Ski Length Question

[WhiteHunter]

I'm buying my first set of wide boards. I have narrowed my choice down to Head Mojos or the B3. I had pretty much determined that I was looking at the 186 length in the Mojo or 185 in the B3. I'm 6' and 195lbs and over the last 3 years have been getting into skiing steeps, chutes and some trees.

Anyway, I was at Whistler 2 weeks ago and demoed some B3's in a 178 because it was all that was available that day and it was free. I had them in some tight chutes and found some boot deep relatively uncut powder and liked them a lot. Tried the 185's two days later. I expected them to be slower into short turns but they also felt a little dead compared to the shorter length. Or was it was my legs getting dead at the end of the week?

So if I go with the shorter ski, what am I giving up? I realize shorter means less surface area and less float in deep snow, but is it significantly less? I'm not really comfortable ripping high speed on steeps yet so I don't think giving up a little stability at speed is an issue right now. Are there any other issues I should be considering?

[seldon]

See http://tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25808 JONG.

If you actually like short skis, head over to www.epicski.com. People here of your size/stature typically are on 190 xploders or comparable. You won't get much advice to go to a shorter ski here. Whereas over at gapicski, thats all the advice you'll get, fwiw.

Go long . I'm on a burlier stick (186 LP) than you're considering and I'm only 5'10" and 160. And they're great in tight chutes/trees.

[pointemstraight]

I second Seldon. Long is good. I was looking at a pair of Gotamas up in Mammoth that were 183's (I'm only 5'8, 145), and the shop guy gives me the stink eye. He asks me how many days a year I ski, I tell him anywhere from 30 to 50. He proceeds to tell me that he skis at least double that in a season, and he's the fastest skier on the mountain. He also informs me that I *can't* ski the 183, I should be looking at the 168's or at the *very* longest, the 176's. Whatever, shop dude. Short skis still suck.

[Arty50]

This is a tough question. Some people do like shorter boards. And not everyone likes "burly" sticks either. But that's a whole other argument (some people just don't grasp the concept of a "progressive flex").

Anyway, none of us have skied with you either. So it's just internet advice. Take it for what it's worth. My question is, are you happy with how you're skiing now or do you want to improve? If you're happy where you're at, maybe the 178 is the call. But if you plan to step it up and improve, I'd definitely go 185. A little extra length may be a bit more demanding, but it will also allow/force you to grow into the ski. Because at your height and weight I would go with the 185. I'm 6'1" 230 and wouldn't consider anything shorter than that length for freeskiing. Especially with a "softer" ski like the B3.

Edit: In response to pointemstraight's post, that shop guy is a complete moron. Gotamas ski short. Everyone who has them knows this. It's mostly due to the high kick in the tail, but also somewhat due to the flex pattern.

[Spats]

I think everyone here is on Spatulas now, so the length question is somewhat moot.

[ScottG]

I'm 6' and 195lbs

So if I go with the shorter ski, what am I giving up? I realize shorter means less surface area and less float in deep snow, but is it significantly less? I'm not really comfortable ripping high speed on steeps yet so I don't think giving up a little stability at speed is an issue right now. Are there any other issues I should be considering?

Shorter is definitely less float, more tip dive in powder, but the weakness will mainly show up in chopped crud and in transitions between pow and packed.

But, you say your not comfy with speed yet. A short and soft ski will prevent you from ever being comfy with speed because you will never feel fully in control. You will be stuck in third gear.

B3s are realitively soft (but great for pow and crud), and if you go fast on steeps the tips will vibrate and flap and that 178 will feel more like a 160.

What is your home mountain? where do you ski usually?
Get a fatty that you might be able to use more than one week a year on vaca.

P.S. agreed 185cm. That is short enough.

[marshalolson]

So if I go with the shorter ski, what am I giving up? I realize shorter means less surface area and less float in deep snow, but is it significantly less? I'm not really comfortable ripping high speed on steeps yet so I don't think giving up a little stability at speed is an issue right now. Are there any other issues I should be considering?

shorter skis also have a smaller turning radius.
EC guys usually run 1 size smaller than a similar WC skier.
where do you live? where do you usually ski? what are you on now?
are you looking for an all mountain fat ski or a powder ski?

also, you don't feel comfortable at high speed on steeps yet cause you aren't on the right ski....

edit: does madtown = madison, wi?

[focus]

i know i'm just echoing what's already been said...

if you're really into the tree/short turn thing, then 178 probably wouldn't be TOO short...but if you are looking to step it up at your size a 178 may hold you back. The 185 will give you a lot more stability in any kind of chopped up/variable conditions snow.

I have the 185 XXX and my dad has the same ski in a 178, not quite apples to apples w/ the b3 but close. And i noticed pretty much the same thing you did, the 178 really lets you crank out short turns and is easy to throw around...but when the speed does pick up and the snow gets mankier the 185 is actually a lot easier to ski than the 178.

Conventional wisdom seems to say that you have to be a better skier to ski a longer, stiffer board; but at speed in rough conditions, crud, and pow a longer ski can actually make a poor skier better -- to a point.

[SquawMan]

there have been some posts with good advice, just do more demo'ing and you'll answer the question yourself

just be aware that many of the newer skis have more mass but also more sidecut which allows the turning radius to shrink, so you can be on larger boards and not sacrifice turning ability in tight spaces

just be HONEST with yourself about the type of terrain you'll be skiing most often and filter the advice you get from places like this from people who are skiing more often outside the resorts and more often in backcountry conditions where bigger boards are required

if you are a resort guy only, then do a search on EpicSki or post the same question

[Dexter Rutecki]

they call anyone who asks an intelligent question a JONG and then flame them like juveniles (aka pirahnas)

are you just a 10 yr old, 120 lg dumbass who likes to post like a big man on an anonymous chat board?

I think the answer is obvious

there have been some posts with good advice,

this is great advice

Not only does he not get it, he's turning schitzo.

Stupid JONGs (not to be confused with WH who, while a JONG, asked a legit question).

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

do a search on "ACL or broken leg" and watch how many of these kids are crashing and burning this season trying to be macho riding large boards

it's the Napolean complex applied to skiing

Nice, inaccurate misrepresentation there buddy. Where are you getting your info from?

I happen to know and have skied with a few of the mags who are down with injuries and NONE of them ride a stick that is over their abilities or have a Napolean complex. And hell, as for myself, I tore my ACL playing soccer not even skiing...maybe my shoes were too big?

[Dexter Rutecki]

And hell, as for myself, I tore my ACL playing soccer not even skiing...maybe my shoes were too big?

Soccer=big balls, same sort of complex, dude.



I'm still dreaming about In n' Out burgers, BTW

[Arty50]

they call anyone who asks an intelligent question a JONG and then flame them like juveniles (aka pirahnas)

Everyone who's new gets JONG'd. It's tradition. It's also completely harmless.

If everyone would just read this first, it would make life a lot easier:
http://tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20100

Obviously, your experience here hasn't been so great. Perhaps that because you haven't exactly been an exemplary member of this community. Remember, in life you often get what you give.

Also, it's an internet forum. Every forum I've ever visited has it's fair share of morons. This isn't far from real life if you think about it. Ask anyone who's worked in a retail setting.

[SquawMan]

Not only does he not get it, he's turning schitzo.

Stupid JONGs (not to be confused with WH who, while a JONG, asked a legit question).

I completely get it

Seldon's flame of a JONG question came one day after Splat just went off on how great 160cm Prophet's are!

so who's the real JONG, Seldon or WH

my vote goes to Seldon, and if he wants to stay consistent, he should go over to the Prophet thread and flame Splat

on a serious note, with today's skis whihc can be much fatter, stiffer and lighter, you can make the argument easily both ways, that longer skis with more sidecut ski shorter, and shorter, fatter skis that are stiff are as stable as longer ones

it's personal preference and depends on the ski

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I completely get it

Seldon's flame of a JONG question came one day after Splat just went off on how great 160cm Prophet's are!

so who's the real JONG, Seldon or WH

my vote goes to Seldon, and if he wants to stay consistent, he should go over to the Prophet thread and flame Splat

ummm.....Prophets? I think you mean Phantoms no?

[Below Zero]

so who's the real JONG, Seldon or WH

Ok fine, everyone is a JONG except for Basom, who I hear from other threads is killing it this year! Is everyone happy now?

[WhiteHunter]

I've been lurking around the board for about a year before posting. Was actually expecting a harsher welcome than I got. Most of the posts I've read here re: ski length have been thick on sentiment "short skis suck" "go long!!" without actually talking about the technical reasons for said advice, so I figured it was worth asking.

Previous input I had gotten was really conflicting. I live in Madison, WI. Fat ski expertise here is as extensive as it is at Gapic Ski. I didn't care to wade through 30 responses from people who knew less than me to maybe get one piece of useful advice. Ski shops out west weren't much better. Some guys were big on going shorter but again it seemed to be what hey were told to sell your average resort skier without any tangible info that gave me any confidence. Either that or I'd get some kid who'd been in the shop for 6 months, looked at my size and wanted to put me on 195's without asking another question.

I actually liked the Mojo in the 186 but had other questions with that ski regarding mounting point for the bindings. Although its had good reviews here and elsewhere, not many people are skiing it so getting questions answered about that ski have been tough. If I could have been comfortable that 178 in the B3 was not too short it would have been a good alternative, but your advice is moving me to the Mojo in the 186.

I don't need boards devoted solely to powder, I figure I'll only get 9 or 10 days a year out west. As far as terrain, to this point its all inbounds but challenging. If you spend time at Whistler, I look for runs like Mondays, Stephan's Chute, Bushrat, Harmony Horseshoes; at Snowbird the runs off the Cirque. But my wife and rest of my traveling group stick to mid level black runs for the most part so I need skis versatile enough to handle difficult terrain when I find some one to ski it with, and still be able to spend half a day with my wife. Something that I can enjoy powder on when I get the chance and will let me keep improving.

Thanks for the help!

[SquawMan]

ummm.....Prophets? I think you mean Phantoms no?

yup, meant Phantoms

[ScottG]

Being a former MidWestern boy, let me chime in:

When you ski WI, what do you do? Wedel, carving trenches, skiing bumps?
At your weight, on a reasonably stiff fat ski, you can ski groomers, bumps and all sorts of stuff with no problems.
When skiing EC, I tend to use my 90 waist 195cm skis.
Maybe someday I'll get a short hyper carve groom ski, but I think I'd rather try a retardedly short and fat Phantom instead. My skinny carving skis are 200cm and ultra stiff, and I just cant get them up to cruising speed safely at most EC spots.

Once you get used to fat, it aint so bad.

If you go the B3, even though it is too soft for high speed western groomers, you will never reach terminal velocity in WI, so it may be fine for there.

However, when you take those B3's out west, and you get skunked with no soft snow, you will be not so happy zinging the groomers at your weight (once you get used to higher big mountain speeds).

After I learned to ski real mountains, when friends asked me to ski WI, that's when I learned to tele. There just aint much challenge or thrill alpining on a 500 foot hill. Now, if only they had terrain parks back when I was a kid . . . I coulda amused myself.

Now, Mt Bohemia is another matter! Sounds like short and fat is what you need for the trees there. (Hmm - another call for Phantoms?) Where was that place when I was a punk. Looks like a fun place.

at 6'4" and 215 I'm no skinny punk buying too much ski, but you aint average size either. I could ski 185 and be happy. Anything shorter is kinda wierd and a specialty toy that could never be a "quiver of one"

Buy the right ski in the right size and you can ski it anywhere anytime.

[seldon]

I completely get it

Seldon's flame of a JONG question came one day after Splat just went off on how great 160cm Prophet's are!

so who's the real JONG, Seldon or WH

my vote goes to Seldon, and if he wants to stay consistent, he should go over to the Prophet thread and flame Splat

on a serious note, with today's skis whihc can be much fatter, stiffer and lighter, you can make the argument easily both ways, that longer skis with more sidecut ski shorter, and shorter, fatter skis that are stiff are as stable as longer ones

it's personal preference and depends on the ski

Look, bitch, there's a helluva difference between a ritualistic JONG given to a person on their first post, ala Arty's post, and JONGing as derogatory term. You, sir, fall into the second category. Despite the fact that you've been around here long enough to learn how shit works, you post stupid shit without any real content. My post was not attacking, merely stating that most people on this board will tell him to go long given his stats, and that I personally recommend a longer board. You, on the other hand, managed to shit all over his thread in a completely useless method that wasn't even remotely funny.

My post was not a flame. I don't have a problem with short skis. I stated that I, along with most people on this board, prefer longer boards, and as a result the advice that he would get would be biased. Get your head out of your ass. [end rant]

[justcuz]

I confess: I live in the Midwest. The U.P. to be exact....exactly 42 miles Southwest of Mt. Bohemia and exactly six boners away from mad Mont Ripley.

I own a few skis, and none of them are shorter than 180cm. My everyday supercarvers are 180cm Nordica SUV 12x. My pow pow skis are 186 Stockli Stormrider DP's....way stiffer than the B3's and a snip stiffer than the Mojos.

Exactly 3 years ago I was gaping around on 175 Pocket Rockets....then I discovered big(ger) skis. Now, my "Bohemia" skis are 188 Dynastar 4x4 Bigs, my rock skis are 200cm FFL Igneous', and as I said my still in good shape pow boards are 186 DP's.

By no means am I a badass, but my skiing is now at a level that I am comfortable with, and I feel I will never be able to "outski" the limits of the skis I own. I did that daily with the PR's....they were so unstable and just not enough ski for me, and I think that one day you will discover the same thing.

My opinion: go bigger and ski them a lot. The more you ski them, the more you'll get used to being on bigger skis...and you'll realize the benefits were well worth the learning curve and the money saved.

Enjoy, and come on up to ski sometime.

[SquawMan]

Look, bitch, there's a helluva difference between a ritualistic JONG given to a person on their first post, ala Arty's post, and JONGing as derogatory term. You, sir, fall into the second category. Despite the fact that you've been around here long enough to learn how shit works, you post stupid shit without any real content. My post was not attacking, merely stating that most people on this board will tell him to go long given his stats, and that I personally recommend a longer board. You, on the other hand, managed to shit all over his thread in a completely useless method that wasn't even remotely funny.

My post was not a flame. I don't have a problem with short skis. I stated that I, along with most people on this board, prefer longer boards, and as a result the advice that he would get would be biased. Get your head out of your ass. [end rant]

you told the poor guy to head over to EpicSki right away, I'd call that an absolute flame

but you're also right, it was only his 3rd post, so we're both wrong

btw, the line between short fat stiff skis with sidecut and longer boards is blurring with each new ski that comes out

the Volkl Mantra might be the perfect all mountain ski next year, we'll see

[WhiteHunter]

I've been around long enough to expect a few ritual JONG responses at the very least. Seldon's post, while essentially reiterating useless information I've read here before, was expected. No offense taken. The rest were pretty much what I was looking for, recommendations with supporting substance.

Scott, while at home I'll ski bumps when the ice isn't blue, otherwise I'm mostly carving trenches. I've got a set of 184cm XX's for around here, wouldn't use the fatties here unless coverage at Bohemia was really good. When out west I try to avoid the groomers other than as a conduit to get somewhere else, regardless of snow conditions. With the amount of time I get out there, I'd rather ski challenging terrain on what you may consider crappy hard snow than creamy groomers. By the time I get out west I'm sick of them. May as well push myself to get better on whatever type of snow is there; the groomers will always be available somewhere.

[72Twenty]

[runethechamp]

As a personal experience I think the shorter skis will give you more instant gratification while the longer skis will pay off in the long run. I guess other people have said that as well here. When I bought my first pair of alpine skis 5 yeas ago ( I was tele'ing before that) I got myself a pair of 194 Salomon Supermountains because I wanted some stability for high speed. I'm 5'11 and at the time I probably weighed in at about 160 lbs. I struggled alot with the skis in tighter spots, but they were so sweet for open spaces and high speed. So I guess it just comes down to where you want to go with your skiing. I still ski my Supermountains every now and then, but on powder days I'm mostly either on a pair of 190 AK Launchers (also 5 years old), a pair of 186 Stockli Stormrider DPs or my newfound love, the Spatulas.