Poster: A snowHead
|
Wanting to get into touring a bit more. I've found a pair of Cham 97s, which many people rave about, for a decent price. I already have touring bindings which I'll swap over
Now not being an expert in ski tech, now the only issue is the length: 172 or 178 (and will it really mean much difference ?)
I'm 175cm and 85-90 Kilos (usually nearer 90 in winter). An average off-piste skier
I plan to use these mainly for touring as I'll use my existing skis for piste but nevertheless I might want to ski for several hours on the piste if I do a half day tour and can't be arsed changing them so bear that in mind
All advice welcome !
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'd go 178.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Agree with Old Fartbag: go for 178s.
They're what i got, and i'm 172cm and 71kg.
With big rocker, way less than 178 touches the snow on-piste - they really come into their own off-piste.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
definitely not the 172. Could even go longer than 178 but 178 would be OK
I'm about the same height, 78kg and on 186 @ 108mm for my touring skis. I considered going shorter but am happy I didnt.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
dsoutar wrote: |
Wanting to get into touring a bit more. I've found a pair of Cham 97s, which many people rave about, for a decent price. I already have touring bindings which I'll swap over |
Are they the High Mountain (HM) version. They are designed specifically for touring as they are lighter. I don't tour so have the standard version. They are very heavy. But I love them.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
What are you like at kick turns? Do you have the hip flexibility to kick turn a ski longer than body length?
Snowheads seem to encourage people towards skis at the longer range of what is acceptable, but elsewhere opinions differ. This article suggests height -5cm for easy kick turns...
http://www.valthorens.com/en/live/news/news-detail/how-to-choose-your-touring-skis.378.a764.html
Similarly another website ( http://www.cosleyhouston.com/silvretta-eq-list.htm ) has this to say...
"Dynastar Cham - The "Cham 2.0" line of skis from Dynastar includes several models. The most usefull for touring are the 87mm, 97mm and 107mm widths ..... Avoid the temptation to buy long with these skis. Anything longer than you are tall, is too long. Kick turns are much more difficult in an overly long ski, and the actual additional flotation is negligible".
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Oceanic,
Despite what I said - if it is a pure touring ski, I'd agree that head height is probably the best length (although if that were the case then I would go lighter than Cham 107s). But if you are using it for combined duties - touring and more regular lift-served off piste - then longer might be better. I probably do 6 days lift served for every day I am making kick turns so optimising for kick turns would be getting my priorities wrong.
I've done multi-day hut to hut tours on trad 184s, 186s with tip rocker and (relatively) short tails are (quite a lot) easier to kick turn (I'm about 176). I'm not a very experienced tourer but even I found that once you get a little used to kick turns ski length is less of an issue than you might think, mainly because you can pull your heel down hill before you flip the tip over. I'm not particularly flexible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oceanic, you are correct in your comments, and i rather missed the touring aspect.
178s for pure downhill, but maybe shorter for touring.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Many thanks for all your advice; I just need to flex the credit card now
|
|
|
|
|
|