length/surface area for full size skis

[destin]

Currently I'm skiing everything on Hagan 130s up to black and double blacks at mammoth. I'd say I have no problems on them at all really except for when really getting up to high speeds. I can't wait to try the Sherpas 130s next season.

Anyway, I'm going to take advantage of some of the deals out there and pick up some full size backcountry skis just to try. They'll mostly be used sierra backcountry for peak bagging / touring.

K2 Backups and Backslashes particularly catch my eye.

http://k2skis.com/skis/backside/backlash
http://k2skis.com/skis/backside/backup

Given what I see I can do on 130 skis (not to mention 110 Condors, even 99cm skis) there certainly seems to be some truth to one not needing such long skis, and I have no desire to ride any longer than necessary.

So following that line of reasoning, I'm wondering about buying full size skis one size down from what I would probably normally get recommened. For my 6 foot 155 lb frame, looks like on these K2 I'd ride about a 174. However I'm tempted to just go with 167s, and see how they are.

I haven't calculated surface area just yet but eyeballing say a 167 Backslash 129/92/115 it looks like it has more surface area than hagan 130 130/90/110 , so I wonder why even go to 174.

So am I completely wrong there, or does it seem like I should be able to step down to a shorter 167 over 174, just judging by length/surface area I'm already using.

thanks for your feedback

[wjeong]

Destin,

I suggest you try renting a ski like the one you are thinking of buying first. One thing you will miss about going to a long ski is the turning radius. The radius will be about twice what the Hagen is. The additional powder float won't be much fun if you can't turn the ski easily when you want to. I love the Hagen, but if you want more float, I suggest you try a Sherpa.

Wendell

[jjue]

generally ski length primarily helps for stability in going fast at ski areas ..
for backcountry riding many folks will down size skis one size as you suggest .. going down in size a bit increases manuverability in backcountry snow .. with little sacrifice in float , and you do not need the extra length for stability in firm snow at high speeds as in the backcountry you will be riding at lower speeds in soft snow most of the time ..

that being said .. i totally agree with wendell .. for me the turnability in backcountry snow is the key to my enjoyment .. a turn radius like the 9m turn radius of the hagan and the 7.5 m turn radius of the sherpa in cruddy backcountry snow and the easy of turning a very short stick in crust and pow , beats short regular skis very time .. even down sizing on a regular ski will give you no where the easy of turning and enjoyment in difficult backcountry snow as skiboards or the one of a kind short hagan specialty ski ... i speak from experience .. i have probably the shortest regular long ski in existance the 143 cm icelantic scout and rode it in all conditions .. it is nice .. but for me the Hagan and the sherpa and now the condor are much , much more fun ....

[destin]

Thanks much for the information. I know so far I've been thrilled beyond measure with skiboards and the shorter hagans, so I think I must be of a similar mind and really enjoy the sharper radius.

I won some bindings and boots in a raffle and good sales on skis right now so I think I'll pick up a pair regardless just so I have. I'll probably go ahead and size down by one for my use, not like I'm heli or even primarily resort skiing and what you mention about generally slower in backcountry is certainly true.

Really hope next years Sherpas come out with production change to natively accept a touring binding.

thanks again

[t21]

just to put my .02 in, i did buy myself a ski(09'Icelantic Shaman) just to have a ski but i kept my Sherpa. I made the mistake of trying to turn my ski like my sherpa on glade runs and hurt myself. although the shaman are known for great skis on tree runs its not as good as the sherpa. I always alternate my ski and skiboard each time i go up the mountain and its just a blast:D

[destin]

Thanks for your feedback, that looks like an interesting ski.

I hope the new Sherpas come out pretty early in the season and do accept touring bindings, really anxious to give them a try.

Actually it occurs to me that in the ski I'm looking at it's available as small as a 161. I don't really see any reason why I couldn't use that instead of 174. That'd give me a fairly agile full size ski, as far as full size skis go, can't think of any disadvantage to dropping to 161 given my intended use....

[Bill]

Destin,

Have you thought about the Icelantic Scout? They are definitely made to accept any conventional ski bindings. Next to the Hagans, thay are probably the most "skiboardlike" ski out there. I have a pair myself and find the ride comparable to our longboard skiboards like the Sherpa and 120.

[destin]

Destin,

Have you thought about the Icelantic Scout? They are definitely made to accept any conventional ski bindings. Next to the Hagans, thay are probably the most "skiboardlike" ski out there. I have a pair myself and find the ride comparable to our longboard skiboards like the Sherpa and 120.

DOH! I've never noticed them before, though I've glanced at Icelantic skis, very nice! Those look like a must have for me, esp while I await the Sherpas.

I got extremely lucky and won some Dynafit TLT FT Z12s and Garmont Radiums. I think I will pair those up on that esp since next years Sherpa status with touring bindings is still in question.

Not exactly a common setup, should be very interesting to see how they work on that board(I use garmont mega rides with fritschi on my hagans). I was somewhat wary of the Dynafits at first but after reading fairly extensively on them feel pretty confident in them for my uses.

Anyway getting off topic, thanks very much for mentioning those, looks like great unique ski.

cheers