Ripstick 96 Green and Black

Wendy

Trying not to face plant
Skier
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Posts
2,290
Location
PA til 2023. Counting down!
I have been wondering what size RS96 to get as well. I borrowed some wingman 86 in a 172 , and they skied quite short. Too short in fact. So, I'm thinking 180 as well. But yesterday I saw a couple of skiers well over 6ft on the 172s. I get so confused sometimes
Get the 180. It skis short, IMO. I’ve also seen larger people on shorter RS; I’m assuming they are less experienced skiers more comfortable on a shorter ski. I’m no expert skier by any means, and I couldn’t imagine being comfortable on the 172.
 

Larry

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Posts
197

These dudes spend way more time measuring skis than I do. The RS line IMO - ski short in all lengths and may be stepping up to the 188 - 106 next year. Let’s just say it’s in the short list :ogbiggrin:
I really have no idea what ski "short" means but when I held up the 174 RS to a pair of 172 Blizzard skis they were much longer. I suspect that they're longer than my 173 blizzard bushwacker too. So ski "short" I guess but actual height they seemed(I'll get them back tomorrow) like an exact 174 length or 173 at the Shortest.
 

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
5,470
Location
Maine
I really have no idea what ski "short" means but when I held up the 174 RS to a pair of 172 Blizzard skis they were much longer. I suspect that they're longer than my 173 blizzard bushwacker too. So ski "short" I guess but actual height they seemed(I'll get them back tomorrow) like an exact 174 length or 173 at the Shortest.
@Larry, "skis short" does not refer to the actual length of the ski. In fact that's the whole point of the expression. It refers to the perceived length. A ski with a lot of tip and tail taper and rise will often seem short for its nominal length, especially on hard snow. Flex pattern and torsional stiffness also play into this.
 

Larry

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Posts
197
@Larry, "skis short" does not refer to the actual length of the ski. In fact that's the whole point of the expression. It refers to the perceived length. A ski with a lot of tip and tail taper and rise will often seem short for its nominal length, especially on hard snow. Flex pattern and torsional stiffness also play into this.
Thanks @Tony S
I kept thinking they're talking actual length which I believe those skis are actual listed size or darn close to it
 

graham418

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Posts
2,121
Location
Toronto
Get the 180. It skis short, IMO. I’ve also seen larger people on shorter RS; I’m assuming they are less experienced skiers more comfortable on a shorter ski. I’m no expert skier by any means, and I couldn’t imagine being comfortable on the 172.
You know me though, I'm a bit underheight for my weight, so I always fret about going too long. my Endurance 98 are 179, FX94's are 176 and they are fine. Sometimes I feel between sizes
 

Chubb

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Posts
15
@Fleece82 ...what length are you on? I've read the actual measurements are short. I'm 6'1/2" and 210 lbs. Given the short actual measurements, 180 may be too short and 188 seem too long. My pow skis are Enforcer 104 FR in 186, but they have a lot of tip and tail rockers. Thanks.
See this post on TGR for a discussion of 180cm vs 188cm sizes for different Ripstick 106 versions and later posts in that thread for Ripstick 96 Black Edition reviews including my posts about measured specs and sizing for the 96.

From my measurement of the 2022 Ripstick 96 Black Edition and the measured lengths listed in various Blister reviews of the Ripstick 96 and 106 they are 3 to 4 cm shorter than claimed, at least for the 180/181cm and 188cm lengths. However the latest 2022 Black Edition is stiffer than earlier versions which may help compensate for the shorter than listed lengths.
 

justaute

Graceful as a Bowling Ball
Skier
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Posts
114
Location
UT
See this post on TGR for a discussion of 180cm vs 188cm sizes for different Ripstick 106 versions and later posts in that thread for Ripstick 96 Black Edition reviews including my posts about measured specs and sizing for the 96.

From my measurement of the 2022 Ripstick 96 Black Edition and the measured lengths listed in various Blister reviews of the Ripstick 96 and 106 they are 3 to 4 cm shorter than claimed, at least for the 180/181cm and 188cm lengths. However the latest 2022 Black Edition is stiffer than earlier versions which may help compensate for the shorter than listed lengths.
Good stuff, Chubb. Yours measures 176.8 cm. Per kc_7777 on post #62, the 2022 96/180 BE measures 177.7 cm. I spoke to someone earlier and he said the 188 he skied measured ~185.5 cm. As I am an aggressive skier/carver on groomers, I'm leaning toward the 188, but it's still a toss-up. My Nordica Enforcer 104/186 Free measures pretty close to 186 cm, but it has a lot of tip/tail rockers.
 
Last edited:

Wendy

Trying not to face plant
Skier
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Posts
2,290
Location
PA til 2023. Counting down!
You know me though, I'm a bit underheight for my weight, so I always fret about going too long. my Endurance 98 are 179, FX94's are 176 and they are fine. Sometimes I feel between sizes
Yeah, I hear you. I still think that a 172 in the RS would be too short. I usually shy away from long skis; not because of my weight; I’ve got enough of that ;) but because of my skill level. I fear getting too frustrated in tricky terrain. I think a 179 in the Endurance 98 would be equivalent to the RS 180. Stick with the non-black version for an easier flexing ski. JMO.
 

Dwight

Practitioner of skiing, solid and liquid
Admin
Moderator
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Posts
5,139
Location
Central Wisconsin
@graham418 I have the Endurance 98 and the RS 96. Both in 179 and 180. I would not go shorter on the 180. My daughter who is a lot lighter than me handles the RS with no problem.
 

Chubb

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Posts
15

Larry

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Posts
197
That 1.5 cm shorter estimate was wrong. Later in that same thread another post gives a measurement of 184.0 cm for the 2020 Ripstick 96 Black Edition 188 cm.
I actually think 1.5 shorter is correct. I just got back my RS black 174 and compared against my 173 Blizzard Bushwacker. The Elan does appear to be a smidge shorter.
 

Attachments

Larry

Getting on the lift
Skier
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Posts
197
and they are a smidge longer than my blizzard 172 skis I have so I'm assuming the 174 RS are pretty close to a 173 but a tad shorter in actual size
 

Fleece82

Booting up
Skier
Joined
Jan 12, 2021
Posts
30
Location
West Virginia
@Fleece82 ...what length are you on? I've read the actual measurements are short. I'm 6'1/2" and 210 lbs. Given the short actual measurements, 180 may be too short and 188 seem too long. My pow skis are Enforcer 104 FR in 186, but they have a lot of tip and tail rockers. Thanks.
Mine are 180's. I have not actually measured them but what I can say is that they are def longer than my Kästle's in 178. My ski bag is for length up to 182. My Kästle's had a little wiggle room. With the Elan's, I have to put them in a certain way. Tips and tails touch both ends of bag. Pretty tight fit to say the least.
 

justaute

Graceful as a Bowling Ball
Skier
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Posts
114
Location
UT
Mine are 180's. I have not actually measured them but what I can say is that they are def longer than my Kästle's in 178. My ski bag is for length up to 182. My Kästle's had a little wiggle room. With the Elan's, I have to put them in a certain way. Tips and tails touch both ends of bag. Pretty tight fit to say the least.
Thanks. This is so strange in that measurements seem to be all of the place. @Chubb also has 180's and his measure ~177. Another guy on tetongravity forum has his 180's measure 177.6 cm.
 

Tony S

I have a confusion to make ...
Skier
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
5,470
Location
Maine
Thanks. This is so strange in that measurements seem to be all of the place. @Chubb also has 180's and his measure ~177. Another guy on tetongravity forum has his 180's measure 177.6 cm.
There is nothing the slightest bit strange about it considering that this is all one big inconsequential game of "telephone."
 

Tom K.

HRPufnStf
Skier
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
3,838
@Larry, "skis short" does not refer to the actual length of the ski. In fact that's the whole point of the expression. It refers to the perceived length. A ski with a lot of tip and tail taper and rise will often seem short for its nominal length, especially on hard snow. Flex pattern and torsional stiffness also play into this.
+1

+ swing weight.
 

justaute

Graceful as a Bowling Ball
Skier
Joined
Dec 18, 2019
Posts
114
Location
UT
There is nothing the slightest bit strange about it considering that this is all one big inconsequential game of "telephone."
Agreed. That said, as I'm more interested in the 188, the historical measurements of ~185 cm vs the current/stated length mean more to me.
 
Top