Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

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!

172 pow skis too short for me?

profile picture
Canuker
Posts: 4730 - Karma: 165

172 line SFB (2010) 115mm

Im 5'5"

140lbs

advanced

Currently ski 171 S5's as a park ski (so having a 172 pow ski makes me a little nervous)

Going to be doing some touring and pow/tree skiing, not sure how much gnarly BC ill be doing.

Feb 10 2012 7:55PM
0 0
profile picture
Dirty.Harry.
Posts: 1779 - Karma: 351
I would go longer.
Feb 10 2012 8:13PM
0 0
profile picture
rudager
Posts: 11335 - Karma: 4,626
I'd go longer for sure.

Try something in the high 170s or in the 180s
Feb 10 2012 8:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Stose
Posts: 7109 - Karma: 4,123
172 wouldnt be terrible if your 5'5 but i would want something closer to 182 or 179
Feb 11 2012 12:08AM
0 0
profile picture
oil.
Posts: 2255 - Karma: 1,254
really? you guys think they are too long?
when i was racing in my teens i was 5'6" and my gs skis were 171. they reached a little over my head. is there something with pow skis that make them ski shorter with the rocker and everything?
sorry for the threadjack though... ive never owned 'powder' skis
Feb 11 2012 12:17AM
0 0
profile picture
rudager
Posts: 11335 - Karma: 4,626
I think they'd be too short.

Nothing feels better than being on a nice long powder ski and just being able to blast everything without worrying about stability.

Racing lengths are a little different, same with park skis.

Rocker does make it ride short, which usually makes one want to go a length up.

I've used these examples quite a bit lately, but it's good proof.

I know a kid who is about 5'8", and is skiing on 192 Salomon Rocker 2s.
I also know a girl who is 5'0", and is on 168 Moment Night Trains.
Both these skis go above their heads, and they love it.

Feb 11 2012 12:22AM
0 0
profile picture
Shlobby
Posts: 1665 - Karma: 303
With the rocker they ski shorter because the amount of ski thats in contact with the snow is far less than a ski with normal camber or no camber at all
Feb 11 2012 12:27AM
0 0
profile picture
Canuker
Posts: 4730 - Karma: 165
yeah that's what I was thinking too. Idealy I was looking for something 175-185. The only reason I was asking was because I found a really good deal here on NS for 172 sfb's with sth binders for $350...pretty hard to pass up.
Feb 11 2012 2:11AM
0 0
profile picture
Canuker
Posts: 4730 - Karma: 165
I'm also looking at 175 klint kryptos (rocker camber rocker, 118mm) but those seem also a little short
Feb 11 2012 2:13AM
0 0
profile picture
Twig
Posts: 6420 - Karma: 60,334
172 Bacons will be too short. Normally I'd say 172 is fine for your height but Bacons measure really short. The 182 was more like 178-9.
I ride this year's 178s and they are actually 173.5.
Feb 11 2012 3:24AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)