It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
I have a metric tape measure, (so you don't think I screwed up the cm/inch conversion) and my 169's measure 169cm from tip to tip. So it looks like they are using a 'true' length, not running lenght. The running lenght is actually around 150.
Also they are 4 cm shorter than my 174 Rossignols, which I know measure 'True'.
Just an FYI..
I have heard alot of people here say that the k2 sizes aren't the same as other brands.
my pe's are 179 from tip to tip, but if you measure them like other companys via bottom they are longer... also my pe's are about 119mm from the tip.. weird..
just read this:The 113 is measured from the FCP
FCP: Forward Contact Point. This point is the farthest forward that still is in contact with the snow. Not necessarily the widest part of the ski, but the point from which sidecut is measured
how can short skis not be happenin when there easier to ride on the mountain and easier to handle in the air and also more things than height factor into ski length
^No better way for a newbie to make everyone think he's cool than to rip on skiboarders... next tell us about that cool new game Dnaspin, that seems to be popular.
i have 159 PE's and i'm short, it doesn't cramp your style, i actually think that wicked long skis look like shit unless your really tall, and it doesn't make tricks harder just cuz your skis are longer, i skiied my friends 176 BC's and i could do the same tricks on those as i could on mine.