Ultravector BC sizing

[xmatt]

How well do Ultravectors ski a bit short? Voile says the 171 is meant for skiers 120-150 lbs. I'm a bit heavier than that, but not by much, and in any event, I don't think I'll be going super-fast on them. I will either be skiing steep powder couloirs (i.e., turning a lot), or using them for more relaxed exploration and for approach/exit from those couloirs. Not really going to be going on big open faces. And while I used to like longer skis, with more modern designs I've found that shorter skis have been ok for me. My primary ski is a Ranger Ti (ok, it has metal in it, so it is a lot stiffer and it is a totally different ski) but in only a 172 and I find that very stable at speed.

[Quadzilla]

I've got two pair of Vector BC's, 180 and 177. The 180's are older and the 177's are latest generation. It is hard to describe the difference between the two as the 180 is rigged with Ecos/X2 and the 177 is rigged pin AT. Lynn also has a pair of 170's rigged Ecos/SB. These are our primary Tele skis. So, IMO, and we both have a bunch of time on these is that on BC snow, powder, corn and mixed they ski big and capable(for their size). I weigh 195 and Lynn 130's. As far as best size? I think it would depend on what you are going to rig. I would go bigger than a 171 if you are put a burly rig on them. IMO........

[bastardsonoffhw]

I have a pair. I think they're 184. Pretty lightweight ski. I wouldn't imagine that they're "very stable at speed" but I've never had occasion to find out because I only use them on pretty low angle stuff (where they excel, IMO). Steep powder couloirs? I dunno, maybe but what's wrong with the Ranger Ti's for that (I know nothing about that ski so the answer may be: Everything.) They're rigged with a speed radical binder and I ski them with TLT8s

[xmatt]

Steep powder couloirs? I dunno, maybe but what's wrong with the Ranger Ti's for that (I know nothing about that ski so the answer may be: Everything.)

Oh, the Ranger's are great there! The reason I want to get the Ultravector BC is (1) drop some weight while still having a 95+mm waist, to get more laps on those couloirs, which motivates going a bit short. (2) Get a scaled ski, which means some of the use will be on low angle terrain, which also motivates going a bit short as the speed will be less.

Maybe I am completely off-base, but I feel that speed is highest on moderate angles, with lower angle powder limiting the speed just because you can't go that fast even if you want to, and steep angles meaning I intentionally don't go too fast. So, if these are going to get used more on couloirs or low angle, then short seems ok. But maybe the short length won't feel good even if the speeds are not too high, maybe it will feel unstable or not floaty enough, dunno.

Plan is to rig these with TTS and ski mostly with F1.

[bastardsonoffhw]

Maybe I am completely off-base, but I feel that speed is highest on moderate angles, with lower angle powder limiting the speed just because you can't go that fast even if you want to, and steep angles meaning I intentionally don't go too fast. So, if these are going to get used more on couloirs or low angle, then short seems ok.

Got it. Can't argue with that reasoning. Wish I had more to offer.

[Quadzilla]

I think a longer scaled ski like a 177 vs a 171 will glide better and plane up sooner on low angle as compared and would probably be more stable on BC steeps. The short ski would be less weight for the up and would be easier climbing with skins on doing steep uphill SB's. I would want the longer ski for general touring on deep snow. As far as skiing steep BC DH, I don't like these skis for that meaning any scaled ski. Reason being for me they don't side slip predictably. I like to slip pivot on firm or unreliable snow to control speed, scales don't do that near as well as a trad ski.

[Grant]

I’m not sure this helps but it’s one more data point - I’ve skied the older 180 Vector for years. At 185’ish lbs, I wish it was longer.

[bobbytooslow]

Another data point: I ski the 177cm Ultravector BC at 5'11" 170lbs, and it is perfect for touring. I too use F1's & TTS, mounted 2cm back of recommended. I'm contemplating a 184cm non-BC version for hard-charging lift serve powder days, but the 177cm is great for tours. For me, I would not want shorter, though.

[mikesee]

I'm 5'10" and 183#. Average/Intermediate skier. I have the V6 BC's in 163. Ski 'em with F1's and TTS. Freaking love these skis. So turny when needed, so floaty when the conditions are right.

I have 4 other pairs of backcountry skis, but these are my quiver killers -- I reach for them most often.

I had Altai Kom's in 174 and they felt too long, too ponderous for me.

[lowangle al]

My first vectors were the original 170s. I weigh about 185 which is heavy for that ski, but I loved them. Glide was fine and grip was superb, even when compared to my other alpine skis that I would kick wax for similar tours. I skied a lot of deep powder and never had tip dive, but I use a very neutral binding. There were only a few occasions in deep low angle pow that I wished they were longer, but I have bigger skis when I need them.

After 5 years on them I got the hyper vector in 177, which I believe listed the same skier weight recommendation as the old 170s. They skied pretty similar, with a little better float and glide than the originals and are better balanced.

My wife also skis her old vectors, ultra vectors and V6s short for her weight with no complaints.

I would say that if you want a shorter and lighter ski for maneuvering in tight places I would go for it. I think they can handle it. Before I got the 170s I borrowed my wife's 168 carbon surfs just to see how a short ski would work in powder and they were fine for me.

[phoenix]

I've only got one day on my new UV's. I'm 5'6", 130 or a bit less. Have the 171's, mounted with Switchbacks. Skied moderate angle BC glades in some dense (deep, but dense) snow, so it was smooth and consistent. Mounted about 3cm back from boot center.
First impression is that they ski short. I've had some Objectives for a few years, those are my first Voile's; went with the 164's based on my weight, and suggestions, and they most definitely feel short. Thought bumping up to the 171's would be the ticket, but I'll have to get some more time on 'em to find out for sure. FWIW, my 167 K2 Wayback 88's look to be the same length, with at least as much running length (I do remember K2 mentioning in their tele catalog, around 2008, that their skis did ski long in a given length).

[telenerd]

I’m about 200 and 6ft 3. I’m rocking 184s. I tried 177 and they felt too short. But I’m a big dude.

[mo pow]

I'm 5'8" 160 lbs. and skiing UV BC 177cm. Wouldn't want any shorter, but for what I've been using them for I'd be happy to go 6 or 8mm less wide. I suspect that if you go short you pick up a little traction on the up but suffer from more drag on flat and downhill. Not a good tradeoff IMO.

[mo pow]

Another data point: I ski the 177cm Ultravector BC at 5'11" 170lbs, and it is perfect for touring. I too use F1's & TTS, mounted 2cm back of recommended. I'm contemplating a 184cm non-BC version for hard-charging lift serve powder days, but the 177cm is great for tours. For me, I would not want shorter, though.

For powder days have you considered V6? Not a "hard charging" ski but I'm in love with my V8. Originally I imagined that I'd only pull them out on deep days, but I'm getting addicted to them for anything more than about 3 or 4 inches for lift skiing. So much fun. And my GF recommends Manti over UV for powder.

If you go V6 go long.

[bobbytooslow]

For powder days have you considered V6? Not a "hard charging" ski but I'm in love with my V8. Originally I imagined that I'd only pull them out on deep days, but I'm getting addicted to them for anything more than about 3 or 4 inches for lift skiing. So much fun. And my GF recommends Manti over UV for powder.

If you go V6 go long.

I'm not a "fat ski guy." My sucky ankle dorsiflexion & hip mobility make it hard to tip a fat ski on edge with the inside (back) foot. 90mm is ideally as wide as I go, though for whatever reason, the 96mm Ultravector seems to ski narrower than that. The same length V6 is 99mm, so trending in the wrong direction. Like your previous post, I wish there was a Voile ski a bit narrower than the Ultravector. Yeah it'd be more work in powder, but I like doing work.