Comments on: Carbon Comparison https://dev.14erskiers.com/2014/02/carbon-comparison/ Backcountry skiing, biking, hiking in Crested Butte, Colorado & beyond - Created by Brittany Konsella & Frank Konsella Thu, 03 Mar 2016 18:35:48 +0000 hourly 1 By: Lindsey https://dev.14erskiers.com/2014/02/carbon-comparison/#comment-22031 Thu, 03 Mar 2016 18:35:48 +0000 https://dev.14erskiers.com/?p=6566#comment-22031 Thanks, Brittany! That helps.

]]> By: Brittany Walker Konsella https://dev.14erskiers.com/2014/02/carbon-comparison/#comment-22030 Wed, 02 Mar 2016 19:10:05 +0000 https://dev.14erskiers.com/?p=6566#comment-22030 In reply to Lindsey.

Hi Lindsey! I tried the 178 cm length and that was perfect for me. But, I have been skiing since I was 4 and tend to gravitate toward larger skis. If you’re new to skiing, then the 168 cm length may be a better fit for you. The best tging to do, is to see if you can demo a pair of each length before trying!

]]> By: Lindsey https://dev.14erskiers.com/2014/02/carbon-comparison/#comment-22029 Tue, 01 Mar 2016 22:11:48 +0000 https://dev.14erskiers.com/?p=6566#comment-22029 Thanks for this post, Brittany! I’m curious, did you ski the Hi5 in a 168 or 178 length? I’m also 5’3″ (tho 135lbs) and am fairly new to skiing (switched from snowboarding). I’ve skied the Voile V6 in a 163 (feels a bit short but not bad), a G3 Carbon Synapse (female version tho same ski) in a 170 (felt really long at first, but got the hang of it after a couple runs), the new Salomon Mtn Explore 96 in a 168 (felt perfect) and the DPS Zelda 106 in a 168 (felt perfect). I’m thinking about going with the 168 in the Hi5, but I’m not sure if the 178 makes more sense given so much tip rocker. Thanks for your help!

]]>