 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
You sacrifice considerable stability at speed on such a short pair. "Intermediate" skier means many different things to different people, so you may even feel it at slower speeds.. "squirrelly" might be the word that describes it.
You might also need to get advice from far more expert skiers than I about how high/low to set the bindings as (I think) the potential tortional force required to release them if you fall may be greater on a "normal" DIN sitting than if the skis were longer...? Or maybe give your height and weight I am talking b*llocks... 
If it were me, I'd go 10cm longer at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Jim, wot Perty says. It's not much fun with a squirel on each foot ... and you aren't exactly skinny are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
You are maybe a bit heavy and tall for a 162 ski. I am a female 135 lbs and have 163 Rossi Zenith 6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I'm also 70 in a couple of weeks..... And no great shakes as a skier. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Stability at speed and speed itself? Also float in powder? I am a similar size and weight to you and have always had 178cm+ skis - currently on a 187cm pair.
I am sure you could ski on them fine however. You might get some funny looks in the lift queues...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@jimphizacklea@gmail.com,
It is easy to be seduced into thinking shorter ski = easier to turn, but for a chap of your heft they are miles too short. I am a trundly old bloke skier, over 2 stones lighter than you, and my skis are about 180cm. Some would consider those too short for me.
You may have a hard time doing anything other than turn on those.
Still, I could be completely wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oops, so as others have pointed out, squirrelly is what you are likely to get when trying to go quick and straight, or in big sweeping turns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
FWIW If you take a mono-ski that's too short (I took a 165 instead of 185 - different times ), I found there was a tendency to over-rotate on your turns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Just to say my Dad is 68yrs old, 86kg (190pounds) and 183cm, he now skis on 168cm ski's to make his turns easier, he skis absolutely fine on them but never gets up to much speed these days and definitely struggles with stability on sections of the piste he needs to whizz (read wobbly legs). I'd say 162cm is too short and would make any kind of speed horrible and probably cause some falls. At 183cm, and an 'intermediate' I wouldn't ski anything shorter than 171cm's, although ideally 177cm's especially if you aim to improve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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'm very similar height and kg as OP but experimented last season with different skis.
I've been running some old twin tips in recent years as I've brought my children along through their learning curve. These I run a bit short from ideal at 169 cm but they are only really limited in deep soft and off piste where I have to consciously keep the tips in mind so I don't bury them. On piste they are fine, any suggested instability just doesn't materialise as you wind the speed up. In short they work over a much wider range than people would have you believe.
Further to that, we rented for my son (12yrs and 58kg) some 150cm twin tips with 85mm waste. As they had very adjustable hire bindings on them I had a run on those, mainly to see if they would extend their performance into the size he's going to be over the next few years (this is with a view to buy them, which he did) and they didn't have any problems of stability even though they are technically way too short for me. Gliding was slightly slower as you'd expect, but turning and carving they just didn't have a problem. No stability issues whatsoever. We ran all of the skis through a speed trap that was set up and even that didn't phase them, not that much slower either at 55mph.
The biggest compromise I see you may have is keeping the tips up in soft powder. Outside that, can't really see you'd have much of a problem. You'll soon find out if you try them, but hire of something else is a reasonable contingency if you find them unworkable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well you may find that they ski just like a slalom ski. My SLs are the standard 165 cm although they are a fairly heavy and stiff ski which gives a bit more stability at speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@jimphizacklea@gmail.com,
I'm 200lb 182 cm, so very similar build to you. I've been skiing 163cm very happily for a few years now, Yes, it probably is time to go longer (any excuse for n+1), albeit I do worry about dealing with the mogul fields that I enjoy atm. While I do fall behind 'the lads' on the Reds, I make up for it on the blacks!
Really, they're not as bad as some would make out.
AR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
