 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi all,
I need some advise on ski length. I am 5 feet 10 inches (178cm) and 141 lbs (64 kg). I am planning to buy my first pair of skis (Volkl RTM 81). I consider myself a good/strong intermediate. I ski mostly on piste (90% of the time). I am looking for the right size that will help to improve my technic. I am confused and not really sure what size to go for, if 163 or 170. As these skis are full-rocker I was thinking 170 would be OK for me but was advised to go for 163 (by one of the sellers). What do you think? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I'm the same height and weight as you....maybe a little more advanced...and could ski either. It really may come down to preference. Can you try both.
Personally, I would for the 170, but I come from the days of 2m skis and like the extra length.
If you can't test, then it may be best to go with the recommendation of the shop. Volkl make sturdy skis, so the 163 should not feel squirrelly underfoot and might be the best length to give confidence in moguls and getting to the next level on piste.
I'm afraid that's a bit of a non-answer, but a fair amount of preference is involved where there are 2 possible lengths that would suffice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Thank you for the answer.
Unfortunately I can't demo the skis. I would go for the 170s but since I am buying blind I am just afraid they'd feel too long
The guys in the store are not really "experts" in skis, they just know a little bit of everything. That's why I wanted to ask here to get a better idea.
Thanks again and any advice would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Same height but 20kgs heavier and normally ski 174 cms (78mm) all-mountain skis with no rocket. Assuming the volkl are 81mm wide you should have no problems with the 170's. 81mm seems wide if you prefer on-piste and looking to improve - personally I'd do for narrower (and maybe shorter) carving skis to perfect your technique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@aslan, also why are you buying blind? You may pay more in-resort but will be able to make a better decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Ozboy Thanks for commenting!
In general I want something to the piste but also a ski which can handle off-piste a bit.
Unfortunately where I live we don't have the "luxury" of demo (not even in-resorts).
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@aslan, where are you planning to go skiing and do they not have shops at that location? Most stores allow you to demo FOC if you buy skis from them. You should also consider where / when you ski to determine how much of off-piste you will really do. For most it is very little and don't let that compromise on-piste performance / progression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@aslan, take the 170s. You are quite light, but probably not so much that you won't find a 163 unstable. The rocker will make them ski shorter as well. For reference, I would consider a 163 to be at the top of the range of what I could cope with, and I'm 163 tall and a few kilos lighter. I wouldn't give them to someone who was 5'11".
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@aslan, I'm 5.10 and 70 kgs and would take the 163's
I like fast short turns on nippy skis on steep pistes and just have much more fun on the shorter skis.
If you prefer just straight running and gentle carving on blue runs, take the longer ones
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scarlet and Red 27 nicely highlight the point I was making about preference. I think this is a decision that you will have to make depending on what your preferences/priorities are.
What is the longest ski that you have tried and liked?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I hired a pair of the RTMs just the other week, albeit the 78mm waist. I am 181cm tall and a stone and a bit heavier than you (72-ish kg) and also a decent intermediate (if I say so myself...). The hire shop gave me 178's, which seemed a bit long. I think they were also last season's model, but they were great - absolutely loved them, they gave good speed and stability but were easy enough to control and coped well with fresh powder, chopped up crud, ice, the lot. I'm far from an expert, but based on my experience I would definitely recommend going for the longer ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
This is exactly the dilemma that I'm facing. One person says go with the longer ski and another says go with a shorter ski ( each and every opinion is much appreciated and considered). I know that length can vary depending on each person and many other factors.
In the last years I have been skiing in the 160-170cm range.
To be honest I would like to go for the 170s but I just want to be sure they will be OK for me. As you know some skies ski 'long' others 'short', and so on.
Thank you all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| aslan wrote: |
This is exactly the dilemma that I'm facing. One person says go with the longer ski and another says go with a shorter ski ( each and every opinion is much appreciated and considered). I know that length can vary depending on each person and many other factors.
In the last years I have been skiing in the 160-170cm range.
To be honest I would like to go for the 170s but I just want to be sure they will be OK for me. As you know some skies ski 'long' others 'short', and so on.
Thanks you all! |
Given what you've just said, I think I'm now more in the 170 camp.....in case that makes a difference.
You will be able to handle both...so it's simply a matter of what you want to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
163 seems ridiculously short!
I'm 5'8 (so 173cm) and just a little heavier than you, and I am skiing on 179s and think I really wouldn't want to go any shorter (although I would consider myself an advanced skier)
I think a lot of it comes down to the ski, for instance, mine behave a lot shorter than the 179 because of some of their build features.
Personally I think you should take the 170s, if you're an intermediate now it gives you some ski to grow into, and will be better when you reach the advanced skier stage
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Volkl make that ski in 5 lengths. At 5'10" if you should be on the 163s who do you think they make the next 3 larger sizes for? If you're a medium sized guy you're probably best off on the medium sized ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I'm about the same level as you, but little taller and a little heavier. I'd almost certainly buy the 170's myself (though no doubt with some public soul searching on here first) - but this is a personal choice as these look like 80% piste skis which shouldn't 'ski short' in my understanding of the word.
I personally liked the Brahma in 180 which is stiffer than these but does 'ski short' according to those in the know... admittedly I found them a handful in moguls, but my technique was certainly the main culprit.
The key question in all this is probably:
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
What is the longest ski that you have tried and liked? |
If you've just come off a load a short skis that may be the real deal breaker if you have to buy blind....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Thank you all for the comments and suggestions.
I am leaning towards the 170cm. I will let you know guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Hi I am looking at the rtm 75s. I have been skiing on some k2 impact with 80mm waist for the past 3 years at 167 and they are just a bit to numb for me.
When i did some demos at the local fridge i tried the salomom enduro750 the atomic smoke ti and a pair of rtms. I remember i loved the rtms and also the salomons. i was told i would love the impact and stuppidly went for those based on a recomendation.
Now i am looking at what i should get as a replacement and the rtms are my first choice. Problem is finding a pair to demo....
I would personally go for a shorter ski as i find it is ok having a ski you can "Grow into" but 10 days skiing a year is all about enjoying the skiing for me rather than self analysis of why your struggling to come to terms with the conditions and or the skis on your feet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I'd say you want the 170s. I think the 163s would be fine on piste if you don't like making big fast turns but will be too short off piste (and you mention you want a bit of capability for that).
Personally I don't agree with this:
| Quote: |
I like fast short turns on nippy skis on steep pistes and just have much more fun on the shorter skis.
If you prefer just straight running and gentle carving on blue runs, take the longer ones
|
Fast short turns on steep pistes mean a fair amount of pivoting unless you are a true expert. Ski length really doesn't make pivoting more difficult. I have some 186s which pivot easily and I'm 5'9 although a bit heavier. What it does do is make short CARVED turns harder but few people are skiing them on black runs and none of them are intermediates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
