I am 6' 1" and weigh just 12 stone. (in metric, ....sorry no idea)
So basically I am tall and skinny and I don't think I am heavy enough to prorerly flex longer skis, surely ski length should be determined ny one's weight ?
A guy at 5' 9" weighing 15 stone will surely need a much longer ski than me ?
Or is longer not stiffer ?
Can anyone throw some light on this for me, please ?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@formerlymicky, Chinese food on the way home from the pub worked for me. Seriously, piste or off piste? Start with a 180 cm, given your weight something soft would be better,
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?
Depends on the model - some are stiffer in longer lengths, some not. You're right in saying that height has little to do with it - it's a mix of weight, ski style, type of ski, terrain preference, ability, etc...
At 5 foot 9 and around 68kg my skis range from 184-194cm. 190 is about the sweetspot for a rockered ski for me.
Well, I'm surprised that no one has said 168 is far too short
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Personally I would choose the length of the ski based on height and then choose a stiffer ski if you are heavier or like skiing long fast turns and a softer ski if you are light. I don't think anyone is served well by skiing a ski too short or too long, not all long skis are super, or even moderately stiff and not all short skis are noodles. I'm 5 '9 and like around 170cm for a non race piste ski, I'm skiing 160cm piste skis at the moment which are quite still but I find the short length isn't very confidence inspiring when I hit rough snow although they feel find on groomed pistes.
After all it is free
After all it is free
A friend and I on holiday hired a pair of skis once and I was "intermediate" and she was a total beginner - they gave us the same skis (make and model) except hers were shorter than mine (she is taller and weighs at least the same as me, possibly a bit more given the height difference though she's of slight build). Even though I now live in the mountains, I still know bug all about skis and just take what I'm given (though I've finally started insisting on having my bindings set at a level I'm comfortable with), so I'm just interested to know what the rationale was there as - without any other information - it seemed our 'skill' level was determining the length?
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.
formerlymicky wrote:
I am 6' 1" and weigh just 12 stone. (in metric, ....sorry no idea)
So basically I am tall and skinny and I don't think I am heavy enough to prorerly flex longer skis, surely ski length should be determined ny one's weight ?
A guy at 5' 9" weighing 15 stone will surely need a much longer ski than me ?
Correct (though you'd have to define "much" longer if you want to be picky - it may only be the next size up in whatever ski you're considering).
From Rossi's website: "Optimal ski length is typically determined by the following order: weight, ability, height, and aggressiveness. Less aggressive advancing skiers should error on the shorter size, while more aggressive and accomplished skiers may choose to move up a size."
formerlymicky wrote:
Well, I'm surprised that no one has said 168 is far too short
If it's a piste ski, it isn't for your weight. Have a look at their full chart here: http://media.rossignol.com//international/sizes/Alpine-Ski-1415.pdf
Their short turning Pursuit range (12, 14, 16) would put 12 stone (168 lbs) on a 163cm or a 170cm for 170 lbs if you've had too much beer. On the other hand if it's a Soul 7 for primarily off piste use they recommend a 180cm for your weight.
The critical thing to consider is that you must be able to bend the ski into reverse camber to get it to work properly. As others have said, what length allows a 12 stone person to do that depends on both the type of ski (read stiffness), the construction profile (rockered skis ski shorter than their advertised length) and your own ability (read average speed). Higher speed (more aggressive) skiers get the additional benefits of G force but I wouldn't take that into account unless you're regularly carving at 40 mph+.
Hope that helps.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
formerlymicky wrote:
I am 6' 1" and weigh just 12 stone. (in metric, ....sorry no idea)
So basically I am tall and skinny and I don't think I am heavy enough to prorerly flex longer skis, surely ski length should be determined ny one's weight ?
A guy at 5' 9" weighing 15 stone will surely need a much longer ski than me ?
Or is longer not stiffer ?
Can anyone throw some light on this for me, please ?
Stating the obvious here, but since you haven't said what sort of skis you are thinking about, remember that you need to go significantly longer if the skis have tip and/or tail rocker.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Quote:
you haven't said what sort of skis you are thinking about
or - possibly just as important - what sort of skier you are
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.
What is a rocker ?
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
micky wrote:
What is a rocker ?
An old fart who thought they could sing released some songs and still thinks they have it. Oh and marries someone at least 20yrs younger.
On a serious note
The type of skier you are the type of skiing you will be doing be it on piste or off will have a large influance on ski length. The men in the World Cup Slalom generally ski on 165cm SL race skis, those doing the DH much longer etc.
So a bit more info is required for people to really help you out, and even then nothing beats actually trying the skis before buying.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Firstly decide where you do most of your skiing, not where you want to ski but where you actually ski.
Everyone wants to ski waist deep powder, but those days only happen a few times a season and most people haven't got a clue what to do in it.
Me, 60 yrs +, 16 stone (100kg) trying to get lighter, but that involves giving up beer. 5ft 11in.
Skiing 95% on piste.
I had hired these skis for 2 consecutive years/weeks and loved the way they made me feel on piste. Don't know if they did what I wanted or they made me feel good about what they wanted but we matched. I loved the way I skied with them, they love to turn and I love the turns they give me. Silly word but "swooshy". Spotted that Rossignol had replaced the model line with another so tracked ebay etc. all through that summer watching the price drop until there appeared to be few left in the country and was then able to buy at £200 (approx 3 weeks rental cost).
10 ski weeks in (I retired so that I could ski more than one week a year) I have skis that make me feel happy in all on piste conditions and owe me nothing.
On the approx 5 pure powder days I have had in those 10 weeks I have hired fatter skis and had a great time.
So, hire, hire, hire , keep taking the skis back until you find something that you love in the conditions that you ski most in. Wait until they go "out of fashion"/ model change and pick up a pair cheap then on the powder days test/hire something more suitable.
In the words of an old rocker "Savoy Brown" "Taste and Try before you buy"
Rocker is rise in the tip/tail. Means that on a flat piste less ski is in contact with the surface, but when in softer snow it all is (terrible explanation!).
I am not sure that I agree that the right ski for everyone is one for the conditions you ski most in. Buying your own skis (assuming you are only buying one pair) is always a compromise. Im a 2-3 week a year skier and I guess on average one in every four or five days I go skiing is in powder if Im lucky. However, for me, its those days that have made me fall in love with the sport, so I have wide, powder orientated skis. That means that 75-80% at least of the time I am skiing on piste, on skis which are less than ideal for those conditions. But they aren't too bad on piste, and when the snow comes, I have a pair of skis that excel in my favourite conditions.
I have heard it said many times on here that you need to buy for 'not where you want to ski but where you actually ski', and for many that is the right approach, but for many its not!
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Another option @SkiG, is to buy skis for what you ski the most and then buy a cheap secondhand pair for the conditions that you like to ski if different. You can always buy quiver killers to easily remove the bindings if flying to keep the skibag under the weight limit if required, then put the bindings in the hold luggage.
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?
@speed098, absolutely, I was going to do just that with a quiver killered narrower ski, but...... the wife found out, and well, umm, then I "changed my mind"
@SkiG, Show her the cost of rental for 1-2 days a year compared with owning after all no extra cost incurred transporting them even if flying as you will be paying for ski carriage.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Quote:
Show her the cost of rental for 1-2 days a year
and how many years do you reckon you'd need to ski on them for 1 or 2 days a year, (taking into account the cost of occasional servicing) before you've recouped the cost? Maybe your wife is not too clever at arithmetic?
and how many years do you reckon you'd need to ski on them for 1 or 2 days a year, (taking into account the cost of occasional servicing) before you've recouped the cost? Maybe your wife is not too clever at arithmetic?
Or maybe by buying secondhand out of season and paying under £100 if not well under £100 and doing your own servicing will work out cheaper. How much for rental per day plus insurance in case they get damaged ?
You would also save the cost of servicing your main skis if you bought the tools which should cost around the price of 2-3 services for most people.
Yes renting you get to try different makes/models but having your own you get used to what they are capable of, so both have advantages and disadvantages it is down to each person to decide which is best for them.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@speed098, makes a good point - @SkiG, you were intending to spend well under £100 on your new skis… right?
After all it is free
After all it is free
Under £100 is cheap but not impossible especially out of season I was watching some off-piste skis on fleebay that went for just over £60 plus I think it was £15 postage and some ex-hire for about that price including postage on buy it now. That is durring the season so in the summer more bargains to be had maybe not much cheaper but hopefully more availability at that price range. If they get wrecked off-piste at that price do you really care? For a few days each holiday at most they should last a good few years so you will more than recover the money you would have spent renting ( unless you are unlucky and miss those few days each trip that you could use them ).
It will not suit everyone some will prefer renting some will prefer to only buy new both for main and second/third pair of skis. Most of my skis since starting back are secondhand, why? becauseI ski all year round on both plastic and in the fridge why risk damaging the bases on new skis on plastic. I bought a pair of Volkl Racetiger Speedwall GS skis brand new for less than £120 in the summer can get the bindings at the moment instead of well over £200 just over £100 posted ( will fit them myself ). This summer I will do the same for some SL skis and buy some secondhand off-piste, I will quiver kill the GS and SL skis hopefully or if I get the higher din bindings for the GS quiverkill the SL and off-piste if I can get wider brakes for the bindings.
pam w, point is very valid if buying new but not as much if buying secondhand especially if buying cheaper skis ie around or under the £100 mark. But if you have a few pairs of skis to service it does work out cheaper to learn to service your own skis ie edges and wax.
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.
Sorry to bump, just wanted to say a quick thanks for the info on this thread. Guess I could have just Googled it, but still it has been enlightening. I am 6'2" and 10 stone (~65kg, 140lb?) and I have always struggled with longer skis - but the people in the hire shops in France have always brought out skis and compared them to my height, never even seemed to look at my weight when picking skis, and I've ended up with 180s or longer that I can't turn in. And in the past friends have told me that the guide for ski length is that they should reach around about your chin when you stand them upright, which didn't fit for me, again weight never mentioned.
But now I feel happy that the 165-170 length I aim for is about right for me, and I finally think I know why
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Length based on height, stiffness (or softness) based on weight, there is far more to how a ski performs than how long it is, too long or too short don't do anyone any favours. If the ski is too stiff at a suitable length for your height go for as softer ski.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
5' 10" (178 cm), 10 st (64 kg).
163 cm (nose height) for non-rockered piste-only skis seems to be the sweet spot for me, no matter which brand I've tried. 160 cm feels too short and 165 cm can feel slightly too long.
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.
It's all about the colour and graphics
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
@lynseyf, height has very little to do with it. Your skis don't know how tall you are. There will be some small effects due to lever length differences.
Stiffness doesn't generally have much to do with it either, as the actual stiffness is not so much. After all, most people can get two skis to go from negative to zero camber with thumb and forefinger. That said, there are three models of ski in the world that I have experienced that I am convinced were just designed for burlier folk than me.
So, @formerlymicky, whatever is recommended for your weight.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
under a new name wrote:
@lynseyf, height has very little to do with it. Your skis don't know how tall you are. There will be some small effects due to lever length differences.
No but I know how long or short they are.
My only piste skis are a pair of 160cm carvers just now which are definitely too short for me, the minute I head off piste, in any sort of rough snow (ie. typical Scottish conditions) I am much more aware of having to stay balanced on them and they just don't give me the confidence to go really fast on piste despite being moderately stiff. I know there is the argument you can just size down if you find the skis a bit hard to bend but from my own experience, and watching loads of other people, I think people are better off picking a ski by height and weight. I don't think beginners, who don't have the speed or skill to bend a stiffer ski in an appropriate height are well served by just picking the same ski in a shorter length and if a ski is too soft for you going longer will help but not totally solve the problem.
I think you are also possibly talking about better skiers than I am, ie. racers or people skiing proper race skis? Obviously slalom skiers do well on pretty short skis what ever their height and weight etc. etc.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
@lynseyf, maybe we're slightly talking at cross purposes. Except that height shouldn't be the criteria, weight should be (generally speaking). So you choose the ski length based on what you weigh.
Now, that said, I'd suggest most rental shops use height as the metric cos' that's easy to measure against the ski and frankly, +/- 5 cms won't make much difference to most people's experience. And asking some people what they weigh knowing full well who ate all the pies can be impolite.
I'm really not so convinced about stiffness as I suspect that the range of stiffnesses across most "intermediate" (WETM) skis will be surprisingly narrow. i.e. all much of a muchness.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
