5’10” 150 lbs, 170 Volkl Mantra M6. These skis are absolute missiles compared to mold old atomic slalom skis. I can still cut but having the ability to float when needed and absolutely bomb when wanted is insane. What a time to be alive with todays ski tech.
More factors to consider than just length: MM width under foot (70-85 narrow, quick turning and good on firm conditions, 85-110 more loft in powder conditions, little less “quick”), side cut (width at tip & tail vs under foot) affects natural radius turn of ski (more side cut=shorter turn radius). Flex of ski - stiff flex better for faster speeds, lighter flex easier in bumps (heavier skiers 180 lbs and more, go stiffer too). Even more important, buy the right boots. Most new skier’s are guilty of buying too big sized boots. I have an experienced boot fitter match a boot to the type of foot you have. Remember that new boots are the most snug they will ever be. The more you ski in them the liners will start to.”pack out”. If they are roomy and comfy brand new., They will likely be sloppy and loose as they get older. Bigger or faster. Skiers should go with stiffer flex boots.
Rocker kind of throws everything about length out the window. Longer is always better, you'll ski into the length compared to outgrowing them quickly. Only time you want shorter is if you're not into advancing as fast or if you don't ski as much to grow into a ski. It's about having fun.
I'd say for beginners, don't spend too much money! Most people go through a number of skis over the years and once you've been skiing for a while you'll know better what you want next. That would be not just in length, but also width, camber/rocker, stiffness, etc. I can't remember how many skis I've had over the years, but at least 7 pairs, not including rentals in the early days, and demo'd a number more. They started out long before shaped skis were a thing, then got shorter and wider, then long again and even wider, and now as I'm getting older they are getting shorter again. And this year I decided to try rockers, never saw the point before because why would you want part of the ski off the snow? But now that I'm not as strong as I was in my youth it is starting to make more sense. You can have a ski that skis short on hard pack, but is still long enough for soft snow. I don't think they'll be great for carving, but everything is a tradeoff. That's why many people have more than one pair.
I'm 6'2", 210 lbs. Currently have Head Peak 88 , 180, and Head LYT V8, 170. I'm 60 and over the past several years have had some big falls and starting to question if these are the right skis for me. While I've skied them well at times, I'm starting to doubt myself. My wife recommends going down to a shorter and beginner ski until my confidence improves. I need and want to slow down but want to enjoy my runs and be able to continue skiing for many years. Any thoughts?
Try renting a slightly shorter ski of the same type. I'm age 70, 170(5:8) height 60 kilos weight and only 3cms less has made a huge difference. I used to use Head Instinct 163, great but now find them a bit too fast on steeper slopes. I now use nothing longer than 160 cms. Exact same fun but not quite as fast so more controllable. You're taller and heavier so adjust accordingly.
Loved my 200cm K2s back in 94-95. And they were slalom skis. However my Head 170s fit so well these days, though still have my Volkl Racetiger 163s which turn so dang fast.
@@rajon25 I went from Fischer GS 190cm to Stöckli Storms 168cm. The Stöckli flex & shape is way more fun & versatile. Don't demo Stöckli skis, because you will buy them & they are not cheap. 🤑
6'1" 200. Still rocking my vintage 1985 Atomic Arc RS 205s. Have dallied with newer skis of various sizes over the past 40 years and always find myself reverting to my old Atomics. Except in deep powder.
Cord length measure tip to tail or Material length measure along the entire length of the ski. Good explanation of Rocker + Contact point being different on Front Side Carving skis compared with off Piste , soft snow , powder skis. For powder skis the bigger + longer they are like a boat and the better they float is my explanation. For fast skiing on groomed trails a longer ski is like a car with a longer wheelbase. They are more stable at speed.
Your videos are awesome! I need help finding the right ski for me. Every ski shop I go to I am told, "this should do good". They dont ask any questions. I am sure they know their stuff but are certainly not coming across that way. It gives you little confidence in them. Is there a way I can get ahold of you?
wow - skis have changed in the last 20 years since I bought my last pair - Still rocking my 190 Atomic R9's Awesome for trails, but get into any Sierra cement and huston we have a problem! Great in the real fluffy stuff but get that so rarly in Tahoe. Its all wet and heavy. Still - once waxed up they will beat my adult kids on 20/30 y/o legs any day of the week! Still have a pair of Blizzard 205 slalom's in the attic I got in the early 90's! Tempted to get them out.
I gotta say something controversial, I don't look at height when sizing skis, at all. The binding is the only point of contact between me and the ski, I can transfer my weight, my strength and my technique through that interface, height is the one thing that does not transfer. Imho two people of equal weight, strength and skill should look at the same length of ski, regardless of their height. That being said, for people of average body type, sizing by height generally works well.
Great video. Always agonize about this decision , along with mount point, so bear with me. I’m 5’11” 160lbs. Advanced directional skier who values agility for trees and moguls over carving on groomers. Also looking to progress with switch and playful/jibby style skiing but don’t plan on spending much time in the park. Have skied 183cm Qst 98 for over 2 seasons and liked them but occasionally second guessed the length when the trees got tight. Picked up a pair of 179 cm (true 178) Dynastar M Free 99s at a great price but im still wondering if the 185 cm (true 182) isn’t the better choice long term. Was also contemplating moving the mount forward a couple cm for switch skiing but I’m a little concerned about shortening the front ends of the 179s too much. Do you think I should just stick at recommended mount (-7cm) with 179? Or would plus 2 cm from recommended mount on the 185 be a good compromise?
Hi all! Switching from board to skis this season. I started riding a shorter board than recommended and I loved the responsiveness, so I figured I would carry that over to skis. I’m 6’1 and 90kgs. Only skiid a few resort days and looking for something fun to learn on. My gut says 170 so I have as much fun as possible in the icy mountains of Vancouver. Any thoughts?
I personally feel like there's more of a trade off with going short on skis than with a board as there is less total mass on skis so you get proportionally less carving ability when you go down in size on skis. I'd try demoing something in the 175-180 range before you go down to 170. That's already taking it pretty short and I think it will accomplish what you're looking for but that's just my two cents edit: I'm not sure I'm using the word carving appropriately above. What I'm referring to is edge purchase in icy conditions, not turning radius.
Having shorter skis will be more agile, but you need to keep in mind the construction of the skis. Most of the inexpensive, beginner/ low intermediate skis have composite/ foam cores. They are easy to engage, but are not very stable at decent speeds, and lack responsiveness. Because of your stature, make sure you get a full wood core ski. It will provide more stability, and will have more longevity as you progress. Along with @andrew6815, I suggest looking at skis in and around 175-180cm, with minimal rocker, and a FULL WOOD CORE. Most skis in the 80 to 85 mm range, will be great for the North Shore Mountains.
As I'll be a beginner and am hoping to have three vacations for the 2024 season, I'll be renting all season, then for the 2025 season I'll be looking to buy my first pair, as by then I'll have hopefully gone beyond the basics and will be an...improving beginner, so I'll be wanting a low intermediate ski. At my age, I'm not really into speed, more comfort and turn stability plus no clatter at moderate speeds,, I eventually hope to comfortably ski red - European - and finally some easy black runs, as European resorts don't have much powder.
I love long pencils, my favourite is 210cm , I have195, 200 and 205 but the 210's are very much more stable at very fast speeds. I will ski moguls and power with them just because I can , even though it's hard work . I just won't compromise my super high speed pleasure. If I buy a new pair as opposed to my 1970's collection. It will be a 235 down hill skis 😊
I've been using my 200's since the mid 90's and frankly feel the same way (5' 11", 195 lbs). I've told myself I will give some newer skis a shot this year since I'm getting older (53) and really should start slowing down a little. I can't say I'm looking forward to trying some newer more traditional skis, but I know I should! 😆
Me and my wife just took our first ski lessons in Aspen. I am 6'5" and 200lbs and the shop put me in 140 length skis. I loved them and we were able to try a Green slope by the end of day 2. My wife was in 160s but then the instructor moved her to 140s late in day 1. She is 5'6" and very thin. She liked the 140s much better. Are we in the right ski length and should my wife maybe be in a shorter ski length than me?
Best to experiment. See what works for you. Maybe try some demo skis not just the generic cheap rental skis because you also want to try different widths and styles. Personally I could not imagine something as short as 140 cm and I am 5'8" and well past my prime. I would not think you will stay at that length, but who knows. If you try longer and decide you like 140 better, great! Maybe spend a year on rental and demo skis, buy a pair next year based on what you learn.
@@rodc4334 This is great. Thank you for the advice. I admit the 140 seems short but they were so easy to maneuver it made the day fun. We are going again in two weeks and will try more rentals and buy next year.
I will buy a pair of Salomon qst 106 22/33 in the next couple of days but still not 100% sure if I should go with the 181 or 189. I’m 181 cm, 81 kg and I will use the skis mostly in a resort in the trees and where I can find some fresh snow, but also a little bit on the groomers. Also touring on rare occasions. Love skiing hard and fast on groomers. Any suggestions?
Stick with the 181. You're average weight for your height, so going up a size isn't needed. The 181 will be a bit more maneuverable than the 189. You'll get a bit more versatility out of the slightly shorter length. Keep in mind you may find the skis lack grip when you want to ski hard and fast on groomers due to the rocker profile. I did find them a little twitchy when I wanted to really open them up. Don't expect them to behave like a more traditional frontside ski.
Yes, the skis do have a considerable amount of rocker on them. The 181 will be a bit more nimble for you when you go into variable terrain. But, if you want more stability at higher speeds on groomers, go with the 189, but will need more engagement. The 181 won’t be short for you though. Depends on what you value more, and what you want the ski to do. More all round agility= 181 Slightly more stability =189
Not true, example a short skier need less force to touch the ground with his hand than a tall person that really needs to charge to do that and maybe both have same weight... so for achieving same results tall skier needs more leverage
@@AlexCiuta-k1s leverage? If two competent skiers of different heights but the same weight going the same speed make identical turns they will both produce the same amount of force on the ski ergo their height makes no difference.
This issue when it come to factoring in a skiers weight is that there are no stats on the matter. Take a look at the snowboard industry; each size chart for each board has a weight range for each length of board. The ski industry simply does not offer that kind of info. I'm not saying you're incorrect stating weight is a factor, but hard info simply isn't available. As stated in my video, if you're under weight or lighter than average for your height, select a shorter ski. Then if you're heavier than average for your height, size up your skis. Not to mention the other factors, like ski shape, intended use, etc. Thanks for contributing to the comment section.
@Alex: Read about center of gravity. Then you'll know why height indeed does matter here. It's the weight and resulting forces distribution and resulting torque on the ski, so actually the length of your feet does matter as well.
Great Video! I am 5’ 10” @ 200lbs - looking to buy the 2023 Atomic Maverick 95ti - I am 45 years old (intermediate skier) i ski 80% groomers and the occasional off trail out in the west coast. I am stuck between what length to get - these skis only come in 172 (forehead height) or 180 just a little over my height. I am not an aggressive skier and I do like the occasional speed and steep black diamonds I rented 180 last year and struggled a bit on them, for my weight and height will the 172 be ok? I don’t want to regret my decision, on paper the 172 seem to be ok after looking at several charts on the web.
The 172s will be a bit more agile, and easier to control. The longer length will require you to engage the ski more to get the desired control, as you have experienced with a 180cm ski. The 172 aren't too short by any means. Stick with what you're comfortable with.
6"1 205lbs atletic, strong legs, expert on groomers, intermediate in powder, beginner in the park. Looking for an all Mountain Ski. Is the Nordica unleashed 98 in 186 a good fit? I am a bit worried, the 180 might be too unstable and worse off piste, but maybe better for learning jumps and tricks?
The Unleashed 98 is a great ski. However, because there is a layer of Ti in it, I don't recommend using it for park. Small jumps and side hits, sure. I say this because if you bend skis with Ti the wrong way, or land too hard, the metal wont bend back, or even have you skis delaminate. Stick with the 186cm for an all rounded ski.
Hi - I'm looking to buy my first pair of skis. I've been skiing for a long time but I also took long breaks. So I'd consider myself advanced intermediate. I'm 5' 7", 150 lbs (ish). I mostly do groomers. Looking for an all mountain/terrain that is a bit more geared towards on piste. I want to become faster and more aggressive. I had my eyes on Voelkl Kendo. Am I on the right track here? What else should I consider and what length/width/profile typically fit what I'm looking for? Thanks much :)
The kendo is a good ski to look at. Skis that are under 90 will be most suited for you. Look at the Elan Wingman 86, Head Shape v10, or if you're feeling brave, the Blizzard Brahma 88. I would look at lengths around the 170cm area (168- 174). All the skis mentioned have slight tip and tail rocker, so they won't be overly aggressive.
@@MountainVibes So I ended up demoing the Kendo and Mantra M6. I tried both hoping it would convince me to pull the trigger on the Kendo. To my surprise, I felt more at ease with the Mantra. Kendo felt like it wanted to launch into a turn the whole time. Both were 170, which is roughly my height. I wonder if that hampered the Kendo experience and should have gone smaller although same length Mantra felt less of an issue. If I get either of these, you think 163 would be better or should I stick to 170 and grow into it?
@@denizekin80 I would think the Kendos will have a bit more camber than the Mantra, making the skis grip more. The skis may have been tuned differently too. The Kendos edges may not have been detuned, so the skis want to grip more, launching you into the turns. This is the only thing I can think of. I've been on demo skis where the it seems like the skis wanted to kill me because the edges were so bad, and railed. Theoretically, the Mantras will act as a stiffer ski. Because you are lighter the 163 will be easier to push around.
Looking for a new pair of skis, been on the Elan Ripstick 106’s at 181 but looking for something with less camber and a little more play for trees and powder. 188 cm tall, only 75kg but have had no trouble carving with the Elans. Can’t quite figure out the combination of more length because of rocker and less length because of weight so would love any suggestions!
Take a look at the Faction Prodigy 3.0. Same underfoot, but with a more rocker in the tail, making it a bit easier to smear your turns. Could go with the 184s because the next size down will be too short at 178.
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 ski 175-191. That being said, manufacturers stated lengths should be treated as exactly what they said. If their measurement system is different, the stated length is gonna give you an idea of what they consider to line up with within the current market. For reference I have on3p 181 kartel - 108 underfoot, atris 189.7 - 108 underfoot, and on3p woodsman 187 - 96 underfoot (all these skis measure the same essentially in length, albeit the on3p are from different years)
Hi I'm 6'0 180lbs, Im looking into atomic bent 90s 175cm, I'm an intermediate skier on the east coast with less-than-ideal conditions, would that be a good choice for me? Thanks
do not buy those if you are a groomer east coast skier, you need something with a longer effective edge and less flex. i own the bent chetler 100s and theyre terrible on icy hard pack get something with less tip and tail rocker, also since youre skiing east coast ice longer length is not a bad thing
I am definitely in the minority here. At 5'7" 185lbs i prefer shorter skis. My skis are 97mm wide and only 164cm long (eyebrow level). I like a playful ski that I can make short, quick turns with. On groomers i dont carve i usually bomb them and i can mash on the brakes at anytime. They are easy for me to maneuver in the trees and wide enough to float in powder. Perhaps this will all change as i get older.
Great videos! looking for advice please!! I am 5 10 185lbs 50 years old been skiing for 35 years and looking for a good glade ski. I have a set of Rossis 176 avengers, which are great for speed, and grip on the turns really well. And a pair of atomic smoke tis 171 good for moguls and trees but the edge is so/so. and I do get them both sharpened and tuned after about 8 or 10 days of skiing. I want a good edge and ski I am able to turn quick on and especially good in the trees!!!.Any words of advice mountain vibes? Thank you for the videos.
Hi Neil, Two solid, but different options to look at. 1. The Rustler 9 from Blizzard. It's a twin shape ski, so it will have a looser feel, but will be able to swing around in the glades. With the Ti underfoot, it will be more stable than what you'd expect. Strong, yet forgiving. 2. The Elan Wingman 86 CTI. More traditional than the Rustler, but has a unique asymmetrical profile. Slight tip and tail rocker, but with the Carbon rods + Ti backbone, they have the potential to be an everything ski.
I am currently in a never ending search for the right skis and could use help. I have skied for more then 15 years on a lot of skis but I don't really remember the models to make a comparison now, because I was a kid at the time. However for the past few seasons I have skied on Völkl Tigershark Power Switch ( 2011 I believe ) skis, basically used them as an all terrains. I believe they weren't taller than 170. ( And wow I didn't know they were so expensive at the time, my father bought them used maybe in 2015 lol), I felt confident carving with them, they felt really sharp, however they were very heavy and I was struggling in powder. I am 202cm tall and my weight is around 105kg. What would you recommend for someone who is looking to get something piste focused but still loves jumping into powder for a few runs? Edit; I was considering Völkl M6 Mantra?
I recently skied the Mantra, and they are a very good ski. Stiff, yet agile... Another one to look at is the Nordica Enforcer 94. They will be stiffer, as there is more Ti in them, but you shouldn't have an issue pushing them around.
I'm also on a taller side (203 cm = 6'8") and I have 180 cm long skis. I wouldn't recommend that you buy skis shorter than 175 cm if you're not a beginner, otherwise they'd be too short for you. I'd actually prefer to get 185 cm skis but it's really hard to find them in such length.
Tough one... Because you're lighter, the shorter ski will be a bit easier to push around, and not fatigue as quickly. But if you want stability, and really push the ski, then go for the longer length. What terrain are you skiing? The shorter ski will be easier to manuver in tighter areas.
What length and type, and underfoot would you recommend for an advanced, somewhat aggressive skier who can ski most black slopes? I skied about 155 and 88mm underfoot, 5'2 and 14 y/o , what would you recommend?
Still skiing at 76 involves adapting to the changes associated with age, and the enforced absence from skiing due to COVID. I have skied Volkl STM skis, bought about 8 years ago, and loved them. Especially stability at speed. We will be skiing with grandchildren at Whistler, where I will be cruising on groomers. I will be skiing Volkl Mantra 6 at 170, and am hoping it will be stable, forgiving, and easy to turn. If the video reviews are to be believed, they will be. Comfort is paramount for the senior skier. Back to the 80’s - remember the rear entry Salamon SX90 boots? I used mine until they literally disintegrated. Managed to track down the new Nordica rear entry boots. My old bib and brace pants are about 20 years old, with patches on patches. For decades I have searching for replacements. Finally found a Burton snowboard bib and brace, so the old pants joint the SX90 boots in honourable retirement.
Enjoy your ride with the kids, sounds great! The Mantra is a handful though, it's strong, stiff, stable and more on the heavy side, forgiving isn't an attribute that fits the Mantra very well. But hey, it depends on the skier and you can change any time if you feel like you'd be better off on something else :)
Bit of a curve ball here! I am 6 foot and 140lbs, I have been skiing 5X and have been renting. Looking at purchasing skiis and boots. What is the best recommendation for a boot + ski for my size? I have noticed that the skiis I used felt so long and found it challenging to stop and turn. I prefer groomer style skiing. CHEERS!
Start with boots. They're the most important part of your kit. Make sure they fit your foot well, so you don't move around in them. Then find a boot that gives you enough support, but something you can still move/ flex so you can properly engage the skis. I would suggest looking at a 90 or 100 flex. As far as skis go, look at something close to your upper lip, and that is relatively forgiving. Meaning, they're softer and will be easier to engage, but not a super soft ski that you'll out progress quickly. Perhaps a Nordica Navigator 75, or 80. The new Head Shape E V5 is a solid choice too. Hope this helps.
im 6'1 135 lbs. Looking to buy armadas arv 94, do you think i should go with the 171 cm's? I have trouble turning quick in trees. Also just started park this season. 15y/o any advice would be great
I am 6'0" 175 lbs. Very strong, aggressive, fast skier. Looking at getting the Head Kore 105. I had Soul 7 at 188 cm, but the Kore's are 184 and 191, so I'm having trouble deciding. What would be the advantages of getting one over the other? I'm thinking that the 191 will be better for stomping cliffs and have more stability, but might sacrifice some maneuverability in trees and moguls. Would love to know your thoughts!
The Kore 105 is a much stronger ski than the Soul 7, so you don't necessarily need the extra length. If you want something to "do it all", go with the 184. If my math is correct, they should be a tad taller than you. As well, you're not really heavy, so the slightly shorter Kore will still be stable for you.
2nd Mountain Vibes feedback and was in a siular position trying to decide on Kore lengths. Kore series is a much stiffer more powerful platform. I was debating the Kore 105 vs 99 and in the narrower ski the 184 seemed fine, in 105 I would have been tempted to size up but after now having skied the 99 in 184 there is no way I would size up to the 191. The 99's and sure 105's are simular will take as much power as you can possibly give them and you'll blow through your boots before they fold. Most aggressive skiers at 175lbs would have trouble outskiing the 177 so 184's should rip for you. I am 6'1" 195lbs, aggressive expert.
Hey I’m 5,7 which is 172 cm and the skies I want (armada arv 106”) there smallest size I can find is 172, from what I’ve heard and seen on RUclips they fit my ski style perfectly. I like to go fast and I’m pretty agreesive but I love the park too but also enjoy tree skiing. Would them skies be fine for me if they where exactly my hight? I weigh 80kg (176lb)
Hello! Female - 152 cm in height - 105lbs. I was using/ renting 140 cm last season as a beginner this is what they recommended me to use and I recently purchased 150 cm skis. Did I make a wrong decision?
That really depends on what you bought. If the skis have a lot of tip and tail rocker, you should be okay. Keep in mind, with a longer ski will have to work more to get the ski to turn. But it won't be impossible. A shorter ski is more maneuverable.
I'm trying to figure out if the Salomon QST 106 in 188cm length the right ski for me is. I'm 6'4" (196cm) tall and weigh 175 pounds (80kg). I only ski for a few years but spent a whole season in a ski area with my very narrow beginner carving ski (Atomic Vantage 79 C 179cm). So I would say I'm now advanced to expert on groomed slopes but since that year we haven't had many powder days and my gear wasn't really meant for that, I suck at off-piste / powder. That's what I want to change with the Salomon ski. I would love to do tree runs and proper powder skiing without getting stuck in deep snow. Would you say that's a good ski to get into this and can I go with 188cm length or do I have to go longer (meaning another ski because that's the max length they offer) Some people pointed out that weight is more important than height and I should go even shorter than 188cm to have more fun with a nice and nimble ski. What's your take on that?
Good question... The skis will be agile at 188cm. Especially in trees. Because your are on the lighter side for your height, that length will work well. Hope this helps.
I have the olive green QST 106 in 188 and did not like them mounted on the line. I remounted the bindings 2cm forward and love them. If you get them I would suggest demo bindings till you find the sweet spot. I couldn't belive the difference.
By all means, you can go taller if you want. In some cases you’re forced to, based on the size range of the skis. Just be prepared to work a bit harder to control the ski the way you want to.
@@MountainVibes thanks for the quick reply. I asked because I am 169cm height tall and wanted to buy the Head Kore 99 and the options are 170cm or 177cm… I am an intermediate-advanced but I am not sure on how to decide without having the chance to try em on. Any ideas?
Learned To Ski In 1967 Hated it because I was 6'2" 175 pounds and my skis were as tall as i could reach. Then in 69' John Claude Killy originated the GLM Method. Changed Everything. I took the lip and heat for using short skis by establishment *Cough* for 30 years until snowblades became a thing. Long story short - I've taught hundreds of people to ski. My son has taught hundreds of Disabled Veterans To Ski. Resorts make big money on lessons, They DO NOT LIKE New Skiers after a couple of days flying like a Bat Outta Hell because they are having a blast on their Snowblade/Skiboards. My son was a Downhill Ski Racer couldn't get the long skis off fast enough. Propaganda has killed Snowblades/Skiboards. GLM WAS A WAY TO GET MORE PEOPLE INTO SKIING. BECAUSE OF MANY REASONS SKIING IS ON A HUGE DECLINE. There needs to be a radical change again like i 1969. Get People On The Slopes FAST - FILL UP THE HOTELS, BARS, RESTAURANTS AND RESORTS. BOTTOM LINE - SKI LENGTH TECHNICAL STUFF IS LIKE BEING FIRST CLASS ON THE TITANIC. - GET UP THE HILL ... GET DOWN THE HILL - Forget The Olympic Fantasy - Most Can Be Proficient in a couple of hours. www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1977/01/20/beginners-night-at-ski-liberty-and-the-snow-is-littered-with-the-fallen/9b6b35d2-3710-43f7-af9f-6868712926d5/
I am 183 cm and weight 85 kg and am looking at the Solomon Backland 100 for touring and i can't decide if i should go for 180 or 188. I like to ski fast on grooms. Those skies are mainly for touring so i am not sure about the width either. Should i go 107 maybe or is that going to have some drawback except weight?
I suggest going with the 180. That way they will be more maneuverable in tree areas, and make it easier to climb with. If you're gonna be in deeper snow, the 107 will work just fine. But, if you don't get constant fresh snow, then the 100s will be nice.
Years ago they would have you extend your hand over your head as far as you could and the distance from your wrist to the floor would be the length. crazy long !!
I'm 5' 10" and 180lbs and an intermediate skier. I'm looking at the Atomic Maverick 86C all mountain twin tip and am between the 161 and 169cm lengths. Which would you recommend?
I've watched a few of your videos on picking the right skis, and I love how you account for everyone's preferences and give general guidelines/advice rather than your opinion presented as absolute truth as others would. I'll be buying my first pair this season but because I tend to do a lot of carving at high speed, while never missing the occasional jump and powder in the trees, I feel like there isn't a single pair of ski to do it all. I have reasons to go short and thin (I'm lightweight, I like quick turns and good grip) but also to go wider and taller-ish for the speed, powder and occasional freestyle. Maybe a ~175 (i'm 178cm tall) with 85-95 width pair of "carving/all terrain" as you wisely call them are the skis for me ? Cheers from France
Hi! Great channel and very informative videos. Can I take your advice on which skis I should purchase? It is my 4th year skiing (each year for about a week), and I have been taking a lot of private training. I intend to ski about 20 days this year and following. Sales people in retail advise me all-mountain as I have a snowboarder husband who likes going a bit off piste. And it turned out i learnt to ski on skis for advanced skiers, so now all mountain Faction Dancer 1X was super comfortable and comparatively easy for me, or probably i just feel for some reason better skiing on more flexible skis.. I just turned intermediary level, so I am confident on wide red and all blue slopes, not confident on narrow icy/bumpy red slopes and can’t take black. I want to progress, don’t like high speed, more of a recreational fun skier who won’t shy away from some deep snow near the piste. I am now considering Faction Dancer x1, Völkl Yumi 84, Blizzard Black Pearl, Kästle w85d, Armada Reliance .. Should I go for all-mountain or should I stick to on-piste skis instead for now as I still have a lot to progress on the piste? :) Maybe there is a particular model of skis that you would recommend for me? Thank you 🙏💙
Thanks for the question... I say go for a narrower all-mountain ski. You can work on your technique, and still have some off-piste versatility. The Black Pearl 82 comes to mind, or the Head Total Joy. These skis have a decent shape to them, so you can work on your carving skills, but have a bit of rocker, so they will offer easier skiing off piste. Both are easy to ski, but have the power if you want to push them.
@@MountainVibes Hi, thank you so much for your reply! Having tried both piste and off-piste skis, I've also come to the conclusion that probably narrower all-mountain would work. Thank you for your input, very much appreciated!
Great video about width. Thank you for that! but here I'm a little bit confused. I'm 196cm intermediate-advanced, like to drive fast and usually very aggressive (giant slalom and just slalom) and only on piste. Is there a noticeable difference between models like Volkl or Salomon?
volkl or salomon are manufacturers. Inside of each company they have many different skis built for very different purposes. So, yes, there is a vast difference.
If you are comparing slalom to slalom or gs to gs… no not really. Should be functionally very similar. Obviously slight differences… but they are both built to similar specifications for competition
I am 6’4” 260lbs. Looking at getting blizzard rustler 10. I am trying to decide between the 180 and 188. The 180 in the store was to the middle of my nose. I ski mostly with my kids 8 and 10 in the Tahoe area. We are starting to get into moguls and trees. I am intermediate to advanced. Do you have a recommendation?
Definitely the 188. Even in that length, the more you lean towards the advanced side of things the less confident I am that it'll feel long enough for you
I am 5"10" and weigh 240. I bought a set of Blizzard Rustler 10's in 180 because I thought that the extra width and rocker would be an advantage in powder compared to my 98 Bonafides. Was I ever wrong! The binding mounting on the Rustler 10 is absolutely goofy. The bindings on the 10 are 2" further forward than on my Bonafides.(Or any other 180cm ski) They were mounted correctly. This causes the 10's to dive in the powder like a submarine. I skied on them four times and sold them. I am considering Rustler 11's which have a normal mount point. At your height, a 188 is about right.
Great video. Question. I am 5’10” and weigh 165 lbs. I currently ski a 180 cm Rustler 9. It is a bit long but to your point, with the added rocker, it works awesome. That said, I am trying to add something a bit quicker on the turns and one that allows me to get thru moguls. I am thinking of adding the Nordica Enforcer 100. Thoughts on length? Would 170 cm be too short?
100 mm will be too wide for what you're looking for. You want to look for something in the high 80s, with more camber in the profile. There's the Volkl Kendo 88, Elan Wingman 86 CTI, the Faction Dancer 1, or the Enforcer 88. All are stiffer skis, that will drive through a turn better than the Rustlers. Look for these skis in the mid 170s.
I live in Norway and would consider myself somewhere between intermediate and advanced, perhaps more advanced. (Norwegian standards hehe) I do a lot of backcountry and bigger mountains but I exercise a lot and would much rather have skis that has a better emphasis on going down rather than up. I'm 189cm tall and weigh in at roughly 97kg. Any height range you would recommend? Looking at replacing my beginner skis I bought 6 years ago... Also, love your videos!
I'll suggest something in the range of 183-190ish (forehead area). That's assuming you're looking at more freeride skis with a bit more of a rocker profile to them.
@@MountainVibes Thanks for the advice. I actually ski more hard snow than powder, and like to ski fast. So I ended up with the Faction Agent 2.0 for my 60/40 purpose (Touring mountain trips / Resorts). Chose the Fritschi Tecton 13 bindings as well. This video helped a lot, so thanks :)
185cm 80kg intermediate skier here trying to dip my feet into freestyle kind of skiing, been pondering should I get bent 100 skis on 180 or 188. Due to the nature of the skis im wondering if the 180 is too short and if the 188 is too big
Well, the shorter one will be easier to throw around, and make learning tricks a bit easier. The longer one will be slightly more stable at speed, but more effort to throw around. Depending on what you value more, go with that option. I wouldn't say one is too short, and the other, too long.
Hey man, loved you vid. Looking to get the 1000skies and mostly ski on piste and sometimes in the park I’m around 180-179 tall and was wandering if I should go for the 171cm height or the 178. And I do weigh like 100 kg (gym bulking season now) will probably be in the 85-90 range when I’m cut. Let me know what you think please and thank you
Start at your nose. If you want a jibby, easy spinning ski, stay there. If want a bit more stability for landing larger jumps, go for something around your forehead.
It’s not length, it’s surface area and no one is doing the test where different weights are set on a ski in fresh light powder to see the point where it starts to sink in the same way snowshoes work. If you are NOT in bottomless powder, then just pick the ski shape best suited for your speed and turn radius. Additionally, swing weight is an important factor for beginners all the way to older aged experts based on how strong your legs are.
Brand new to skiing. Went once in 1990, once in 2022, 2 weeks ago and going Saturday. I'm hooked and my wife and boys (13 and 10) love it too. Looking at buying an inexpensive package including Head's e-v2. At 72 under foot it should make turning and carving easier. At 47 yrs old, groomers are likely all I'll ever try and tackle, so versatility isn`t really a priority. I'm 6`0" and 210lbs and don't really plan to fly down hills. I'm trying to decide between 170s or 177s. Two weeks ago I rented 160s and plan on trying 170s this weekend. Love your content and appreciate all your channel has taught me.
Thanks Scott... The Head e-V2 are very forgiving, but I find them quite soft. You will benefit from something a tad stiffer for your size. The Nordica Navigator 75, and Blizzard Thunderbird 7.2 are great options. Both come with bindings, are priced well, and will be easy to use. I would go with a length around 174-ish.
@@MountainVibes Appreciate the additional info. I've heard good things about the Soloman Stance 80s. Slightly wider under foot but hopefully stiffer and not too much ski for a beginner. Although I have learned fairly quickly.
5’10” 150 lbs, 170 Volkl Mantra M6. These skis are absolute missiles compared to mold old atomic slalom skis. I can still cut but having the ability to float when needed and absolutely bomb when wanted is insane. What a time to be alive with todays ski tech.
More factors to consider than just length: MM width under foot (70-85 narrow, quick turning and good on firm conditions, 85-110 more loft in powder conditions, little less “quick”), side cut (width at tip & tail vs under foot) affects natural radius turn of ski (more side cut=shorter turn radius). Flex of ski - stiff flex better for faster speeds, lighter flex easier in bumps (heavier skiers 180 lbs and more, go stiffer too). Even more important, buy the right boots. Most new skier’s are guilty of buying too big sized boots. I have an experienced boot fitter match a boot to the type of foot you have. Remember that new boots are the most snug they will ever be. The more you ski in them the liners will start to.”pack out”. If they are roomy and comfy brand new., They will likely be sloppy and loose as they get older. Bigger or faster. Skiers should go with stiffer flex boots.
Rocker kind of throws everything about length out the window. Longer is always better, you'll ski into the length compared to outgrowing them quickly. Only time you want shorter is if you're not into advancing as fast or if you don't ski as much to grow into a ski. It's about having fun.
I'd say for beginners, don't spend too much money! Most people go through a number of skis over the years and once you've been skiing for a while you'll know better what you want next. That would be not just in length, but also width, camber/rocker, stiffness, etc. I can't remember how many skis I've had over the years, but at least 7 pairs, not including rentals in the early days, and demo'd a number more. They started out long before shaped skis were a thing, then got shorter and wider, then long again and even wider, and now as I'm getting older they are getting shorter again. And this year I decided to try rockers, never saw the point before because why would you want part of the ski off the snow? But now that I'm not as strong as I was in my youth it is starting to make more sense. You can have a ski that skis short on hard pack, but is still long enough for soft snow. I don't think they'll be great for carving, but everything is a tradeoff. That's why many people have more than one pair.
I am relearning again.. This will be my 3rd season back again after 20 years.. Lots to learn..
New subscriber that is getting back into skiing after a 15 year break. Thanks for a very useful video.
Nice I am back into it after break of over 20 years. Having a great time. Enjoy!!!
I'm 6'2", 210 lbs. Currently have Head Peak 88 , 180, and Head LYT V8, 170. I'm 60 and over the past several years have had some big falls and starting to question if these are the right skis for me. While I've skied them well at times, I'm starting to doubt myself. My wife recommends going down to a shorter and beginner ski until my confidence improves. I need and want to slow down but want to enjoy my runs and be able to continue skiing for many years. Any thoughts?
Try renting a slightly shorter ski of the same type. I'm age 70, 170(5:8) height 60 kilos weight and only 3cms less has made a huge difference. I used to use Head Instinct 163, great but now find them a bit too fast on steeper slopes. I now use nothing longer than 160 cms. Exact same fun but not quite as fast so more controllable. You're taller and heavier so adjust accordingly.
Loved my 200cm K2s back in 94-95. And they were slalom skis. However my Head 170s fit so well these days, though still have my Volkl Racetiger 163s which turn so dang fast.
I like long skis, mid face for groomers but nothing beats some really short skis for snappy turns!
Back in the "good old days" the measurement was as high as you could reach, & that's why everyone was on 200-220cm boards. 🤪
Oh, things have changed… 😆
The longest skis I have in my quiver are 193 cm and they still feel short compared to the ones I rode in the '90s and the early 2000s.
@@rajon25 I went from Fischer GS 190cm to Stöckli Storms 168cm. The Stöckli flex & shape is way more fun & versatile. Don't demo Stöckli skis, because you will buy them & they are not cheap. 🤑
Yep I’m 5’8” and used to ski on 185 cm. I still like a little longer ski between 172-176 cm.
As a beginner in 1996, I was given short skis to make turning easy. 185cm short...
6'1" 200. Still rocking my vintage 1985 Atomic Arc RS 205s. Have dallied with newer skis of various sizes over the past 40 years and always find myself reverting to my old Atomics. Except in deep powder.
I'm 5'-6" tall and skied bumps on 204's when I was 25. Now I'm skiing 165's on groomers when I'm 57. Both seem like mistakes!
Cord length measure tip to tail or Material length measure along the entire length of the ski. Good explanation of Rocker + Contact point being different on Front Side Carving skis compared with off Piste , soft snow , powder skis. For powder skis the bigger + longer they are like a boat and the better they float is my explanation. For fast skiing on groomed trails a longer ski is like a car with a longer wheelbase. They are more stable at speed.
Do you recommend a shorter or longer ski for a beginner?
Your videos are awesome! I need help finding the right ski for me. Every ski shop I go to I am told, "this should do good". They dont ask any questions. I am sure they know their stuff but are certainly not coming across that way. It gives you little confidence in them. Is there a way I can get ahold of you?
Hello
What does it mean like to ski fast?
What speed is considered as fast?
You know when you are but usually above 35mph / 60kmh you are pretty much officially fast
wow - skis have changed in the last 20 years since I bought my last pair - Still rocking my 190 Atomic R9's Awesome for trails, but get into any Sierra cement and huston we have a problem! Great in the real fluffy stuff but get that so rarly in Tahoe. Its all wet and heavy.
Still - once waxed up they will beat my adult kids on 20/30 y/o legs any day of the week! Still have a pair of Blizzard 205 slalom's in the attic I got in the early 90's! Tempted to get them out.
I'm 6'0", 210lbs and ride a Volkl M6 184, absolutely love them for high speed carving
Most helpful video so far great job!
Been skiing 50+ years...still love my220 super g skis. I can still ski them in moguls. But my K2 203 710fos are still great!
Good to hear! What'd be best for hardpack sharp turns and sporting? I live to break bones😅
I gotta say something controversial, I don't look at height when sizing skis, at all.
The binding is the only point of contact between me and the ski, I can transfer my weight, my strength and my technique through that interface, height is the one thing that does not transfer.
Imho two people of equal weight, strength and skill should look at the same length of ski, regardless of their height.
That being said, for people of average body type, sizing by height generally works well.
Let the flood gates open...
He did say to size up or down depending on weight.
What's average?. I identify as average, but I'm not. Wait I'm....
Great video. Always agonize about this decision , along with mount point, so bear with me.
I’m 5’11” 160lbs. Advanced directional skier who values agility for trees and moguls over carving on groomers. Also looking to progress with switch and playful/jibby style skiing but don’t plan on spending much time in the park. Have skied 183cm Qst 98 for over 2 seasons and liked them but occasionally second guessed the length when the trees got tight.
Picked up a pair of 179 cm (true 178) Dynastar M Free 99s at a great price but im still wondering if the 185 cm (true 182) isn’t the better choice long term. Was also contemplating moving the mount forward a couple cm for switch skiing but I’m a little concerned about shortening the front ends of the 179s too much. Do you think I should just stick at recommended mount (-7cm) with 179? Or would plus 2 cm from recommended mount on the 185 be a good compromise?
Hi all! Switching from board to skis this season. I started riding a shorter board than recommended and I loved the responsiveness, so I figured I would carry that over to skis. I’m 6’1 and 90kgs. Only skiid a few resort days and looking for something fun to learn on. My gut says 170 so I have as much fun as possible in the icy mountains of Vancouver. Any thoughts?
I personally feel like there's more of a trade off with going short on skis than with a board as there is less total mass on skis so you get proportionally less carving ability when you go down in size on skis. I'd try demoing something in the 175-180 range before you go down to 170. That's already taking it pretty short and I think it will accomplish what you're looking for but that's just my two cents
edit: I'm not sure I'm using the word carving appropriately above. What I'm referring to is edge purchase in icy conditions, not turning radius.
im 6'1 and my skis are 186 so idk, I am a solid skier tho.
170 would be crazy short tho
Having shorter skis will be more agile, but you need to keep in mind the construction of the skis. Most of the inexpensive, beginner/ low intermediate skis have composite/ foam cores. They are easy to engage, but are not very stable at decent speeds, and lack responsiveness. Because of your stature, make sure you get a full wood core ski. It will provide more stability, and will have more longevity as you progress. Along with @andrew6815, I suggest looking at skis in and around 175-180cm, with minimal rocker, and a FULL WOOD CORE. Most skis in the 80 to 85 mm range, will be great for the North Shore Mountains.
As I'll be a beginner and am hoping to have three vacations for the 2024 season, I'll be renting all season, then for the 2025 season I'll be looking to buy my first pair, as by then I'll have hopefully gone beyond the basics and will be an...improving beginner, so I'll be wanting a low intermediate ski. At my age, I'm not really into speed, more comfort and turn stability plus no clatter at moderate speeds,, I eventually hope to comfortably ski red - European - and finally some easy black runs, as European resorts don't have much powder.
I ski skiboards 93cm, love them won’t go back to long skis
I love long pencils, my favourite is 210cm , I have195, 200 and 205 but the 210's are very much more stable at very fast speeds.
I will ski moguls and power with them just because I can , even though it's hard work .
I just won't compromise my super high speed pleasure.
If I buy a new pair as opposed to my 1970's collection. It will be a 235 down hill skis 😊
I've been using my 200's since the mid 90's and frankly feel the same way (5' 11", 195 lbs). I've told myself I will give some newer skis a shot this year since I'm getting older (53) and really should start slowing down a little. I can't say I'm looking forward to trying some newer more traditional skis, but I know I should! 😆
Me and my wife just took our first ski lessons in Aspen. I am 6'5" and 200lbs and the shop put me in 140 length skis. I loved them and we were able to try a Green slope by the end of day 2. My wife was in 160s but then the instructor moved her to 140s late in day 1. She is 5'6" and very thin. She liked the 140s much better. Are we in the right ski length and should my wife maybe be in a shorter ski length than me?
Best to experiment. See what works for you. Maybe try some demo skis not just the generic cheap rental skis because you also want to try different widths and styles. Personally I could not imagine something as short as 140 cm and I am 5'8" and well past my prime. I would not think you will stay at that length, but who knows. If you try longer and decide you like 140 better, great! Maybe spend a year on rental and demo skis, buy a pair next year based on what you learn.
@@rodc4334 This is great. Thank you for the advice. I admit the 140 seems short but they were so easy to maneuver it made the day fun. We are going again in two weeks and will try more rentals and buy next year.
I will buy a pair of Salomon qst 106 22/33 in the next couple of days but still not 100% sure if I should go with the 181 or 189. I’m 181 cm, 81 kg and I will use the skis mostly in a resort in the trees and where I can find some fresh snow, but also a little bit on the groomers. Also touring on rare occasions. Love skiing hard and fast on groomers. Any suggestions?
Stick with the 181. You're average weight for your height, so going up a size isn't needed. The 181 will be a bit more maneuverable than the 189. You'll get a bit more versatility out of the slightly shorter length.
Keep in mind you may find the skis lack grip when you want to ski hard and fast on groomers due to the rocker profile. I did find them a little twitchy when I wanted to really open them up. Don't expect them to behave like a more traditional frontside ski.
@@MountainVibes thanks! I’m a bit confused atm, at the store they recommended me the 189 lol. A lot of talk about the big amount of rocker…
Yes, the skis do have a considerable amount of rocker on them. The 181 will be a bit more nimble for you when you go into variable terrain. But, if you want more stability at higher speeds on groomers, go with the 189, but will need more engagement. The 181 won’t be short for you though. Depends on what you value more, and what you want the ski to do.
More all round agility= 181
Slightly more stability =189
The ski doesn't know how tall you are, the ski knows how much you weigh.
Not true, example a short skier need less force to touch the ground with his hand than a tall person that really needs to charge to do that and maybe both have same weight... so for achieving same results tall skier needs more leverage
@@AlexCiuta-k1s leverage? If two competent skiers of different heights but the same weight going the same speed make identical turns they will both produce the same amount of force on the ski ergo their height makes no difference.
This issue when it come to factoring in a skiers weight is that there are no stats on the matter. Take a look at the snowboard industry; each size chart for each board has a weight range for each length of board. The ski industry simply does not offer that kind of info. I'm not saying you're incorrect stating weight is a factor, but hard info simply isn't available. As stated in my video, if you're under weight or lighter than average for your height, select a shorter ski. Then if you're heavier than average for your height, size up your skis. Not to mention the other factors, like ski shape, intended use, etc.
Thanks for contributing to the comment section.
@Alex: Read about center of gravity. Then you'll know why height indeed does matter here. It's the weight and resulting forces distribution and resulting torque on the ski, so actually the length of your feet does matter as well.
Great Video! I am 5’ 10” @ 200lbs - looking to buy the 2023 Atomic Maverick 95ti - I am 45 years old (intermediate skier) i ski 80% groomers and the occasional off trail out in the west coast. I am stuck between what length to get - these skis only come in 172 (forehead height) or 180 just a little over my height. I am not an aggressive skier and I do like the occasional speed and steep black diamonds I rented 180 last year and struggled a bit on them, for my weight and height will the 172 be ok? I don’t want to regret my decision, on paper the 172 seem to be ok after looking at several charts on the web.
The 172s will be a bit more agile, and easier to control. The longer length will require you to engage the ski more to get the desired control, as you have experienced with a 180cm ski.
The 172 aren't too short by any means. Stick with what you're comfortable with.
Great video. Thanks
6"1 205lbs atletic, strong legs, expert on groomers, intermediate in powder, beginner in the park. Looking for an all Mountain Ski. Is the Nordica unleashed 98 in 186 a good fit? I am a bit worried, the 180 might be too unstable and worse off piste, but maybe better for learning jumps and tricks?
The Unleashed 98 is a great ski. However, because there is a layer of Ti in it, I don't recommend using it for park. Small jumps and side hits, sure. I say this because if you bend skis with Ti the wrong way, or land too hard, the metal wont bend back, or even have you skis delaminate. Stick with the 186cm for an all rounded ski.
@@MountainVibes thanks a lot for the answer! As I am starting from zero park-wise I should be ok. But good to keep that in mind for later, thank you!
Width seems to be the question. Like when the ski is wider than your face...is that rly necessary??
Hi - I'm looking to buy my first pair of skis. I've been skiing for a long time but I also took long breaks. So I'd consider myself advanced intermediate. I'm 5' 7", 150 lbs (ish). I mostly do groomers. Looking for an all mountain/terrain that is a bit more geared towards on piste. I want to become faster and more aggressive. I had my eyes on Voelkl Kendo. Am I on the right track here? What else should I consider and what length/width/profile typically fit what I'm looking for? Thanks much :)
The kendo is a good ski to look at. Skis that are under 90 will be most suited for you. Look at the Elan Wingman 86, Head Shape v10, or if you're feeling brave, the Blizzard Brahma 88.
I would look at lengths around the 170cm area (168- 174). All the skis mentioned have slight tip and tail rocker, so they won't be overly aggressive.
@@MountainVibes Thanks for the reply. Very helpful. Just curious, what makes the Brahma a more daring ski?
They have two layers of Ti in them, and need to be skied fast. Fantastic skis, but there really isn’t a chill mode with the Brahmas.
@@MountainVibes So I ended up demoing the Kendo and Mantra M6. I tried both hoping it would convince me to pull the trigger on the Kendo. To my surprise, I felt more at ease with the Mantra. Kendo felt like it wanted to launch into a turn the whole time. Both were 170, which is roughly my height. I wonder if that hampered the Kendo experience and should have gone smaller although same length Mantra felt less of an issue. If I get either of these, you think 163 would be better or should I stick to 170 and grow into it?
@@denizekin80 I would think the Kendos will have a bit more camber than the Mantra, making the skis grip more. The skis may have been tuned differently too. The Kendos edges may not have been detuned, so the skis want to grip more, launching you into the turns. This is the only thing I can think of. I've been on demo skis where the it seems like the skis wanted to kill me because the edges were so bad, and railed. Theoretically, the Mantras will act as a stiffer ski. Because you are lighter the 163 will be easier to push around.
Looking for a new pair of skis, been on the Elan Ripstick 106’s at 181 but looking for something with less camber and a little more play for trees and powder. 188 cm tall, only 75kg but have had no trouble carving with the Elans. Can’t quite figure out the combination of more length because of rocker and less length because of weight so would love any suggestions!
Take a look at the Faction Prodigy 3.0. Same underfoot, but with a more rocker in the tail, making it a bit easier to smear your turns. Could go with the 184s because the next size down will be too short at 178.
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?
188 fo sho
I ski 175-191. That being said, manufacturers stated lengths should be treated as exactly what they said. If their measurement system is different, the stated length is gonna give you an idea of what they consider to line up with within the current market. For reference I have on3p 181 kartel - 108 underfoot, atris 189.7 - 108 underfoot, and on3p woodsman 187 - 96 underfoot (all these skis measure the same essentially in length, albeit the on3p are from different years)
Hi I'm 6'0 180lbs, Im looking into atomic bent 90s 175cm, I'm an intermediate skier on the east coast with less-than-ideal conditions, would that be a good choice for me? Thanks
The length is good. Just don't know how well those skis grip on firmer snow.
do not buy those if you are a groomer east coast skier, you need something with a longer effective edge and less flex. i own the bent chetler 100s and theyre terrible on icy hard pack
get something with less tip and tail rocker, also since youre skiing east coast ice longer length is not a bad thing
Not a new skier but not a confident skier. 57 year old female - 5’4” / 200 lbs
And my son got me 125 skiboards by Salomon … ??? Any thoughts?
There's not much to them. They get you on the hill, but are not very stable at higher speeds, and act more like stakes than skis.
Thank you... Good video for someone like me that is at the beginner stage
As a beginner , what ski are you going to go with . Shorter, longer? Or wider.
Thanks
176cm beginner 70kg! Salomon stance 84 , 161 or 169?
I am definitely in the minority here. At 5'7" 185lbs i prefer shorter skis. My skis are 97mm wide and only 164cm long (eyebrow level). I like a playful ski that I can make short, quick turns with. On groomers i dont carve i usually bomb them and i can mash on the brakes at anytime. They are easy for me to maneuver in the trees and wide enough to float in powder. Perhaps this will all change as i get older.
You do you... If it's not broke, don't fix it.
im 5'8" and ski 177s, those 164s are probably complete monsters in bumps and trees
@@Joey_DiGs yeah they really shine in the trees and technical stuff
Great videos! looking for advice please!! I am 5 10 185lbs 50 years old been skiing for 35 years and looking for a good glade ski. I have a set of Rossis 176 avengers, which are great for speed, and grip on the turns really well. And a pair of atomic smoke tis 171 good for moguls and trees but the edge is so/so. and I do get them both sharpened and tuned after about 8 or 10 days of skiing. I want a good edge and ski I am able to turn quick on and especially good in the trees!!!.Any words of advice mountain vibes? Thank you for the videos.
Hi Neil,
Two solid, but different options to look at.
1. The Rustler 9 from Blizzard. It's a twin shape ski, so it will have a looser feel, but will be able to swing around in the glades. With the Ti underfoot, it will be more stable than what you'd expect. Strong, yet forgiving.
2. The Elan Wingman 86 CTI. More traditional than the Rustler, but has a unique asymmetrical profile. Slight tip and tail rocker, but with the Carbon rods + Ti backbone, they have the potential to be an everything ski.
I am currently in a never ending search for the right skis and could use help. I have skied for more then 15 years on a lot of skis but I don't really remember the models to make a comparison now, because I was a kid at the time. However for the past few seasons I have skied on Völkl Tigershark Power Switch ( 2011 I believe ) skis, basically used them as an all terrains. I believe they weren't taller than 170. ( And wow I didn't know they were so expensive at the time, my father bought them used maybe in 2015 lol), I felt confident carving with them, they felt really sharp, however they were very heavy and I was struggling in powder. I am 202cm tall and my weight is around 105kg. What would you recommend for someone who is looking to get something piste focused but still loves jumping into powder for a few runs? Edit; I was considering Völkl M6 Mantra?
I recently skied the Mantra, and they are a very good ski. Stiff, yet agile... Another one to look at is the Nordica Enforcer 94. They will be stiffer, as there is more Ti in them, but you shouldn't have an issue pushing them around.
@@MountainVibes Nordica Enforcer 94 ! Love them
I'm also on a taller side (203 cm = 6'8") and I have 180 cm long skis. I wouldn't recommend that you buy skis shorter than 175 cm if you're not a beginner, otherwise they'd be too short for you. I'd actually prefer to get 185 cm skis but it's really hard to find them in such length.
Atomic maverick 95 TI
5' 10" 150lbs here. Very aggressive skier. Deciding between Völkl M6 Mantra in 170cm or 177cm. Which length should I do?
Tough one... Because you're lighter, the shorter ski will be a bit easier to push around, and not fatigue as quickly. But if you want stability, and really push the ski, then go for the longer length. What terrain are you skiing? The shorter ski will be easier to manuver in tighter areas.
What length and type, and underfoot would you recommend for an advanced, somewhat aggressive skier who can ski most black slopes? I skied about 155 and 88mm underfoot, 5'2 and 14 y/o ,
what would you recommend?
On or off piste mostly?
Still skiing at 76 involves adapting to the changes associated with age, and the enforced absence from skiing due to COVID.
I have skied Volkl STM skis, bought about 8 years ago, and loved them. Especially stability at speed. We will be skiing with grandchildren at Whistler, where I will be cruising on groomers.
I will be skiing Volkl Mantra 6 at 170, and am hoping it will be stable, forgiving, and easy to turn. If the video reviews are to be believed, they will be.
Comfort is paramount for the senior skier.
Back to the 80’s - remember the rear entry Salamon SX90 boots? I used mine until they literally disintegrated. Managed to track down the new Nordica rear entry boots.
My old bib and brace pants are about 20 years old, with patches on patches. For decades I have searching for replacements. Finally found a Burton snowboard bib and brace, so the old pants joint the SX90 boots in honourable retirement.
Enjoy your ride with the kids, sounds great!
The Mantra is a handful though, it's strong, stiff, stable and more on the heavy side, forgiving isn't an attribute that fits the Mantra very well. But hey, it depends on the skier and you can change any time if you feel like you'd be better off on something else :)
Bit of a curve ball here! I am 6 foot and 140lbs, I have been skiing 5X and have been renting. Looking at purchasing skiis and boots. What is the best recommendation for a boot + ski for my size? I have noticed that the skiis I used felt so long and found it challenging to stop and turn. I prefer groomer style skiing. CHEERS!
Start with boots. They're the most important part of your kit. Make sure they fit your foot well, so you don't move around in them. Then find a boot that gives you enough support, but something you can still move/ flex so you can properly engage the skis. I would suggest looking at a 90 or 100 flex. As far as skis go, look at something close to your upper lip, and that is relatively forgiving. Meaning, they're softer and will be easier to engage, but not a super soft ski that you'll out progress quickly. Perhaps a Nordica Navigator 75, or 80. The new Head Shape E V5 is a solid choice too. Hope this helps.
im 6'1 135 lbs. Looking to buy armadas arv 94, do you think i should go with the 171 cm's? I have trouble turning quick in trees. Also just started park this season. 15y/o any advice would be great
Although you’re tall, you’re quite light. This length should serve you well. Make it more maneuverable for you.
You might as well be on ski blades at that height
I am 6'0" 175 lbs. Very strong, aggressive, fast skier. Looking at getting the Head Kore 105. I had Soul 7 at 188 cm, but the Kore's are 184 and 191, so I'm having trouble deciding. What would be the advantages of getting one over the other? I'm thinking that the 191 will be better for stomping cliffs and have more stability, but might sacrifice some maneuverability in trees and moguls. Would love to know your thoughts!
The Kore 105 is a much stronger ski than the Soul 7, so you don't necessarily need the extra length. If you want something to "do it all", go with the 184. If my math is correct, they should be a tad taller than you. As well, you're not really heavy, so the slightly shorter Kore will still be stable for you.
2nd Mountain Vibes feedback and was in a siular position trying to decide on Kore lengths. Kore series is a much stiffer more powerful platform.
I was debating the Kore 105 vs 99 and in the narrower ski the 184 seemed fine, in 105 I would have been tempted to size up but after now having skied the 99 in 184 there is no way I would size up to the 191. The 99's and sure 105's are simular will take as much power as you can possibly give them and you'll blow through your boots before they fold. Most aggressive skiers at 175lbs would have trouble outskiing the 177 so 184's should rip for you.
I am 6'1" 195lbs, aggressive expert.
Love the tag line at the end to support your local ski shop. Unfortunately there isn’t one where I live but I try to shop locally when I can.
Hey I’m 5,7 which is 172 cm and the skies I want (armada arv 106”) there smallest size I can find is 172, from what I’ve heard and seen on RUclips they fit my ski style perfectly. I like to go fast and I’m pretty agreesive but I love the park too but also enjoy tree skiing. Would them skies be fine for me if they where exactly my hight? I weigh 80kg (176lb)
Your good. I’m 160 expert and o rock 164s, I need room to grow
Hello! Female - 152 cm in height - 105lbs. I was using/ renting 140 cm last season as a beginner this is what they recommended me to use and I recently purchased 150 cm skis. Did I make a wrong decision?
That really depends on what you bought. If the skis have a lot of tip and tail rocker, you should be okay.
Keep in mind, with a longer ski will have to work more to get the ski to turn. But it won't be impossible. A shorter ski is more maneuverable.
Thanks for this, and NICE SHIRT! Love the Hip!
I'm trying to figure out if the Salomon QST 106 in 188cm length the right ski for me is.
I'm 6'4" (196cm) tall and weigh 175 pounds (80kg).
I only ski for a few years but spent a whole season in a ski area with my very narrow beginner carving ski (Atomic Vantage 79 C 179cm). So I would say I'm now advanced to expert on groomed slopes but since that year we haven't had many powder days and my gear wasn't really meant for that, I suck at off-piste / powder. That's what I want to change with the Salomon ski.
I would love to do tree runs and proper powder skiing without getting stuck in deep snow.
Would you say that's a good ski to get into this and can I go with 188cm length or do I have to go longer (meaning another ski because that's the max length they offer)
Some people pointed out that weight is more important than height and I should go even shorter than 188cm to have more fun with a nice and nimble ski.
What's your take on that?
Good question... The skis will be agile at 188cm. Especially in trees. Because your are on the lighter side for your height, that length will work well. Hope this helps.
@@MountainVibes Absolutely! Thanks!
I have the olive green QST 106 in 188 and did not like them mounted on the line. I remounted the bindings 2cm forward and love them. If you get them I would suggest demo bindings till you find the sweet spot. I couldn't belive the difference.
been skiing for 30 year and i don't get why an easier ski to manage is a bad thing ???
would you go taller than top of head? Or top of head would be the limit to most average advanced skiers? Thanx
By all means, you can go taller if you want. In some cases you’re forced to, based on the size range of the skis. Just be prepared to work a bit harder to control the ski the way you want to.
@@MountainVibes thanks for the quick reply. I asked because I am 169cm height tall and wanted to buy the Head Kore 99 and the options are 170cm or 177cm… I am an intermediate-advanced but I am not sure on how to decide without having the chance to try em on. Any ideas?
Learned To Ski In 1967 Hated it because I was 6'2" 175 pounds and my skis were as tall as i could reach. Then in 69' John Claude Killy originated the GLM Method. Changed Everything. I took the lip and heat for using short skis by establishment *Cough* for 30 years until snowblades became a thing. Long story short - I've taught hundreds of people to ski. My son has taught hundreds of Disabled Veterans To Ski. Resorts make big money on lessons, They DO NOT LIKE New Skiers after a couple of days flying like a Bat Outta Hell because they are having a blast on their Snowblade/Skiboards. My son was a Downhill Ski Racer couldn't get the long skis off fast enough. Propaganda has killed Snowblades/Skiboards. GLM WAS A WAY TO GET MORE PEOPLE INTO SKIING. BECAUSE OF MANY REASONS SKIING IS ON A HUGE DECLINE. There needs to be a radical change again like i 1969. Get People On The Slopes FAST - FILL UP THE HOTELS, BARS, RESTAURANTS AND RESORTS. BOTTOM LINE - SKI LENGTH TECHNICAL STUFF IS LIKE BEING FIRST CLASS ON THE TITANIC. - GET UP THE HILL ... GET DOWN THE HILL - Forget The Olympic Fantasy - Most Can Be Proficient in a couple of hours.
www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1977/01/20/beginners-night-at-ski-liberty-and-the-snow-is-littered-with-the-fallen/9b6b35d2-3710-43f7-af9f-6868712926d5/
I am 183 cm and weight 85 kg and am looking at the Solomon Backland 100 for touring and i can't decide if i should go for 180 or 188. I like to ski fast on grooms. Those skies are mainly for touring so i am not sure about the width either. Should i go 107 maybe or is that going to have some drawback except weight?
I suggest going with the 180. That way they will be more maneuverable in tree areas, and make it easier to climb with. If you're gonna be in deeper snow, the 107 will work just fine. But, if you don't get constant fresh snow, then the 100s will be nice.
I certainly miss longer skis. I just find the shorter skis not as stable when skiing faster on groomers.
Years ago they would have you extend your hand over your head as far as you could and the distance from your wrist to the floor would be the length. crazy long !!
I would love the opportunity to try an old school ski like that to see how different it is. With updated bindings of course...
I'm 5' 10" and 180lbs and an intermediate skier. I'm looking at the Atomic Maverick 86C all mountain twin tip and am between the 161 and 169cm lengths. Which would you recommend?
Go with the 169.
I've watched a few of your videos on picking the right skis, and I love how you account for everyone's preferences and give general guidelines/advice rather than your opinion presented as absolute truth as others would.
I'll be buying my first pair this season but because I tend to do a lot of carving at high speed, while never missing the occasional jump and powder in the trees, I feel like there isn't a single pair of ski to do it all.
I have reasons to go short and thin (I'm lightweight, I like quick turns and good grip) but also to go wider and taller-ish for the speed, powder and occasional freestyle.
Maybe a ~175 (i'm 178cm tall) with 85-95 width pair of "carving/all terrain" as you wisely call them are the skis for me ?
Cheers from France
Hi! Great channel and very informative videos.
Can I take your advice on which skis I should purchase?
It is my 4th year skiing (each year for about a week), and I have been taking a lot of private training. I intend to ski about 20 days this year and following.
Sales people in retail advise me all-mountain as I have a snowboarder husband who likes going a bit off piste. And it turned out i learnt to ski on skis for advanced skiers, so now all mountain Faction Dancer 1X was super comfortable and comparatively easy for me, or probably i just feel for some reason better skiing on more flexible skis..
I just turned intermediary level, so I am confident on wide red and all blue slopes, not confident on narrow icy/bumpy red slopes and can’t take black. I want to progress, don’t like high speed, more of a recreational fun skier who won’t shy away from some deep snow near the piste.
I am now considering Faction Dancer x1, Völkl Yumi 84, Blizzard Black Pearl, Kästle w85d, Armada Reliance ..
Should I go for all-mountain or should I stick to on-piste skis instead for now as I still have a lot to progress on the piste? :) Maybe there is a particular model of skis that you would recommend for me?
Thank you 🙏💙
Thanks for the question...
I say go for a narrower all-mountain ski. You can work on your technique, and still have some off-piste versatility. The Black Pearl 82 comes to mind, or the Head Total Joy. These skis have a decent shape to them, so you can work on your carving skills, but have a bit of rocker, so they will offer easier skiing off piste. Both are easy to ski, but have the power if you want to push them.
@@MountainVibes Hi, thank you so much for your reply! Having tried both piste and off-piste skis, I've also come to the conclusion that probably narrower all-mountain would work. Thank you for your input, very much appreciated!
184cm, 72kg. 20years on ski's. 25y.o. looking voor atomic maverick 95ti. Is the 180cm the right lenght? Thnx for responding
Seems right. You're not that heavy though, so you may need to work the ski a bit more.
@@MountainVibes thank you very much for responding! Guess I'll have to work for it then😅 keep on going, awesome videos!🔥🔥
Great video about width. Thank you for that! but here I'm a little bit confused.
I'm 196cm intermediate-advanced, like to drive fast and usually very aggressive (giant slalom and just slalom) and only on piste.
Is there a noticeable difference between models like Volkl or Salomon?
volkl or salomon are manufacturers. Inside of each company they have many different skis built for very different purposes. So, yes, there is a vast difference.
If you are comparing slalom to slalom or gs to gs… no not really. Should be functionally very similar. Obviously slight differences… but they are both built to similar specifications for competition
I am 6’4” 260lbs. Looking at getting blizzard rustler 10. I am trying to decide between the 180 and 188. The 180 in the store was to the middle of my nose. I ski mostly with my kids 8 and 10 in the Tahoe area. We are starting to get into moguls and trees. I am intermediate to advanced. Do you have a recommendation?
Definitely the 188. Even in that length, the more you lean towards the advanced side of things the less confident I am that it'll feel long enough for you
I agree with Steven, and go with the 188s. You'll be thankful having the extra length when you want to push the skis.
Concur with the above. When in doubt go longer.
I am 5"10" and weigh 240. I bought a set of Blizzard Rustler 10's in 180 because I thought that the extra width and rocker would be an advantage in powder compared to my 98 Bonafides. Was I ever wrong! The binding mounting on the Rustler 10 is absolutely goofy. The bindings on the 10 are 2" further forward than on my Bonafides.(Or any other 180cm ski) They were mounted correctly. This causes the 10's to dive in the powder like a submarine. I skied on them four times and sold them. I am considering Rustler 11's which have a normal mount point. At your height, a 188 is about right.
@@Yoda8945 Why didn't you try to mount them further back. Thanks
im 6'2, 170, just bought 191 Faction Prod 3 2024s
Great video. Question. I am 5’10” and weigh 165 lbs. I currently ski a 180 cm Rustler 9. It is a bit long but to your point, with the added rocker, it works awesome. That said, I am trying to add something a bit quicker on the turns and one that allows me to get thru moguls. I am thinking of adding the Nordica Enforcer 100. Thoughts on length? Would 170 cm be too short?
100 mm will be too wide for what you're looking for. You want to look for something in the high 80s, with more camber in the profile. There's the Volkl Kendo 88, Elan Wingman 86 CTI, the Faction Dancer 1, or the Enforcer 88. All are stiffer skis, that will drive through a turn better than the Rustlers. Look for these skis in the mid 170s.
@@MountainVibes yep
I live in Norway and would consider myself somewhere between intermediate and advanced, perhaps more advanced. (Norwegian standards hehe)
I do a lot of backcountry and bigger mountains but I exercise a lot and would much rather have skis that has a better emphasis on going down rather than up. I'm 189cm tall and weigh in at roughly 97kg. Any height range you would recommend? Looking at replacing my beginner skis I bought 6 years ago... Also, love your videos!
I'll suggest something in the range of 183-190ish (forehead area). That's assuming you're looking at more freeride skis with a bit more of a rocker profile to them.
@@MountainVibes Thanks for the advice. I actually ski more hard snow than powder, and like to ski fast. So I ended up with the Faction Agent 2.0 for my 60/40 purpose (Touring mountain trips / Resorts). Chose the Fritschi Tecton 13 bindings as well. This video helped a lot, so thanks :)
Nice! I have the same skis, but with KingPin M-Werks. Have a great season!
You think 167 is good for me? I’m 5’11 and 160. I would say I’m intermediate level.
Sorry for the late reply... It really depends on the skis you're looking at, and what the profile is. 167 does seem a bit on the short side though.
Maybe just give a size guide for the average skier by height and adjust from there? Very confusing how this is presented.
It amazes me that people still recommend skis based on height instead of weight.
Great video! Thanks for your orientation
im 164 with 169 skis i ride park is it gonn affect me ?
You're just gonna have to work harder throwing the skis around in the park.
@@MountainVibes thank you
185cm 80kg intermediate skier here trying to dip my feet into freestyle kind of skiing, been pondering should I get bent 100 skis on 180 or 188. Due to the nature of the skis im wondering if the 180 is too short and if the 188 is too big
Well, the shorter one will be easier to throw around, and make learning tricks a bit easier. The longer one will be slightly more stable at speed, but more effort to throw around.
Depending on what you value more, go with that option. I wouldn't say one is too short, and the other, too long.
Subscribed for the content and The Hip shirt
Hey man, loved you vid. Looking to get the 1000skies and mostly ski on piste and sometimes in the park I’m around 180-179 tall and was wandering if I should go for the 171cm height or the 178. And I do weigh like 100 kg (gym bulking season now) will probably be in the 85-90 range when I’m cut. Let me know what you think please and thank you
Go 186
What about park skis?
Start at your nose. If you want a jibby, easy spinning ski, stay there. If want a bit more stability for landing larger jumps, go for something around your forehead.
Awesome thanks
I have a 158 and a 172 ...i am 5.9
Width is a huge issue. Over 80mm suck no matter conditions. Wide skis are why people ski so BAD today!
I feel like people who understand Rocker and Camper, and different types of skis, already know what the length should be for them.
Long enough to reach the snow.
65cm for me
Your all over the place in this video. Good info but there is more to it then that.
It’s not length, it’s surface area and no one is doing the test where different weights are set on a ski in fresh light powder to see the point where it starts to sink in the same way snowshoes work. If you are NOT in bottomless powder, then just pick the ski shape best suited for your speed and turn radius. Additionally, swing weight is an important factor for beginners all the way to older aged experts based on how strong your legs are.
4 cm shorter
Brand new to skiing. Went once in 1990, once in 2022, 2 weeks ago and going Saturday. I'm hooked and my wife and boys (13 and 10) love it too. Looking at buying an inexpensive package including Head's e-v2. At 72 under foot it should make turning and carving easier. At 47 yrs old, groomers are likely all I'll ever try and tackle, so versatility isn`t really a priority. I'm 6`0" and 210lbs and don't really plan to fly down hills. I'm trying to decide between 170s or 177s. Two weeks ago I rented 160s and plan on trying 170s this weekend.
Love your content and appreciate all your channel has taught me.
Thanks Scott...
The Head e-V2 are very forgiving, but I find them quite soft. You will benefit from something a tad stiffer for your size. The Nordica Navigator 75, and Blizzard Thunderbird 7.2 are great options. Both come with bindings, are priced well, and will be easy to use. I would go with a length around 174-ish.
@@MountainVibes Appreciate the additional info. I've heard good things about the Soloman Stance 80s.
Slightly wider under foot but hopefully stiffer and not too much ski for a beginner. Although I have learned fairly quickly.