Jim, from what I am reading, I am not sure I would want or need to go up in length.
What say you.
Dr. Perry:? I would say that in spite of our concerns about the "running length" it never felt like a shorter ski and in fact felt more stable than the similar length Watea 84 (that you skied last year). ?However, if I remember correctly, at Aspen you said you would probably prefer the Wateas at a longer length -- if that memory is true then you should do the same with the UC. ?My personal opinion is that the UC's are so stable that you could ski the 178's and be fine and give up some flotation, but I'm a bit hesitant to have someone else spend THEIR money based on MY "personal opinion" at a time when I'm still glowing from the recent experience (but we did get a very diverse set of snow and terrain in during the 4 days).
My
Super Shapes, Watea 84s and UC's are all in the same 175-179 range and that feels right for me. ?By the way, I actually think that, on groomed slopes, the UC's feel a lot like my SuperShapes (except requiring more effort at tipping them).
((EDITED at 5:29.? MY Super Shapes are 170's, not 177))And I miight ask what the disadvantage/cost of going with the longer length would be? ?What is the length of your Super Shapes, and do you think that is the right length for you? ?Certainly wouldn't hurt to email your height and weight to Ski Logik and ask their opinion.