/ Advice on best ski length

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Conwil - on 04 Nov 2013
Am about to purchase a new set of skis for day tours and hut to hut alpine touring
Looking at K2 Waybacks using Dynafit bindings but had different advice on best length to go for so would welcome comments
Barefoot I'm 169cm tall and weigh 71 kilos
Would appreciate recommendation from someone with first hand experience of these particular skis
Thanks
HeMa on 04 Nov 2013
In reply to Conwil:

depends on what ya look for them. for skinny miserystix to fly up the hill, go short and suffer on the way down unless you're a skiing superhero or the snow is perfect.

other options is to go longer for stability, but with weight penalty.

considering the waybacks are more in the miserystix category, your own length is a good staring point (as you seem to be also average built).
top cat - on 04 Nov 2013
In reply to Conwil:

Your skis have no idea how tall you are, they only respond to your skiing weight [ie you+clothes+sack and kit]..............
RockShock on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to HeMa:
> (In reply to Conwil)
>
> depends on what ya look for them. for skinny miserystix to fly up the hill, go short and suffer on the way down unless you're a skiing superhero or the snow is perfect.
>
> other options is to go longer for stability, but with weight penalty.
>
> considering the waybacks are more in the miserystix category, your own length is a good staring point (as you seem to be also average built).

Ehh, I wouldn't call the 1.5kg per ski a "miserystix"...

To the OP:

Which bindings exactly are you looking at? Which boots are you going to use?

Cheers
RS
Edradour - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to Conwil:

When I bought my touring setup I did quite a lot of reading on this and ended up getting some skis that are a bit longer than my piste skis (178 compared to 168). The thinking behind this was for a better experience in variable snow conditions and because I am heavier in touring gear (with pack etc) than I am on the piste. I reasoned that if I was going to crumble because of the weight of 10cm etc of ski then I should probably do some more training anyway. Have done about 60 days touring on them now and they're great.

I don't have K2 waybacks so can't offer any direct advice on those I'm afraid.
rogersavery - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to top cat:
>Your skis have no idea how tall you are, they only respond to your skiing weight [ie you+clothes+sack and kit]..............

AND how far above the ski that weight is distributed, so yes height does matter
Gael Force - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to top cat: A slightly strange comment as Roger has pointed out above, obviously you know how long your skis are, the longer they are the harder they are to ski with,unless they are much too short for you, so if you buy skis which are far too long for your ability you will struggle. For example my girlfriend is just over five foot three and slim so my skis, 180 cm and 98 underfoot would be too long for her, and she is not a good skier. However by your argument above if she was grossly overweight and the same weight as me then she could use my skis which in fact she would be completely unable to ski with as she actually uses 150 cm skis.
daWalt on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to rogersavery:
> AND how far above the ski that weight is distributed,

isn't that adjustable?
bend ze knees....
Ben Briggs - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to Conwil: In reply to Conwil: haven't skied them but i would say if you want to ski them harder and are a strong skier then get the 174 as it wil be more stable at speed but if you are more about the up hill and not bothered about skiing at high speed then go for the 167 as it's lighter and will be more suited to short radius turns.

What have you used previously and how do you ski?
HeMa on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to RockShock:
> (In reply to HeMa)
> Ehh, I wouldn't call the 1.5kg per ski a "miserystix"...

Well, it's a heavy miserystix... Heavy on the uphill and still too narriow to really enjoy the down portion.
Mike7 on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to HeMa:

Too narrow at 88 underfoot?

I've toured in the UK and Alps with my Demon Flame Pros, and still enjoyed the down even in often less than perfect snow. They're only 77 underfoot and I'm not a skiing ninja.

I appreciate fatter skis can be fun, but they also have their limitations and imo anything over 75 is still useful enough to enjoy the down (unless it's Japan or Utah).
earlsdonwhu - on 05 Nov 2013
In reply to Conwil: I have the Waybacks with Dynafits in 174. I am 80kg and 5ft 10 but getting older and lack a bit of oomph!! I love them as they seem to offer me that compromiser between weight/ performance/ up and downhill. Seemed good in powder and stiff enough in crud or ice.

I also have some Coombacks in 181 with Fritschi Freerides........ lots heavier but better suited to day tours and in bounds off piste
HeMa on 06 Nov 2013
In reply to Mike7:
> (In reply to HeMa)
>
> Too narrow at 88 underfoot?

Anything under 100 is a miserystix...

That said, even miserystix'es can be fun. I always have a ball, when I take out my Madshus Voss'es.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Conwil - on 08 Nov 2013
In reply to earlsdonwhu:
Thanks for the reply and thanks to Ben and Edradour

Been using a pair of 175 Black Diamond Voodoos 123/88/118 with Dynafit TLT Vertical ST and Scarpa Spirit 4's

Have never been totally happy with these on the downhill and not as strong on the downhill as I once was, so I think Ben's post has probably given me my answer.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.