New ski length advice

[Ricky]

I am going to get an NTN setup and have usually skied K2 World Piste 174cm with a 78mm waist. In going to NTN I've been convinced to try a wider ski, and so I'm thinking of getting some Elan Ripstix with 96mm waist, and am wondering whether to get 174cm or 167cm. I was going to stay with 174, but some have told me that with the additional width I should consider the 167cm.

This ski will be mostly for skiing groomed runs at resorts in California. I'm an old guy, 5'9" tall, and weigh about 150 lbs.

I've never skied on skis shorter than 174, and so any advice would be appreciated. I'm not sure what I'd lose or gain by going to 167.

[fisheater]

If you are skiing the groomed why would you go to a wider ski? I’m older as well, but am heavier and I think of 188 cm as short skis. That being said, the subject I’m discussing is fat skis. I’m all for fat skis off piste. On piste I’m not sold.
I’ve always been not in sync with the industry. I never raced or cared to race. My focus when I was younger was steep off piste, lift served skiing. I spent about 7 years as a part time ski instructor, so I heard enough industry pitches on why I should buy the latest ski.
Well I was able to ignore most industry fiction until recently. I had a gentlemen even older than me feed my son the same stuff that comes out of the backside of a bull, about how the rocker makes wider skis turn ohhh so easily. What a load of fertilizer!!! My son had to have twin tips, and I could only find them at 90 mm underfoot. “But Dad the guy said”, was all I heard when I said too fat. Well what happened? Instant regression is what happened. I need to buy a more width appropriate ski this season.
While rocker will make a ski initiate a turn quicker, it cannot overcome a wide waist. I would be more concerned about the waist width, than the length.
That is what I have experienced in my many years of skiing.

[oggopoggo]

It certainly depends how you like to ski. I am the same weight, etc as you and lean towards longer skis but sometimes regret it. Length has a bigger effect than with older skis.

174 is better on the groomers and at speed but new skis do ski longer than your current skis. They will be harder to keep pressed out at your weight if you get into bumps, trees and heavy snow. If you like to go fast all day they are great. My impression is that length is better for someone 20 lbs heavier.

The 167 will do all and more that your old skis could, especially with NTN. You might over rotate until you adjust to the shorter length but that doesn't take long. I find the length the most versatile and check my speed if they get squirrelly.

More than anything the binding will take some getting used to. I use both the Rottefella NTNs and find the "touring" version closer to my old school technique. I also switched out to green springs which gave me more range of motion. Rottefella has a pronounced return to centre which is nice for racing turns but messes with me otherwise. The Outlaw X is much better than the Rottefella for free skiing. It has a centre spring that can be removed if you like it softer than the lowest setting.

[Woodserson]

I agree with Fisheater, if you are staying mostly on the groomed I would look at the Ripstick 86. Keep in mind that Elan's skis are shorter than advertised, or at least they were last year-- a 177 in Elan equaled a 172ish in any other company, just FYI if you are buying them sight-unseen. It was worth going to a store to find this out for me and saved me time and money. Also, shorter skis, easier to get the tip caught up in the boot/binding of your other ski if you have a low stance. I'm 6'2" so mileage here is heavily subjective. But I'm 150lbs and I dont' get the float I want in a 96 waisted ski until I get up to 178cm at least. But if you're going to be on groomers mostly... There are great groomer skis out there right now, fun, poppy, stable, all in the mid-80 waist range. I'd save the high-90 waist for more non-groomed stuff.

Length is tough, I like length with rocker because of easier turn initiation, float in powder without tip-dive, but short is nice too if you like really short turns, it's really a personal preference here. What are you going to be doing 90% of the time?

[Ricky]

This is all good and interesting advice. The reason I've been thinking of a ski about 95mm wide is because shop-people tell me that's on the narrow side now, and most telemark skis are wider than that. I used to have some skis narrower than my current World Pistes (78mm), but I really like the 78mm waist more. I do have some old K2 Anti Piste skis with a 102mm waist, but I seldom have skied it at resorts because I didn't like how they felt on groomers. So I hadn't considered anything narrower than the Elan 96 simply because people at shops seemed to think that was rather narrow.

As for my skiing style, I didn't ski for 12 years, and returned to it last year (I'm now retired and have time to get up to the Sierras). I found my legs aren't what they once were, and I'm confident I'll always be avoiding moguls. I usually ski with my wife (she's on downhill skis) and so I end up doing lots of GS type turns on groomed intermediate slopes. But, when there is decent snow, I do get away from her and like to ski the steeper bowls, and I do go in the trees. Many, many, years ago I took several race clinics around Salt Lake, and used to enter the tele races when they had them around Tahoe. So when skiing with my wife I tend to work at trying to carve my skis (success for depends on many things), but I don't think I ever get going all that fast these days. People say I tend to have a noticeably taller stance than many tele skiers (at least until it gets real steep).

For these skis I've been thinking about something that is a general all-mountain ski. However, I do know that it just isn't right to have only one pair of skis, and so my plan is to give my 3 pairs of 75mm skis to one of my sons, and after skiing these new NTN skis a year, in the Spring to get another pair, mostly for backcountry and off-piste.

Back to what to get at this point. As for width, I'm open to recommendations on narrower skis. I don't live anywhere near a shop, so I'll probably be buying these mail-order, and I don't see many narrower skis sold by places that also sell tele-bindings (so I could get them to mount them). One I've seen is the Atomic Vantage 86mm, but maybe I could have some place special order the Ripstick 86mm.

As for length, it sounds like oggopoggo is saying the Ripstick 167 would be fine for someone my size. But I am concerned with Woodserson saying the Elan's are shorter than other skis.

Thanks for all this good advice!

[Woodserson]

There's nothing wrong with the high-90 waist, I have been on a 97-ish waist for almost two decades and for years it was my only ski, it's a great width. But if you're going to slaying groomers almost all the time and you're coming off a 78mm waisted ski you'd probably enjoy a mid-80 waisted ski more. It's what I go to if I'm on groomers more often than not nowadays and I'm pretty happy on my high-90 waisted skis for crud and pow.

The unknown part of this equation for me is the NTN. It almost seems to me the forces of NTN would nudge you towards maybe a stiffer ski, not necessarily a wider one. I don't know though, maybe oggopoggo or another NTN disciple can chime back in.

I just checked my records, last year I seriously almost bought the Ripstick 86 (it's a GREAT ski btw, the whole Ripstick series are really nice according to my sources) because I wanted a longer mid-80 waisted groomer ski. I currently ski and love the Atomic Vantage 85 but it was in a 172. I wanted some length because I was stuffing the tips in the trees. So I went to the shop and looked at the Ripstick 86 in a 176cm and it was the exact same length as my Atomic Vantage in a 172cm. The Atomic more or less lines up with other ski companies.

Interestingly enough, my K2 Wayback 82's were marked at 174cm but they line up more with 178cm in most other companies. I don't know if that's true with their other lines like the Pistes. I hope this tidbit of info just didn't really scramble your brain!

This (and last) years Atomic Vantage 86 is completely redesigned, it's lighter and significantly stiffer ski than my Vantage 85, just so you know!

In another subject, my big dumb opinion: The shops are influenced by the ski companies who are catering to a clientele that wants to think they are going to be heroes on a hero day. So they want the tools to slay deep pow, the deep pow they spend all year thinking about and hoping they will get it on their average 11 days of skiing per year. It's not about a practical ski, perse, it's about a dream ski. Why do people get giant pickup trucks for the 3 times they tow the boat to the lake but spend the rest of the 362 days taking it to the grocery store? I was an early adopter of fat skis (this was when fat was mid-90s' which is now mid-fat) but a lot of it, like going way above 100mm doesn't make sense anymore, especially for carving sweet lines down sweet groomers. Deep days, ayup, great! Some companies are beginning to turn around a bit and putting together some really nice skis in the mid-80's. It's a really nice compromise, I think. Most of the skis I have are all in the mid-80's now. It's just pleasant without weird angles on my knees when I want to drop a hip and carve it up like smooooooth johnson.

[oggopoggo]

i'm a fan of narrow skis as well but manufacturers these days tend to make them as race carvers which can be overkill for telemark out west. Again there's the question of where and how you ski.

NTN does favour higher mass skis, wide or long and layers of metal and rubber but that's normal for some people. I came from 3 pin XCD and eventually went to a Goldilocks quiver, G3 on light skis, TTS for a heavier setup and NTN for particular conditions.

[phoenix]

I skied the World Piste's for a few seasons, then a pair of K2 Shuksans, also a 78 waist. Both 167's; I'm 5'6'', 125 lbs, and recently reached Medicare age. Both skis were great for me as an all-mountain, and side/backcountry ski for me here in Vermont. they felt short the few times I skied back in the Wasatch with them, as did my 88 waist Work Stinx. These 3 skis, as well as my current K2 Wayback 88's,also 167's, share a turn radius of 17m, give or take an "m".
As a few have mentioned, K2's do run long for their stated length. They explained this in one of their Tele catalogs around 2007 or so. If you had the red World's, yours would be in this category.

I have never skied the Elan's, but have heard only good things about them. People are saying they run short for their stated length: take heed. Those of us who are accustomed to a longer ski definitely notice when a ski starts feeling too short. The upside of shorter is being more nimble, shorter turning radius. Good for tighter or more technical lines. Just need a few more turns on long, let 'em run runs. Deeper snow or crud, I'd prefer going up a length. Same if I were out west, my everyday ski would be longer... and maybe wider.

I don't feel any need or want to go wider than my 88 waisted boards here, with the exception of powder days,and deeper ones at that. Wider boards will also likely want to get up to higher speeds to get them edge to edge in the manner you're used to.
I'm sure the shop folks are correct that "everyone"'s going wider, and mid 90's is on the narrow side. As Woodserson suggests, that's what's selling, and they are, after all, salespeople (no insult there - I sold and tech'd freeheel gear for 25 years or so). Were any of the folks you talked to of a similar skiing background?

Long ramble short: don't go too short. And maybe don't go too wide.

[Andy M]

Ricky, my short answer to your original question is to go with the 174.

But I have a couple of questions and comments, to further complicate matters for you ;- )

Why are you thinking of moving to NTN? Why aren't you considering using your old 75mm set-ups (especially after coming back after not skiing for 12 years)? As has been said in another response, NTN has quite a different feel from 75mm; some like it, some don't. If I were you, I would be hesitant to purchase an NTN set-up w/o trying one out first. The NTN binding feel is so different from 75mm that it may overpower some differences in ski choice, at least until you get used to the binding. OTOH, if you just cruise on groomed runs, it may not make a big difference.

Even if you do go with NTN, going with NTN does not mean you need choose a different type of ski, e.g., a wider ski. Yes, many will say that NTN allows you to control a wider or stiffer ski better, but it is OK to mount NTN bindings on skis less than 90mm ;- )

And if you do go up in ski width, in a downhill-oriented ski, it does not mean that you should go down in length, especially a full size within a given brand. As others have said, it depends on what you are using the ski for, e.g., GS cruising and open bowls vs. tighter trees and steeps. So, if you liked the World Piste in a 174, and you are not changing the type of terrain you ski, I think you should stay with a Ripstix in a 174, especially since it appears Elan runs shorter than the K2. As another response has noted, however, turning radius does make a difference, all other things being relatively equal (i.e., ski length, width, stiffness).

Regarding width: In Colorado (where I am), mid 90s is considered a good all-around width at the ski area, but that includes soft conditions and off-piste. A lot of folks use wider skis (>100), but they suffer on the firmer snow -- and the increased width really can be harder on your knees. If I know it will mostly be firm, I use a ski with a waist less than 90. But for softer conditions at the ski area, I often use a ski with a 98 width.

BTW, I also have a pair of the K2 AntiPistes, and they are a great ski for powder, but, as you experienced, not for firm snow -- I mainly use mine in the backcountry.

On another note relating to stated ski lengths, I have several pairs of K2 skis, and they do measure closer to their stated length than most other brands -- but they are not completely consistent. My 181 K2s measure a bit over 181cm, and my one pair of 174 K2s measure just under 174cm. But as others have said, other brands' skis often measure up to several centimeters short of the stated length.

And, finally, I just read a review of the Elan Ripstix 96, and they sound like a fun ski!

[Ricky]

This is all very helpful advice, and it is giving me a lot to think about. One thing is that I now realize I wish I had another pair of my red World Pistes, since I like them so much. Maybe I'll get lucky and find a really cheap pair in good shape on Craigslist. Since I don't have problems controlling my 174 World Piste's, I am probably going to stick with something in the 174 range.

One reason I want to try NTN is that although I didn't run into many tele skiers on the slopes last year, the ones that I did raved about NTN, saying things like it was the difference between a Ferrari and Pinto. My financial situation is now such that I can afford a new setup (kids gone, house paid for, etc.) and since I just enrolled in Medicare this month, I see no reason to wait several more years. And I'll always have my 75mm if I dislike the NTN.

I try to take very good care of my knees, and I hadn't thought that wider skis may be harder on my knees. I'm now definitely going to think about some narrower skis, and as I said, may end up with a couple of pair. I love the feel of skis carving on GS turns, and the above comments make me think mid-80s width may be good for that.

Thanks again for taking the time to help out!