How short for Glittertind?

[rongon]

Hey Glittertind experts,

I talked a friend of mine into getting a pair of Glittertinds years ago, and he's still enjoying the heck out of them. I guess it's a good ski. I don't have a skinny ski I like. I have an old pair of very stiff Karhu Pegasus, which I don't much like much.

So my question is, how short should I go with the Glittertinds? I'm pretty short and stocky, 5'7" and about 185 lbs. Will the 180 cm be far too short? Would 190 cm be OK? The recommended length is 200 cm, but I know that's for going as fast as you can in a straight line kick-and-glide. I want them for lightweight, fast-moving bushwhacking in the woods, and making turns in soft snow. I have a pair of 3-pin bindings and Asolo Extremes at the ready.

So, does 190 cm sound right? 180?
--

[Rodbelan]

I have a pair of 180 and I am 5'3", 137 pounds... and they feel just right — it is also a matter of taste, of course...

In your case, it seems that 180 is way too short. The camber is pretty soft...

[rongon]

In your case, it seems that 180 is way too short. The camber is pretty soft...

I guess for me, 190 would still be 'skiing them short,' which is what I'm after.
Thanks for the quick reply.

[Johnny]

When I bought mine, recommendation was 200cm. But I wanted to 'ski them short' too, as terrain here is quite technical in very tight trees... So I bought 190's instead. It only took five minutes on snow to deeply regret my decision. I "bought" Mike's 200cm ones and they are much better. But honestly, I should have bought 210's...

Keep in mind that with skinnies, stability comes from length... They are not the best skinnies for turns though...

[Grampatele]

"Stability comes from length"....Yup!.. And in reference to Vectors where you make lots of turns....long skinnies have a different path and it's one of elongation for that stability and in that position making an across the fall line turn is not real practical....Soooo....What we do is head them down and slice through the woods with long arcers and a narrow view of slipping through the trees not a lot of "real turns"....Vectors turn long skinnies ride a narrow trail using everything to bleed speed if necessary...Tip the tip in and use your chest to pound powder and slow down...slight angulation and the skis start the arc but to complete it is to lose speed....and when slow you have problems doing anything on them....GT

[Cannatonic]

my vote would be 200cm. If you weigh 185 that's already on the short side. I'm 175 pounds and I skied different length E99's which are similar, the 200 was quick & turny because my weight was squashing the camber flat. The 210's were best for nordic cruising, 205 a good compromise between XC striding and making turns.

if you don't get them long enough, the camber won't be enough to keep your weight off the scales and they'll be very slow in certain XC conditions, that's my experience, I like shorter lengths in wider skis with deeper sidecut, for my travels around the local parks I choose the 210's most of the time in this type of ski.

[telekarver]

What we do is head them down and slice through the woods with long arcers

In a word:

[The Lovely Bear]

stability comes from length..

[D'hostie]

190 is what I would suggest, but it really depends on what you are aiming to do with them. If you plan on using them in powder, then length will help with the stability and keep them from submarining. If you want to XC tour with them in firm conditions, longer is better, of course. If you want an all-around beater ski, then I think 190 is the right choice for your height.

The camber is actually fairly stiff, so I wouldn't worry too much about 10cm for glide characteristics.

[rongon]

My intended use is off-trail skiing in the woods when there's soft snow, with a lot of hacking through what most sane people would classify as "impassable." Is that an all around beater ski?
I'm thinking of getting the wax-base version, no fishscales. They tend to run better, so maybe the 190 would be slick enough not to bog down when skiing in others' tracks.

I was just looking at the Madshus site, and... NO GLITTERTIND SKIS to be seen! They have a new ski called the BC 55. http://en-us.madshus.com/nordic-skis/bc-55-wax-ski
Its dimensions are the same as the Glittertind (68-55-62), but who knows what they're up to.

Let me ask you all this -- If I'm used to skiing a pair of Rebounds in 179 cm length, and I like them well enough for skiing in others' tracks and going off-trail, how would the Glittertind skis compare if I chose 190 cm for those?
--