 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I’ve been interested in purchasing the Nórdica Navigator 85 as a more forgiving all mountain skis for a upper intermediate skier. While renting it, the staff insisted I should be using 179, and not 172 - which would be the reference size for my level. I’m 1,78cm high and weight 78kg. What do you guys think ? Should I buy longer and will be correct size by the time I improve and keep it shorter and easier for now ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Gustavobs, 172cms sounds long enough for your height and weight.
Perhaps 179 was what they had in stock and ready to go in the rental shop?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Gustavobs, I will would be going with 179 all day long, the ski is 50% rockered so the effective edge grip is short for on piste stuff and you will get a bit more float off piste with the 179. iMHO go with the enforcer 93, it’s a better ski
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Gustavobs wrote: |
| I’ve been interested in purchasing the Nórdica Navigator 85 as a more forgiving all mountain skis for a upper intermediate skier. While renting it, the staff insisted I should be using 179, and not 172 - which would be the reference size for my level. I’m 1,78cm high and weight 78kg. What do you guys think ? Should I buy longer and will be correct size by the time I improve and keep it shorter and easier for now ? |
What level skier are you (upper intermidiot I guess)? I would tend to go for your height, that is 179cm rather than 172 unless you are planning on doing a lot of gnarly tree skiing. It has rocker on the front end so logic would say you should got for the longer of two sizes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
179cm, no discussion!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Height probably irrelevant, weight much more so. As a certified intermidiot I'd ski the 172s and I'm 13kg or so lighter than the OP. @Gustavobs, 179.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
have they a rocker on them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^^
the ski is 50% rockered
It has rocker on the front end
........................
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
ok, so i have had a look on the nordica website and its got a 30% rocker on it, so it will ski short on the piste...... so in this case i would go 179 without a doubt instead on 172...... BUT they are a similar rocker to shape of my old bent chetlers and i thought that the were too short with a 30% rocker and i think that they were 183.... so i would actually go longer if you can, they do a 186 which i would say would be a better length with that amount of tip rocker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30% on the front - 20% on the tail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
If you are an Advanced Intermediate, skiing at average speeds, you should theoretically be on 177 - 183.....so another vote for 179.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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's the problem with skiing too short? Most skis have a shorter turn radius as the ski gets shorter which I prefer and I frequently find myself side sliding / stepping down narrow access / exits where my 185cm/90kg would put me on 190+ but my 180s were a pain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
depends on what you want from a ski..... i would say for my chetlers they are too short at 183 and i am lighter smaller than you, but they were an out and out off piste ski but if you are going to be skiing a fair bit of piste then a 30% tip rocker is a lot so when you are piste skiing it would be like skiing a 130cm ski as so much of the rocker is off the ground.... horses for courses but i think in the op's case 179 would be a better bet than 172
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
always found that larger rockered skis just gave too much ski on my feet with unnecessary flappy bits on the ends ... prefer a shorter flat ski with a softer tip .. ...
i would suggest looking at a lesser rockered ski (?)...
But its all individual, so try them at both lengths .. sometimes what you need is not what you want and vice versa
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Mon 14-01-19 15:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I'd go for the 179 personally, but lots of the advice on this thread is pretty out.
It's important not to confuse/combine actual rocker (i.e. where the ski starts it's rocker profile) and splay (the amount/gradient on the rocker). Skis like the bent chetler have a rocker profile which a. starts much earlier and b. is much more splayed. This results in a far shorter effective edge than on a ski like the navigator which has a far far less pronounced tip splay and minimal tail splay.
And as a side note these could not be further away from the old bent chetlers - 120+ pow stick with a very progressive mount point (again will make them ski shorter by reducing the length of ski out in front of you) vs. what is effectively a beefed up piste ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@asharpe64, as he says..... i haven't seen the navigators but 30% is a big rocker regardless on splay etc..... either way mate in answer to your first q.... 179cm 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Another vote for 179 for your height, weight and the type of ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Gustavobs, 179 wins by a mile then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Thanks all for the reply. Seems majority agrees with 179. I would say I’m upper intermediate trying to go next level but not quite yet. I prefer to ski fast - although when it gets bumpy or icy I need to slow down or I loose control.
Had 2 with these skis and tomorrow will change to a carver to try to get a bit more sense if I should go all mountain or not.
Got the Rossignol Hero (red) 175, following a suggestion from a instructor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| KenX wrote: |
^^^
the ski is 50% rockered
It has rocker on the front end
........................ |
I know that ski
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I suspect 30% rocker on the front and 20% on the back might make them 25% overall rather than 50%. But then I don’t know how ski manufacturers spec rocker.
Although, having looked at the specs it is indeed 50% rocker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Gustavobs, that's a much better idea if you are mostly or all on piste.
There seems to be rather a lot of nonsense talked about rocker on here making the "effective edge" shorter. Typically, not when the ski is edged. The rocker typically found on any piste oriented ski and many all mountain skis will make the skis feel a little easier (~=shorter) from the point of view of turn initiation but once the edges engage there's little to no effect.
Unless you are buying an all out offpiste charging machine for AK, additional length, beyond a certain point, just makes things harder work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
