Hey Guys! What would you recommend lenght wise 177 or 182 (new agents do not have the 179 lenght anymore)? I'm 181cm tall and wiegh 93kg. 41yo intermediate looking for getting more confidence, not a speed deamon by no means. Last year I had the QST's 98 @183 - too heavy and kickturns weren't the easiest
Hi Robert, thanks for your comment and I hope you're liking the videos. The Agent 2.0 is a superb ski. I was on the 171cm, which is shorter than I would choose, but when testing we can only ski the length(s) they have available in the demo pool. The 171cm model was the longest available for me, but it was surprisingly stable for a short ski (I'd choose this in 179cm). I'm relatively aggressive, have heavy, quite strong legs (from other sports) and weigh around 85kg (without ski kit). I'm not the most technically proficient skier. It's a common belief that ski length is selected from your height - and this is reinforced by brands and retailers suggesting length relative to your height. This is not that helpful. Ski length is primarily arrived at by looking at the forces involved and the type of skiing, such as weight, skiing ability and aggression. For example, on firmly groomed runs, edge grip is important. Therefore a heavier, more aggressive skier may need more edge in contact with the slope to maintain grip, while a light, timid skier may not need the same length of edge for grip, as the force they drive through the ski won't push the ski edge to break-away as readily (loose grip). In deep, soft powder snow a light, gentle skier doesn't need as much ski to support their mass as someone who's heavier and more aggressive. Hence, of a specific ski model, the heavier skier in this example would benefit from a longer ski. To add a little flesh to the bones of this discussion, a longer ski is more stable than the shorter version of that ski, therefore a higher speed should dictate the need for a longer ski. However, a longer ski (of one chosen model) is harder to manoeuvre and heavier, and won't ski tight turns as easily. There's always a trade off between grip/float/stability and ease of use/manoeuvrability/weight. Often people say go for a longer ski for powder snow and a shorter ski for groomed snow, but skis for powder are wide and skis for groomed runs are narrow. The added float you need for soft snow comes from increasing the width, more than increasing the length. So, what to choose? Think about your weight and skiing level/aggression and preference. Lighter, less aggressive skiers wanting ease of use should look at the shorter lengths, while heavier, aggressive skiers wanting a stable ski for higher speeds should look at longer lengths. For example, a person who's 152cm/5ft tall, weighing 70kg and who skis aggressively and at high speed in large turn shapes would warrant a longer ski (171 - 187cm in this ski, ideally 171cm or 179cm) than someone who's 183cm/6 foot tall, weighing 70kg, is an upper intermediate ability and skis short turns at lower speeds (163 - 179cm for this person, ideally 163cm or 171cm). You can see there's crossover in the lengths suggested, as we're all different and personal preference can count for a lot. Height is a lever force but, as you're pretty centred over modern skis, it's less of an important factor than weight, skier aggression and skiing preference. The main criteria to look at are skier weight, aggression and ability. I hope this helps. If not, please let me know and we can think about your skiing ability/style and weight and we can go from there. Thanks again for the comment and for watching, and I hope you get to enjoy some of the other videos,. But mostly I hope you get to enjoy some fantastic turns this winter. Response by Al from SkiKitInfo.com
@@SkiKitInfo Thx for the reviw. I have also a question regarding the length. Thought to buy the 2.0 in 179cm. I am an advanced skier with 175,5cm height but I only weigh 63kg. Do you think the 179 is too long? My concern with 171 is that is not stable enough for harsh snow.
Hi @@a.b.2523 and thanks so much for the question, and a totally valid point to raise. The Agent skis are way more stable than many touring skis, and at 85kg, and 178cm tall I was charging about on the Agent 2.0 in the 171cm length with others on skis like Black Crows Corvus Freebird in longer length than the Agent, and Volkl Mantra V-Werks, again in longer length, and the Agent in 171cm was not a problem. For me, as I am so much heavier than you, I would personally choose the 179cm but was blown away by how good the 171cm model was. The conditions were variable, with some soft powder, some wind crust, some dense, chalky snow and it never felt unstable. So, for you, it comes down to a few factors: do you prefer skiing longer skis for greater stability over ease of manoeuvring, what boot/binding selection will you be using with the ski (if super stiff and powerful, then the 179 model may work better), do you ski at higher speeds and larger turn shapes as this suggests the longer ski, is weight a critical factor (shorter is lighter) and more. I hope this helps to give you a steer as to which way you go. I wouldn't overthink it though, as you can have a stonking time on either length. Thanks for watching the review, and liking (if you did). If you've sub'd then thank you so, so much. It's great to see more and more ski fans jumping on-board with SkiKitInfo. This season's been tough for us to get videos up, but a load more are coming soon. Happy skiing and skinning, Al from SkiKitInfo.
@@SkiKitInfo thx for the quick answer. Until now I drove an 170, but for me this was not stable enough with harder snow conditions although it was nice in the woods with soft snow. Concerning binding I would like to put a marker kingpin, so an hybrid pin tech binding. The difference in the weight does not matter at all for me, cause I was used to tour with a heavier ski with a heavier binding (Fritschi Freeride). Hmm hard decision but I think I will purchase the 179 cause with shoes and everything I am 177.
@@a.b.2523 That sounds like a sound decision and that you're thinking about this the right way - past experience and personal preference are massive factors in deciding ski length. Height not as important as weight and skiing aggression, style and speed/turn shape. The Kingpin will be a great selection on this ski - Kingpin or Shift, or Duke PT 12 (not 16 - so much heavier and really a different category of binding to the others). Sincerely hope your new rig and that you have an ace time touring and skiing with them. Al from SkiKitInfo.
Hey Guys! What would you recommend lenght wise 177 or 182 (new agents do not have the 179 lenght anymore)? I'm 181cm tall and wiegh 93kg. 41yo intermediate looking for getting more confidence, not a speed deamon by no means. Last year I had the QST's 98 @183 - too heavy and kickturns weren't the easiest
how tall are you? You're skiing in the 171 and like to know if it's my length.
Hi Robert, thanks for your comment and I hope you're liking the videos.
The Agent 2.0 is a superb ski. I was on the 171cm, which is shorter than I would choose, but when testing we can only ski the length(s) they have available in the demo pool. The 171cm model was the longest available for me, but it was surprisingly stable for a short ski (I'd choose this in 179cm). I'm relatively aggressive, have heavy, quite strong legs (from other sports) and weigh around 85kg (without ski kit). I'm not the most technically proficient skier.
It's a common belief that ski length is selected from your height - and this is reinforced by brands and retailers suggesting length relative to your height. This is not that helpful.
Ski length is primarily arrived at by looking at the forces involved and the type of skiing, such as weight, skiing ability and aggression.
For example, on firmly groomed runs, edge grip is important. Therefore a heavier, more aggressive skier may need more edge in contact with the slope to maintain grip, while a light, timid skier may not need the same length of edge for grip, as the force they drive through the ski won't push the ski edge to break-away as readily (loose grip).
In deep, soft powder snow a light, gentle skier doesn't need as much ski to support their mass as someone who's heavier and more aggressive. Hence, of a specific ski model, the heavier skier in this example would benefit from a longer ski.
To add a little flesh to the bones of this discussion, a longer ski is more stable than the shorter version of that ski, therefore a higher speed should dictate the need for a longer ski.
However, a longer ski (of one chosen model) is harder to manoeuvre and heavier, and won't ski tight turns as easily. There's always a trade off between grip/float/stability and ease of use/manoeuvrability/weight.
Often people say go for a longer ski for powder snow and a shorter ski for groomed snow, but skis for powder are wide and skis for groomed runs are narrow. The added float you need for soft snow comes from increasing the width, more than increasing the length.
So, what to choose? Think about your weight and skiing level/aggression and preference. Lighter, less aggressive skiers wanting ease of use should look at the shorter lengths, while heavier, aggressive skiers wanting a stable ski for higher speeds should look at longer lengths.
For example, a person who's 152cm/5ft tall, weighing 70kg and who skis aggressively and at high speed in large turn shapes would warrant a longer ski (171 - 187cm in this ski, ideally 171cm or 179cm) than someone who's 183cm/6 foot tall, weighing 70kg, is an upper intermediate ability and skis short turns at lower speeds (163 - 179cm for this person, ideally 163cm or 171cm). You can see there's crossover in the lengths suggested, as we're all different and personal preference can count for a lot.
Height is a lever force but, as you're pretty centred over modern skis, it's less of an important factor than weight, skier aggression and skiing preference. The main criteria to look at are skier weight, aggression and ability.
I hope this helps. If not, please let me know and we can think about your skiing ability/style and weight and we can go from there.
Thanks again for the comment and for watching, and I hope you get to enjoy some of the other videos,. But mostly I hope you get to enjoy some fantastic turns this winter.
Response by Al from SkiKitInfo.com
@@SkiKitInfo Thx for the reviw. I have also a question regarding the length. Thought to buy the 2.0 in 179cm. I am an advanced skier with 175,5cm height but I only weigh 63kg. Do you think the 179 is too long? My concern with 171 is that is not stable enough for harsh snow.
Hi @@a.b.2523 and thanks so much for the question, and a totally valid point to raise. The Agent skis are way more stable than many touring skis, and at 85kg, and 178cm tall I was charging about on the Agent 2.0 in the 171cm length with others on skis like Black Crows Corvus Freebird in longer length than the Agent, and Volkl Mantra V-Werks, again in longer length, and the Agent in 171cm was not a problem. For me, as I am so much heavier than you, I would personally choose the 179cm but was blown away by how good the 171cm model was. The conditions were variable, with some soft powder, some wind crust, some dense, chalky snow and it never felt unstable. So, for you, it comes down to a few factors: do you prefer skiing longer skis for greater stability over ease of manoeuvring, what boot/binding selection will you be using with the ski (if super stiff and powerful, then the 179 model may work better), do you ski at higher speeds and larger turn shapes as this suggests the longer ski, is weight a critical factor (shorter is lighter) and more. I hope this helps to give you a steer as to which way you go. I wouldn't overthink it though, as you can have a stonking time on either length. Thanks for watching the review, and liking (if you did). If you've sub'd then thank you so, so much. It's great to see more and more ski fans jumping on-board with SkiKitInfo. This season's been tough for us to get videos up, but a load more are coming soon. Happy skiing and skinning, Al from SkiKitInfo.
@@SkiKitInfo thx for the quick answer. Until now I drove an 170, but for me this was not stable enough with harder snow conditions although it was nice in the woods with soft snow. Concerning binding I would like to put a marker kingpin, so an hybrid pin tech binding. The difference in the weight does not matter at all for me, cause I was used to tour with a heavier ski with a heavier binding (Fritschi Freeride). Hmm hard decision but I think I will purchase the 179 cause with shoes and everything I am 177.
@@a.b.2523 That sounds like a sound decision and that you're thinking about this the right way - past experience and personal preference are massive factors in deciding ski length. Height not as important as weight and skiing aggression, style and speed/turn shape. The Kingpin will be a great selection on this ski - Kingpin or Shift, or Duke PT 12 (not 16 - so much heavier and really a different category of binding to the others). Sincerely hope your new rig and that you have an ace time touring and skiing with them. Al from SkiKitInfo.