Shorter skis

souldrive wrote:Not sure how much this affects the normal skier,

but i'm 6ft and skied on 163s last year. I went for head monsters which are to date the best skis i've ever used but i just couldn't get on with them.

I think the boot size (10) meant that I was too near the back of the ski and thus didn't ever really feel smooth when turning (compared to the 177s I've used.

So does boot size have a baring on your lengh selection??

It certainly could. Because ski binding location has in the past been fixed and the position of the binding on the ski is compromise for all conditions.
Most of the rail system bindings offer some adjustability in terms of binding position on the ski (unless you have big feet). Provided you have the adjustment available, you would be surprised at the improvement in performance and ease of use obtained by moving the binding. Foreward about 20mm for hard pack and backward a similar amount for powder.


Trencher

Trencher has a point, but it would be much simpler for Souldrive to buy a ski of the correct length, and not bother with a rail system as they weigh a ton.
I have Railflex on my Monsters, by the end of a ski day, the weight is very noticable, and it's all down to the rail system. I would buy another pair of Monsters, next time with a flat binding.

My OH uses Dynastar Legend 8000 with a flat binding (Rossi Scratch) mounted rearward for powder. He loved them off piste immediately. The 1st winter he thought they were a little like supertankers on piste, but got over it quite quickly!

bandit wrote:

souldrive wrote:Bandit,

Think you're right, cheers, I'm on 170s this year!!

Wotcha got then...did Santa call by your place :D

I treated myself to some cheapens off the bay, Rossignol Actys A100 170cm. Intermediate ski but should be ok for what I'm after, and only £62 brand new with bindings and a bag make em that little bit better!!

I keep trying to find some cheap monsters on the bay but they're pretty scarce.

bandit wrote:Trencher has a point, but it would be much simpler for Souldrive to buy a ski of the correct length, and not bother with a rail system as they weigh a ton.

That's true if you can take multiple pairs of skis. If you can't and you end up with no powder, icey moguls, but great corderoy, and all you have with you is a pair of skis set up for powder, you might as well rent skis for the week.

Trencher

Trencher wrote:

bandit wrote:Trencher has a point, but it would be much simpler for Souldrive to buy a ski of the correct length, and not bother with a rail system as they weigh a ton.

That's true if you can take multiple pairs of skis. If you can't and you end up with no powder, icey moguls, but great corderoy, and all you have with you is a pair of skis set up for powder, you might as well rent skis for the week.

Trencher

Trencher, we're european skiers. We ski everything on anything :D

Here's a good example, ise, well off piste in spring snow, usig his Stockli Laser SC Masters' slalom skis....



He had a good time :D

Chuffy

How did you get on with those Revel 8's ?
Have a pair of Head Big Easy 94's & am debating whether to 'upgrade' to something like Revel 8's ............although the heads do have a wood core, a decent releasable binding so aren't totally rubbish.

LJ

As Chuffy says, the short skiboards ( or whatever you want to call them) make carving and everything else 'easy' compared to 'traditional' length skis. Admittedly they are not going to be as stable at high speed but most likely stable enough for most users. Also, not having to mess with poles makes life loads easier.

Good luck

PS; if anyone wants to take issue with my post, please be gentle as I,m a j2ski forum newbie

I would take issue but I will leave it because you are new, welcome :wink:

bandit wrote:
Trencher, we're european skiers. We ski everything on anything :D

Here's a good example, ise, well off piste in spring snow, usig his Stockli Laser SC Masters' slalom skis....

No need for wide skis then :lol:

Trencher