Telemark Talk / Telemark Tips Forum

For 215lb'er intermediate on groomers/resort skiing?

These... https://www.rossignol.com/ca-en/rossign ... 01000.html

...or similar.

Those (or most modern 90-95mm waist skis) would work. Both lengths would work, it just depends on your preference. If you are interested in skiing bumps, 177 maybe.

Yah, no bumps for me, but I like wandering off the groomed looking for soft in the trees and the like.
So I've always figured 177/8 was my length for maneuverability but someone was citing more for/aft stability the longer the ski.
So I was wondering, how much longer does 6 or 7cms ski, anyways?

twopass wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2024 3:25 pm

Yah, no bumps for me, but I like wandering off the groomed looking for soft in the trees and the like.
So I've always figured 177/8 was my length for maneuverability but someone was citing more for/aft stability the longer the ski.
So I was wondering, how much longer does 6 or 7cms ski, anyways?

6 or 7 cm won't make much difference on the groomers. It will be more noticeable in trees and powder. I'm out in Utah, so my conditions may be different. I'm 150 pounds and my go-to skis for the application you describe are my Rustler 10's at 102mm underfoot in a 172cm length. So, at 215 lbs. you could definitely go longer, but my inclination might be to stay short and get your float through more width.

While some folks say it has no effect, I figure height into the guesstimate in addition to weight. Definetely has a relation to the fore/aft stability, amongst other nuances. What's your height?
Just to add some numbers, I'm 5'6", 135 or so, have skied 170ish skis for many years; with rockered skis I'm finding I'd like to go for 177's. I usually go up one size length from length suggested for my weight, I am an "advanced' level skier so there's that.

I think activity of the binding makes a bigger difference. I’m 5’ 9”, 190 lbs without any gear. I’m old, used to long skis even downhill. I went back to the ski hill last year, as 20 years without reps at the ski hill was really showing in my technique, plus being 20 years older. However I wanted a heavier boot than my T-4. I also wanted to try TTS.
I went to Fey Brothers for my resort ski. I just wanted to get the flex right in a wood core ski with some dampening. They recommended a 177 cm. The shortest I have ever skied as a proficient skier is 187 cm.
I have no problem with the 177 cm, the biggest difference is the activity of the Transit in the most neutral position. I’m pretty centered on my skis regardless of steepness, but an active binding makes a difference.
As an experiment I swapped out the ancient blue cartridges on my 3-pin hardwires with some Switchback X2 cartridges. There was absolutely no detectable to me activity with the increased spring tension. However the swap was worth it just for the day and night difference in skating efficiency. The old blue cartridge didn’t skate well at all.
I think a more active binding will make all the difference with a shorter ski.

phoenix wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 20, 2024 6:37 pm

While some folks say it has no effect, I figure height into the guesstimate in addition to weight. Definetely has a relation to the fore/aft stability, amongst other nuances. What's your height?

I'm 5' 8" ... and slowly shrinking.....

184 back in stock..hmmmmm.