Ski Club 2.0 Home
Snow Reports
FAQFAQ

Mail for help.Help!!

Log in to snowHeads to make it MUCH better! Registration's totally free, of course, and makes snowHeads easier to use and to understand, gives better searching, filtering etc. as well as access to 'members only' forums, discounts and deals that U don't even know exist as a 'guest' user. (btw. 50,000+ snowHeads already know all this, making snowHeads the biggest, most active community of snow-heads in the UK, so you'll be in good company)..... When you register, you get our free weekly(-ish) snow report by email. It's rather good and not made up by tourist offices (or people that love the tourist office and want to marry it either)... We don't share your email address with anyone and we never send out any of those cheesy 'message from our partners' emails either. Anyway, snowHeads really is MUCH better when you're logged in - not least because you get to post your own messages complaining about things that annoy you like perhaps this banner which, incidentally, disappears when you log in :-)
Username:-
 Password:
Remember me:
durr, I forgot...
Or: Register
(to be a proper snow-head, all official-like!)

Help on Ski's to buy

 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Hi All. First time here.

I'm an intermediates skier, mainly reds with the odd black now and then but usually always on piste.

After 5 or so years skiing I've decided to buy ski's. I'm wondering mainly what length ski's to buy.

I'm 5ft 11" and 70kg (11 stone).

I've just started feeling the carve on my last trip. I'd love some recommendations.

I looked at some that were 167cm and came up to middle of my nose but Couldn't help but think they looked to small.

I've always hired to date.
snow conditions     
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
I would suggest looking at the Head Magnum....which imv is a ski that has great headroom, meaning you won't grow out of it as you get better. It is not too stiff a ski, so quite manageable for an Advanced Intermediate. It will also help with improving your carving.

As for length - the 163 is the shortest you should consider and 170 the longest.

Given you are happy on a 167, I would go for the 170, as you will hardly notice the difference (as the extra length is split either side of the binding - if you see what I mean). If possible, try before you buy.

Things change a little if you want to start exploring Off Piste.


Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Thu 13-02-20 12:46; edited 1 time in total
ski holidays     
 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?
@trueblue81, I would consider attending Oktobertest. This way you can try different ones out and feel the difference between them
latest report     
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
Old Fartbag wrote:
I would suggest looking at the Head Magnum....which imv is a ski that has great headroom, meaning you won't grow out of it as you get better. It is not too stiff a ski, so quite manageable for an Advanced Intermediate. It will also help with improving your carving.

As for length - the 163 is the shortest you should consider and 170 the longest.

Given you are happy on a 167, I would go for the 170, as you will hardly notice the difference (as the extra length is split either side of the binding - if you see what I mean). If possible, try before you buy.

Things change a little if you want to start exploring Off Piste.


I concur with Head Magnums, I am the same height and a few kgs heavier and I have the 170cms. Great ski

More forgiving that the old Stocklis I had.
snow report     
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Thanks all, some good advice. I'll check out the Head Magnums.

One ski I was looking at in the shop was the ROSSIGNOL HERO ELITE MT CA + NX 12 KONECT GW B80 BLACK ICON 20

In your opinion, do you think this would be wrong for my criteria?
snow conditions     
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
trueblue81 wrote:
Thanks all, some good advice. I'll check out the Head Magnums.

One ski I was looking at in the shop was the ROSSIGNOL HERO ELITE MT CA + NX 12 KONECT GW B80 BLACK ICON 20

In your opinion, do you think this would be wrong for my criteria?

I can talk about the Magnums from direct experience.

Looking at the Rossignols, they would also appear to be suitable (in a 167), as they're not as hardcore as some of the other Elite line.

Ideally you should test both....but if this isn't an option, get as much feedback as you can from Reviews and Personal experience and then make your choice.....which may come down to Price.
ski holidays     
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Thanks. Really appreciate the advice.

It's quite a bit of money, and I just want to make sure I've got as much advice and information possible to make an informed decision.

I guess the only real way to know is to try them out.
snow report     
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
trueblue81 wrote:
Thanks. Really appreciate the advice.

It's quite a bit of money, and I just want to make sure I've got as much advice and information possible to make an informed decision.

I guess the only real way to know is to try them out.


Hence suggesting the Oktobertest- lots of different skis to try, season before last I ended up buying one of the ex demo pairs I had tried and really liked.
ski holidays     
 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.
NickyJ wrote:
trueblue81 wrote:
Thanks. Really appreciate the advice.

It's quite a bit of money, and I just want to make sure I've got as much advice and information possible to make an informed decision.

I guess the only real way to know is to try them out.


Hence suggesting the Oktobertest- lots of different skis to try, season before last I ended up buying one of the ex demo pairs I had tried and really liked.


This looks decent, thanks. I forgot to mention I go skiing in 2 weeks and wanted to purchase prior to that trip Sad
snow conditions     
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
@trueblue81, how about try and hire one you are Interested in buying out there?
ski holidays     
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
If you see a good price on the rossi's, get them. They will probably have paid for themselves in a couple of trips and you could still sell them for a few quid. They look like a nice intermediate piste ski and should suit you just fine - I don't think you will go far wrong. I would recommend going shorter than your nose. I don't get going for piste oriented skis of the same or greater height than you are, they just get harder to turn. If they had tons of rocker, then sure, go longer. After 5 years of skiing, I would see 167 as the maximum you should consider. The Magnums will also be a good ski for you, with plenty of room to improve in them. Don't look at Salomon, no matter how appealing the price, they're poops.
snow report     
 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.
Go long, or go home! snowHead
ski holidays     
 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
Old Fartbag wrote:
As for length - the 163 is the shortest you should consider and 170 the longest.


I am very similar height/weight (5’10” 70kg) to the OP and would roughly agree with the above in that 165 to 170 seems to suit, definently have not felt the need to go longer for a piste ski

I have a pair of Nordica Navigators in 165 now and the amount of tip rocker is massive compared to my previous pair of Rossignolls but they still seem to grip fine even at reasonable speeds
snow conditions     
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Klamm Franzer wrote:
Don't look at Salomon, no matter how appealing the price, they're poops.


Puzzled

Why?
ski holidays     
 Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
kittya wrote:
Klamm Franzer wrote:
Don't look at Salomon, no matter how appealing the price, they're poops.


Puzzled

Why?

I was wondering the same - but I haven't skied a Salomon since their X Scream Series.
latest report     
 Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
No brand recommendation, only this............. If whatever considered skis you have in mind don't flex (most are still too stiff) - it done won't turn. Avoid anything greater than 84 underfoot. This wideness madness is just that. People no longer carve - what few ever did, they just schuss and skid..........

ps: Your boots are, hands down, THE most important piece of equipment. Hope you have a pair. If not, get those first, not skis. And again, not stiff.
snow report     
 Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Old Fartbag wrote:
kittya wrote:
Klamm Franzer wrote:
Don't look at Salomon, no matter how appealing the price, they're poops.


Puzzled

Why?

I was wondering the same - but I haven't skied a Salomon since their X Scream Series.


I have skied various Salomons skis currently and own a set myself. Not sure why you are so agains them like all manufactures they have some good skis and some the are just average.

arcsinice wrote:
Avoid anything greater than 84 underfoot. This wideness madness is just that. People no longer carve - what few ever did, they just schuss and skid..........


I will agree that for a piste ski there is no need to go above 85 underfoot and personal i would rather be closer to 70 for a dedicated piste ski. Wide skis is not a madness, they have their place and stating that people no longer carve is simply not true. I see plenty of people carving turns on piste and even on wider skis, I regally carve turns on my skis which are 99 under foot
ski holidays     
 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?
Back to the OP's original question: As others have said something along the lines of the head magnum or similar would be a good ski, relatively forgiving, while being fairly stiff. They are a ski you could ski now but grow into and once you learn to harness them can be very fun especially in carving turns.
As for ski length don't fuss about it too much. You are relatively tall, If i was your hight i would go towards the longer end of the recommendations so 170. I would suspect you would find the 163's feel very short especially as your skiing improves.
ski holidays     
 You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
The thing to remember about buying your first set of skis is that it's not a lifetime commitment. Buy your Rossis, if you buy well and really don't like them then sell them on Ebay your net cost won't be a huge amount more than the cost of hiring the same skis for a week. If you do like them then you're on a winner.
Once you have your own skis when you have a bad day you'll know that it's down to you not your skis.
Remember that the nominal turn radius of the Rossis varies with length 159cm = 13m radius, 167=14m, 175=15m.
As you develop you will want to change skis or add skis see The Rules number 3
snow conditions     
 Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
arcsinice wrote:
Avoid anything greater than 84 underfoot. This wideness madness is just that. People no longer carve - what few ever did, they just schuss and skid....


That's bullshit and you know it...or you haven't skied anything wider than 84 yourself. Plenty out there capable if being laid on edge, even my 106s. I agree that there's not a lot of point if you just intend in running piste after piste after piste, but there is definitely a place for wider skis if you have any intention of doing more with your skiing. There are also plenty of fun skis out there at that width which are very good fun. And if you want to see carving, go to Austria and watch the locals.

Personally if I was a piste only skier and I just wanted something general, I wouldn't bother buying skis. Its increased hassle on every flight and most airlines charge a premium to take them which isn't dissimilar to hiring. Add in servicing etc and I just don't think j it's worth it unless you want something specific.
snow report     
 You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
Old Fartbag wrote:

As for length - the 163 is the shortest you should consider and 170 the longest.


And this is the part where I don't get it. I am total newbie (6’ tall 78kg) and the skis that the rental guys give me every time (after asking my height and weight) is 163cm. Which is about 1cm above my chin. Now I asked my instructor is this an ok length and he said yes. Most of the internet tables cite 170-185 length for my height. But some of the websites start talking about your skill level, speed etc. And by those numbers "just below your chin for beginners" is a really common pattern which would give me 163cm. And since I'm a beginner I can't tell if they are too short for me, though I did not feel like fighting them every time (I know that feeling very well from snowboarding when I was learning with a very stiff and long board). So maybe I should just go for this length? I'm not aiming at speed, advanced techniques nor will I ever be (just like with snowboarding) - I just like to cruise slowly and enjoy the view. And since rental sucks (waiting in line, damp boots, etc.) I am also looking at getting my own equipment. And two options fit my budget - HEAD V-SHAPE V4 (163 cm) or DYNASTAR SPEED ZONE 6 (165 cm) but this length issue nags me... won't they be too short? The internet size charts are telling me yes. The rental guys and the instructor say no...
latest report     
 Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
gerasalus wrote:
Old Fartbag wrote:

As for length - the 163 is the shortest you should consider and 170 the longest.


And this is the part where I don't get it. I am total newbie (6’ tall 78kg) and the skis that the rental guys give me every time (after asking my height and weight) is 163cm. Which is about 1cm above my chin. Now I asked my instructor is this an ok length and he said yes. Most of the internet tables cite 170-185 length for my height. But some of the websites start talking about your skill level, speed etc. And by those numbers "just below your chin for beginners" is a really common pattern which would give me 163cm. And since I'm a beginner I can't tell if they are too short for me, though I did not feel like fighting them every time (I know that feeling very well from snowboarding when I was learning with a very stiff and long board). So maybe I should just go for this length? I'm not aiming at speed, advanced techniques nor will I ever be (just like with snowboarding) - I just like to cruise slowly and enjoy the view. And since rental sucks (waiting in line, damp boots, etc.) I am also looking at getting my own equipment. And two options fit my budget - HEAD V-SHAPE V4 (163 cm) or DYNASTAR SPEED ZONE 6 (165 cm) but this length issue nags me... won't they be too short? The internet size charts are telling me yes. The rental guys and the instructor say no...

As a beginner of your stats, who is not overly cautious - your normal range would be 168 to 174 for a Piste ski.....that comes down to 165 - 171 for a cautious skier.


Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 14-02-20 23:53; edited 1 time in total
snow conditions     
 After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
After all it is free Go on u know u want to!
@gerasalus, So as a beginner what the instructor and rental guy is telling you is correct. The reason they have you skiing on a shorter ski is that when you are learning they are easier to manage and turn. So in practical terms you will find it easier to side-step, skate, move round and not get the tips of the skis tangling with each other. And to a lesser degree from an instructional point of view a shorter ski promotes better balance for/aft.

As you get better the trend it to longer skis because at speed longer skis are more stable and as you get better and push the limits you get a little more leeway in your for/aft balance.

But if you are not aiming for performance or speed there is nothing wrong with skiing on shorter skis, 165-170 would probably be fine.
latest report     
 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.
@gerasalus, Either of those skis will be good for you to grow your skiing, if it doesn't grow they will last you for years if it does then you will find a point when you need to change. Longer, shorter, wider, narrower? depends on how you want your ability to develop from then. Toss a coin to decide, the Head may be the cooler ski and the Dynastar the better or vice versa.
Should it come to a budget decision skis or boots then buy boots and don't skimp on them get them from a good fitter, it will be the best skiing investment you ever make. I along with many others, made the expensive mistake of buying "cheap" boots only to have to replace them very quickly with properly fitted boots.
snow conditions     
 Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
SnoodlesMcFlude wrote:
arcsinice wrote:
Avoid anything greater than 84 underfoot. This wideness madness is just that. People no longer carve - what few ever did, they just schuss and skid....


That's bullshit and you know it...or you haven't skied anything wider than 84 yourself. Plenty out there capable if being laid on edge, even my 106s. I agree that there's not a lot of point if you just intend in running piste after piste after piste, but there is definitely a place for wider skis if you have any intention of doing more with your skiing. There are also plenty of fun skis out there at that width which are very good fun. And if you want to see carving, go to Austria and watch the locals.

Personally if I was a piste only skier and I just wanted something general, I wouldn't bother buying skis. Its increased hassle on every flight and most airlines charge a premium to take them which isn't dissimilar to hiring. Add in servicing etc and I just don't think j it's worth it unless you want something specific.



You know, you're right. Let's put this still-on-the-learning curve fella on a set of 106's - to - 110's if not wider. Somethin' really nice and juicy. Great for someone of his caliber. He'll really develop on that. Right up there with a beginner to intermediate on a deep hollow.

Just so you'll sleep soundly tonight, neither tossing and turning........., FYI, I've demo'd the big kahuna wide stuff several times, had shops attempt to foist the latest "flavor" wide ski(s) on me but they just do not have the overall versatility that "lesser" (narrower) skis possess, above all on piste which, admit it, one skis on about 85% of the time. Or, am I the only one missing all this supposedly ubiquitous mega powder that everyone claims they always somehow ski upon?
My widest set are a measly 85 and I ski anywhere I want on those beaut's regardless of condition, as well........, many times on another pair, a preferred set of worthless 77's that so go, too......., anywhere, chiefly in inferior Colorado and other parts of the western USA where the skiing isn't as great as the Xanadu you grace, but hey, ittsa start.
snow report     
 snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
But will it be much harder to learn if I get 170cm? Cause well actually there are more options with this length... e.g. ROSSIGNOL EXPERIENCE 76 CI, ATOMIC VANTAGE 79
snow report     
 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.
I would think of the ski lengths in terms of how many different lengths the manufacturer makes in that model, and where you fit in that range, not in absolute terms.

I’m 6’0 77kg and in terms of experience have skied 100s of days (but not 500+), so I can happily ski anything, and do so confidently/aggressively. For that Magnum I would get the 170, the 2nd longest they make.

If I was 6’3 and 95kg, or maybe if I was 20 years younger and skiing everything as hard as I could, I would get the 177, the absolute longest they make.

You sound like you should be on a 163, the middle of that range. It’s not surprising rental shops and instructors put you on a 163. Or to put it another way, if a 70kg beginner/intermediate should be on a 170, who should be on the 149!?
snow report     
 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
@arcsinice, I didn't say this guy should be buying them, I'm disagreeing that wide skis are a 'madness' and that people don't carve any more.
snow report     
 You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
gerasalus wrote:
But will it be much harder to learn if I get 170cm? Cause well actually there are more options with this length... e.g. ROSSIGNOL EXPERIENCE 76 CI, ATOMIC VANTAGE 79

The fact that you are over 12 Stone, means even as a beginner, you will (in theory, anyway) be on a longer ski, than a beginner that is lighter. If I was a beginner (10 stone/5'10"), I'd be looking at 153 - 159 (average aggressiveness); or 150 - 156 (cautious skier).
ski holidays     



Terms and conditions  Privacy Policy