<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Grimentz &#8211; season close</title>
	<atom:link href="http://snowslider.net/2007/04/15/grimentz-season-close/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://snowslider.net/2007/04/15/grimentz-season-close/</link>
	<description>Blogging From the mountains by ise</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:46:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ise</title>
		<link>http://snowslider.net/2007/04/15/grimentz-season-close/comment-page-1/#comment-1208</link>
		<dc:creator>ise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 07:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://snowslider.net/2007/04/15/grimentz-season-close/#comment-1208</guid>
		<description>My guess is that if you go shorter you&#039;ll start to lose some performance in softer snow. However, I&#039;m taller and and heavier than you and I ski the 174 without problems, but, that&#039;s a choice I made to have a shorter length for ski touring. I&#039;m trying to recall exactly how the old XL compared to the current one and I can&#039;t quite remember, I &lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;think&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; that the current one is slightly softer maybe. Stockli suggest you should be looking at +/- 15cm on head height which doesn&#039;t help you much. I think it would come down to that powder performance though, at a shorter length that&#039;s going to suffer.

Also, the current model retires this season so should be in season close outs. The new one has the same dimensions, different graphics but feels about the same flex although I&#039;ve yet to ski it, the XL is supplemented by an XXL for next season which adds a little more width across the whole length and looks a nice ski.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My guess is that if you go shorter you&#8217;ll start to lose some performance in softer snow. However, I&#8217;m taller and and heavier than you and I ski the 174 without problems, but, that&#8217;s a choice I made to have a shorter length for ski touring. I&#8217;m trying to recall exactly how the old XL compared to the current one and I can&#8217;t quite remember, I <i><b>think</b></i> that the current one is slightly softer maybe. Stockli suggest you should be looking at +/- 15cm on head height which doesn&#8217;t help you much. I think it would come down to that powder performance though, at a shorter length that&#8217;s going to suffer.</p>
<p>Also, the current model retires this season so should be in season close outs. The new one has the same dimensions, different graphics but feels about the same flex although I&#8217;ve yet to ski it, the XL is supplemented by an XXL for next season which adds a little more width across the whole length and looks a nice ski.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Earl</title>
		<link>http://snowslider.net/2007/04/15/grimentz-season-close/comment-page-1/#comment-1206</link>
		<dc:creator>Earl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2007 04:06:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://snowslider.net/2007/04/15/grimentz-season-close/#comment-1206</guid>
		<description>Hi, I have a question about length. I&#039;m 5&#039;8&quot; or 173cm tall &amp; weight 152 pounds or 69Kg. I just turned 50, I go slower now but I still like steep and narrow, chutes, bowls, trees &amp; bumps. I mostly ski Colorado. I just found an old beatup pair of the 2005 blue and white stockli offroad xl in a 174. I absolutely love them in everything except really deep powder. Even then not to bad. I want to buy a new pair for next year. Is a 174 to long for me or should I go to the 164. I tend to ski old school, but I can ski modern. I&#039;m afraid the 164 could be to &quot;turny&quot; for me or just feel to short. I&#039;ve been riding volkl 724pros 170cm, volkl motion 177cm &amp; dynastar 8800 in 169cm. I tried a dynastar 8000 in a 165 &amp; thought it fun, but to short and turny for all day use. I also tried the 8000 in a 172 but I liked my volkls and 8800 better. Now I like these 174 xls the best. So HELP, do I stay with what I like or do I go down in size like most people recommend. Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, I have a question about length. I&#8217;m 5&#8217;8&#8243; or 173cm tall &amp; weight 152 pounds or 69Kg. I just turned 50, I go slower now but I still like steep and narrow, chutes, bowls, trees &amp; bumps. I mostly ski Colorado. I just found an old beatup pair of the 2005 blue and white stockli offroad xl in a 174. I absolutely love them in everything except really deep powder. Even then not to bad. I want to buy a new pair for next year. Is a 174 to long for me or should I go to the 164. I tend to ski old school, but I can ski modern. I&#8217;m afraid the 164 could be to &#8220;turny&#8221; for me or just feel to short. I&#8217;ve been riding volkl 724pros 170cm, volkl motion 177cm &amp; dynastar 8800 in 169cm. I tried a dynastar 8000 in a 165 &amp; thought it fun, but to short and turny for all day use. I also tried the 8000 in a 172 but I liked my volkls and 8800 better. Now I like these 174 xls the best. So HELP, do I stay with what I like or do I go down in size like most people recommend. Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
