.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The Sound
    Posts
    674
    I think you should go longer to compensate for less at the waist.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    13,371
    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.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Nhampshire
    Posts
    7,873
    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. My hometown is hancock (different state), and the first thing I always hear out of people's mouths is "hehehehhe, hand-cock, hehehehehe".

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    13,371
    Quote Originally Posted by schuss
    what is it about the name of hancock that always amuses everyone. My hometown is hancock (different state), and the first thing I always hear out of people's mouths is "hehehehhe, hand-cock, hehehehehe".
    heh...handcock...heh heh

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    my head up my ass
    Posts
    525
    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???

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •