 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi All. First time here.
I'm an intermediates skier, mainly reds with the odd black now and then but usually always on piste.
After 5 or so years skiing I've decided to buy ski's. I'm wondering mainly what length ski's to buy.
I'm 5ft 11" and 70kg (11 stone).
I've just started feeling the carve on my last trip. I'd love some recommendations.
I looked at some that were 167cm and came up to middle of my nose but Couldn't help but think they looked to small.
I've always hired to date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I would suggest looking at the Head Magnum....which imv is a ski that has great headroom, meaning you won't grow out of it as you get better. It is not too stiff a ski, so quite manageable for an Advanced Intermediate. It will also help with improving your carving.
As for length - the 163 is the shortest you should consider and 170 the longest.
Given you are happy on a 167, I would go for the 170, as you will hardly notice the difference (as the extra length is split either side of the binding - if you see what I mean). If possible, try before you buy.
Things change a little if you want to start exploring Off Piste.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Thu 13-02-20 12:46; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@trueblue81, I would consider attending Oktobertest. This way you can try different ones out and feel the difference between them
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
I would suggest looking at the Head Magnum....which imv is a ski that has great headroom, meaning you won't grow out of it as you get better. It is not too stiff a ski, so quite manageable for an Advanced Intermediate. It will also help with improving your carving.
As for length - the 163 is the shortest you should consider and 170 the longest.
Given you are happy on a 167, I would go for the 170, as you will hardly notice the difference (as the extra length is split either side of the binding - if you see what I mean). If possible, try before you buy.
Things change a little if you want to start exploring Off Piste. |
I concur with Head Magnums, I am the same height and a few kgs heavier and I have the 170cms. Great ski
More forgiving that the old Stocklis I had.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Thanks all, some good advice. I'll check out the Head Magnums.
One ski I was looking at in the shop was the ROSSIGNOL HERO ELITE MT CA + NX 12 KONECT GW B80 BLACK ICON 20
In your opinion, do you think this would be wrong for my criteria?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| trueblue81 wrote: |
Thanks all, some good advice. I'll check out the Head Magnums.
One ski I was looking at in the shop was the ROSSIGNOL HERO ELITE MT CA + NX 12 KONECT GW B80 BLACK ICON 20
In your opinion, do you think this would be wrong for my criteria? |
I can talk about the Magnums from direct experience.
Looking at the Rossignols, they would also appear to be suitable (in a 167), as they're not as hardcore as some of the other Elite line.
Ideally you should test both....but if this isn't an option, get as much feedback as you can from Reviews and Personal experience and then make your choice.....which may come down to Price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Really appreciate the advice.
It's quite a bit of money, and I just want to make sure I've got as much advice and information possible to make an informed decision.
I guess the only real way to know is to try them out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| trueblue81 wrote: |
Thanks. Really appreciate the advice.
It's quite a bit of money, and I just want to make sure I've got as much advice and information possible to make an informed decision.
I guess the only real way to know is to try them out. |
Hence suggesting the Oktobertest- lots of different skis to try, season before last I ended up buying one of the ex demo pairs I had tried and really liked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| NickyJ wrote: |
| trueblue81 wrote: |
Thanks. Really appreciate the advice.
It's quite a bit of money, and I just want to make sure I've got as much advice and information possible to make an informed decision.
I guess the only real way to know is to try them out. |
Hence suggesting the Oktobertest- lots of different skis to try, season before last I ended up buying one of the ex demo pairs I had tried and really liked. |
This looks decent, thanks. I forgot to mention I go skiing in 2 weeks and wanted to purchase prior to that trip 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@trueblue81, how about try and hire one you are Interested in buying out there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
If you see a good price on the rossi's, get them. They will probably have paid for themselves in a couple of trips and you could still sell them for a few quid. They look like a nice intermediate piste ski and should suit you just fine - I don't think you will go far wrong. I would recommend going shorter than your nose. I don't get going for piste oriented skis of the same or greater height than you are, they just get harder to turn. If they had tons of rocker, then sure, go longer. After 5 years of skiing, I would see 167 as the maximum you should consider. The Magnums will also be a good ski for you, with plenty of room to improve in them. Don't look at Salomon, no matter how appealing the price, they're poops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Go long, or go home! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| As for length - the 163 is the shortest you should consider and 170 the longest. |
I am very similar height/weight (5’10” 70kg) to the OP and would roughly agree with the above in that 165 to 170 seems to suit, definently have not felt the need to go longer for a piste ski
I have a pair of Nordica Navigators in 165 now and the amount of tip rocker is massive compared to my previous pair of Rossignolls but they still seem to grip fine even at reasonable speeds
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Klamm Franzer wrote: |
| Don't look at Salomon, no matter how appealing the price, they're poops. |
Why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| kittya wrote: |
| Klamm Franzer wrote: |
| Don't look at Salomon, no matter how appealing the price, they're poops. |
Why? |
I was wondering the same - but I haven't skied a Salomon since their X Scream Series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
No brand recommendation, only this............. If whatever considered skis you have in mind don't flex (most are still too stiff) - it done won't turn. Avoid anything greater than 84 underfoot. This wideness madness is just that. People no longer carve - what few ever did, they just schuss and skid..........
ps: Your boots are, hands down, THE most important piece of equipment. Hope you have a pair. If not, get those first, not skis. And again, not stiff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
| kittya wrote: |
| Klamm Franzer wrote: |
| Don't look at Salomon, no matter how appealing the price, they're poops. |
Why? |
I was wondering the same - but I haven't skied a Salomon since their X Scream Series. |
I have skied various Salomons skis currently and own a set myself. Not sure why you are so agains them like all manufactures they have some good skis and some the are just average.
| arcsinice wrote: |
| Avoid anything greater than 84 underfoot. This wideness madness is just that. People no longer carve - what few ever did, they just schuss and skid.......... |
I will agree that for a piste ski there is no need to go above 85 underfoot and personal i would rather be closer to 70 for a dedicated piste ski. Wide skis is not a madness, they have their place and stating that people no longer carve is simply not true. I see plenty of people carving turns on piste and even on wider skis, I regally carve turns on my skis which are 99 under foot
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Back to the OP's original question: As others have said something along the lines of the head magnum or similar would be a good ski, relatively forgiving, while being fairly stiff. They are a ski you could ski now but grow into and once you learn to harness them can be very fun especially in carving turns.
As for ski length don't fuss about it too much. You are relatively tall, If i was your hight i would go towards the longer end of the recommendations so 170. I would suspect you would find the 163's feel very short especially as your skiing improves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
The thing to remember about buying your first set of skis is that it's not a lifetime commitment. Buy your Rossis, if you buy well and really don't like them then sell them on Ebay your net cost won't be a huge amount more than the cost of hiring the same skis for a week. If you do like them then you're on a winner.
Once you have your own skis when you have a bad day you'll know that it's down to you not your skis.
Remember that the nominal turn radius of the Rossis varies with length 159cm = 13m radius, 167=14m, 175=15m.
As you develop you will want to change skis or add skis see The Rules number 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| arcsinice wrote: |
| Avoid anything greater than 84 underfoot. This wideness madness is just that. People no longer carve - what few ever did, they just schuss and skid.... |
That's bullshit and you know it...or you haven't skied anything wider than 84 yourself. Plenty out there capable if being laid on edge, even my 106s. I agree that there's not a lot of point if you just intend in running piste after piste after piste, but there is definitely a place for wider skis if you have any intention of doing more with your skiing. There are also plenty of fun skis out there at that width which are very good fun. And if you want to see carving, go to Austria and watch the locals.
Personally if I was a piste only skier and I just wanted something general, I wouldn't bother buying skis. Its increased hassle on every flight and most airlines charge a premium to take them which isn't dissimilar to hiring. Add in servicing etc and I just don't think j it's worth it unless you want something specific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
As for length - the 163 is the shortest you should consider and 170 the longest.
|
And this is the part where I don't get it. I am total newbie (6’ tall 78kg) and the skis that the rental guys give me every time (after asking my height and weight) is 163cm. Which is about 1cm above my chin. Now I asked my instructor is this an ok length and he said yes. Most of the internet tables cite 170-185 length for my height. But some of the websites start talking about your skill level, speed etc. And by those numbers "just below your chin for beginners" is a really common pattern which would give me 163cm. And since I'm a beginner I can't tell if they are too short for me, though I did not feel like fighting them every time (I know that feeling very well from snowboarding when I was learning with a very stiff and long board). So maybe I should just go for this length? I'm not aiming at speed, advanced techniques nor will I ever be (just like with snowboarding) - I just like to cruise slowly and enjoy the view. And since rental sucks (waiting in line, damp boots, etc.) I am also looking at getting my own equipment. And two options fit my budget - HEAD V-SHAPE V4 (163 cm) or DYNASTAR SPEED ZONE 6 (165 cm) but this length issue nags me... won't they be too short? The internet size charts are telling me yes. The rental guys and the instructor say no...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gerasalus wrote: |
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
As for length - the 163 is the shortest you should consider and 170 the longest.
|
And this is the part where I don't get it. I am total newbie (6’ tall 78kg) and the skis that the rental guys give me every time (after asking my height and weight) is 163cm. Which is about 1cm above my chin. Now I asked my instructor is this an ok length and he said yes. Most of the internet tables cite 170-185 length for my height. But some of the websites start talking about your skill level, speed etc. And by those numbers "just below your chin for beginners" is a really common pattern which would give me 163cm. And since I'm a beginner I can't tell if they are too short for me, though I did not feel like fighting them every time (I know that feeling very well from snowboarding when I was learning with a very stiff and long board). So maybe I should just go for this length? I'm not aiming at speed, advanced techniques nor will I ever be (just like with snowboarding) - I just like to cruise slowly and enjoy the view. And since rental sucks (waiting in line, damp boots, etc.) I am also looking at getting my own equipment. And two options fit my budget - HEAD V-SHAPE V4 (163 cm) or DYNASTAR SPEED ZONE 6 (165 cm) but this length issue nags me... won't they be too short? The internet size charts are telling me yes. The rental guys and the instructor say no... |
As a beginner of your stats, who is not overly cautious - your normal range would be 168 to 174 for a Piste ski.....that comes down to 165 - 171 for a cautious skier.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 14-02-20 23:53; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@gerasalus, So as a beginner what the instructor and rental guy is telling you is correct. The reason they have you skiing on a shorter ski is that when you are learning they are easier to manage and turn. So in practical terms you will find it easier to side-step, skate, move round and not get the tips of the skis tangling with each other. And to a lesser degree from an instructional point of view a shorter ski promotes better balance for/aft.
As you get better the trend it to longer skis because at speed longer skis are more stable and as you get better and push the limits you get a little more leeway in your for/aft balance.
But if you are not aiming for performance or speed there is nothing wrong with skiing on shorter skis, 165-170 would probably be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@gerasalus, Either of those skis will be good for you to grow your skiing, if it doesn't grow they will last you for years if it does then you will find a point when you need to change. Longer, shorter, wider, narrower? depends on how you want your ability to develop from then. Toss a coin to decide, the Head may be the cooler ski and the Dynastar the better or vice versa.
Should it come to a budget decision skis or boots then buy boots and don't skimp on them get them from a good fitter, it will be the best skiing investment you ever make. I along with many others, made the expensive mistake of buying "cheap" boots only to have to replace them very quickly with properly fitted boots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
| arcsinice wrote: |
| Avoid anything greater than 84 underfoot. This wideness madness is just that. People no longer carve - what few ever did, they just schuss and skid.... |
That's bullshit and you know it...or you haven't skied anything wider than 84 yourself. Plenty out there capable if being laid on edge, even my 106s. I agree that there's not a lot of point if you just intend in running piste after piste after piste, but there is definitely a place for wider skis if you have any intention of doing more with your skiing. There are also plenty of fun skis out there at that width which are very good fun. And if you want to see carving, go to Austria and watch the locals.
Personally if I was a piste only skier and I just wanted something general, I wouldn't bother buying skis. Its increased hassle on every flight and most airlines charge a premium to take them which isn't dissimilar to hiring. Add in servicing etc and I just don't think j it's worth it unless you want something specific. |
You know, you're right. Let's put this still-on-the-learning curve fella on a set of 106's - to - 110's if not wider. Somethin' really nice and juicy. Great for someone of his caliber. He'll really develop on that. Right up there with a beginner to intermediate on a deep hollow.
Just so you'll sleep soundly tonight, neither tossing and turning........., FYI, I've demo'd the big kahuna wide stuff several times, had shops attempt to foist the latest "flavor" wide ski(s) on me but they just do not have the overall versatility that "lesser" (narrower) skis possess, above all on piste which, admit it, one skis on about 85% of the time. Or, am I the only one missing all this supposedly ubiquitous mega powder that everyone claims they always somehow ski upon?
My widest set are a measly 85 and I ski anywhere I want on those beaut's regardless of condition, as well........, many times on another pair, a preferred set of worthless 77's that so go, too......., anywhere, chiefly in inferior Colorado and other parts of the western USA where the skiing isn't as great as the Xanadu you grace, but hey, ittsa start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
But will it be much harder to learn if I get 170cm? Cause well actually there are more options with this length... e.g. ROSSIGNOL EXPERIENCE 76 CI, ATOMIC VANTAGE 79
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 would think of the ski lengths in terms of how many different lengths the manufacturer makes in that model, and where you fit in that range, not in absolute terms.
I’m 6’0 77kg and in terms of experience have skied 100s of days (but not 500+), so I can happily ski anything, and do so confidently/aggressively. For that Magnum I would get the 170, the 2nd longest they make.
If I was 6’3 and 95kg, or maybe if I was 20 years younger and skiing everything as hard as I could, I would get the 177, the absolute longest they make.
You sound like you should be on a 163, the middle of that range. It’s not surprising rental shops and instructors put you on a 163. Or to put it another way, if a 70kg beginner/intermediate should be on a 170, who should be on the 149!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@arcsinice, I didn't say this guy should be buying them, I'm disagreeing that wide skis are a 'madness' and that people don't carve any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| gerasalus wrote: |
| But will it be much harder to learn if I get 170cm? Cause well actually there are more options with this length... e.g. ROSSIGNOL EXPERIENCE 76 CI, ATOMIC VANTAGE 79 |
The fact that you are over 12 Stone, means even as a beginner, you will (in theory, anyway) be on a longer ski, than a beginner that is lighter. If I was a beginner (10 stone/5'10"), I'd be looking at 153 - 159 (average aggressiveness); or 150 - 156 (cautious skier).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Regarding the ski you may choose : it seems that you fit in the "Intermediate" category of Proskilab, for which we select skis that are user-friendly for the lower technical levels (easy rotation, smooth sliding, stance forgiving) while being able to facilitate the progression to greater speeds and carving turns.
https://www.proskilab.co.uk/c/ski-reviews-2020-men-s-intermediate
Rossi React 6 and K2 Konic 76 would be good choices in my opinion.They are easy and quite able skis.
In terms of length, it will all depend on the ski that you choose. It is a terrible mistake to think that there is a length skier-based size standard. Some skis are designed to be skied in a small size, some skis are designed to be skied in a larger size. If the difference is usually minimal for intermediate, allround piste skis, it can be huge for advanced skis. The best advice I can give is to find the "reference size" of the ski you want to buy (the size in which the ski has been designed) which is often suited to a standard weight skier (75-80 kg) and adapt from this (one size below in your case).
That would be good start, but you can also refine it according your the way you ski, ski stiffness, etc. More about ski size selection : https://www.gearscore.co.uk/FAQ/buying-guide-how-to-choose-the-right-skis/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
