Is there a difference for ski length with park skis compared to freeride?

178 will feel way to short for you like youre on dinner plates. probably go with the 184. Going for shorter park ski makes sense since you don't need as much stability and want lower swing weight instead.

178's will feel silly especially after skiing big rig skis like that. I'd go 184's you'll appreciate the stability especially at your height. The world won't implode if you go 178 or anything but matej's like 5'5" lol

189 wets.

191 to 184 is a massive jump especially if your coming from a hard charger to a park ski. You should be more worried about 184 feeling too short. 178 is not even an option

NSFreddyYang69189 wets.

And the list goes on
@NSCrip69
@NSMostWanted
@weatcoast
@Jimmer369

184 is probably the shortest option you should consider. If it's a full camber ski you could size down a little bit more, but for nearly every rocker/camber/rocker park ski out rn (which is most of them), you're firmly in the mid 180s.

PartyBullshiitAnd the list goes on
@NSCrip69
@NSMostWanted
@weatcoast
@Jimmer369

Funny how he does not even try to differentiate and choose a name that is at least a bit different...

Definitely go 184 at least. When I was young I learned park on 171, then 178, then tried to get longer and longer. I now freeride 191 and park skis are 185, I am 5'10̷. Park skis are centre mounted, which makes them feel really short getting off of a good, rear mounted, stiff freeride ski. I like park skis that are long, stiff, and heavy because I like support. You will regret 178.

BLandz191 to 184 is a massive jump especially if your coming from a hard charger to a park ski. You should be more worried about 184 feeling too short. 178 is not even an option

👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

i hypothesize that the ideas about ski length have mostly not been adapted to accommodate the adoption of twin tips, early rise and center mounting. instead, they're just an evolution of the sizing metrics used when 'parabolic' skis became the standard 30 years ago. if you're on a ski with a proper twin tail that will be center mounted, you can go quite a bit longer than the manufacturer's 'suggested' ski length.

for example, when i started skiing way way back in the day, before center mounting was even a thing, i was put onto a 165 park ski, which is close to my actual height. today, if i were on a 165 park ski with a center mount, they would be ludicrously short. a 175, center mounted ski has a shorter nose than a 165 with a traditional mount. as a result, i've got various park skis that are 175, 176, 177, 178, 181, 182 and 185 in length. i use them for slightly different things but they all feel appropriate in length.

so for someone who is >190 in height, you should absolutely not consider a 178, especially as most park skis now have a bit of rocker or early rise built into the tip and tail, which makes them ski even shorter.

a little over head is good anything under 180 feel like ski blades to me

191 Jeff 100.