Ski sizing

**Dawn Patrol** · 08-08-2007, 08:54 PM

Alright, I know I'm going to get a solid jonging for this, and maybe I deserve it. But here is the question. I'm a skinny ass, 5'8" 145 pounds. Been on skis in the 170cm range for a loooong time. Last winter I got on a pair of 179 Seths and LOVED them. I can ski them anywhere, anytime. So when the coombas came out, I thought I'd get another AT setup, with Dukes, thought I'd go a little bigger, the 181's. But turns out they're more like 185. I know, I know all the west coasters are like... whats the problem JONG?!? The problem is I'm on the East Coast and have never tried to turn a freakin 185cm ski through our tight ass trees. So any ECer's out there taking big skis into the woods? I want to hear about it, especially if you're not the biggest guy out there. You guys think a lightweight like me will get them through the trees?

Bring on the JONGING.

**laseranimal** · 08-08-2007, 08:56 PM

first off TECH TALK JONG!

second slide the mount .5 to 1 cm forward and you'll be fine

**deliberate** · 08-08-2007, 08:56 PM

you are too weak. get some blades.

**Dawn Patrol** · 08-08-2007, 08:57 PM

Mother fucker, I thought I was in tech talk... wow I am a jong... Least its more ski related than barry bonds....

**leroy jenkins** · 08-08-2007, 09:04 PM

I may be wrong on this, but I think the coombas have a bit of a rockered tip. If thats right, they'll ski shorter, and be $$$$ in trees. If someone confirms this, then I'd say go for it.

I know, bigger skis can be scary, you don't want to waste your money and all that, but bigger skis can also help you become a lot better, or just realize that you already don't suck as bad as you think you do.

**Tri-Ungulate** · 08-08-2007, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

I know, bigger skis can be scary, you don't want to waste your money and all that, but bigger skis can also help you become a lot better, or just realize that you already don't suck as bad as you think you do.

cue famous leroy jenkins pic...

Anyway, just by my completely unscientific, arbitrary and subjective hand flexing metric, Coombas seem reasonably soft, and ought to be easy to turn.

**Blurred** · 08-08-2007, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Dawn Patrol

Alright, I know I'm going to get a solid jonging for this, and maybe I deserve it. But here is the question. I'm a skinny ass, 5'8" 145 pounds. Been on skis in the 170cm range for a loooong time. Last winter I got on a pair of 179 Seths and LOVED them. I can ski them anywhere, anytime. So when the coombas came out, I thought I'd get another AT setup, with Dukes, thought I'd go a little bigger, the 181's. But turns out they're more like 185. I know, I know all the west coasters are like... whats the problem JONG?!? The problem is I'm on the East Coast and have never tried to turn a freakin 185cm ski through our tight ass trees. So any ECer's out there taking big skis into the woods? I want to hear about it, especially if you're not the biggest guy out there. You guys think a lightweight like me will get them through the trees?

Bring on the JONGING.

The difference between those and the seths is a touch more than an inch on tip and tail. You'll be fine. JONG.

**72Twenty** · 08-08-2007, 09:58 PM

I'll trade you my 193 Big Daddy's for the Coombas, straight up.

**cj001f** · 08-08-2007, 10:00 PM

I recommend a 9'4"

**Mofro261** · 08-08-2007, 10:05 PM

I suggest you eat another burger and hit the weight room and get your skinny 145lb ass to 150lb. You should be fine.

(Works for me and my 5'7" 150lb lard ass).

**leroy jenkins** · 08-08-2007, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Tri-Ungulate

cue famous leroy jenkins pic...

I figured I'd save you guys the work and just make it my avatar.

**lifts4turns** · 08-08-2007, 11:20 PM

You got nothing. I'm 5'10 135. When you get to that you can call yourself a scrawny ass.

**hemas** · 08-09-2007, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

I may be wrong on this, but I think the coombas have a bit of a rockered tip. If thats right, they'll ski shorter, and be $$$$ in trees. If someone confirms this, then I'd say go for it.

You're mixing Antipiste/SV (next seasons) and Coomba together. While the Coomba has very little camber, the tip is not rockered (unless they changed the design).

**SiSt** · 08-09-2007, 12:47 AM

There are more important parameters than length, as has already been mentioned. Being 6´0´´ and 170, I don´t really compare to you, but anyway, here goes.

I skied the 189cm 05 madenAK´s two seasons ago (borrowed them as often as I could), these skis are really something like 193cm long, and they were no problem in the trees. This would be because they are noodles with huge tip and tail.

This season I skied 186LP´s, finding them much harder to steer in tight trees (even if I have become a better skier during the last year), this being because they are much stiffer than the maden´s, have just a little bit of tail and are generally much more demanding. And mine are mounted +1,5...

Now, I really don´t know too much about the Coomba, but it has a short turn radius (22m@174), and a relatively big tip. K2´s are usually pretty soft too, so you should be able to keep in control.

**Lloyd Braun** · 08-09-2007, 07:53 AM

Fix your mind Gaper!

**grskier** · 08-09-2007, 08:12 AM

185s.. psh, I thought you guys were still skiing 205 slalom skis out there

If you can not turn them, I'm sure someone will take them off your hand in gear swap.

**GoEhuge** · 08-09-2007, 08:31 AM

Unless the Coomba's are rock solid stiff, which I don't think they are, you have nothin to worry about. I am 6ft 150, and would never even think about riding anything smaller than a 185... unless it's icy as shit and for some dumbass reason am in the middle of a bump field.

I definatly don't think you will regret going for the 181, unless you have a problem with skiing better. Honestly.. can you really handle riding up the lift, looking down, and realizing your'e on the same size boards as the 60 year old woman on vaca from NYC sitting next to you? I hope not.

**Dromond** · 08-09-2007, 08:35 AM

When I put the 179 Seths and 181 Comanche Chefs side by side they were the same length, exactly. Of course the Seths have a twin. I bet you'd find that the Seth is something like a 182 or 183. I imagine that the Coomba will only ski about 2-3cm longer than your Seths. Go for it.

<- 181 Chef lover

**mojorisin** · 08-09-2007, 08:39 AM

are coombas really rockered? I thought they just had zero camber

**Dromond** · 08-09-2007, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by hemas

You're mixing Antipiste/SV (next seasons) and Coomba together. While the Coomba has very little camber, the tip is not rockered (unless they changed the design).

Originally Posted by mojorisin

are coombas really rockered? I thought they just had zero camber

Read above.

**Doremite** · 08-09-2007, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by Dawn Patrol

Alright, I know I'm going to get a solid jonging for this, and maybe I deserve it. But here is the question. I'm a skinny ass, 5'8" 145 pounds. Been on skis in the 170cm range for a loooong time. Last winter I got on a pair of 179 Seths and LOVED them. I can ski them anywhere, anytime. So when the coombas came out, I thought I'd get another AT setup, with Dukes, thought I'd go a little bigger, the 181's. But turns out they're more like 185. I know, I know all the west coasters are like... whats the problem JONG?!? The problem is I'm on the East Coast and have never tried to turn a freakin 185cm ski through our tight ass trees. So any ECer's out there taking big skis into the woods? I want to hear about it, especially if you're not the biggest guy out there. You guys think a lightweight like me will get them through the trees?

Bring on the JONGING.

I ski EC trees and typically ski something steeef in the 180-185ish range, but I'm 5'11 1 (ahem) 80ish..... I don't think there is a strict correlation between size/weight and ski length however. More dependent on personal preference, skier stength and stiffness/turning radius of the ski. A soft shorter turning radius 185 may be a lot easier to handle in tight spaces than a 180 Explsovie for example (my EC tree ski of choice). Lighter skiers will have difficulty bulling stiffer rides to force 'em through tight spaces. For example, even though I like the 180-185ish length for EC trees, 183 Axioms didn't work so well in tight spaces. Demo (or borrow) something and test the waters.

**Teletori** · 08-09-2007, 09:05 AM

I have the 181 Coombas... and they are money in the trees.

They are softer than the Seths, so they will not be harder to ski. You dont have that much sidecut, but the softness of the ski will make it really easy and predictable to ski.

I use mine for touring, and they are really good for that. Inbounds I would like quite a bit stiffer ski.

Then I am 6´1 and 200 lbs and ski them tele... so YMMV.

FYI, they dont have that much camber, but they arent rockered!!

Tori

**leroy jenkins** · 08-09-2007, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by hemas

You're mixing Antipiste/SV (next seasons) and Coomba together. While the Coomba has very little camber, the tip is not rockered (unless they changed the design).

Yea my bad, for some reason I thought they had just a bit, like the EHP, but I searched a bunch and i guess i'm wrong.

regardless, they're supposed to be stupid light, so they should be easy to throw around.

**adimmen** · 08-09-2007, 10:41 AM

Look for a soft or partially rockered ski. I'm your same size and ride 190+ through very tight trees where you are breaking branches off with your head every few turns.