Background : im a 30 year old skier who's skied heavily in scotland for the past 20 years.
Ski style : usually fairly hard, 70% on piste, 30% side county if you will.
me : 6ft tall, usually around 14/15 stone
boots : recently upgraded to fischer viron V10's
Current ski's : fischer s200 160cm ( YES, too short i know) and a pair of older Kastle 198cm's. Both are fit for retirement.
So, i'm really just after an idea, i've read lots about width for on vs off piste, and size etc......but i could do with some input.
Budget : i'd prefer to NOT spend £500. well open to looking at 2nd hand stuff, and indeed been looking over some of the ads on here !!!!
i guess anything will be a massive improvement over my old gear, but i'd like to buy right if that makes sense.
Thanks in advance guys!
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
There is no substitute for trying before you buy. Lots of resort shops will let you do this.The staff in the shop will pick out some that may suit you. Choose the ones with the greatest grin factor.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Last year's Nordica Sideburner. Cheap and astonishingly good. I'll be writing a review with some backup this weekend.
Yep, go try some and see what you like best, the shops at the snowdomes will let you demo. What I love you may hate and vice versa.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
I plan to get away abroad last minute at the end of the month, likely 7 days. I guess i could take my 160's with a view to not bringing them back, instead bringing a new set back?
tbh, although i do ski fast and hard, my technical skills likely are not that great, so i'm guessing i don't need a top end ski.
I hate snowdomes davekt. The only one near me is braehead, and the snow is like freaking toffee. very very sticky, and i doubt i'd get a feel for a ski there.
i think the real question here is length and width. i'm not going to be grinding any pipes soon, not taking huge jumps. i guess i need an all mountain versatile ski......
I can't imagine how a 6ft 15 stone man could ski hard and fast on 160s. I'm 5'2" and 9 stone and mine are 159...and in the past have been on 170! Do you over-turn and fall a lot? You definitely need longer and quite stiff to carry your weight. You need to consider how much you stay on piste and how much off, realistically what your skill level is, and be guided by the staff who will be able to advise - trust them. You also should get a good bargain at this time of year. But do try them first. Try lots!
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Gawd! you're on blades.
I'm 6'2" and 15st, I'm on 170 Magnums, which are diddy enough for a big bloke.
Magnums would prob fit your criteria.
After all it is free
After all it is free
wozzad, Dynastar Outland Pro 80, versatile, nice stiff/firm ski performs well on piste, nice float with the rocker front in the soft stuff and the slush, I'm 5'10" 80KG ish and have 172.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You know, its funny. I only ended up with the 160's by accident, was gifted them, and after breaking a binding on my leg breakers ( old 198's) i thought i'd give them a shot.
They are really responsive, and i can turn as tight as my thighs will let me:-) They are, however, unstable at speed, and tend to tramline ( if thats the term).
I don't overturn, NOR fall. In fact i think ive fallen once this season, owing to new boots catching me out !!!
i guess if i aim to buy 2nd hand skis and try them, if they ain't right, i'll just sell them and look again.
I'm not used to having to pick a width of ski.........
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Wozzard, I think from my experience that I agree with you about running skis that are shorter than everyone thinks the ideal should be....you learn alot about your own skiing and are not afraid to try stuff that in some situations a big ski would tend to dominate you rather than you enjoying the ride......if that make sense.
I'm a similar size to you...6ft and usually about 85Kgs....and for years have run an old pair of 169 twin tips and just had so much fun on them, but as you say they can seem a bit nervous as the speeds get higher, but I don't mind coping with that.
I've tried alot of other stuff and feel that for an all round ski then a good compromise is to be around 89/90/91mm underfoot and probably a max of about 185cm length. The width gives good support even in soft stuff but doesn't feel ungainly on harder piste. 185cm again gives a good balance between float in powder and still nice and lively when you want to rip around on tight radius stuff.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Very well put there Ski3. I've indeed done things on my 160's that i wouldn't have done on longer skis. I'd say i've refined my technique since i started sking short.
Been looking at loads the past few nights. I don't do much powder stuff, but i'd LIKE to.
Ideal : buy 179s @ 90mm, loose 2 stone......
Next time i'm out on my 160's i'll do a speed check, see if i can shock a few. To tell the truth, i love NOTHING more than a race with a snowboarder. Can't remember loosing...........
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
I'm about same size as you and similar skiing style. Last season I bought a pair of Fischer Watea 88 in a 176 length. Absolutely love them, they can handle any kind of snow, fast and stable on piste and floaty enough off piste. I got them in Blues and they had this years version at a good price when I was in there a few weeks ago. Their website doesn't mention them, but that's just cos the website is mince. Go have a look, I'm pretty certain they're exactly what you need.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Apologies for spelling your name wrong wozzad.
I think there is something about going with what is going to give you what you need rather than just a formulaic wheight versus length thing.
I haven't tried the ones you suggest Valkyrie but interesting that you also seem to have arrived at a similar size/spec and enjoy them as well, so they seem a good option.
My old 169's are 79mm in the centre and are a good compromise but with the same thinking as you wozzad I was wondering what to go to after those...with that in mind I was trying all sorts of stuff, either friends kit or sample hire kit to see how they compared.
I've ended up with 89mm centres and a 186cm length although they are a bit odd in that they have a veeeerrrry soft front tip the last 10cms of which seems to do not much on piste, but hell do they float nicely when you jump into powder....I think this is what is now called a "rocker" type ski. So I feel like I've got more or less a 176cm on piste with the addition of a lovely tip for soft stuff .
The effect of a wider centre seems to be that in spreading our kgs over a wider base they support really well on piste and this makes them simply faster with really good acceleration. I also found that getting into the mid 90mm's say 94 upwards then you start to loose that nice on piste feel. I'd agree with Valkyrie that the 88mm/176cm would be a good aim point to try and if you wanted to try a rocker tip then go for an additional 10cm length......worth hireing some to sample if you don't want to commit straight off.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
The Watea 88 does have a bit of rocker on the tip, so probably skis like a non-rockered 170ish ski. Fischer website recommended the 186 length for my stats but I only looked at that after I bought the 176. It's interesting to see that lots of people on here are off-piste orientated and tend to go for long (as in above head height) skis. But when I park my skis outside a mountain hut in Austria or France they're almost always about the longest ones there. My skis are long enough to give me plenty stability, so unless getting more float was a priority I can't see much point in going longer.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
you are similar in size, weight and age to me and I can give second shout to the dynastar outland 80 pro, mine are 172 and I love them
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
I'm slightly taller (6'2) similar weight and would say 178 is a good length for an all mountain ski. My two skis are 177/178 Head Magnum and atomic nomad crimson.
you could handle 178 I am sure. I could have gone longer but I got mine as ex demos and I loved them so much I took the 172. probably go bigger when I change them if and when I do
Valkyrie - i've found a set of 88x176 Watea.......£252. cheap ?
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
I'd definitely go for the wider 88's that valkyrie says, that width seems to give a real sweetspot for pace/turning/float/fun along with a real progression from those you've been on.
After all it is free
After all it is free
mine are the pro model in orange white and black
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
roughly, what should i allow for a set of bindings. Sure i could convince them to fit them FOC. £75?
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
no idea, mine came with look bindings. I don't know enough about buying seperate
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Last time I paid £90 for bindings including fitting, just depends what they have available and if they are "last season" i think all my skis have been thus classified and as such you get some negotiation over price. Don't think there are many bad bindings around really so depends what they have in stock, they will need a wider brake for those skis though but these are usually swopped around for free in my experience.
To add to what I have already posted, it seems to me that if you ski with shorter than that which is considered normal for your size, then the wider ski will still support you even without being long enough. In other words, don't go short AND narrow.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
my current 160's are 110-75-100
My 198's are 80-68-80. Think i'll retire them now ;-0
I just splashed out on boots for the, so they should be fair with me.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
I'm unusually fascinated about the under foot width.....to almost geek level! but feel that if you pick on this first then fit other stuff around it you get a much better match to each person.
Think all skis used to be 68mm until they started doing carvers.....over 95mm they stick out far enough from the boot centre-line to feel cumbersome as you crank them over because it starts to raise the foot, this is on piste and harder surfaces but you don't get the same in powder as the ski doesn't so much sit up on it's edge but uses the whole base. This is why I feel that going too wide trades you away from being a general purpose ski.
Those 160s of yours look a pretty decent profile, no wonder you've had a good time with them. Really, replacing them with just a bigger version at 88mm should allow the hooning around to advance. I'm sure you'll enjoy that step up if my experience is anything to go by.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
I'm no expert, but I think there must be a lot more to it than width underfoot (although, clearly, this plays a part).
I used to have a pair of Dynastar Outland 80 Pros and disliked them because they seemed very slow edge-to-edge. I thought this was down to the width (80mm) being much wider than my Head i.Magnums. However, I subsequently bought a pair of Head Rock n Rolls that are 94mm underfoot and are very quick edge-to-edge and also have great edge hold. I don't know why I find them to be so much better than the Dynastar Outlands but I assume that this must have someting to do with the overall shape/sidecut (and, perhaps, construction)?
I subsequently sold the Dynastars and usually choose the Rock n Rolls over the Magnums as they are so much more versatile in fresh snow / ,
mixed conditions and yet don't seem to lose out much to the Magnums on piste, despite the fact that they are much wider underfoot.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
WelshCH, I know it's not as simple as that but what I'm trying to indicate is that when skis were mostly the same width then the only fit to a person was to start by choosing length based on height and weight......that seems to still persist in some realms but the huge choice of widths now available makes that as a primary choice invalid.
Now I believe the primary start point should be width FIRST and then fit the rest of the spec around that. speed from edge to edge has more to do as you say with construction, side shape combined with torsional rigidity would have a much greater influence over this area of performance and if you get a good match to your skill level then this is what makes the ski feel good to you.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Well i thought i should finish this thread by letting you all know : Today i bought these, 88x176-had bindings fitted on the spot, and walked away with them. Bargain might i add, £322 skis+bindings.
Well chuffed, will be great to try them out and compare them to my older stuff !!!
added bonus : the bindings match my boots !!!
Thanks to all that contributed to my choice !!!
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
I love mine and I'm sure you'll love yours! And I've got to confess I'm slightly jealous - this year's topsheet design is much nicer.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Even happier that it has the shiney W emblem sunk into the skin. W being the first letter of my name and all.
Loved the skis, just right for me, shame i skied so hard the first few days i didn't really get the chance to get my technique back up to scratch. A few folk commented that they were too short for me, but i was turning as hard as i'd like, and when pointing downhill, they were just as fast as i needed them to be !!!!
didn't really get the chance to try them in powder, as it was far to late in the season for any form of decent off piste.
Well happy, though they do need tip protectors......or i need to take more care!!!!!!
I am 5'9 and 75 kg and ski in nearly all terrain nowadays. I bought Dynastar 178 Outland xt 80. for more off piste and have no trouble with the lengthion piste at all. They are not good on real hard pack but my technique is also a bit suspect on that.
They are stiff but the tips are very forgiving and they are not at all unstable in the chop or in a straight line and are fantastic in moguls. Also very cheap form blues at 350.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
