AT/BC Ski - Longer or Shorter?

Thanks for the comments guys.  Possibly looking at the K2 Annex 108.  Trades some surfy-ness in deep powder for some decent groomer performance, which I guess isn't a bad thing!

Looks ok. I find k2 to be both heavy and damp so i'd give it a close hand inspection if you can before pulling the trigger. don't remember how big you are though, I'm a lighter guy.

Yes, the dampness of the Annex 108 is frequently listed as one of its cons, and the metal laminate adds to weight.  Not the lightest or surfy-est ski, but good all around ski.  I probably should jump to the 15/16 Pinnacle at 105 under foot, and a very lightweight core.  Of course, that would mean more $$$.

spend the money.  if you are talking about Adirondack tours the weight matters.

I picked up a Kastel touring ski a couple seasons ago.  107 under foot.  I went w/ the 167 length.  I'm like, well close to 5'10"   The shorter length comes in very handy when maneuvering through the Adirondack krumholz and heinous drainages.  

I like the ski so much I went back to Mountaineer and grabbed the last pair of that year model.  When Im done w/ this pair I'll replace with the ones sitting in the closet.  

If you are serious about touring in the High Peaks don't cheap out on equipment.  Also consider a shorter length given the terrain that is out there.  

 

ScottyJack wrote

spend the money.  if you are talking about Adirondack tours the weight matters.

 If you are serious about touring in the High Peaks don't cheap out on equipment.  Also consider a shorter length given the terrain that is out there.

+1