by Luke Koppa
We get a lot of questions that go something like this:
“Hi, the new [insert name of a particular ski] sounds exactly like what I’m looking for! I’m 5’9”, 180 lbs – should I go with the 184 cm or 177 cm length?”
There’s a good reason we get asked this a lot, because there is no truly reliable formula to determine what length of a given ski will unquestionably work best for you.
With so many different ski designs on the market, the correct ski size for you can differ quite a bit from one ski to the next. And it’s an important choice to get right, since the size of a ski plays a big part in affecting how a ski is going to perform.
(If you’re just starting out, and you’re unsure what kind of ski to look for in the first place, you might want to check out our 101 articles, including our Snowsports Glossary and Beginner Skis Guide, before continuing here.)
The vast majority of skis no longer all have the same straight shape and fully cambered profile these days, so no chart can accurately tell you your specific, ideal ski length for every given ski based on a static measurement like your height or your weight.
One graph from an online retailer suggests that at my height (5”8” / 173 cm) I should consider skis between the lengths of 160 cm and 180 cm. That’s a huge range. While I’m sure I could ski a 160 cm ski and be somewhat ok, I’ve preferred longer skis (of all widths / designs) than that since I was about 15 years old (and the same height), and the chart doesn’t explain why I might opt for a longer or shorter length in a given case.
So in this GEAR 101 article, rather than just throwing a graph at you, we’ll present some important factors to consider when you’re in the market for a new ski and need to choose a particular size. This information will be especially helpful if you find yourself stuck between two lengths of a given ski, unsure whether you should (or why you would) go with the longer or the shorter size.
The topics mentioned below mainly have to do with the design and performance of skis that we discuss in our reviews, and as will become clear, the topics are all related — there will be some overlap in thinking / principles from one to the next.
[Note: Will Brown and Jonathan Ellsworth worked up the original version of this article several years ago, and we continue to revisit it and revise it when we see fit to do so.]
Where to Begin? Establishing a Baseline
We’ve just said there is no-hard-and-fast rule to determine what length of a particular ski you should go with, since there are now plenty of reasons a person might opt for a ski that’s longer or shorter than they may have, say, 10 years ago.
If we’re talking about a traditional, fully-cambered ski, since the introduction of parabolic skis (i.e., skis with wide tips and tails and not-super-long sidecut radii), the general rule has been that your ski should reach somewhere between your chin and the top of your head; a beginning skier was told to go with a ski length that leaves the ski tip closer to their chin, and a more experienced skier would typically go with a ski that reaches closer to the top of their head.
There is still some validity to that system today in that it ought to steer someone away from purchasing at the ski swap either a pair of snowblades or a 220 cm world cup downhill ski. But again, the rule assumes that you’re looking at a traditional, non-rockered, fully-cambered ski from about 1995. And if you’re shopping for an all-mountain ski these days, you’re probably not looking at many skis that are truly non-rockered / fully-cambered (dedicated carving / groomer skis being the main exceptions). And even if you are, there are a number of good reasons why you might go with a ski longer or shorter than this older, overly simplistic system would suggest.
Rocker / Camber Profile, Running Length, & Effective Edge
Generally speaking, running length refers to the portion of a ski’s edge that’s in contact with the snow when you’re standing on the ski. In a sense, it’s a measure of how functionally “long” the ski is (i.e., how much of the ski is actually in contact with the snow when skied bases flat). Some people call this effective edge, others call it by some other name, but here, we’re just referring to it as “running length.”
On a ski with “rocker” or “early rise” in its tip and/or tail, the edge (along with the rest of the ski) comes off the snow sooner than it would on a traditionally cambered ski of the same length
(See our Rocker 101: A Brief History of Rocker + A Glossary of Terms for a more in-depth discussion of rocker and ski camber profiles.)
As a result, the total running length of a rockered ski is shorter than that of the ski with a traditionally cambered profile.
Caveat: technically, the running length of any ski is variable. For example, when you get a ski into soft conditions, some of the edge and surface area on the rockered portion(s) of the ski will come in contact with the snow surface, lengthening the running length. And when laying a rockered ski over into a carve on firm snow, depending on the ski’s sidecut and the curve of the rocker in the ski, you may engage more of its edge than is in play when it’s gliding with its bases flat on the snow.
The other term usually used to describe how “long” a ski feels is its “effective edge.” This is often used interchangeably with “running length,” though they’re different and, again, many people seem to disagree about what each of those terms actually means. For us, the effective edge refers to the distance between the widest point at a ski’s tip and the widest point at its tail, so it’s determined by the sidecut / shape of the ski, whereas the running length is determined by the rocker profile of the ski. So a ski with very tapered tips and tails (i.e., the widest points of its tips and tails are closer to the middle of the ski, not at the very ends) will have a shorter effective edge. That said, the effective edge and running length are often correlated since many skis with short effective edges also have deep rocker lines and therefore short running lengths, though there are always some exceptions. What you should really focus on is the combination of (1) rocker and (2) taper — the more tapered and more rockered a ski is, the shorter it will feel compared to a minimally rockered, minimally tapered ski.
In general, a rockered ski will behave like a shorter ski on hard snow compared to a non-rockered ski of the same length, because you are skiing on a shorter edge as if you were on a shorter ski. So if you’re used to skiing a fully cambered ski that is, for example, 178 cm long, but the new very-rockered ski you’re looking at comes in a 178 cm length and a 184 cm length, you’re probably going to be better off going with the longer 184 cm length. The 184s will feel more like your old 178s on snow, given their reduced running length.
Examples: I’m happy skiing the mostly-cambered and minimally tapered 177 cm Blizzard Brahma 88, and I’m equally happy skiing the very tip and tail rockered and fairly tapered 190 cm Moment Wildcat.
In sum, the amount of rocker / running length and taper / effective edge that a ski has is very important to consider in conjunction with the actual material length of the ski. If you’ve been skiing a fully cambered pair of skis for years, and you’re looking at a new pair that has some tip and/or tail rocker, think about the running length of those skis as well as their material length.
Your fully cambered skis may have reached the bridge of your nose, and these new rockered ones may reach over your head. But if you size your new, rockered skis the same way you sized your old, fully cambered skis, your new skis will very likely feel too short, twitchy, and unstable. And of course, all of this goes the other way, too; if you’ve been skiing a pair of heavily rockered, tapered skis and are now looking to add a minimally rockered, minimally tapered carving ski to your quiver, you’re probably going to want to size down, relative to your previous skis.
Stability & Instability
Another factor to consider when deciding on what length of a ski to go with is how stable and planted it feels on snow. How stable, “damp,” and composed at speed a ski feels are things that we always cover in our reviews. If a ski is especially stable and exhibits good damping — i.e., it does not get twitchy or feel harsh at speed or in bumped-up conditions — the more appropriate it might be to opt for a shorter length than you otherwise would.
Stability can serve to counteract the sometimes de-stabilizing effects of a rockered ski’s shorter effective edge.
Conversely, if a ski isn’t especially stable at speed (maybe it’s quite light, has a lot of sidecut, and/or is super soft), but you’d like to get as much high-speed stability out of the design as possible, you might consider going for a longer length. If you’re looking at different lengths of the same ski model, the longer version is generally going to be more stable at high speeds, while the shorter length is generally going to be easier to ski at slower speeds.
- A Note on the Insufficiency of the English Language – “Damping” vs. “Damp”
For the grammar police out there, we are aware that “damp” means that something is “not dry,” while an object (like a ski, for example) might have good damping properties or be “well damped” — i.e., the ski is not twitchy or reactive, but smooth, stable, and … damp.
Language is a tool to be used, not a system of unbendable rules. That’s why dictionaries have second, third, and fourth definitions of words. So we use the word ‘damp’ to mean planted / not twitchy / not reactive / not “harsh.” We do not mean that the ski is kinda wet.
And since it’s more intuitive to many people, we’ll often say skis that feel quite damp offer “good suspension” — i.e., they don’t transmit the full impact / force of every little bump in the snow directly to your body. Instead, they feel smoother, more “plush,” more “muted,” and less “harsh.” For the mountain bikers out there, think of riding a hardtail down a rock garden, vs. riding that same section on a full-suspension downhill bike.
Flex Pattern
While there are certainly exceptions to this statement, in general, the stiffer and heavier a ski is, the more stable it will be in rough conditions at speed, but the more demanding it will be in moguls and tight spots.
So if you’re considering a pretty stiff ski, but you are planning to ski a lot of moguls, opting for a shorter length might be a good move; in a shorter length, a stout ski will be easier to manage, yet will still provide some stability when you’re going fast.
And at the same time, a ski that’s particularly soft will often be more forgiving and less punishing than a stiff ski, so you may want to go for a longer length than you’re used to for the sake of gaining more stability at speed.
However, no matter how soft the ski is, the material length of a ski can still make it cumbersome in moguls, so sizing down a stiff ski is usually more appropriate than sizing up a soft ski if performance in either (a) big moguls with deep troughs, or (b) tight tree skiing in low-angle terrain is what you’re most interested in. And that note is relevant to a lot of the sections we’ve laid out here — sizing up or down on a given ski isn’t going to turn it into something entirely different, so it’s best to first figure out which skis seem best suited to you, and then figure out which length is most appropriate. If you’re not sure where to start, you can always become a Blister Member, send us a gear question through the Blister Member Clubhouse page, and one of our reviewers will work one-on-one with you to figure out your best options.
Sidecut Radius
The longer the sidecut radius of a ski, the slower it will react when put on edge to arc a turn across the hill, and the longer that turn will be.
In this way, skis with shorter sidecut radii (e.g., ~13-17 meters) will be more responsive and easier to get on edge and turn, while skis with longer sidecut radii (e.g., ~24-32+ meters) will be more stable at higher speeds, especially in variable, rough conditions.
So if the ski you’re looking at has a long sidecut radius, you might consider choosing a length on the shorter side in order to make the ski more maneuverable, without sacrificing too much stability. For example, I like the 184 cmON3P Wrenegade 108, which has a 26.8-meter sidecut radius (and is pretty strong and heavy), but I have little interest in skiing the 189 cm Wrenegade 108, which is heavier and has an even longer 27.5-meter sidecut radius.
Swing Weight
As a generalization, the heavier a ski is, the more difficult it will be to pivot back and forth quickly. The lighter it is, the easier it will be to maneuver.
If you happen to know (from one of our reviews, perhaps) that a ski is not particularly light / quick, then sizing down will make it easier to handle, which will be important depending on where you ski (tight trees? big bumps? wide open terrain?) or how you like to ski (big turns at high speeds? smaller turns at moderate or slow speeds?).
Or if you’re looking at a light, highly maneuverable ski, you might be able to go with a longer length than you are accustomed to, in order to gain some stability while still having a ski that will feel relatively quick and easy to maneuver.
Flotation in Deeper Snow
The more surface area a ski has, the better it will plane up and float in deep snow. So if you’re looking at a ski that you plan to use in lots of fresh, deep snow, you’ll get more float out of a longer length. Of course, the surface area gained by going with a longer length may be less important than the weight added to the ski or the decreased maneuverability, but it is a legitimate factor to consider.
And then you should think about the width of the ski, since that also plays an important role in flotation. E.g., the 184 cm K2 Reckoner 122 (a 122mm-wide ski) provides plenty of flotation in deep snow for me, and I don’t feel the need to bump up to the 191 cm version. But if I were to ski super deep snow on, say, the 106mm-wide Armada ARW 106 UL, I’d prefer to be on the 188 cm version rather than the 180 cm. That said, in many cases, length will play a larger role than width when it comes to float (especially if the width difference between some skis you’re comparing is less than ~10 mm).
Mount Point
Mount point is closely linked to skiing style and stance, but it also factors into ski length. Skis with mount points close to the true center of the ski (around -6 cm from true center to literally true center) tend to encourage a more centered / neutral / upright skiing stance where you’re not putting a ton of pressure on the front of your boots or the shovels of your skis.
Skis with more rearward mount points (around -7 cm from true center, or farther back) tend to encourage a more traditional, forward stance with more pressure on your shins, front of your boots, and consequently, more pressure on the shovels of your skis. At Blister, we tend to call more rearward mount points “traditional,” and more centered mount points “progressive.” You’ll most often find more centered mount points on skis that are designed to be more playful and feel natural in the air, since the more centered mount point makes them feel more balanced.
Mount point comes into play relating to ski length since it changes where your feet will be positioned along the length of a ski. For example, if you mount a 184 cm ski exactly in the center of the ski, you’d theoretically have 92 cm of ski in front of that mount point, and 92 cm behind it. But if you mounted that same ski -10 cm back from its true center, you’d have 102 cm of ski in front of that mount point, and 82 cm behind it.
This is most important when considering a ski that has a very different mount point than the skis with which you’re familiar.
E.g., if I spent all my time skiing a center-mounted, 184cm-long freestyle ski and then tried the 184cm-long DPS Pagoda 100 RP (which has a very rearward mount point of -12 cm from true center), it’d feel like the Pagoda 100 RP was really long in front of my boots, but quite short behind my boots. In the opposite scenario, someone who skied the Pagoda 100 RP a lot and then switched to an equally long, but center-mounted ski might think the front of the ski feels really short, but they also might think the tail / back of the ski feels long.
All that said, if the difference in mount point is only a few centimeters, you shouldn’t worry too much about it affecting how long the ski feels. And if the mount point difference is significant, the more important thing to ask is whether that ski will work with your preferred skiing style and stance.
Measured Length vs. Stated Length
[Note: All in all, the differences in stated length and measured length via a straight-tape measurement are typically within 1-3 cm, which is quite small; the other sections here are typically much more important to consider when thinking about how long various skis feel on snow. But, it’s worth checking to see if a ski you’re considering measures veryshort orvery long, or just bring a tape measure with you next time you head to your local ski shop. With that said:]
If you took five “184 cm” skis from five different brands, there’s a good chance they won’t all measure exactly the same length if you pulled a tape measure in a straight line from the ends of their tails to the ends of their tips. (I.e., basically just measuring the horizontal distance between the tips and tails, rather than having the tape measure sit on the top sheet and follow the contours of the rocker profile. We call this horizontal measurement a “straight-tape length measurement.”)
That discrepancy may seem odd, but it mostly comes down to how each ski manufacturer decides to measure their skis, among other factors. Most manufacturers measure the length of the material of their skis when it’s still perfectly flat (sometimes referred to as “material length”), and before it’s pressed in the mold that bends the material and creates its curvy rocker profile. Since the bent, rockered portions of the ski curve up during pressing (as well as the raised cambered portions), this effectively shortens the straight-line, horizontal distance between the end of the tail and the end of the tip.
But then a few manufacturers measure length via a straight-tape measurement after pressing the skis / creating their rocker profile.
So if company “A” measures their ski length before pressing and company “B” measures length after pressing, company B’s “184 cm” ski will measure longer than company A’s “184 cm” ski when using the straight-tape length measurement. I.e., company A’s ski will have a slightly shorter straight-tape length measurement after pressing, compared to its stated length.
And some companies just kind of come up with the stated length number that they deem appropriate. E.g., Rossignol says their Sender 104 Ti is available in a 178 cm length, while their Sender 106 Ti+ is available in a 180 cm length. We measured both of those skis, and their straight-tape length measurements are within a millimeter of each other (so are their measured widths, but that’s a topic for another time…)
This is why we list a measured length (again, measured via that straight-tape method) for all the skis we review, in an effort to standardize things and give you an idea of how various skis compare. In general, most brands measure ski length before pressing, with the most notable exceptions being ON3P and K2 (which measure length after pressing). So rather than saying all skis apart from K2 and ON3P’s “measure short,” it’d be more accurate to say K2 and ON3P’s skis “measure long.”
How (and Where) Do You Actually Ski?
We touched on this above, but being clear about which sort of terrain you tend to ski to get down the mountain — orhow you most often like to get down the mountain — will go a long way toward helping you choose the right length of ski. This is one of the most important factors to think about when deciding on ski length.
Do you like to make big turns while going very fast, or do you prefer a more dynamic, active approach to terrain with lots of quick, short turns?
The faster you like to go (and the more open the terrain is), the more appropriate a longer ski will be; the shorter your turns are and the tighter the terrain you tend to ski (e.g., tight trees, steep moguls, etc.) the more appropriate a shorter ski might be.
For example, I got along quite well with the 189 cm DPS Koala F118 when we were skiing wide-open bowls at Telluride. But for the tighter terrain of Mt. Crested Butte, I much prefer the 184 cm model.
In a similar vein, the more concerned you are about how light and maneuverable a ski feels in the air for doing tricks and jumps, the more sense it makes to go with a shorter length. (I enjoy skiing the 184 cm Moment Wildcat for its in-air playfulness, but I also enjoy the 190 cm Moment Wildcat for its increased stability in chop.) Of course, as mentioned above, if the ski you’re considering also happens to be particularly light, then going with a shorter length may not be necessary.
Finally, especially for people with a quiver of skis, it’s important to note that you maynotwant all of your skis to feel similarly long when skiing them. Sometimes you want one of your skis to encourage a very different skiing style than another, in which case it might make sense to get one in a size that feels longer or shorter than the other. For example, I love the 184 cmLine Sir Francis Baconand 184 cmK2 Reckoner 102. Both of those skis are light, have deep rocker lines, and are quite soft — all of which make them feel short for their actual size, but I really like them because they’re perfect for when I want to throw tricks and ski with a really playful, dynamic style. But then for a heavy, damp, stable, and fairly stiff ski like the Dynastar M-Free 108, I like the 192 cm length because that ski encourages me to ski pretty hard and fast, and going down to a shorter length wouldn’t magically turn it into some ultra-playful ski, so I’d rather optimize its strengths by skiing it in a longer length. Another example: I love dedicated piste skis that are engaging at moderate speeds and slope angles, particularly for early-season skiing when that’s all that’s available, so I often end up preferring those skis even shorter than other carving skis, to maximize how fun they are on mellower pistes.
Final Thoughts For Now
Hard and Fast rules are nice, but they are often too simplistic to be genuinely useful.
If this article seems to have complicated the topic more than cleared it up, we’re okay with that, because we think that you will be in a better position to understand and evaluate the numerous factors that go into answering the question, “should I go with this length or that length?”
Still Have Questions?
If you do still have questions about which length of a given ski (or several skis) you should be considering — or if you have any questions about skis, ski boots, bindings, mountain bikes, trail running gear, etc. — become a Blister member, send us a note, and we’ll be happy to get you sorted out.
