will 165 pocket rockets be too short for me?
 

Ordinarily, just going on height and weight I expect most people would say yes they are too short for you _but_ Im very happy on 170 head iC300s at present and want a powder ski for a Japan trip. I realise the running length is even a little shorter making them "160s".

I want them specifically for the task of learning and becoming proficient at powder skiing. I am prepared to grow out of them so to speak. Does anyone have any experience skiing same ski 10cm shorter that would be thought "the right length". Dropping from 190-->180-->177-->170 I think has been really good for my skiing in the last several years.

Is the 10cm less going to make my experience a disaster if I try these? (i am looking to purchase a used pair) Its this pair or a 190 Kahru Jak pair (id be a bit worried that would be too much too fast and too hard to turn)

height 5'10" , 180lbs

I havent had much powder experience and Japan will be for building powder skiing skills. I have done CSIA 1 and am low end expert with room for improvement. I want to ski steep, trees and off piste. Have been to Red Mnt on dble blacks and off piste quite a bit. I like to turn, lots of turns...I like short turns...

Have had knee reconstruction and dont like high speed (Im a bit cautious thesedays). Late 30's.

I ski backwards a little bit and might even have a go at the park and pipe in the next 2 seasons.

Thx in advance

I would personally pick the 175. THEY'RE SOOOOOOOOO EASY, you will quickly learn and - if you pick the 165 - need quickly 10 more cm.

I weigh 170, ht. 5ft9in, and ride the 175cm PR's. There a pretty soft ski and not to stable in junk. A great pow ski though. I don't think I would want the 165's

I'm just about the same size as you - 5'10", 178 lbs.
I originally demoed the Pocket Rocket in a 175. It was fun, but it felt too short. The tip felt like it would fold with forward pressure. Since it was such a fun ride - light, easy to turn, great in crud and pow - I bought a 185. I mostly use the Pocket Rocket backcountry and a few resort (mostly Tahoe) powder days (great in the trees.) There are still times when they feel short, even at the 185 length. It is good that you don't care for high speed because the Pocket Rockets are not the most stable ski. I have other skis that are much more stable.
A friend of mine, who is close to the same size, bought them in a 175. They work for him, even though he says that they feel short.
I hope that this is helpful. In my opinion, I wouldn't go any shorter than a 175.

I' about 5'8'' 145 lbs or so and ski almost exclusively on the east coast (creekbeds, tight trees, chutes, etc) and I ride a 185cm PR with no problem. The only issue I have is that I wished I would have mounted them about 5cm's back so the tail wasn't so damn long. It is a very easy riding ski and if you ski it in too short a length, they'll feel like snowlerblades. I would say go with the 175 at the shortest.

hey you dentist-ass JONG from texas get your ass to epicgape if you want 165 pocket rockets.

that done,
165 is prolly too short if you want to grow on em at all... like within a couple days you'll prolly regret it. If you're still set on em, demo em in a 165 and a 175. I think you'd be surprised how short a 165 really is in that ski. especially if you weight 180, you'll turn 165 pocket rockets into bunny ears.

I'd also try something a lil bit stiffer and/or fatter. Maybe look at explosivs, sugar daddies, or something along those lines.

g'luck.

if you're really into short skis, head over to the www.epicski.com forum - they like snowlerblades over there ;). It's another perspective - people here like long stiff fat skis for the most part, over there they like short midfats.

I am about the same size, and have a 175. Get no less than the 175, which will be great in tight stuff, moguls (yes moguls), and powder. If you won't use them them on moguls, then you could easily go to 185. remember the end tip is up so that subtracts about 3cm from the length.

I'd say that are 165's are too short. I 5'9"/150 and rode 175's for about 2 years and always felt they were a little short and a little too soft. My guess is if you get 165's PR's you will soon be looking for somthing longer and stiffer

I think it's the softness and not the length of the 165 PRs that will probably turn you off: they are nothing like your Heads in terms of stability, pop, edge hold, etc... That might not be an issue if you only ever skiied them in pow, but that's not very realistic. Adding length will get you some of the edge grip and stability back.

That being said, there's no better ski for learning on the pow on the market today. They'll probably suit your style very well... in a 175. ;)

Thanks everyone. Its clear, they are too short. Im scouting around for something cheap cheap like a budgie again.

Karhu Jak 170s are on the horizon used...it could be that Ill just have to buy in the resort in winter :frown:

Yes, they are too short.

I'm about 4" shorter and 30lbs lighter, and wouldn't ski shorter than the 175 and with the softness of the ski, would be tempted to go 185.

you also say these are just for pow, so you won't lose out by going bigger as you could with other types of ski

Seldon-

YOU'RE FIRED.

to answer your question
 

in one word, yes.













I think pretty much everybody has pointed that out.

Copying someone else's alias? Weak shit dude. Try again :rolleyes:

I dont want to keep knocking you back but 170 jaks
are not going to be much better than the 165 rockets.

If you want fat skis that bad I can rent you a pair of
fats for the month in nozawa. 180 older axioms if you
want. you will float with those.

I found the default mounting point too far forward on my 175 PRs and had them remounted 2cm back. Much better in powder. Oh, and 165 is too short.

As opposed to "hey you dentist-ass JONG from texas get your ass to epicgape if you want 165 pocket rockets."? Hardly weak. Hasn't high school taught you that following the big kids around trying to act like them doesn't get the big kids to like you?

:fmicon:


of course my initial reaction was 'if you are a 12 year old girl the 165's should be fine'

Notice the smiley. I said that as a joke, commenting on how that is the usual "response" to this type of question on the board. I actually wrote a response to his question after that.

Copying "the big kids" alias /= following the big kids around?