Short vs long skis for powder?

[JB TELE]

Telemark powder skiing is something I'm trying to work on this season.
If your choice was between a shorter ski (nose height) or a longer ski (a little bit taller than you) and they both provided similar floatation, which one would be easier to ski and turn in powder up to your knees?

I have some voile hypervector bcs in a 164 length (123/92/108) and I'm curious how they would handle compared to a voile objective in a 178 length or an s-bound 112 type ski in a 179 length, both a bit skinner but probably similar float due to longer length. I'm using old school heavy duty leather tele boots (merrel ultras) if that matters.

I would think that shorter skis would be easier to guide through a turn when buried, but maybe longer skis would be more stable? Not sure yet as I'm still trying to figure out powder turns.

[CIMA]

I've been using Madshus Epoch (NNN binding), a little shorter than my height. However, this winter, I plan to switch to Rossignol XP100, which is a little longer. I'm hoping that the Rossignol XP100 will be more stable in pitch. Both skis will perform similarly in terms of floatation.

When the surface of powdered snow is flat and consistent, there won't be much difference between the two skis. However, in the backcountry, the snow surface is often uneven, and its density or hardness may change abruptly, causing speed changes. In such cases, the stability of pitch control becomes more critical. If we lose pitch control, we may end up falling headlong into the snow or falling on our buttocks. This is especially true when we ski in deep powder.

[Montana St Alum]

My quiver used to include Armada JJ's at 185cm and another pair at 175cm. JJ's skis a bit short due to all the rocker and I found them to ski differently. If you were in trees, the 175 was pretty amazing. Tight turns, very responsive and enough float (I'm 160 lbs and 5'9" tall).
The 185's had a completely different personality being a bull in the china shop charger.

I skied long, skinny skis in the '60's and '70's and don't think I'd be inclined to go back.

I'm always scared of "math in public" but the Objectives at 112 underfoot are 21% wider than the HV's but only 8% longer. I'd bet the Objectives have more float and they're not so long that they'd adversely affect tight turning. Also a ski that's 112 UF will likely be more powder design oriented than one at 92 UF.

[phoenix]

In terms of the initial question, all things being equal, I prefer a longer ski for powder. For instance, I'd rather have a 171 or 178 Objective on a powder day than my 164's, for the float. While a shorter ski is usually easier to turn, less float equals harder turns.

With the Ultra's, I definitely wouldn't suggest going as wide as the HyperVectors. It's another case of "if the conditions are good and the slope is easy" you might get away with it, but you'd be spanked if less than ideal prevails. What binding are you using, or thinking of using?

[fisheater]

I’m older, short skis scare me! However I am mounting a pair of 177 cm Pariah’s for riding chairs this year. I figure if I don’t like them, someone will buy them, and I will loose a little money.
As for your skis, I had an S-112 at 189, I have a Tindan 86 at 187. The Tindan is comparable in profile to the Voile Objective, however it is a beefier ski with a poplar core. I can ski the Tindan with leather (Ski March surplus boot)in soft light powder easier. If it starts to get heavy and manky the Tindan is too much ski for a leather boot, the T-4 is a better match. The S-112 is decent in powder with a leather boot. I skied the S-112 with the T-4 also, however to me that ski doesn’t benefit from plastic.
I personally like my 196 cm Falketind X as my best match for leather. However I’m not skiing tight trees.

[JB TELE]

In terms of the initial question, all things being equal, I prefer a longer ski for powder. For instance, I'd rather have a 171 or 178 Objective on a powder day than my 164's, for the float. While a shorter ski is usually easier to turn, less float equals harder turns.

With the Ultra's, I definitely wouldn't suggest going as wide as the HyperVectors. It's another case of "if the conditions are good and the slope is easy" you might get away with it, but you'd be spanked if less than ideal prevails. What binding are you using, or thinking of using?

I was thinking shorter wider vs longer skinnier, assuming both have the same float, what would be easier to turn in powder. I only use my hypervector bcs in deep fresh powder, like when I end up down to my shins/knees or deeper on the downhill. I have my s-bound 98s for more consolidated powder. I could pro-deal/thrift a 179 s-bound 112 or a 178 voile objective and try to sell my 164 hypervectors, but I'm not sure if that would be better or worth the hassle.

I've been struggling with tele powder turns but I'm not totally sure if it's due to the width of the ski and using leather, or if it's just technique. Tom M made a video of him skiing longer hypervector bcs (the longer ones are slightly wider underfoot) on alfa frees and it seemed totally fine. Still trying to figure out how much the leather boot + skinny ski guidelines apply to powder surfing.

I currently have voile switchbacks on them and I plan on switching them out for voile 3 pin hardwires. I didn't like the siwtchbacks with leather. The duckbill moved around a lot in the toe garage and since the hardwire cables don't bend, it felt really unstable and I twisted my boot out of the binding a couple of times. I'm thinking keeping the toe clamped down will solve that issue and the hardwire cables will give me a bit more support with the wider ski.

[phoenix]

JB, what's your height and weight? Just wondering to get an idea of which of your options would seem the best "fit". I'm 5'6" and 130, have 164 Objectives BC's, and wish I'd gotten a longer ski. And that's for here in the northeastern jungle. So, when I got my Hypervector BC's, I went for the 171's. Definitely prefer that length, even on the wider ski. Could probably even go for the 178's (note I'm skiing these with Excursions).

Shorter/wider might be easier to turn than longer/skinnier... but maybe not, if they're sinking and over flexed. Also, it's pretty common to ski powder with your weight a little further back; a short ski might not have enough tail to do that comfortably.

By the way, I'm kinda envious you get to play in the San Juan's on that gear. My daughter lives in Telluride; I got to ski a day on the lifts and tour some trails on light xc gear another day last spring... looks like heaven for XCD!

[JB TELE]

JB, what's your height and weight? Just wondering to get an idea of which of your options would seem the best "fit". I'm 5'6" and 130, have 164 Objectives BC's, and wish I'd gotten a longer ski. And that's for here in the northeastern jungle. So, when I got my Hypervector BC's, I went for the 171's. Definitely prefer that length, even on the wider ski. Could probably even go for the 178's (note I'm skiing these with Excursions).

Shorter/wider might be easier to turn than longer/skinnier... but maybe not, if they're sinking and over flexed. Also, it's pretty common to ski powder with your weight a little farther back; a short ski might not have enough tail to do that comfortably.

By the way, I'm kinda envious you get to play in the San Juan's on that gear. My daughter lives in Telluride; I got to ski a day on the lifts and tour some trails on light xc gear another day last spring... looks like heaven for XCD!

I'm 5'9 155 pounds. The 164 Hypervectors are right about nose level, which seems to be a typical size that most skiers are choosing these days.

The San Juan's are incredible. The only downside is all of the avalanche danger. Hard to find fun and safe terrain. Lizard Head pass is great. There are some nice long climbs with long 20 degree descents and no big avy runouts. The area around Molas Pass/Little Molas Lake/Andrews lake is perfect for XCD rolling terrain.

Out here I've found having a quiver of skis to be important. We can go from belly button deep scuba tele to wind blown ice crust in the same month. There is no way I can use the same ski with leather boots for both.

[CIMA]

Telemark skiing has a unique advantage as it offers better float than AT skiing, even when using the same skis.
You can comfortably ski on deep powder with narrow skis such as Madshus Epoch (waist 68), as long as you maintain a tight stance.
I often go on backcountry ski tours in NNN-BC style with skiers who use fat skis such as Voile Super Charger and K2 Pon2oon. Although I may not be as fast and may not have as much float in powder as the AT skiers, I have never sunk or halted in powder.

[lilcliffy]

Telemark powder skiing is something I'm trying to work on this season.
If your choice was between a shorter ski (nose height) or a longer ski (a little bit taller than you) and they both provided similar floatation, which one would be easier to ski and turn in powder up to your knees?

I have some voile hypervector bcs in a 164 length (123/92/108) and I'm curious how they would handle compared to a voile objective in a 178 length or an s-bound 112 type ski in a 179 length, both a bit skinner but probably similar float due to longer length. I'm using old school heavy duty leather tele boots (merrel ultras) if that matters.

I would think that shorter skis would be easier to guide through a turn when buried, but maybe longer skis would be more stable? Not sure yet as I'm still trying to figure out powder turns.

What type of turns you want/need to make in deep soft snow?
And by extension- how high in the snow collumn do you want to be?
And also how steep and fast you want/need to ski?

Longer skis are definitely more stable than shorter skis- especially at high speeds.

One cannot reasonably "drive"- or hold it on edge- a ski as wide as the vector with a leather boot-
so if you want to use that boot I would suggest that the narrower Objective (or narrower) would be a better "fit".
Both the Vector and Objective have a long working edge- without a rockered tail- and are best suited to a more traditional driving/charging/carving turn.

The S-Bound type ski is much more of a Nordic touring ski than the Vector/Objective.

I can turn skis in deep powder with much less heavy-duty boots than your Merrel Ultra- but I cannot make tight radius surfy/slarvy turns, because I am deep in the snow collumn on a much narrower ski.

My widest touring ski is the Altai Kom (98mm) and I need plastic boots to be able to drive that ski downhill.
I have the 162 Kom- and ski moderate treed slopes with it-
I would want at least the 174 Kom if I was going to charge in steep truly mountainous terrain- I find the 162mc unstable at high speed. I would probably want a 183 or probably even a 188 Voile V6 if I was skiing big lines in the western mountains...