 Poster: A snowHead
|
I bought blizzard black pearl 88 skis in a 166 because I loved the Scott Luna in the 166. Now though I’m wondering if they are too long. I asked the advice of 2 ski shops thought they were but they were not taking my weight into account.
Should I change them for the 159’s or do I need the longer length because I weigh a lot?
I’m 5’6 and weigh 90kg
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Fri 25-01-19 23:12; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
They've got loads of rocker. I'm 5'7 and not exactly a lightweight and they were the right length for me. The 159s felt very short.
You'll be fine with the 166, especially as they've stopped the tips flapping everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
To try and give a more accurate answer:
- What level skier are you?
- How fast do you ski?
- What percentage of the time do you ski Off Piste?
- How do you find the skis - as personal preference does come into it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
166 minimum!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I was just going to ask you about your skiing, but @Old Fartbag got in first.
Without knowing anything else other than your size, I would guess the 166 to be better for you. I’ve skied this size myself, and while I didn’t get on with them, I’m a couple of inches shorter and weigh around 55kg. Though tbh, that was four years ago, and if I was taking them out again I’d consider the 166...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
If you loved the Scott Luna I should have thought these would be OK for you. Have you skied them yet?
I'm 5'3 and my older Black Pearls are 159s - I wouldn't really want to go shorter because of the rockers. I guess it might depend on how you ski though.
I notice you've put them up for sale already 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
| 166 minimum! |
At your stats/level I'd put you on the 173's.
Which width of Black Pearls do you have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
To try and give a more accurate answer:
- What level skier are you?
Intermediate- i’ll Ski all colours but happiest on reds. I’m building my confidence back up
- How fast do you ski?
Reasonably, i’m Working on building my speed up, i’d Like to be able to race down things
- What percentage of the time do you ski Off Piste?
10% i’ve not learnt off piste yet
- How do you find the skis - as personal preference does come into it? |
This will be my first pair of my own skis and rentals have been hit and miss and usually shorter. The Lunas were fun and great in deep powder so looking to get something similar (as they don’t make them any more!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
| spyderjon wrote: |
| 166 minimum! |
At your stats/level I'd put you on the 173's.
Which width of Black Pearls do you have? |
They are 88’s. The women in the shop told me they were the best all mountain option. I’m not sure i’ll Be able to turn 173’s!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wanderingpomm wrote: |
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
To try and give a more accurate answer:
- What level skier are you?
Intermediate- i’ll Ski all colours but happiest on reds. I’m building my confidence back up
- How fast do you ski?
Reasonably, i’m Working on building my speed up, i’d Like to be able to race down things
- What percentage of the time do you ski Off Piste?
10% i’ve not learnt off piste yet
- How do you find the skis - as personal preference does come into it? |
This will be my first pair of my own skis and rentals have been hit and miss and usually shorter. The Lunas were fun and great in deep powder so looking to get something similar (as they don’t make them any more!) |
Thank you for the info.
I would say that these are the very shortest you should be on.....and it's only because they are on the damp side, that you can get away with them at that length. They are a good hard-charging ski, that is very at home On Piste.
If you like the playful nature of Scott skis, did you consider Scott Slight or The Ski?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
No I went into Ellis brigham and they recommended the Blizzard’s, i’ll Check out the scotts though thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Wanderingpomm wrote: |
| No I went into Ellis brigham and they recommended the Blizzard’s, i’ll Check out the scotts though thanks |
As you probably know, the Scotts are very different. They will be easier Off Piste and Fun, but less "damp" On Piste, than the Blizzards.....and you will need to go longer imo (probably 175).
I am very light (65kg) and I ski Scott the Ski in a 180....but wouldn't consider the Blizzard Brahma longer than a 173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deffo the 166 minimum...though I still think they’re a bit short. I’m on the 173 Blizzard Brahmas, I love the length on piste. I’m 5ft 5in and about 62kg. They are quite a stiff ski. I think Black Pearls are the women’s equivalent so are probably a little bit more forgiving (NB am female but don’t always ascribe to the whole “women’s skis” thing- they are either good skis or not so good skis).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I’m the same height and around the same weight and I went for the 173 based on SpyderJons reco ( I believe man up was used) and they are great on piste and powder, even in moguls not had any problem so def don’t regret it so in my experience would def not go down to the 159. I’m not a ski expert though. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Wanderingpomm wrote: |
| spyderjon wrote: |
| spyderjon wrote: |
| 166 minimum! |
At your stats/level I'd put you on the 173's.
Which width of Black Pearls do you have? |
They are 88’s. The women in the shop told me they were the best all mountain option. I’m not sure i’ll Be able to turn 173’s! |
They're 7 cms longer. Or under 3 inches. I think you're over-analyzing this. A lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Very?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Wanderingpomm, 186 minimum i’d say, my wife skis 168 and she’s about 52kg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Wanderingpomm, JanetS is the same height as you, but a bit lighter, she skis 170 or 171s, so I think as others have said that the 166 should be the minimum length you need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I demoed the 173s and they felt too long for me, but this was the older model. Probably down to my poor technique rather than the ski though.
As I say, I owned the 166s and they were fine. I sold them because they weren't great on hard/icy pistes and I found the flappy tips really distracting, but Blizzard have since sorted that out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Rishie wrote: |
| ... They're 7 cms longer. Or under 3 inches. I think you're over-analyzing this. A lot. |
But the difference in skis of different nominal length is not only the length.
Much more significant are likely to be differences in the construction and therefore flex characteristics of a longer ski.
In any case it's easy to see that that any increase in "stiffness" is not proportional to the increase in length, or you'd
need a much wider range of ski lengths. Perhaps you're not analyzing this enough?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| philwig wrote: |
| Rishie wrote: |
| ... They're 7 cms longer. Or under 3 inches. I think you're over-analyzing this. A lot. |
But the difference in skis of different nominal length is not only the length.
Much more significant are likely to be differences in the construction and therefore flex characteristics of a longer ski.
In any case it's easy to see that that any increase in "stiffness" is not proportional to the increase in length, or you'd
need a much wider range of ski lengths. Perhaps you're not analyzing this enough? |
You’re right, I’m not analysing this enough. But then what’s the point? Most of us are recreational skiers and the decision about a ski length is often discussed a lot but to be honest, Not being able to turn a ski well enough is often down to technique (in the context of skier ability) rather than ski length although I concede that a shorter ski *should* be easier to turn. I do understand the desire to get it right but the only way to do that is to go and ski the various lengths for a proper duration in the conditions one would wish to use them. That would be the best way to do it. Having said that, almost all of us mere mortals would be unlikely to tell the difference in lengths of skis but would just have a preference which may or may not be the right ski length for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
