I started skiing last year, i cannot tell you how much your videos are insightful for someone like me to get a feeling on the activity in general. Never stop!
I have been skiing for some 45 years now and you are EXACTLY RIGHT for ski length for general use. Of course, there will be exceptions depending on personal preference - but you hit the nail on the head - Great vid.
@@RicketySkiReviews Big boys a bit left out, maybe include weight range for skis as weight matters a lot, corresponds to carving and stability in turn. I've grown in fat 95 pounds for the last 8 years and have seen how I outgrow skis first hand :D. Currently at 6'0 295 I'm watching tons of review and can't get a direction of skis that I won't bottom out, and loan options are not an option so testing is impossible.
Finally! Awesome advice. I will be watching all our videos. Your review of the Stormrider weaknesses was dead accurate. Porpoised through some powder at Alta, UT a few weeks ago, wonderful damp but required extra energy to ski with because it erased the energy I was putting into the ski, did not turn particularly well - absorbed chunder reasonably well, but wore me out. Awesome ski in many ways, but a bit of an expensive mistake. Thanks for the awesome, thoughtful, and finally "common sense" analysis of ski positives and negatives. Good job!
Right on! Thanks for sharing! I'm 185cm and run 176 atomic maverick for a daily carver and just got a pair of 182 qst 106's for powder. The Mantras were one of my favorite skis for heavy snow last year.
@@RicketySkiReviews I'm on my 5th pair of Mantras and they just keep getting better each iteration ...I know that are harder to turn in the steep and bumps ... they are heavy but they ski powder and crud like a dream. They make a 191 better I think for speed and they know anyone who drives one will have a few skills
Totally agree! I’m an advanced skier who prefers off piste, chutes, trees- etc. I’d been told for years that long is better for higher skill level. So I made the mistake of buying a ski that’s slightly taller than me, and had a horrible time on it. I backed off to skis that come to my eyebrows and it’s perfect. I need nimble/agile. It’s more about skier style and terrain preference.
This really helped. Thanks. I watched a few of your videos and decided on a 85mm K2 Mindbender as my daily driver for the East Coast groomers. Lots of fun and so easy to turn. Really underrated ski. When I want a challenge and there’s a bit of pow, I also have the Enforcer 94s. Again thanks for these videos. Instant subscribe.
One thing to remember too when correlating your height to where the skis tips land at your head is the fact that you'll have ski boots on. So you can easily add a couple to 3" for that. Correlating ski length to your height with sneakers on doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Other than this omission, I'd say spot on video. I'm 5'8" 170 and had the 169 Theory some years back and found them too short regardless of turn shape, terrain, or conditions. Mid 170 ish feels ideal for everything regardless of width.
Small counterpoint here! I think youre mostly spot on on width; most people (including myself) often ski skis that are too wide. However on length, I think it really depends on the skier personally. I have a race background and I am 5'7 or 170 cm, I weigh 135 lb, and my pow ski is a black crows atris 108 in 184. I ski on the east coast, and I am able to manuver them through the trees with little difficulty except for in niche scenarios. The benefit of the longer skis is that they are much more stable at speed, which I especially notice when carving. I love making fast carves, and I find that because I have the longer skis, I am able to do that and enjoy it alot when I inevitably end up on trail throughout the day. In fact for me, they are a more suitable daily driver on the east than my bent 100s in 172 because of the additional stability on edge. I think it is worth it to try out different ski lengths and widths to see what works best for each person because it will be different, especially for former racers and other strong skiers. I also have a pair of kastle mx83s on the way in 168 to be my main daily drivers going forward, which very much align with your sentiments. So it really depends on the skiers strenghts, weaknesses, and personal preference more than anything.
Ok so I am switching to the dark side this year for my kids after 20 years of snowboarding and been watching a bunch of your vids. Just realized you’re in Idaho, and based on what I saw on your IG I think we ski the same mtn. I’m sure you’ll see me this year… I’ll Be the guy on qst 92s chasing my kid off the deer point lift praying I don’t die 😂😂😂
One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of modern skis, especially twin tips, have a huge amount of tip and tail rocker. That rocker doesn't do anything for you when you are on groomers, so sizing up with skis that have a lot of rocker, like the Salomon QST line could work for a lot of people.
Hey man I love the videos keep up the great work. I’m looking for a new ski to be my all mountain daily driver. I live in the Denver area and mostly ski Copper and Winter Park. I’m an 5’ 11’’ advanced skier who weighs 150lbs. I prefer glades and moguls but also love a nice groomer. I’m thinking of getting a pair K2 Mindbender 99 Tis in 184cm. Let me know if you have any recommendations on other pairs or lenghts I should look at. I picked the Mindbenders from a video you posted a month ago about ski deals.
Very Nice, My friend Zach got the same skis and he's skiing very similar locations. I would probably check out the Salomon QST's I think they make a beautiful tree ski, and there are some great prices atm, but I think either way you'll be happy. I would just watch this review and make sure that all of the features listed are what you like out of a ski: th-cam.com/video/85dRP7FtgWA/w-d-xo.htmlsi=4gbHU0rWBRBaIjfI
Hi, I am intermediate skier want to progress into advanced and expert at the end of the day. 175cm and 135lb, very interested in getting the ranger 90 here, as my current ski is 80mm@161cm. But I felt I am between size for the ranger 90. They offer 170 or 177, with the ranger 96 offering a 173. With the rocker tip it had, would you recommend 177 over 170? Or actually 96@173 the better ? I am 60% east coast, 40% CO. Like to carve but prefer the feel of control if I have to say. I demo the atomic 86c@168 and felt it too stiff, and a Rosi 94ish@172 in a light powder day and find it perfect on crud. Do you think ranger 90 is a good fit for me? Is 177 too long? What length do you recommend ? Thanks!
If you are touring, this doesn't exactly work. If the ski has significant early rise rocker, this doesn't work either because the effective edge is different. So I think there are a lot of things to factor and consider.
Hey, thanks for the thorough video as always. I’m currently living in Colorado and my daily drivers are the Head Kore 99, I’m a pretty good skier and looking for something narrower since I feel that for most days 99 underfoot is too wide. I’m stuck between the Black Crows Mirus Cor, the Volkl Deacon 84, Elan Wingman 86cti and the Maverick 88ti. Do you have any insight on the other options? Considering how highly you talk about the Maverick’s. Definitely want a ski more focused towards carving but still be able to go through the whole mountain when there’s not a lot of snow.
Great question, I would say I've only skied 2 out of the 4 there, so hard to give an honest assessment. I do love my Mavericks though, and think 88 is a great daily driver width. It just depends on what you want, I use mine to carve gs/sl turns and hop into powder packs I see just off trail. And I like how they initiate the turn at the front of the ski. But hard to say what you'll prefer. They're my top rated ski though, so definitely worth at least trying. If you've ever skied the Atomic Vantage these are very similar.
Great video! overall I would agree but for sure I think it comes down to preference and you won’t know your preference unless you try out a lot of different skis. Most ski shops in Europe will let you try out different skis for a small price I’m not sure if the same is true for the US. I’m 5’9/5’10 or 177cm and my daily driver is a 170cm ski with 100mm underfoot. I would say my next ski will be a 177/178 as I think I could benefit from a bit more length but I felt a 180 was too much effort to control. With regards to waist width, I typically ski mainly off piste, finding my own lines only use the trail to get some warm up runs in the morning. So a lot of my time is spent in crud and pow off the trails. I would say for me 100 underfoot doesn’t give enough floatation, it could be bc I’m a bit too heavy for my skis. I’m athletic build but 190lbs or 86kg, but for sure after testing, 108+ is where I started to notice a significant difference in flotation and ease of use. For anyone like me 5’9/5’10 - between 180-190lbs and an advanced skiier, I’d highly recommend looking at skis between 175-179cm with a waist with of 108-112mm if you spend your entire time on piste then definitely something 100mm and less
The QST 106 actually has a longer radius than the blank by a good margin. I have 106s though and they carve surprisingly well though. If you really step on it it'll come around, even though the stated radius is longer.
Excellent Explanation! I went with the Elan Ripstick 96 Black Edition - 172cm . I am 5-10 / 200lbs - I prefer control and maneuverability over speed. Most will say this ski is short for my specs, wanted the extra stiffness due to my weight. Skis end up right at my forehead. I ski mostly on groomers and bowls, very little off piste and rarely go into trees. I am not the type to be "sending it" full throttle, i'll take the occasional speed if it presents itself. I ski out west (California / Utah) hence the extra width.
Thanks for the video. I am 164 cm tall, 140 lb and just completed my first season . I am starting to do blues and mostly plan to do resorts in pnw (specifically Seattle area) over the next 2-3 years. I am looking to get atomic maverick 86c. I am confused between the two ski length options: 153 or 161. 153 seems a little short and 161 seems a little tall :) . Suggestions ?
I completely agree with you on what you have said about deciding what length of ski to use based on what you are using it for. A lot of people are pushing the longer ski based on skill. As someone, like myself who is between sizes, what length should I go for? For example, I am 5'1 155cm, should I be going for QST 98 152cm or Lip stick 98 at 155cm? These will be mainly for softer snow and trees out west.
I haven't tried the ripsticks so it's hard to say, but I loved the QST 98's when I reviewed them and wouldn't hesitate to recommend them. You can see my review here: th-cam.com/video/tYocnJ9MVbc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=60PqNH3_9zbS1mB- or my on snow review here this one is a bit rougher as I was new: th-cam.com/video/EQfNdAGt1KU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=MUk_eFYIZswucrWC
geeat vid. I am 184 and weigh 75kg. Really like versatility from high speed carving on piste to powder. generally higher speeds. want to buy qst 92 and need to decide among 176 and 184cm - what do you suggest?
Thanks for your video, i love it! i'm 5'11 for 200 pounds, advanced skier, i love carving on groomers, but where i'm skiing in the afternoon the snow is very soft and melting. I want to buy the Nordica Steadfast 85 DC. i thonk the right size is 174 but maybe the 168 for shorter turn, what do you think? Thenk you 👍
I’m 6’1” and 184 is my shortest ski. 194 for really deep powder. Everyday ski is QST 106 189. All about preference. I am out west. So that does make a difference. Thx for the video
Yeah for powder, head height and up only. If you are on less you are just porpoising off the bottom likely unless on super wide or just riding your tails with 90 percent of the ski out of the snow
But did you try all of those same skis in the shorter length to determine what size you like, or are you just stating the size that you bought but you don’t actually know which size you would prefer on snow?
The chin, top of nose, top of head thing is the standard thing we tell students in ski school. But you hit on the other considerations. Shorter for a shorter radius speciality ski. Longer if you want longer radius, or if you want more floatation. Somewhere in the middle if you want more all mountain. Spot on.
I'am 6.0ft and my powder ski is 184cm, and my park skis are 180cm.. Your video is spot on. I never bought a ski even close to my height, only my current skis are 184 which are powder ski only because there's huge gap in size 176 and then 184cm. But my last powder skis were 179cm, which was ideal for me. I'am mostly freestyle guy, and trying to be creative on the mountain, and honestly i never feel anybody need to buy skis longer than their height. I've seen people buying longer skis, for powder claiming as an excuse they are too heavy for shorter size. But they don't try to solve the problem, to just lose the weight..
I think you need to differentiate between Rocky Mountain powder and the wetter heavier deeper snows of the Sierras and Coast range. Longer and wider definitely makes a difference once the slopes get a bit tracked out. What has impressed me over the years is how well the "fat" skis have improved beyond just skiing powder. I have a pair of Voile V8's that are actually pretty fun on the groomers as long as there is 2-3 inches of soft snow to set the edge. I end up skiing these things many more days that I thought when I got them 4 years ago.
Great video. How much does weight play a factor in here? I’m the same height as you 6’1 and I’m about 205 ibs. Should I add a few cm to the length numbers considering I’m on the heavier side?
I am 5'6" 150lbs Intermediate skier. I just ordered qst 98 in 169. Is this gonna be a good ski and size for me? I am coming from a enforcer 94 in 173. I found them hard to turn and my legs got sore fast. Was told the qst would be alot easier for me. Your thoughts?
What if you size down with a length and size up with a wide? For example: instead of nordica enforcer 104 free 179cm, go with enforcer 110 free 165cm, will you get same flotation and increase maneuverability?
good stuff! i was thinking going 180 for the atomic 95TI . the 95's are only offered in 172 or 180. those would be my resort soft snow skis. i'm not chasing powder so i don't need a dedicated powder sk, most of the time i ski sierra cement anyways :D my daily driver is an 86 at 176 or i should get the 100TI ? i rented the vantage 100C at 180 once in snowbird and i liked them a lot.
I liked the 95ti's alot and there are some great prices at the moment! Might consider the 100ti's to give you some width diversity though. Either way they're both great options. but from what you're saying it sounds like you might enjoy the 95's more.
Overall totally agree with you. Most people on the slopes ride skis that are both too long and too much width. Plus, a lot of them have way too long poles its insane ! But a method to decide ski lenght. I feel like we give too much credibility to one's height while we should be looking much more whats one's weight, ski style and level. And what I precisely mean is, ultimately, the determining question we should ask ourselves for ski lenght is : How much Gforce do you apply on your skis when skiing ? So to me height is much less important than the other 3 (weight, style, technique) because they influence applied Gforce much more! For exemple : a father of a kid I coach is approximately 5 feet 7, 260 pounds, is an expert and the name of the game for him is carving while going as fast as he can. This guy applies so much Gforce on his skis he requires longer skis than most. On the contrary, my dad's friend is 6 feet 1, 210 pounds. So still pretty big and much taller than the first. He spends all his time carving short slalom turns. His whole thing is working on his technique and he is also kinda affraid to go too fast. He rides shorter skis than most skiers because he is patient and lets the skis do their job, lower speed and less aggression from his part significantly reduce the Gforce applied on the skis. Ps : I'm not sure if Gforce is the right term, but you get the idea.
I thouroughly agree with you -- as that 5'6" midget rugby blayer --- It all about being able to bend the ski -- whether that's due to technique, intended application, weight, strength, height / leverage, agression, and the ski itself... height is only 1 variable -- and a 5'6" sumo wrestler might easily bend a ski easier than a 6'2" popsicle stick and want a longer ski...
@@lisayist not always, the two exemples I gave yes those guys know what they want. But my take my dad, he doesnt think about that at all. He wants to get recommendations when he buys a pair of skis. Just by asking him questions he gets it since he's been skiing for like 40 years, but he has the feeling that he cannot decides this on his own.
I think too it's to taste, but I think for taller people they have to consider height at least partially, because it could affect their center of balance when in the trees/ powder. But overall you're totally right. There's a lot of nuance, and a lot of mis-sizing going on in the shops.
I agree with the multi ski approach for conditions but when I’m going out west on vacation I’m only taking one pair so I need a Swiss Army knife. Im going with ‘24 Rustler 9’s now. They’re pretty fun all over the mountain
Hi Rick….I’m so torn about the 88ti. I consider my self advanced (not racing background, yet I learnt with friends who used to race) and picky with my technique. I’m in love with my oldd Atomic Metron 5 from long time ago (if I remember correctly they’re 74-76 under foot) and still rocking them and carving pretty well. I’ve been thinking about renovating them. I love carving…groomers above all. After reading and watching videos, the 88ti are becoming top choice. however, ‘m not sure if they’re the correct choice for me. I understand your perspective but I’m really into groomers….yet I don’t want to miss the rare powder days we get here. For real, the 88ti are that good when pushing and carving? What other choices would you recommend? Under 85mm? Thanks for the patience .
Yeah I hear you, I think they're perfect for what you described, but you might also consider a Fischer Ranger 90 or a QST 92, (neither under 85 lol sorry). If you're back east maybe a stormrider 88 or Stockli Laser, in the west, I bet you'd love the mavericks or the qsts
@@RicketySkiReviews thanks. Ìll give it some thought and try to find some rentals just to get some feel from either. Thanks for your time to read and answer.
Elliot. I'm trying to decind on new skis and I'm looking at Faction Agents for a 70BC/30inbounds touring skis. Hey Guys! Which lenght would you recommend 177 or 182? I'm 181cm tall and weigh 93kg. 41yo intermediate looking for getting more confidence, not a speed deamon by no means. Last year I had the QST's 98 @183 - love them but these are too heavy and kickturns weren't the easiest.
Well, wish I saw this last week! 50 year old intermediate here, 6-2.5, 200lbs. I pulled trigger on a good deal on Maverick 86Cs at 184cm… was debating that or 176, decided to jump on the good deal and see how it goes. I prob ski 5 times a year. PA ice coast, 99.6% on trail. Anyway, thanks for the great videos!
I am 175CM tall i weight 82KG I want the ski maverick 88 ti I like doing carving and play in the trees 🌲 and I love powder but I live in Canada (Montreal) not much pow ! Do you think the 176 is good for me ? Or I need less tall ? I’m an advanced skier But I love you videos
When I'm deciding how long should my skies be , I'm always looking at ski radius. I do not like radius shorter that 13 and radius above 17 is just too much for me. So if I want specific pair of skies , I'll first find suitable radius and then look into length.
Thx for the insight. I got a great deal of qst 98 at 189. I'm wondering if it will be fine for me due to my weight. I'm 6'2 (187cm), but only weight 143 lbs (65kg). Do you think I will be fine on the 189? I'm advanced and ski only out West (North shore and Whistler).
Should be fine for that area. I have a subscription service on the channel if you want like a specific ski rec or sizing for you or ski coaching feeback. I try and reply but it can be hard to stay on top of.
I have watch a few of your ski review videos and I notice you refer to skis being better suited to either “East Coast” or “West Coast” conditions. By “West Coast” it sounds like you are referring to Utah, Colorado, and the Pacific Northwest. I don’t think I’ve ever heard you mention California. In Ca, our snow is usually thick wet crap (called California concrete or Sierra cement). Could mention how well skis you review would be suitable for Ca snow conditions? Thanks!
Totally! I've avoided talking about CA too much, just because I've only skied there a couple times and didn't want to mis-speak, but I will talk with my friend Zach who is from there (and in a couple of the videos). Would you say CA heavy snow is pretty similar to some of the heavier snow that OR sees in the spring?
your comment about being realistic with yourself about what youre going to be doing is huge. Up until this year I spent all my time watching big mountain skiiers (Nikoli) wanting to do similar things, chasing my fitness level, and skiing skis that were too wide and too long for my skill level and strength. While I had fun in the years past, this year I picked up a set of 175 bent 90s, focused on having fun in bounds, stopped hiking to terrain just to say i did, and I watched my skiing progress more this season than it did in the last 4. Does my ego like to tell people im skiing a 90 underfoot? No, but im having so much fun out there and exploring new terrain and I just dont care
Nice review. Perfect comment about “what do you want of the ski”. I’d add being honest about what terrain and snow type you ski. I think ski shops often over sell people. Feeding the ego of the buyer. I’m on 170’s for slalom skis. 177’s for my all mountain ski. I’m 5’-10” for reference.
Thanks for the great content! I'm currently using a pair I bought from rental a few years ago, and I wonder if you could help me finding my first good skis. I'm 6' and around 200lb.Medium to advance. Mostly skiing on West-coast groomers and some moguls. Maybe at some point will try trees. My main goal is to enjoy carving on long runs without getting too tired. I'm not planning to push too hard and I don't have high speed aspirations. I'm looking for a single pair that will not limit me and is capable to support my weight and my not so great knees. Unfortunately stores are biased towards their stock availability so I don't know how reliable their advice is. Thanks!
Check out some of my recent reviews, I bet you would really enjoy the elan ripstick or fischer ranger based on what you said. I typically only do specific ski recommendations for our members
You’ve provided some very helpful information! I have question which you might have already answered indirectly. I learned skiing back in the late 70s, using now outdated straight skis. I was using 190s when I last skied 20+ years ago. I was an advanced moderate skier. I could parallel, even carve a little, although tending to slide in turns. It was all just recreational, no competition. Now I’m 62, thinking about buying some new skis. My skiing would be mostly groomers, occasional crud or milder moguls, and perhaps some moderate glades. All in the eastern states, mostly PA. Given my experience, age, and assuming a typical under foot width, and rocker/camber ski, what general length would you suggest? I’m thinking something 160-170 would be good, but I’m still trying to wrap my head around going back to a length that I started on back when I first learned to ski 50 years ago. Lol. Are parabolic skis easier or more difficult to learn than the old style? And why the shorter lengths compared to years ago? I’m fascinated by all the info you provided! It’s crazy how much technology has changed since I stopped skiing years ago! Thanks, bro!
Definitely shorter than straight skis, I would say the 160-170 sounds smart, I would honestly demo some skis if you can, and then some shops will let you use that demo as a credit towards your purchase. I would maybe start with a Salomon QST or Fischer Ranger, but it totally depends on your style. Honestly start with a one-on-one lesson and get some demo skis just as a primer to figure out what you like. I think this video has a good explanation of shape skis and kind of the anatomy of the turn and how carving works. Hope this helps! Thanks for watching: th-cam.com/video/AOrxHVJoKLA/w-d-xo.htmlsi=TGaTQewc_oQsN69K
@flapjackson6077 if you skied 190s on old straight skis -- mid to upper 160s is about right... If you're skiing PA, mid 80s is about right for underfoot all mtn and mid-70s to low 80s is for groomers only. If you think you're going to get some off piste soft stuff away from PA on occasion and like trees, you could go up to a QST 92. Paraboic skis are easier than old skis -- you can still ski them like straight skis if you want (many people do) OR you can use the ski shape and good technique to make skiing MUCH easier.. And the reason you can use "shorter" skis is that the wider tips and tails give you the same surface area and the sidecut and camber creates a more effective edge than old straight skis. And Elliot has the best advice -- rent for a while and try out different skis -- my suggestions are just a starting guide for what to look for.
@@jehjay2600 😂 My man! That was some killer advice! I’ve been researching, and you’re dang near spot on! I’m inclined to the Atomic 88ti, a midrange under foot width. I saw that they might feel a little stiff at rated weight if not carving, but are still great for standard parallel technique. I think for somebody like me, at 6’ 200 lbs. a 176 (the size offered in that range) would be a nice balance. I’m not necessarily interested in off piste or glades stuff, but I might get jiggy and try it out. Been years since I did that stuff! 🤙
@@flapjackson6077 given your size and weight -- that sounds like a good choice -- you'll grow INTO it fairly quickly and won't grow out of it for a while. I haven't skied them so I have no comment other than the sizing choice. At 200lbs a 176 likely won't feel too stiff -- many manufacturers that use weight in their sizing calculations expect intermediate to advanced 200lbs to be on mid 180s -- and intermediates to be mid 170s... manufacturers that use height often put 6footers on 175 to 190s -- so you're choice is right smack in the middle for both rules of thumb.
Great video! I know im late to the video, but ive been meaning to ask a community with a lot of knowledge on this. Im 6'6" but only around 160lbs, Ill ski pretty much any groomer in ur average Europe resort, but I struggled a lot holding my edges on like say 175 rental ski. Do you feel like this makes sense given my height and weight or am I just looking at a skill issue?
sounds likely to be either a ski boot issue, or perhaps needing a ski made of softer material, you need more pressure on your downhill ski it sounds like there's something going on between your flex and the ski holding it's shape, but I would start with boots, and then try some softer skis. Hope that helps!
It's right. I had hard time progressing on longer skis. So I bought another pair of shorter skis. After improving skills, I went back to my longer skis. But I have to say longer skis are lot more fun than shorter skis.
Totally, I think it just depends on the setting, and what you want out of the ski. I do like my longer skis on the big lines and in the deep powder, but I like my zippy turns too.
Ok, I'm 57 and growing up i only got to try skiing 3 times. Always on packed ice. Now i live in Colorado within minutes if an old ski hill with a lift that doesnt work. Im 176cm, 190lbs. A friend loaned me skis 163length, 90waist with skins. The trails are not always groomed. So they skinned up great. But with never skiied powder and no experience really. I suffered on the down. I know im going to need lessons. But what size, shape would you recommend to learn on in mostly fresh snow? Thanks
Try like a 172-180 for powder and maybe like a 95-100 width. I have subscription tiers on youtubes if you want more one on one suggestions like ski model or like ski coaching etc. I try to reply but it can be hard to stay on top of.
ok, so 5'10 and 250lbs, Advanced. Carving groomers, going fast and Pow float. Not a huge fan of tight trees but more likely to find myself in them that huge open bowls. No park. I think my enforcer 88s are 186. What might you recommend for length in general.Would 180cm be better, say in an Atomic Maverick 95 Ti? A different set of skis than the enforcer 88s might be better for Japan pow. (but I'm only going to take one pair, for a Japan trip, so it has to do for groomers and everything, as well as pow) for Snowboards, there's always a weight range which determines board size. if the Atomic Maverick is the go, did the ski change at all from the 22/23 to the 23/24 model?
@@RicketySkiReviews I've really only been snowboarding a bit in the last couple of years. Most of my skiing was done from the 70s up to spring '93 - skis generally around 200cm, + 203 and 210cm GS skis, so very old school in length and construction. Trying to get my head around the current ski lengths. TBH, skill is somewhere between Int-Adv.
Hey Elliot ! Huge fan of your videos! I’m an advance skier from Quebec , 5’6 170 pounds skiing on a Rossi react 10. Looking for an all mountain, mainly on piste but can have fun everywhere, but at the same time skiing with my 6 year old kids. I’ve been looking at the Rossi sender 94ti , maverick 95 ti and potentially 2025 enforcer 94. I would value any advice! Thank you and keep up the great videos!
I personally went with the Maverick and that's honestly what I would lean towards based on what you said. Here's the best price I found: www.avantlink.com/click.php?tt=pl&ti=7417&pw=372417&mi=19201&pt=3&pri=12836
Do you feel like a taller, heavier skier may benefit from wider skis for powder or soft snow over going super long? I’m 6’3” 250 probably 260 with clothes and gear on. I look at most powder skis and it seems like they are made so soft and flexible I wonder if they are going to be to soft for me. I’m hoping I can get out west and maybe try some wider skis of soft conditions this season to see how it feels.
Hey, I'm a similar build and I would say that the length is important, and if you need flotation the width is important. But if you're worried about a ski being too soft, you want to look at construction of the ski. Skis with TI are going to have more resistance and help make sure you're not maxing out the skis flex. hope this helped!
I like park, glades, and sking switch/freestyle. I've always gone a little short and also mounted closer to center. Right now I'm 5' 11" and 185 pounds on 173cm skis with a 96mm waist. I might go up to 4 mm wider and up to 180 cm in length, but I'm not feeling that. People sometimes look at my skis and comment that they are short. I just say that I don't buy a ski length in an effort to "compensate for something".
Hey good info ! Thanks for the explanation, I got a question your height your giving is it in gear or with out gear? I’m 5.10 with out gear and looking to get Volkl 106 blaze but not sure if to get 179 or 185 cm I like speed but also like to carve and powder will be new thing for me what are your thoughts? Thank you once again.
If you want it to float and do big powder lines I would go 185, If you want to carve it well I would go 179. Ultimately it's only 6cms so not a huge difference, but me personally at those specs I would grab the 179. Cheers!
Carving 65mm to 84mm. Anything more than that is more of an all mountain ski category. Don’t know of a carver that would recommend 90mm. I agree with your ski lengths. Some people equate expertise with length which is bs.
If I may ask, for all mountain with a slight bias to carving and moguls, if you had to pick either a 172cm ski or a 180cm ski, which would you go with?
172, shorter turn radius and easier off trail manuverability in the trees. That being said idk much about moguls and there are a ton of other factors to weigh in. But generally if you want a responsive carve the shorter ski gives you a shorter turn radius. If you want a cruising open radius carve, that's a different story I guess.
I'm 174/82kg and just got the Rustler 9 180. Skiing them first time next week and I'm worried, first time skis that long, I love trees but really value stability at speed too. Words of encouragement? I tried to consider the long rocker, you don't touch on that in this video?
Helllo, want to buy atomic bent 110, i m 180 cm and 78 kg, want to use them for pretty much everythin, groomers, tight trees, off piste, powder, backcountry, hitting side kickers etc. Would you recommend 180 or 188 lenght on those?
I am lucky enough to live 13 miles from a ski hill here in the Northwest. I have 5 skis in my main rotation and use 3 of them the most. A 179 cm narrow carving ski,, an all around mid waist all mountain 180 cm ski (use the most) and a wide 180 cm powder ski. My other 2 all mountain skis that are older are 185 cm . So I have decreased my ski length by 5 cm. The new powder ski I used it about 8-10 days this season and I love it on days with 6 or more inches of new snow. It is 112 mm in the waist I was surprised how much for fun it is in powder snow and how much better I ski powder with it. I skied here and in Utah. Another interesting thing is it is actually the lightest weight of all my skis. I tend to buy skis with metal layers so my skis are on the heavier side. I do not tour. I am strictly a lift assisted skier. Some advice. I only ski on my skis 3 times before I take them home (I have an on-hill ski locker) and tune and wax them. I do it myself. I think I do a better job than any local ski shop, it far less expensive after buying all the tools and equipment and by doing it on a regular basis I think your skis perform better.
Interesting, also good perspective. I am 184.4 cm or 6 feet tall. I had been skiing on 172 cm ARV 106s since I was 14, I was pretty glad to pick up 180 cm ARV 106s. I found 180 was awesome for everything, granted I come a freestyle background (Not the most technical skier around) and found it to be awesome for almost all conditions but ice. For that I have a old set of 4front MSPs at 181 which do great in ice, best 75 dollar purchase ever. I found they are good for long sweeping and stable turns. I think again it depends on what you are doing with it and what you want, like you said. I found myself to enjoy the stability of longer skis when going on the daily, especially when charging. I do still have the 172 cm ARVs but I find they are a bit squirrely compared to their 180cm counterpart, I feel that may be in part to older edges and ski stiffness as the newer ARVs edges had a significant bump to 2.5 mm and weigh 400 grams more per ski for its given length.
A mention on rocker and its effect on a skis edge contact length is also something to consider. A longer overall ski with a lot of rocker will tend to ski shorter than one with little to no rocker. Just a thought to throw out there for the comment section. Not all ski legths are created equal.
I just bought a set of the bent chetler 120s 184 length. I'm 6' 0" 195LBS what do you think? There was a great deal on them so I just picked them up since I already ski a set of Kendo 88' 184.
I haven't skied the 120s, only the 100's and they weren't for me, but I've heard people like the 120's alot more, and I'm assuming you're using them as a powder ski? Try them out and hopefully you like them.
I'm 5'9", 138 lb, beginner/intermediate. I got the Salomon QST 92 size 176, and they stand a bit over my head. I'm curious if the 168's would be better for my purposes. Though their size chart suggested the 176. Any advice?
If it were me I would probably lean towards the 168's but if you like the 176's and they're working for you, I would just go with what feels best on your feet.
I'm out in the east coast, hitting mostly NY, VT, and NH. I'm 5'10" and 190lbs. What specs would you recommend I get for new skis? I started off with a used pair of K2 Apache from a ski shop but am looking to upgrade. I'd say I'm a solid intermediate skiier, hitting only groomed trails.
This is normally a service I do for channel members, but I have a minute so I'll give you a quick answer. I would try out some 172 Fischer Ranger 90s or some Qst 92's and see how you like those to start.
I demoed a volkl m6 mantra at a 184 (I think) and for me at 5'11" it felt wayyyyy too long. For that stiff of a ski it felt like had a mind of it's own. My skis are a 180 and I dont think I'd go any longer.
What would you recommend for a beginner (been snowboarding for abt 16 years) on the east coast? Definitely just to mess around on groomers and eventually play in the park. Im 6'0 and a t 197lbs. Was thinking abt 88's/94's and 171cm? Would love to even size down if possible 😂 Would appreciate you're input....thx
5'8" 155 lbs. Intermediate/Advanced skier now. Been between 155 to 160 on performance rentals. Want turning performance more than speed but don't want to be always pulling up the rear. Ski in Colorado locations with useuall lots of snow. More concerned with improving carving form/ technique, short, medium, and long turns. Also thinking thinner better? Your thoughts?
Yeah go with a 160 or whatever you prefer, thinner skis take less work to go from edge to edge, so go like 80-90width depending on what you want it to do. Would suggest checking out Fischer Rangers. I have a few reviews on them.
longer skis mean less balancing you have to do. If you can not everything else correctly for and aft balance is the hardest thing to actually do. There is limit to this especially in the east but the reality is if the ski is mostlly tracking tail behind tip the ski will work better especially in variable 3d terrain.
Agree. I get SO tired of people telling me I need 100+ mm at waist. Getting those things turned on the groomers sucks. Have skied everything from a 181 to a 203 length. Loved them all as long as I matched them to the conditions for the day. One of my favorites for years was a 198 Fischer World Cup SL.
Im 6’2 and consider myself an intermediate looking at all mountain skis. Last year I was on 170cm and was comfortable with the length.. currently looking at going up to 176 cm as I want to get a little more aggressive do you think this would be a big change?
Does the amount of rocker play a role here. Does a ski with a lot of rocker actually ski like a shorter ski with little rocker of the same overall length?
Yes, slightly, but it also depends on where you're skiing them. A 193 ski in the narrow trees will still be hard to keep from getting stuck despite rocker.
Hey I appreciate your point of view. I’m 6ft tall, live in Colorado, and 7 days into my 3rd season. I ended up with the Maverick 88 as my daily driver but in 184cms… do you think it’s probably too long and i should look for something different?
just depends on preference, if you like the 184 then it's not out of the question, but I personally like a 176, but no wrong answers, just personal preference.
@@RicketySkiReviewswanted to update ya after I referenced this video multiple times as I reorganized my quiver. Ended up selling the Mavericks(184cm) bought Armada Declivity 88C (176cm) and I’m loving that length for this narrower spot in the quiver. Added head kore 105 (180cm) for anything soft and also really loving that. Thanks for making videos like these. would love to hear your review on the Declivity88C. They don’t float like mavericks but less rocker in the tip/tail make them more of a traditional build and I’m enjoying getting used to them. We’re still getting snow here in Colorado so hopefully I can get a couple more Arapahoe days!
Elliott I have to say, your length and width guidance seems more applicable to men! My wife who weighs ~120 lbs and is 5'2" does rather well on most Snowbird boot top plus powder days on her 164 cm 92 Armada Declivity's.
That sounds great for Snowbird! That place gets a ton of snow and has big terrain. If you're wife is happy with that ski, then everyone's happy! Cheers from Idaho.
I'm 6'1" and I feel like 180 is a good length for me. If I was skiing deep powder maybe I could add a few, but seriously, that never happens. For more groomer carving, I could subtract a few. So I think I'm in your suggested range. Why do some companies measure the lengths differently?
I'm not sure, I think shops want to move the longer sizes at times, it can also depend on how the ski feels, but that's the main culprit imo. Thanks for watching!
@UCxqDaZ-5QfZ2FmrL74euEZg for example, Elan will measure them longer than say Fischer. I don't know if it's when they measure during the build process (e.g. before or after mold) or similar. It would be nice if they all measured the same way to compare apples to apples.
This was helpful. I’m 170cm and fairly light, skiing on 176cm skis with lots of tip and tail rocker (DPS Foundation Wailer 99). While the effective edge is not super long and they’re great skis for the whole mountain here in the Sierra, sometimes they are just too long to feel manageable especially in trees. Those tips are pretty far away from me!
As a tall, skinny skier I've always considered weight a critical factor when deciding ski length but it tends to get ignored--Probably because mentioning your customer's weight isn't a great way to sell your product. (Realistically, I think it's your center of mass that matters but that's much harder to put a number on; women and tall men tend to have a lower center of mass.) The charts and even the chin/nose/eyebrow scales break down completely for tall beginners, at 6'7", my chin is almost at 180, but 180 skis would be impossibly hard for a beginner, no matter their height. The simple guides are meant to be for beginners, but it's only once they can carve that they will see any non-powder benefits from the length of the ski.
Age, height. weight and skier type, and go to the eyebrows bro. Dependent on how much tip and tail rocker and terrain- Thank you for putting up this vid!
While I agree in general, there’s also another point I think needs to be underlined. Nowadays skis are actually made “on a specific size”, in other words a specific shape combined with the specific flex makes a ski work in a certain way at a certain length, and a different way in different lengths. Which in turns means that a ski is normally developed in a specific size and then a couple of other sized are derived from that, but the “main” one still is the most balanced. Confirmation is the limited number of sizes that are offered today. Very shaped skis with the same tip/center/tail dimensions but longer or shorter change their turning radius a lot. The 2004 Rossignol “Forza” line have a turning radius of 14m on the 173 length and 13m on the 168cm. Practically, two different skis…
short answer, IT DEPENDS!!!!! every idiot has an opinion, even me. For reference 6'1 230lbs muscular build. Been skiing for 30 years. My skis = 187cm x 96cm NEVER HAD A BETTER SIZE/SKI, fits EVERY part of the mountain. I spend most of my time in the trees in between the blue and black runs, but also hit the powder bowls, moguls, park. disclaimer( i don't slalom). I have a 106 for powder and i also have a twin tip park ski. btw, camera looks to have taken an inch or two off your height, not sure why, camera view? ty for the video!
As a 185cm/87kg strong intermediate, I spent so much time debating between a 172ish and a 178ish ski that I primarily intend to use for carving and shorter turns - the Internet is obsessed over the potential loss of stability at speed, but I have no idea how much speed they're talking about. This video is exactly what I needed - I'll go with 172 and I'm sure it'll be good!
@@davisb69 Sorta. I did buy a 173 Stockli Montero AX - but yet to get it on snow. But I'm still confident that the choice of length in a groomer ski, especially one with two sheets of metal, should be dictated by your preference in turn shape. After all, longest slalom skis are 165-170 cm, and very tall people are supposed to somehow ski on them 😀
184, in theory I could get a longer ski for more stability, but doing mostly touring in the northeast I like something I can pivot easily in the trees with. @@RicketySkiReviews
I think it has more to do with the typical speed you want to carry. If you're doing a lot of 40+ MPH turns go ahead and get skis well over your head. If you do a lot of 20 MPH, go shoulder height to get most turns per route.
Do you mean unweighting the skis to initiate a new turn. In my mind "jump turns" only happen on extremely steep and narrow chutes or similar. I learned to ski powder on 210 kastle GS racing skis back about 1979/80. Everyone skied longer skis back then I was 6'4" 190 lbs. Everyone unweighted to turn, sort of a bouncing technique. I ski 195 - 198 cm now still racing stock GS Fischer or Blizzard.
People should choose relative ski length based on the size of ones ambitions. Longer skis naturally want to ski faster more aggressive lines, the most aggressive skiers need the length for stability in chop and at high speeds. If you can rise to the occasion and hang on they will work for you, if not you will always fight them. Wider skis also add stability, even on hardpack but only for experts, they demand even more to roll over and hold that aggressive carve line. Regardless big skis must be worked up to and many people do themselves a disservice by going too big too soon. If your skis are over your head ask yourself, are you really in that top 5% expert level that can actually utilize them, if not, should probably go smaller. It's not like an old lady driving a sports car to the grocery store, big aggressive skis just don't work properly without the proper driver, and most people aren't there yet.
I started skiing last year, i cannot tell you how much your videos are insightful for someone like me to get a feeling on the activity in general. Never stop!
Thanks for the kind words!
I have been skiing for some 45 years now and you are EXACTLY RIGHT for ski length for general use. Of course, there will be exceptions depending on personal preference - but you hit the nail on the head - Great vid.
Thanks so much, glad you enjoyed the video!
@@RicketySkiReviews Big boys a bit left out, maybe include weight range for skis as weight matters a lot, corresponds to carving and stability in turn. I've grown in fat 95 pounds for the last 8 years and have seen how I outgrow skis first hand :D. Currently at 6'0 295 I'm watching tons of review and can't get a direction of skis that I won't bottom out, and loan options are not an option so testing is impossible.
Finally! Awesome advice. I will be watching all our videos. Your review of the Stormrider weaknesses was dead accurate. Porpoised through some powder at Alta, UT a few weeks ago, wonderful damp but required extra energy to ski with because it erased the energy I was putting into the ski, did not turn particularly well - absorbed chunder reasonably well, but wore me out. Awesome ski in many ways, but a bit of an expensive mistake. Thanks for the awesome, thoughtful, and finally "common sense" analysis of ski positives and negatives. Good job!
I'm a old retired ski patroller 191cm tall and over 130kg ... I ski 191 Volkl Mantra's and I'm very happy
Right on! Thanks for sharing! I'm 185cm and run 176 atomic maverick for a daily carver and just got a pair of 182 qst 106's for powder.
The Mantras were one of my favorite skis for heavy snow last year.
@@RicketySkiReviews I'm on my 5th pair of Mantras and they just keep getting better each iteration ...I know that are harder to turn in the steep and bumps ... they are heavy but they ski powder and crud like a dream. They make a 191 better I think for speed and they know anyone who drives one will have a few skills
Totally agree! I’m an advanced skier who prefers off piste, chutes, trees- etc. I’d been told for years that long is better for higher skill level. So I made the mistake of buying a ski that’s slightly taller than me, and had a horrible time on it. I backed off to skis that come to my eyebrows and it’s perfect. I need nimble/agile. It’s more about skier style and terrain preference.
Well said! Yes, it happens to me every year, I got put on some really long demo skis last year that were just really unpleasant.
Shorter = better
Real issue is they never make enough of the smaller sizes… 5’8” and under 165 ftw
@@darylfortney8081 Amen to that! It is so hard to find skis for me. I’m 5’6”!
Super helpful. Thanks.
Good video dude, as an instructor, this is some of the realist advice out there
Thanks so much! This is the nicest comment I've seen in a while.
This really helped. Thanks. I watched a few of your videos and decided on a 85mm K2 Mindbender as my daily driver for the East Coast groomers. Lots of fun and so easy to turn. Really underrated ski. When I want a challenge and there’s a bit of pow, I also have the Enforcer 94s.
Again thanks for these videos. Instant subscribe.
Great to hear!
That was super informative liked the break down
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for watching!
One thing to remember too when correlating your height to where the skis tips land at your head is the fact that you'll have ski boots on. So you can easily add a couple to 3" for that. Correlating ski length to your height with sneakers on doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Other than this omission, I'd say spot on video. I'm 5'8" 170 and had the 169 Theory some years back and found them too short regardless of turn shape, terrain, or conditions. Mid 170 ish feels ideal for everything regardless of width.
Small counterpoint here! I think youre mostly spot on on width; most people (including myself) often ski skis that are too wide. However on length, I think it really depends on the skier personally. I have a race background and I am 5'7 or 170 cm, I weigh 135 lb, and my pow ski is a black crows atris 108 in 184. I ski on the east coast, and I am able to manuver them through the trees with little difficulty except for in niche scenarios. The benefit of the longer skis is that they are much more stable at speed, which I especially notice when carving. I love making fast carves, and I find that because I have the longer skis, I am able to do that and enjoy it alot when I inevitably end up on trail throughout the day. In fact for me, they are a more suitable daily driver on the east than my bent 100s in 172 because of the additional stability on edge. I think it is worth it to try out different ski lengths and widths to see what works best for each person because it will be different, especially for former racers and other strong skiers. I also have a pair of kastle mx83s on the way in 168 to be my main daily drivers going forward, which very much align with your sentiments. So it really depends on the skiers strenghts, weaknesses, and personal preference more than anything.
Awesome value provided here
Glad it was helpful!
Ok so I am switching to the dark side this year for my kids after 20 years of snowboarding and been watching a bunch of your vids. Just realized you’re in Idaho, and based on what I saw on your IG I think we ski the same mtn. I’m sure you’ll see me this year… I’ll
Be the guy on qst 92s chasing my kid off the deer point lift praying I don’t die 😂😂😂
One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of modern skis, especially twin tips, have a huge amount of tip and tail rocker. That rocker doesn't do anything for you when you are on groomers, so sizing up with skis that have a lot of rocker, like the Salomon QST line could work for a lot of people.
True, and especially with particularly rockered powders skis which is part of why I suggest a bit more on those.
Sizing up like how much longer from the chin? How many cm? I’m 5’10 and a beginner, and looking at getting the solomon QST. Thanks in advance
Exactly. I'm 178cm tall and ride a 181cm in the Season Kin. Shorter in that model would be strange. I'm intermediate/intermediate plus.
Hey man I love the videos keep up the great work. I’m looking for a new ski to be my all mountain daily driver. I live in the Denver area and mostly ski Copper and Winter Park. I’m an 5’ 11’’ advanced skier who weighs 150lbs. I prefer glades and moguls but also love a nice groomer. I’m thinking of getting a pair K2 Mindbender 99 Tis in 184cm. Let me know if you have any recommendations on other pairs or lenghts I should look at. I picked the Mindbenders from a video you posted a month ago about ski deals.
Very Nice, My friend Zach got the same skis and he's skiing very similar locations. I would probably check out the Salomon QST's I think they make a beautiful tree ski, and there are some great prices atm, but I think either way you'll be happy. I would just watch this review and make sure that all of the features listed are what you like out of a ski: th-cam.com/video/85dRP7FtgWA/w-d-xo.htmlsi=4gbHU0rWBRBaIjfI
Hi, I am intermediate skier want to progress into advanced and expert at the end of the day. 175cm and 135lb, very interested in getting the ranger 90 here, as my current ski is 80mm@161cm. But I felt I am between size for the ranger 90. They offer 170 or 177, with the ranger 96 offering a 173. With the rocker tip it had, would you recommend 177 over 170? Or actually 96@173 the better ? I am 60% east coast, 40% CO. Like to carve but prefer the feel of control if I have to say. I demo the atomic 86c@168 and felt it too stiff, and a Rosi 94ish@172 in a light powder day and find it perfect on crud. Do you think ranger 90 is a good fit for me? Is 177 too long? What length do you recommend ? Thanks!
If you are touring, this doesn't exactly work. If the ski has significant early rise rocker, this doesn't work either because the effective edge is different. So I think there are a lot of things to factor and consider.
Great point, I'm definitely not a touring expert.
Hey, thanks for the thorough video as always. I’m currently living in Colorado and my daily drivers are the Head Kore 99, I’m a pretty good skier and looking for something narrower since I feel that for most days 99 underfoot is too wide. I’m stuck between the Black Crows Mirus Cor, the Volkl Deacon 84, Elan Wingman 86cti and the Maverick 88ti. Do you have any insight on the other options? Considering how highly you talk about the Maverick’s. Definitely want a ski more focused towards carving but still be able to go through the whole mountain when there’s not a lot of snow.
Great question, I would say I've only skied 2 out of the 4 there, so hard to give an honest assessment. I do love my Mavericks though, and think 88 is a great daily driver width. It just depends on what you want, I use mine to carve gs/sl turns and hop into powder packs I see just off trail. And I like how they initiate the turn at the front of the ski. But hard to say what you'll prefer. They're my top rated ski though, so definitely worth at least trying. If you've ever skied the Atomic Vantage these are very similar.
Very good information/ideas, enjoyed it! Curious, you mentioned Mantra, what size would you ski?
For me personally like between a 175 or 180 would be nice, just depends on what I plan on using it for.
Great video! overall I would agree but for sure I think it comes down to preference and you won’t know your preference unless you try out a lot of different skis. Most ski shops in Europe will let you try out different skis for a small price I’m not sure if the same is true for the US.
I’m 5’9/5’10 or 177cm and my daily driver is a 170cm ski with 100mm underfoot. I would say my next ski will be a 177/178 as I think I could benefit from a bit more length but I felt a 180 was too much effort to control.
With regards to waist width, I typically ski mainly off piste, finding my own lines only use the trail to get some warm up runs in the morning. So a lot of my time is spent in crud and pow off the trails. I would say for me 100 underfoot doesn’t give enough floatation, it could be bc I’m a bit too heavy for my skis. I’m athletic build but 190lbs or 86kg, but for sure after testing, 108+ is where I started to notice a significant difference in flotation and ease of use.
For anyone like me 5’9/5’10 - between 180-190lbs and an advanced skiier, I’d highly recommend looking at skis between 175-179cm with a waist with of 108-112mm if you spend your entire time on piste then definitely something 100mm and less
good stuff! thanks! 👏 🍻
Cheers!
Excellent vid.
Thanks!
The QST 106 actually has a longer radius than the blank by a good margin. I have 106s though and they carve surprisingly well though. If you really step on it it'll come around, even though the stated radius is longer.
Interesting!
I'm 5foot 11 200lb. I was thinking 176-200 as well for the maverick 88ti. What do you think?
Excellent Explanation! I went with the Elan Ripstick 96 Black Edition - 172cm . I am 5-10 / 200lbs - I prefer control and maneuverability over speed. Most will say this ski is short for my specs, wanted the extra stiffness due to my weight. Skis end up right at my forehead. I ski mostly on groomers and bowls, very little off piste and rarely go into trees. I am not the type to be "sending it" full throttle, i'll take the occasional speed if it presents itself. I ski out west (California / Utah) hence the extra width.
Thanks for the video. I am 164 cm tall, 140 lb and just completed my first season . I am starting to do blues and mostly plan to do resorts in pnw (specifically Seattle area) over the next 2-3 years. I am looking to get atomic maverick 86c. I am confused between the two ski length options: 153 or 161. 153 seems a little short and 161 seems a little tall :) . Suggestions ?
I completely agree with you on what you have said about deciding what length of ski to use based on what you are using it for. A lot of people are pushing the longer ski based on skill. As someone, like myself who is between sizes, what length should I go for? For example, I am 5'1 155cm, should I be going for QST 98 152cm or Lip stick 98 at 155cm? These will be mainly for softer snow and trees out west.
I haven't tried the ripsticks so it's hard to say, but I loved the QST 98's when I reviewed them and wouldn't hesitate to recommend them. You can see my review here: th-cam.com/video/tYocnJ9MVbc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=60PqNH3_9zbS1mB-
or my on snow review here this one is a bit rougher as I was new:
th-cam.com/video/EQfNdAGt1KU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=MUk_eFYIZswucrWC
Nailed it.
Thanks Meko!
Does this change with rockered twin tips
I'm pretty sure both my skis are too long, but sometimes that used deal is hard to pass up Lol
geeat vid. I am 184 and weigh 75kg. Really like versatility from high speed carving on piste to powder. generally higher speeds. want to buy qst 92 and need to decide among 176 and 184cm - what do you suggest?
Thanks for your video, i love it! i'm 5'11 for 200 pounds, advanced skier, i love carving on groomers, but where i'm skiing in the afternoon the snow is very soft and melting. I want to buy the Nordica Steadfast 85 DC. i thonk the right size is 174 but maybe the 168 for shorter turn, what do you think? Thenk you 👍
I’m 6’1” and 184 is my shortest ski. 194 for really deep powder. Everyday ski is QST 106 189. All about preference. I am out west. So that does make a difference. Thx for the video
Right on! Yeah I think the location plays a huge role like you pointed out.
Yeah for powder, head height and up only. If you are on less you are just porpoising off the bottom likely unless on super wide or just riding your tails with 90 percent of the ski out of the snow
But did you try all of those same skis in the shorter length to determine what size you like, or are you just stating the size that you bought but you don’t actually know which size you would prefer on snow?
The chin, top of nose, top of head thing is the standard thing we tell students in ski school. But you hit on the other considerations. Shorter for a shorter radius speciality ski. Longer if you want longer radius, or if you want more floatation. Somewhere in the middle if you want more all mountain. Spot on.
Thanks!
Would the rustler 9 work as Daily drivers in Argentina (more like US east coast)?
I'am 6.0ft and my powder ski is 184cm, and my park skis are 180cm.. Your video is spot on. I never bought a ski even close to my height, only my current skis are 184 which are powder ski only because there's huge gap in size 176 and then 184cm. But my last powder skis were 179cm, which was ideal for me.
I'am mostly freestyle guy, and trying to be creative on the mountain, and honestly i never feel anybody need to buy skis longer than their height. I've seen people buying longer skis, for powder claiming as an excuse they are too heavy for shorter size. But they don't try to solve the problem, to just lose the weight..
Agreed! also I think there's being "able" to ski on long skis, which is different from "skiing the ski well". Cheers.
I’m 5’ 11”, 220 lbs, 40 to 50 days a season, pretty good skier.
Slalom Carver, 155cm
All-mountain piste, 160cm
Race Carver, 168cm
Freeride, 178cm
Powder, 189cm
Funcarver, 138cm
Great sizing! pretty similar to my own.
I think you need to differentiate between Rocky Mountain powder and the wetter heavier deeper snows of the Sierras and Coast range. Longer and wider definitely makes a difference once the slopes get a bit tracked out. What has impressed me over the years is how well the "fat" skis have improved beyond just skiing powder. I have a pair of Voile V8's that are actually pretty fun on the groomers as long as there is 2-3 inches of soft snow to set the edge. I end up skiing these things many more days that I thought when I got them 4 years ago.
I agree! We're in a golden age of ski design imo. Having 100mm width skis that can still carve is amazing to me.
Great video. How much does weight play a factor in here? I’m the same height as you 6’1 and I’m about 205 ibs. Should I add a few cm to the length numbers considering I’m on the heavier side?
A bit, but honestly weight affects the amount of stiffness and rigidity you want rather than length imo.
I am 5'6" 150lbs Intermediate skier. I just ordered qst 98 in 169. Is this gonna be a good ski and size for me? I am coming from a enforcer 94 in 173. I found them hard to turn and my legs got sore fast. Was told the qst would be alot easier for me. Your thoughts?
Which ski shop do you like best in the Boise area?
What if you size down with a length and size up with a wide? For example: instead of nordica enforcer 104 free 179cm, go with enforcer 110 free 165cm, will you get same flotation and increase maneuverability?
good stuff! i was thinking going 180 for the atomic 95TI . the 95's are only offered in 172 or 180. those would be my resort soft snow skis. i'm not chasing powder so i don't need a dedicated powder sk, most of the time i ski sierra cement anyways :D my daily driver is an 86 at 176 or i should get the 100TI ? i rented the vantage 100C at 180 once in snowbird and i liked them a lot.
I liked the 95ti's alot and there are some great prices at the moment! Might consider the 100ti's to give you some width diversity though. Either way they're both great options. but from what you're saying it sounds like you might enjoy the 95's more.
Overall totally agree with you. Most people on the slopes ride skis that are both too long and too much width. Plus, a lot of them have way too long poles its insane !
But a method to decide ski lenght. I feel like we give too much credibility to one's height while we should be looking much more whats one's weight, ski style and level. And what I precisely mean is, ultimately, the determining question we should ask ourselves for ski lenght is : How much Gforce do you apply on your skis when skiing ? So to me height is much less important than the other 3 (weight, style, technique) because they influence applied Gforce much more!
For exemple : a father of a kid I coach is approximately 5 feet 7, 260 pounds, is an expert and the name of the game for him is carving while going as fast as he can. This guy applies so much Gforce on his skis he requires longer skis than most. On the contrary, my dad's friend is 6 feet 1, 210 pounds. So still pretty big and much taller than the first. He spends all his time carving short slalom turns. His whole thing is working on his technique and he is also kinda affraid to go too fast. He rides shorter skis than most skiers because he is patient and lets the skis do their job, lower speed and less aggression from his part significantly reduce the Gforce applied on the skis.
Ps : I'm not sure if Gforce is the right term, but you get the idea.
Advanced skiers know what they want. Ski length guide is more for beginners.
I thouroughly agree with you -- as that 5'6" midget rugby blayer --- It all about being able to bend the ski -- whether that's due to technique, intended application, weight, strength, height / leverage, agression, and the ski itself... height is only 1 variable -- and a 5'6" sumo wrestler might easily bend a ski easier than a 6'2" popsicle stick and want a longer ski...
@@lisayist not always, the two exemples I gave yes those guys know what they want. But my take my dad, he doesnt think about that at all. He wants to get recommendations when he buys a pair of skis. Just by asking him questions he gets it since he's been skiing for like 40 years, but he has the feeling that he cannot decides this on his own.
I think too it's to taste, but I think for taller people they have to consider height at least partially, because it could affect their center of balance when in the trees/ powder. But overall you're totally right. There's a lot of nuance, and a lot of mis-sizing going on in the shops.
In reply to your PS, I think the term you’re looking for is angular momentum. 😊
I agree with the multi ski approach for conditions but when I’m going out west on vacation I’m only taking one pair so I need a Swiss Army knife. Im going with ‘24 Rustler 9’s now. They’re pretty fun all over the mountain
Cool
Hi Rick….I’m so torn about the 88ti. I consider my self advanced (not racing background, yet I learnt with friends who used to race) and picky with my technique. I’m in love with my oldd Atomic Metron 5 from long time ago (if I remember correctly they’re 74-76 under foot) and still rocking them and carving pretty well. I’ve been thinking about renovating them. I love carving…groomers above all. After reading and watching videos, the 88ti are becoming top choice. however, ‘m not sure if they’re the correct choice for me. I understand your perspective but I’m really into groomers….yet I don’t want to miss the rare powder days we get here. For real, the 88ti are that good when pushing and carving? What other choices would you recommend? Under 85mm? Thanks for the patience .
Yeah I hear you, I think they're perfect for what you described, but you might also consider a Fischer Ranger 90 or a QST 92, (neither under 85 lol sorry). If you're back east maybe a stormrider 88 or Stockli Laser, in the west, I bet you'd love the mavericks or the qsts
@@RicketySkiReviews thanks. Ìll give it some thought and try to find some rentals just to get some feel from either. Thanks for your time to read and answer.
Elliot. I'm trying to decind on new skis and I'm looking at Faction Agents for a 70BC/30inbounds touring skis. Hey Guys! Which lenght would you recommend 177 or 182? I'm 181cm tall and weigh 93kg. 41yo intermediate looking for getting more confidence, not a speed deamon by no means. Last year I had the QST's 98 @183 - love them but these are too heavy and kickturns weren't the easiest.
Try out the 177's maybe depending on what you like
Well, wish I saw this last week! 50 year old intermediate here, 6-2.5, 200lbs. I pulled trigger on a good deal on Maverick 86Cs at 184cm… was debating that or 176, decided to jump on the good deal and see how it goes. I prob ski 5 times a year. PA ice coast, 99.6% on trail. Anyway, thanks for the great videos!
I am 175CM tall i weight 82KG I want the ski maverick 88 ti I like doing carving and play in the trees 🌲 and I love powder but I live in Canada (Montreal) not much pow ! Do you think the 176 is good for me ? Or I need less tall ? I’m an advanced skier
But I love you videos
Where in Idaho do you ski?
When I'm deciding how long should my skies be , I'm always looking at ski radius. I do not like radius shorter that 13 and radius above 17 is just too much for me. So if I want specific pair of skies , I'll first find suitable radius and then look into length.
Thx for the insight. I got a great deal of qst 98 at 189. I'm wondering if it will be fine for me due to my weight. I'm 6'2 (187cm), but only weight 143 lbs (65kg). Do you think I will be fine on the 189? I'm advanced and ski only out West (North shore and Whistler).
Should be fine for that area. I have a subscription service on the channel if you want like a specific ski rec or sizing for you or ski coaching feeback. I try and reply but it can be hard to stay on top of.
I have watch a few of your ski review videos and I notice you refer to skis being better suited to either “East Coast” or “West Coast” conditions. By “West Coast” it sounds like you are referring to Utah, Colorado, and the Pacific Northwest. I don’t think I’ve ever heard you mention California. In Ca, our snow is usually thick wet crap (called California concrete or Sierra cement). Could mention how well skis you review would be suitable for Ca snow conditions? Thanks!
Totally! I've avoided talking about CA too much, just because I've only skied there a couple times and didn't want to mis-speak, but I will talk with my friend Zach who is from there (and in a couple of the videos). Would you say CA heavy snow is pretty similar to some of the heavier snow that OR sees in the spring?
your comment about being realistic with yourself about what youre going to be doing is huge. Up until this year I spent all my time watching big mountain skiiers (Nikoli) wanting to do similar things, chasing my fitness level, and skiing skis that were too wide and too long for my skill level and strength. While I had fun in the years past, this year I picked up a set of 175 bent 90s, focused on having fun in bounds, stopped hiking to terrain just to say i did, and I watched my skiing progress more this season than it did in the last 4. Does my ego like to tell people im skiing a 90 underfoot? No, but im having so much fun out there and exploring new terrain and I just dont care
Same, I run a maverick 88, but honestly I've improved so much just via mileage as well. Cheers!
Nice review. Perfect comment about “what do you want of the ski”. I’d add being honest about what terrain and snow type you ski.
I think ski shops often over sell people. Feeding the ego of the buyer.
I’m on 170’s for slalom skis. 177’s for my all mountain ski. I’m 5’-10” for reference.
Good picks! Yeah I agree
Thanks for the great content! I'm currently using a pair I bought from rental a few years ago, and I wonder if you could help me finding my first good skis.
I'm 6' and around 200lb.Medium to advance. Mostly skiing on West-coast groomers and some moguls. Maybe at some point will try trees. My main goal is to enjoy carving on long runs without getting too tired. I'm not planning to push too hard and I don't have high speed aspirations. I'm looking for a single pair that will not limit me and is capable to support my weight and my not so great knees.
Unfortunately stores are biased towards their stock availability so I don't know how reliable their advice is. Thanks!
Check out some of my recent reviews, I bet you would really enjoy the elan ripstick or fischer ranger based on what you said. I typically only do specific ski recommendations for our members
You’ve provided some very helpful information! I have question which you might have already answered indirectly.
I learned skiing back in the late 70s, using now outdated straight skis.
I was using 190s when I last skied 20+ years ago. I was an advanced moderate skier. I could parallel, even carve a little, although tending to slide in turns. It was all just recreational, no competition.
Now I’m 62, thinking about buying some new skis. My skiing would be mostly groomers, occasional crud or milder moguls, and perhaps some moderate glades. All in the eastern states, mostly PA.
Given my experience, age, and assuming a typical under foot width, and rocker/camber ski,
what general length would you suggest?
I’m thinking something 160-170 would be good, but I’m still trying to wrap my head around going back to a length that I started on back when I first learned to ski 50 years ago. Lol.
Are parabolic skis easier or more difficult to learn than the old style?
And why the shorter lengths compared to years ago?
I’m fascinated by all the info you provided! It’s crazy how much technology has changed since I stopped skiing years ago!
Thanks, bro!
Definitely shorter than straight skis, I would say the 160-170 sounds smart, I would honestly demo some skis if you can, and then some shops will let you use that demo as a credit towards your purchase. I would maybe start with a Salomon QST or Fischer Ranger, but it totally depends on your style.
Honestly start with a one-on-one lesson and get some demo skis just as a primer to figure out what you like.
I think this video has a good explanation of shape skis and kind of the anatomy of the turn and how carving works.
Hope this helps! Thanks for watching: th-cam.com/video/AOrxHVJoKLA/w-d-xo.htmlsi=TGaTQewc_oQsN69K
@flapjackson6077 if you skied 190s on old straight skis -- mid to upper 160s is about right... If you're skiing PA, mid 80s is about right for underfoot all mtn and mid-70s to low 80s is for groomers only. If you think you're going to get some off piste soft stuff away from PA on occasion and like trees, you could go up to a QST 92. Paraboic skis are easier than old skis -- you can still ski them like straight skis if you want (many people do) OR you can use the ski shape and good technique to make skiing MUCH easier.. And the reason you can use "shorter" skis is that the wider tips and tails give you the same surface area and the sidecut and camber creates a more effective edge than old straight skis. And Elliot has the best advice -- rent for a while and try out different skis -- my suggestions are just a starting guide for what to look for.
@@jehjay2600
😂 My man! That was some killer advice! I’ve been researching, and you’re dang near spot on!
I’m inclined to the Atomic 88ti, a midrange under foot width. I saw that they might feel a little stiff at rated weight if not carving, but are still great for standard parallel technique. I think for somebody like me, at 6’ 200 lbs. a 176 (the size offered in that range) would be a nice balance. I’m not necessarily interested in off piste or glades stuff, but I might get jiggy and try it out. Been years since I did that stuff! 🤙
@@flapjackson6077 given your size and weight -- that sounds like a good choice -- you'll grow INTO it fairly quickly and won't grow out of it for a while. I haven't skied them so I have no comment other than the sizing choice. At 200lbs a 176 likely won't feel too stiff -- many manufacturers that use weight in their sizing calculations expect intermediate to advanced 200lbs to be on mid 180s -- and intermediates to be mid 170s... manufacturers that use height often put 6footers on 175 to 190s -- so you're choice is right smack in the middle for both rules of thumb.
Great video! I know im late to the video, but ive been meaning to ask a community with a lot of knowledge on this. Im 6'6" but only around 160lbs, Ill ski pretty much any groomer in ur average Europe resort, but I struggled a lot holding my edges on like say 175 rental ski. Do you feel like this makes sense given my height and weight or am I just looking at a skill issue?
sounds likely to be either a ski boot issue, or perhaps needing a ski made of softer material, you need more pressure on your downhill ski it sounds like there's something going on between your flex and the ski holding it's shape, but I would start with boots, and then try some softer skis. Hope that helps!
@@RicketySkiReviews Thanks for the reply! Ill definitely try to experiment with this, coming winter :)
It's right. I had hard time progressing on longer skis. So I bought another pair of shorter skis. After improving skills, I went back to my longer skis. But I have to say longer skis are lot more fun than shorter skis.
Totally, I think it just depends on the setting, and what you want out of the ski. I do like my longer skis on the big lines and in the deep powder, but I like my zippy turns too.
Ok, I'm 57 and growing up i only got to try skiing 3 times. Always on packed ice. Now i live in Colorado within minutes if an old ski hill with a lift that doesnt work. Im 176cm, 190lbs. A friend loaned me skis 163length, 90waist with skins. The trails are not always groomed. So they skinned up great. But with never skiied powder and no experience really. I suffered on the down. I know im going to need lessons. But what size, shape would you recommend to learn on in mostly fresh snow?
Thanks
Try like a 172-180 for powder and maybe like a 95-100 width. I have subscription tiers on youtubes if you want more one on one suggestions like ski model or like ski coaching etc. I try to reply but it can be hard to stay on top of.
ok, so 5'10 and 250lbs, Advanced. Carving groomers, going fast and Pow float. Not a huge fan of tight trees but more likely to find myself in them that huge open bowls.
No park. I think my enforcer 88s are 186. What might you recommend for length in general.Would 180cm be better, say in an Atomic Maverick 95 Ti? A different set of skis than the enforcer 88s might be better for Japan pow. (but I'm only going to take one pair, for a Japan trip, so it has to do for groomers and everything, as well as pow)
for Snowboards, there's always a weight range which determines board size.
if the Atomic Maverick is the go, did the ski change at all from the 22/23 to the 23/24 model?
No change in the maverick since it's inception a few years ago. 95 in a 180 sounds great for what you described. What length do you typically like?
@@RicketySkiReviews I've really only been snowboarding a bit in the last couple of years. Most of my skiing was done from the 70s up to spring '93 - skis generally around 200cm, + 203 and 210cm GS skis, so very old school in length and construction. Trying to get my head around the current ski lengths. TBH, skill is somewhere between Int-Adv.
Hey Elliot ! Huge fan of your videos! I’m an advance skier from Quebec , 5’6 170 pounds skiing on a Rossi react 10. Looking for an all mountain, mainly on piste but can have fun everywhere, but at the same time skiing with my 6 year old kids. I’ve been looking at the Rossi sender 94ti , maverick 95 ti and potentially 2025 enforcer 94. I would value any advice! Thank you and keep up the great videos!
I personally went with the Maverick and that's honestly what I would lean towards based on what you said. Here's the best price I found: www.avantlink.com/click.php?tt=pl&ti=7417&pw=372417&mi=19201&pt=3&pri=12836
Awsome! Thank you so much!!
Do you feel like a taller, heavier skier may benefit from wider skis for powder or soft snow over going super long? I’m 6’3” 250 probably 260 with clothes and gear on. I look at most powder skis and it seems like they are made so soft and flexible I wonder if they are going to be to soft for me. I’m hoping I can get out west and maybe try some wider skis of soft conditions this season to see how it feels.
Rittik, Good question! Height is just a general estimate for leverage, weight, and power into a ski. Additionally, each ski is
Hey, I'm a similar build and I would say that the length is important, and if you need flotation the width is important. But if you're worried about a ski being too soft, you want to look at construction of the ski. Skis with TI are going to have more resistance and help make sure you're not maxing out the skis flex.
hope this helped!
I like park, glades, and sking switch/freestyle. I've always gone a little short and also mounted closer to center. Right now I'm 5' 11" and 185 pounds on 173cm skis with a 96mm waist. I might go up to 4 mm wider and up to 180 cm in length, but I'm not feeling that.
People sometimes look at my skis and comment that they are short. I just say that I don't buy a ski length in an effort to "compensate for something".
Lol great comment! You're right on track with me, and I get comments about my Mavericks, but it's all about what you like at the end of the day.
Hey good info ! Thanks for the explanation, I got a question your height your giving is it in gear or with out gear?
I’m 5.10 with out gear and looking to get Volkl 106 blaze but not sure if to get 179 or 185 cm I like speed but also like to carve and powder will be new thing for me what are your thoughts?
Thank you once again.
If you want it to float and do big powder lines I would go 185, If you want to carve it well I would go 179. Ultimately it's only 6cms so not a huge difference, but me personally at those specs I would grab the 179. Cheers!
@@RicketySkiReviews thank you 🙏
when the rental shop asks what size skiis do you want? you always reply. "how long ya got?!!
lol, that's great
Carving 65mm to 84mm. Anything more than that is more of an all mountain ski category. Don’t know of a carver that would recommend 90mm. I agree with your ski lengths. Some people equate expertise with length which is bs.
Great point, I like an 88/90mm for carving specifically in the west, but the snow's a bit softer and can be finessed a bit more. Cheers!
If I may ask, for all mountain with a slight bias to carving and moguls, if you had to pick either a 172cm ski or a 180cm ski, which would you go with?
172, shorter turn radius and easier off trail manuverability in the trees. That being said idk much about moguls and there are a ton of other factors to weigh in. But generally if you want a responsive carve the shorter ski gives you a shorter turn radius. If you want a cruising open radius carve, that's a different story I guess.
I'm 174/82kg and just got the Rustler 9 180.
Skiing them first time next week and I'm worried, first time skis that long, I love trees but really value stability at speed too.
Words of encouragement? I tried to consider the long rocker, you don't touch on that in this video?
Helllo, want to buy atomic bent 110, i m 180 cm and 78 kg, want to use them for pretty much everythin, groomers, tight trees, off piste, powder, backcountry, hitting side kickers etc. Would you recommend 180 or 188 lenght on those?
Just depends on your preference but I prefer a shorter ski in the trees, I'm 6'1" and ski a 182 for my powder ski just bc I want room to turn.
I am lucky enough to live 13 miles from a ski hill here in the Northwest. I have 5 skis in my main rotation and use 3 of them the most. A 179 cm narrow carving ski,, an all around mid waist all mountain 180 cm ski (use the most) and a wide 180 cm powder ski. My other 2 all mountain skis that are older are 185 cm . So I have decreased my ski length by 5 cm. The new powder ski I used it about 8-10 days this season and I love it on days with 6 or more inches of new snow. It is 112 mm in the waist I was surprised how much for fun it is in powder snow and how much better I ski powder with it. I skied here and in Utah. Another interesting thing is it is actually the lightest weight of all my skis. I tend to buy skis with metal layers so my skis are on the heavier side. I do not tour. I am strictly a lift assisted skier. Some advice. I only ski on my skis 3 times before I take them home (I have an on-hill ski locker) and tune and wax them. I do it myself. I think I do a better job than any local ski shop, it far less expensive after buying all the tools and equipment and by doing it on a regular basis I think your skis perform better.
Interesting, also good perspective. I am 184.4 cm or 6 feet tall. I had been skiing on 172 cm ARV 106s since I was 14, I was pretty glad to pick up 180 cm ARV 106s. I found 180 was awesome for everything, granted I come a freestyle background (Not the most technical skier around) and found it to be awesome for almost all conditions but ice. For that I have a old set of 4front MSPs at 181 which do great in ice, best 75 dollar purchase ever. I found they are good for long sweeping and stable turns. I think again it depends on what you are doing with it and what you want, like you said. I found myself to enjoy the stability of longer skis when going on the daily, especially when charging. I do still have the 172 cm ARVs but I find they are a bit squirrely compared to their 180cm counterpart, I feel that may be in part to older edges and ski stiffness as the newer ARVs edges had a significant bump to 2.5 mm and weigh 400 grams more per ski for its given length.
A mention on rocker and its effect on a skis edge contact length is also something to consider. A longer overall ski with a lot of rocker will tend to ski shorter than one with little to no rocker. Just a thought to throw out there for the comment section. Not all ski legths are created equal.
I just bought a set of the bent chetler 120s 184 length. I'm 6' 0" 195LBS what do you think? There was a great deal on them so I just picked them up since I already ski a set of Kendo 88' 184.
I haven't skied the 120s, only the 100's and they weren't for me, but I've heard people like the 120's alot more, and I'm assuming you're using them as a powder ski? Try them out and hopefully you like them.
Sounds good man thank you! @@RicketySkiReviews
I'm 5'9", 138 lb, beginner/intermediate. I got the Salomon QST 92 size 176, and they stand a bit over my head. I'm curious if the 168's would be better for my purposes. Though their size chart suggested the 176. Any advice?
If it were me I would probably lean towards the 168's but if you like the 176's and they're working for you, I would just go with what feels best on your feet.
@@RicketySkiReviewsthanks 🤙will take into account.
I'm out in the east coast, hitting mostly NY, VT, and NH. I'm 5'10" and 190lbs. What specs would you recommend I get for new skis? I started off with a used pair of K2 Apache from a ski shop but am looking to upgrade. I'd say I'm a solid intermediate skiier, hitting only groomed trails.
This is normally a service I do for channel members, but I have a minute so I'll give you a quick answer. I would try out some 172 Fischer Ranger 90s or some Qst 92's and see how you like those to start.
How do I become a member?@@RicketySkiReviews
@@mbhuiyan223 Go Here: www.youtube.com/@RicketySkiReviews, Under the banner there's a button that says "Join" next to "subscribe"
I demoed a volkl m6 mantra at a 184 (I think) and for me at 5'11" it felt wayyyyy too long. For that stiff of a ski it felt like had a mind of it's own. My skis are a 180 and I dont think I'd go any longer.
Agreed, with a ski that chunky, I think 180 sounds preferable!
What would you recommend for a beginner (been snowboarding for abt 16 years) on the east coast? Definitely just to mess around on groomers and eventually play in the park. Im 6'0 and a t 197lbs. Was thinking abt 88's/94's and 171cm? Would love to even size down if possible 😂
Would appreciate you're input....thx
Maybe a QSt 92, or Fischer Ranger 90, try some different skis out to see what suits you.
at 6ft 185 pounds do you think 177cm is too much if i dont plan on going into powder that often and I like to carve but also go fast?
No should be fine!
5'8" 155 lbs. Intermediate/Advanced skier now. Been between 155 to 160 on performance rentals. Want turning performance more than speed but don't want to be always pulling up the rear. Ski in Colorado locations with useuall lots of snow. More concerned with improving carving form/ technique, short, medium, and long turns. Also thinking thinner better? Your thoughts?
Yeah go with a 160 or whatever you prefer, thinner skis take less work to go from edge to edge, so go like 80-90width depending on what you want it to do. Would suggest checking out Fischer Rangers. I have a few reviews on them.
Perfect! Thanks@@RicketySkiReviews
longer skis mean less balancing you have to do.
If you can not everything else correctly for and aft balance is the hardest thing to actually do. There is limit to this especially in the east but the reality is if the ski is mostlly tracking tail behind tip the ski will work better especially in variable 3d terrain.
Great point.
Agree. I get SO tired of people telling me I need 100+ mm at waist. Getting those things turned on the groomers sucks. Have skied everything from a 181 to a 203 length. Loved them all as long as I matched them to the conditions for the day. One of my favorites for years was a 198 Fischer World Cup SL.
Oh those sound awesome!
i love my bent 110s on groomers 😂😂
Im 6’2 and consider myself an intermediate looking at all mountain skis. Last year I was on 170cm and was comfortable with the length.. currently looking at going up to 176 cm as I want to get a little more aggressive do you think this would be a big change?
Not really, honestly for your height that size makes alot more sense, i'm 6'1 and ski a 176 carver and 182 for powder.
@@RicketySkiReviews went with 176 and they feel perfect thanks for the video it was very informative
can i ski a 173 at 158cm tall, i am a advanced skier and this ski would be for freeride
I think weight plays a significant role in ski length
Does the amount of rocker play a role here. Does a ski with a lot of rocker actually ski like a shorter ski with little rocker of the same overall length?
Yes, slightly, but it also depends on where you're skiing them. A 193 ski in the narrow trees will still be hard to keep from getting stuck despite rocker.
Hey I appreciate your point of view. I’m 6ft tall, live in Colorado, and 7 days into my 3rd season. I ended up with the Maverick 88 as my daily driver but in 184cms… do you think it’s probably too long and i should look for something different?
31 years old, intermediate, 180 lbs if that info is relevant
just depends on preference, if you like the 184 then it's not out of the question, but I personally like a 176, but no wrong answers, just personal preference.
@@RicketySkiReviewswanted to update ya after I referenced this video multiple times as I reorganized my quiver. Ended up selling the Mavericks(184cm) bought Armada Declivity 88C (176cm) and I’m loving that length for this narrower spot in the quiver. Added head kore 105 (180cm) for anything soft and also really loving that. Thanks for making videos like these. would love to hear your review on the Declivity88C. They don’t float like mavericks but less rocker in the tip/tail make them more of a traditional build and I’m enjoying getting used to them. We’re still getting snow here in Colorado so hopefully I can get a couple more Arapahoe days!
Elliott I have to say, your length and width guidance seems more applicable to men! My wife who weighs ~120 lbs and is 5'2" does rather well on most Snowbird boot top plus powder days on her 164 cm 92 Armada Declivity's.
That sounds great for Snowbird! That place gets a ton of snow and has big terrain.
If you're wife is happy with that ski, then everyone's happy! Cheers from Idaho.
I'm 6'1" and I feel like 180 is a good length for me. If I was skiing deep powder maybe I could add a few, but seriously, that never happens. For more groomer carving, I could subtract a few. So I think I'm in your suggested range. Why do some companies measure the lengths differently?
I'm not sure, I think shops want to move the longer sizes at times, it can also depend on how the ski feels, but that's the main culprit imo. Thanks for watching!
Depend on the chamber/ rocker ratio. More rocker=longer length.
@UCxqDaZ-5QfZ2FmrL74euEZg for example, Elan will measure them longer than say Fischer. I don't know if it's when they measure during the build process (e.g. before or after mold) or similar. It would be nice if they all measured the same way to compare apples to apples.
OMG! This video is featured on Powder magazine's website!!!
Woah, wait, what?
This was helpful. I’m 170cm and fairly light, skiing on 176cm skis with lots of tip and tail rocker (DPS Foundation Wailer 99). While the effective edge is not super long and they’re great skis for the whole mountain here in the Sierra, sometimes they are just too long to feel manageable especially in trees. Those tips are pretty far away from me!
agreed, and in the trees you need that room to turn your skis sideways!
As a tall, skinny skier I've always considered weight a critical factor when deciding ski length but it tends to get ignored--Probably because mentioning your customer's weight isn't a great way to sell your product. (Realistically, I think it's your center of mass that matters but that's much harder to put a number on; women and tall men tend to have a lower center of mass.)
The charts and even the chin/nose/eyebrow scales break down completely for tall beginners, at 6'7", my chin is almost at 180, but 180 skis would be impossibly hard for a beginner, no matter their height. The simple guides are meant to be for beginners, but it's only once they can carve that they will see any non-powder benefits from the length of the ski.
Totally agree. And no matter your height if you're in the trees, longer skis will limit maneuverability.
Great insight, cheers!
Age, height. weight and skier type, and go to the eyebrows bro. Dependent on how much tip and tail rocker and terrain- Thank you for putting up this vid!
Thanks for the nice comment! Cheers!
Im 184 cm tall. Ski a 188cm Bent 100, and a 192cm Bent Chetler 120. Been skiing for 5 years after a 25 year layoff.
While I agree in general, there’s also another point I think needs to be underlined. Nowadays skis are actually made “on a specific size”, in other words a specific shape combined with the specific flex makes a ski work in a certain way at a certain length, and a different way in different lengths. Which in turns means that a ski is normally developed in a specific size and then a couple of other sized are derived from that, but the “main” one still is the most balanced. Confirmation is the limited number of sizes that are offered today. Very shaped skis with the same tip/center/tail dimensions but longer or shorter change their turning radius a lot. The 2004 Rossignol “Forza” line have a turning radius of 14m on the 173 length and 13m on the 168cm. Practically, two different skis…
good point, yeah I think there's a sweet spot for having skis that are proportionate depending on the build.
short answer, IT DEPENDS!!!!! every idiot has an opinion, even me. For reference 6'1 230lbs muscular build. Been skiing for 30 years. My skis = 187cm x 96cm NEVER HAD A BETTER SIZE/SKI, fits EVERY part of the mountain. I spend most of my time in the trees in between the blue and black runs, but also hit the powder bowls, moguls, park. disclaimer( i don't slalom). I have a 106 for powder and i also have a twin tip park ski.
btw, camera looks to have taken an inch or two off your height, not sure why, camera view?
ty for the video!
Im 6ft and my main ski is a 184 my pow skis are 191
As a 185cm/87kg strong intermediate, I spent so much time debating between a 172ish and a 178ish ski that I primarily intend to use for carving and shorter turns - the Internet is obsessed over the potential loss of stability at speed, but I have no idea how much speed they're talking about. This video is exactly what I needed - I'll go with 172 and I'm sure it'll be good!
Did this work out? I am 181cm and would also consider myself a strong intermediate and like carving and some moguls.
@@davisb69 Sorta. I did buy a 173 Stockli Montero AX - but yet to get it on snow. But I'm still confident that the choice of length in a groomer ski, especially one with two sheets of metal, should be dictated by your preference in turn shape. After all, longest slalom skis are 165-170 cm, and very tall people are supposed to somehow ski on them 😀
178!
Im 6-2 and 210lbs, as a beefy individual I like the wider platform my 112 katana v-werks gives me on groomers. It helps me feel more stable.
Interesting, what length?
184, in theory I could get a longer ski for more stability, but doing mostly touring in the northeast I like something I can pivot easily in the trees with. @@RicketySkiReviews
I think it has more to do with the typical speed you want to carry. If you're doing a lot of 40+ MPH turns go ahead and get skis well over your head. If you do a lot of 20 MPH, go shoulder height to get most turns per route.
I learned to jump turn in powder in the 80's with straight 2,05m. After that, everything is easy and short.
I mean it's apples and oranges, but I hear you.
Do you mean unweighting the skis to initiate a new turn. In my mind "jump turns" only happen on extremely steep and narrow chutes or similar.
I learned to ski powder on 210 kastle GS racing skis back about 1979/80. Everyone skied longer skis back then I was 6'4" 190 lbs. Everyone unweighted to turn, sort of a bouncing technique. I ski 195 - 198 cm now still racing stock GS Fischer or Blizzard.
@@danblumel Yes, I mean step slopes but at the same time in heavy powder, skis didn't float like today and you had to help them a little.
People should choose relative ski length based on the size of ones ambitions. Longer skis naturally want to ski faster more aggressive lines, the most aggressive skiers need the length for stability in chop and at high speeds. If you can rise to the occasion and hang on they will work for you, if not you will always fight them. Wider skis also add stability, even on hardpack but only for experts, they demand even more to roll over and hold that aggressive carve line. Regardless big skis must be worked up to and many people do themselves a disservice by going too big too soon. If your skis are over your head ask yourself, are you really in that top 5% expert level that can actually utilize them, if not, should probably go smaller. It's not like an old lady driving a sports car to the grocery store, big aggressive skis just don't work properly without the proper driver, and most people aren't there yet.
Couldn't agree more!