saltyant

So you thought I was an online troll during the first 3, but number 4 convinced you?

Lol just know that I'm just having fun you with guys. If only you knew how i laugh hysterically at my myself while I type half the shit I do on here. People in RL probably think that's crazy. But I'm not sure I can quit yet because Steeze is such a huge fan of my posting style.

Thanks guys. There are too many posts to reply to due to my ridiculous level of popularity on this forum. But my overall conclusion is after 9 runs, I am skiing excellent on the 170s. I am honestly at a major loss here for what the big frickin' deal is. But whatever, it's all good. CB is amazing today and not too crowded. If the speed lifts get packed I'll hit some fixed grip lifts. I think I'm coming back tomorrow to ski 7:30 to close and get some Chinese in the middle. Hope everyone enjoyed their day at blue.

Thanks enjorales. Very insightful post and lol at the lift line writeup. Fine, I will buy you guys a 4 pack of beer next time I ski at Blue. That would be sooner if I had a certain pass. Now I'm in my car near the Stevenson lift and booted up, ready to go test these 170s out for their inaugural run.

Thanks. Wow what a relief.

No one asked me before locking one of my rad Camelback threads......

Thanks GSS but I'm stuck skiing Camelback today (see above hints) so I wont see you and I need 177cm's before I even boot up today. Do you think the shop will be able to stretch them out for me? I appreciate your offer and if the shop cant do it what's your favorite brand of root beer?

Ok have fun. Too bad I cant ski the true mountain with a buddy today.

Still in bed. I lost my motivation for first tracks after this devastating blow last night.

so steeze what issues will i encounter today at Camelback from having short short skis?

Ok, if i get a blue pass i may have to ski incognito to hide from all the haters.

This is truth! Camelback's a top contender.

Well the overwhelming consense is that 170 is too short. I made a rookie mistake and bought the brand first, and length second. Online guidance states that these should be reversed. Oh well. This is spilled milk at this point and I am going to have to deal with the 7 cm deficit for the next several seasons. My focus on ski selection was primarily on brand and stiffness, and I underemphasized the importance of length. I took width into greater consideration and found 81 to work well. Is my life over now? Hopefully not. My guess is the resulting impact based on my "low level intermediate" skiing ability will be marginal, and the major issue will be the ridicule on this forum for weeks to come.

No one even commented on or liked my framed Camelback trail map. I put so much effort into finding the perfect frame for it.

Ok. Maybe one day I'll upgrade to long and fat skis, if my abilities improve. I skied the busiest weekends all season long last year at CB and had no collisions. Now that I'm skiing blues and blacks, I can get away from the ridiculously overcrowded green trails.

Right Atomic. But the truth is that I'm absolutely nowhere near your guys' ability. So I'll run these 170cm skis for a few years, and if I outgrow them I'll upgrade again. Advice I picked up somewhere is that the ski length should be somewhere between your chin and the top of your head; unless you're an advanced or expert skier, which I am not. My newly purchased 170's fall almost exactly in the middle of that range. Moving from beginner to intermediate skis, I immediately noticed a large difference in the effort it takes to turn. But I felt that at this point, the level of effort vs. stability trade-off seemed to work well for me on 170s. No, I did not test longer skis when I could have, but I chose to try 3 different brands instead of 3 different lengths.

Toast suggested snowblades from the beginning so I averaged those in to all your other suggestions for length. Case closed. Ski selection process complete, thanks everyone. Admins, you may now lock this thread and preserve it for posterity and future generations.

What do you mean by this is a very GS board in terms of 170 vs 177? I am agonizing over this potentially wrong decision and having buyer's remorse. This is another time when I'll Google appropriate ski lengths obsessively to justify my purchase, and then decide I chose poorly, but will enjoy the skis anyway. I am not sure where I'm getting a pass next season.

Thanks. But what more of a difference can they make for me personally, if I found the 170s to perfectly cut through all the slop and ice last week? I don't think the skis could have been anymore stable, and I think they're the appropriate balance between stability and ease of making turns..

I am almost certain that Atomic told me to get something "170-175cm long, 80-90mm width". So I found a great deal within those ranges.

I wanted to see if you guys would notice. Jeeze, I didn't mean to trigger you. =P Thanks. I'm a little upset right now, but I think I'll live. I agonized a long time over buying a 56 cm vs. a 58 cm bike frame length. I have both now and I don't notice a difference whatsoever. So I based skis on the same logic. Whether it's ideal or not, it's too late now. All I know is that I demoed the 170's, skied like a bad-ass, and bought the same ones I demoed. You guys provided great advice on what type of ski I should get, so thanks a lot!

Camelback was asking $899. That price was non-negotiable. Hell no.

No. Ski Valley in Danville for $599. They mounted the bindings and waxed them.

Ok, honestly, how much of a difference is 170 vs 177 going to make? And I'm not being smart, I am asking seriously. I loved the 170s when I demoed them so that's what I went with.

Thanks Steeze. Shadows practically ruined my stoke level. I loved the ones I demoed and these are the exact same specifications. I bought both my Elans and RTMs from the same exact shop, a reputable dealer, and they would have never sold me 170's if they thought they were wrong for me. Otherwise if you guys think it's that big of a deal I can go argue with the guy and demand a refund.