Ski Length Recommendations

[Grace Elventhing]

Hello - My first time posting here.

I plan to buy powder skis this winter. The finalists at this point are the Volkl Kiku and the K2 Phat Luvs, two skis that were given high marks in the realskiers reviews. Of course, I will be demoing before buying, but I'd like to know what lengths folks on this board would suggest & why.

Here's my info: 5'5", 145 lbs, not too aggressive but ski pretty much the whole mountain (Utah&Wyoming), stay mostly off-piste, avoid air

Kikus: Dimensions 133/105/124, Lengths 168, 176

Phat Luvs: Dimensions 135/102/121, Lengths 146, 153, 160, 167

Which do you recommend?

Thank you!

Grace E.

[Mac]

I'm not a real fan of super wide skis, so I'm probably not the best one to be offering advice, but here's my two cents worth. People that ski off piste a lot generally are looking for float. Hence the wide waist. They also tend to favor a slightly longer ski, simply for more surface area. This is great if you tend to ski faster in deep snow on wide open slopes. This type of ski doesn't have a lot of sidecut and doesn't want to turn all that much, which is fine if that's the type of skiing that you do. But they give up a lot of manuverability in trees, bumps, and other tight spaces. The 167 and 168's will be slightly higher than your head height, which would be fine if your type of skiing is more the former than the latter. But I'm thinking that a ski with the dimensions that you stated will have so much surface area simply because of the width, that the extra length would almost seem unnecessary, and certainly limit the versatility of the skis, not to mention the effort required to turn them at slower speeds. You didn't say if these were going to be your only skis, or whether these were going to be a suppliment to your quiver. But if they are going to be your only pair, your everyday boards regardless of what the conditions had to offer, I think I would tend to error on the shorter side, say something in the 160-165 length.

[Grace Elventhing]

I'm not a real fan of super wide skis, so I'm probably not the best one to be offering advice, but here's my two cents worth. People that ski off piste a lot generally are looking for float. Hence the wide waist. They also tend to favor a slightly longer ski, simply for more surface area. This is great if you tend to ski faster in deep snow on wide open slopes. This type of ski doesn't have a lot of sidecut and doesn't want to turn all that much, which is fine if that's the type of skiing that you do. But they give up a lot of manuverability in trees, bumps, and other tight spaces. The 167 and 168's will be slightly higher than your head height, which would be fine if your type of skiing is more the former than the latter. But I'm thinking that a ski with the dimensions that you stated will have so much surface area simply because of the width, that the extra length would almost seem unnecessary, and certainly limit the versatility of the skis, not to mention the effort required to turn them at slower speeds. You didn't say if these were going to be your only skis, or whether these were going to be a suppliment to your quiver. But if they are going to be your only pair, your everyday boards regardless of what the conditions had to offer, I think I would tend to error on the shorter side, say something in the 160-165 length.

Thanks for your response, Mac. You bring up a good point about the tradeoff between better maneuverability in tight quarters versus speed in the wide open. I'm not a new school/3 turns to get down the mountain type of skier - in powder especially I like making LOTS of turns, doing the dolphin thing -- not fast at all, really. To answer your question, these skis will be used strictly for powder days and heliskiing, but that usually involves both tight trees and open spaces. Even as part of a quiver, the shorter lengths may be a better choice. I'll consider this when I'm demoing. Thanks again.

-Grace E.

[4Slide]

I'd say 160 for the Phat Luvs as well. (No direct thoughts on the Volkls, sorry.) Longer would give you more fore-aft stability but it doesnt sound needed given your skiing style and intended use which does not involve very high speeds, bumpy runouts and so forth. You might try 153s as well to compare. I'd expect you'd find them too squirrelly overall in 153, but you never know. Enjoy!

[Magnus_CA]

Grace...not sure if you're still looking but consider the Line Pandora in a 162. My wife found them leaps and bounds better than the Phat Luv.