Poster: A snowHead
|
Have the opportunity to buy a pair of Atomic Doubbledeck 3.0 SL 171 cm at a god prize as a complement to my Nordica Enforcer 100 185 cm to be able to ride a little short turn on piste while the slopes allow this. I weigh 90 kg and am 185 cm. Sees myself as an advanced skier and I usually ride with quite a lot of pressure. Is not so at home in this segment and if you read about SL racers, it feels like it is 165 cm I should go for. What do you think about the length. Will I feel a larger difference between 165 and 171 cm?
Best regards, Anders (Sweden)
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I honestly don't know the answer but as no one else has commented , I'll have a stab.
You buy a pair of SLs to make short turns, lay them over at high edge angles and crank up the Gs.
I bought a pair of used Salomon SL FIS and they are loads of fun and are of course 165cm because that is the FIS spec.
Mainly I tend to think "why go longer?"
But I don't know how much softer the Doubledecks are than FIS models. May be the 165s are designed for smaller guys and you certainly aren't small. Who is the 171cm aimed at? Probably you?
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I'd guess that that length would be like an awesome cheater ski for your on piste adventures. I ski Nordica Dobermann 165 SL skis which are very quick turning but my all round ski is the Nordica Enforcer Free 104mm in 179cm length. I also have fat Bents in 185 and some full on race GS skis in 182 but I'm only 176cm tall. I'd say that if you don't want to go full on slalom tight turns all day the longer length skis would give you much more versatility on the slopes.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@LuddeL, hmmm. In "classic" ski lengthing, one might think, yes, sounds great.
However, ...
... to my mind, these days, sort of, maybe, detuned race skis, which I think these are, are a bit of an anachronism.
If you really want a short turn ski, seek out an ebay deal on FIS slaloms in 165 (mens' length).
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Within the same model of ski, length doesn't matter all that much. So if the Redster is truly what you want and the price is especially good... go for it.
That said, I'm firmly with @under a new name: If you truly are an advanced skier, get a pair of FIS SL... any will do, they are only marginally different between brands.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Ronald, but I would disagree that,
Quote: |
length doesn't matter all that much
|
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
@under a new name, I've skied a 130 on 1 foot, 160 on the other... Was a model with the same radius rather than same tip-waist-tail dimensions... Barely noticed.
Also skied a 176 GS with a massive raceplate that skied much 'longer' than a 182 with a simple 2 piece binding... Other factors are often a bigger difference than ski length... 165->171 is just 3.5% in the end...
If the price is good enough, I see no issue with @LuddeL picking the 171 over the 165.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, as said, if you really want to get into fast turning then a FIS SL is the way to go. The 3.0 is fatter underfoot and that will mean that they are a little slower edge to edge. There are plenty of second hand race skis around, many have been reserve skis and not had much use. We were lucky, Kooky's son retired from racing and still had quite a lot of race skis from Atomic and Elan that the companies didn't want back.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@Ronald, hmmm, aye, well, I can agree partially. My current skis are Blizz Bonafides in 173. I also tried the 180. I could have lived with the 180 but it was just that tiny little bit more effort and less responsive.
But it does make a difference.
My point is more that the 171 is clearly not a FIS ski, therefore a detuned fat punter ski, therefore .... there are probably better compromises these days.
Doubledecks are also a bit dated I think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
under a new name wrote: |
@Ronald, hmmm, aye, well, I can agree partially. My current skis are Blizz Bonafides in 173. I also tried the 180. I could have lived with the 180 but it was just that tiny little bit more effort and less responsive.
But it does make a difference.
My point is more that the 171 is clearly not a FIS ski, therefore a detuned fat punter ski, therefore .... there are probably better compromises these days.
Doubledecks are also a bit dated I think? |
Have piste/race skis really changed that much in the last five years?
FIS skis look very similar to me?
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@jedster, I am probably splitting hairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|