 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Ski Length:
Starting length for your weight: 169
Advanced Skier: +3
Aggressive: +3
All Mountain: +3
Preference: Can be 3cm longer or shorter than calculated length
If staying On Piste imv get a Piste Ski (68 - 80 width)
If All Mountain - it depends how much time you spend Off the Piste - so somewhere between 82 - 92.
The brand/model of ski, depends on whether you like a Damp, Stiff, Hard charging ski; or something lighter, easier going and more playful.....or indeed something in between.
You need to decide on the compromises you wish to make ie. Generally speaking, the wider the ski, the easier it is Off Piste, but sacrifices some On Piste performance.
The ideal, is to try some skis out to see what you like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Depends a bit where you ski, but many hire shops have a good range of high quality/ expensive skis. Delaying a buying decision until you have spent a few days trying out different skis can be money well spent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I don't recommend following the advice of @Old Fartbag, above. It would be very unusual for a recreational piste skier to need or benefit from a carving oriented ski that is longer than themselves. My go to piste ski is 3 cms shorter than me, and I am certainly an advanced skier who like to ski aggressively when conditional allow. Your weight is a factor, but more so your height and the stiffness of the ski (as well as its camber) you choose. Some skis are better skied short, some better skied long. My daughter often skis FIS slalom skis that are MUCH shorter than her, but would kick the backside of most other skiers. And for sure she can ski them faster than lots of people on giant planks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I am with zikomo, in that from what I've read you wouldn't go above head height with chin to head height being the range taking into account all the factors mentioned.
And I certainly wouldn't be getting too hung up on a few cms here and there.
If you want piste skis I am not sure why you would be worrying about waist width as piste-orientated skis won't vary that much.
Main challenge will be just to find a ski that you get on with - as it's a pain to demo skis unless you got to a demo event (IME).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| zikomo wrote: |
| I don't recommend following the advice of @Old Fartbag, above. It would be very unusual for a recreational piste skier to need or benefit from a carving oriented ski that is longer than themselves. My go to piste ski is 3 cms shorter than me, and I am certainly an advanced skier who like to ski aggressively when conditional allow. Your weight is a factor, but more so your height and the stiffness of the ski (as well as its camber) you choose. Some skis are better skied short, some better skied long. My daughter often skis FIS slalom skis that are MUCH shorter than her, but would kick the backside of most other skiers. And for sure she can ski them faster than lots of people on giant planks. |
My advice above is based mostly on weight, rather than height.
I have no wish to get any way personal, but the OP is just over 14 stone, talks of skiing "Hard and Fast", sounds like a reasonably advanced skier and is on AM skis (which may suggest leaving the groomed stuff on occasion). The way I laid out the information shows what should be added/subtracted for technical ability/aggression/terrain, along with a plus or minus for preference.
FIS skis are a completely different ballgame, given their power and construction.
IMV. Recommended lengths based on height, are based on averages - so if you are heavy or light for your height, then it can be out a bit.
What I gave is a starting point - and can of course be rejected (as you recommend)....but I have generally found it is usually not too far out if the correct metrics are entered
If you enter your stats into the length calculator - what do you come out with?: https://www.skis.com/pages/sizing-guide-for-skis
I'm 5'10" and 10 stone - and come up with 165 with a range of 162 - 168 for a Piste Ski, which is imv about right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt I would want to go 'much' longer than what I have. I probably could, but that's partly the question, should I!!
The reason to ask about width is that some friends have told me that wider skis deal with the lumpy, end of day piles of snow much better than narrow.
I don't really know what is classed as a narrow ski vs a wide one. I would think that 100mm is wide, but, I'm not sure it is to some people. But then I thought 88 was reasonably wide!!??
I don't go off piste (yet) and won't this season as have to wait for the metal to be out of my leg first. But any help finding a ski that deals well with on piste, flat and fast, and also the lumpy end of day piles of snow.
I am definitely heavy, but also pretty quick - probably not advanced as the number of seasons I've done, but being broken for the last 5 has slowed down my progress somewhat!! LOL
Just looking for advice. But the suggestion to try some is a good one that I probably wouldn't have thought of or thought possible.
Thank you for all the comments, its always good to get opinions - over the years of biking, I've learnt that a range of opinions isn't a bad thing!!  Just got to work out which ones work for each person
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@chaletgirl, You have to be the judge of what you prefer - and ideally, if you find a ski you like - try different lengths and see what works. If the ski is more playful, you can often get away with something longer - and vica versa.
As for width, it sounds like you are looking for an AM ski with a strong Piste bias.....maybe something like the Rossignol Experience 86Ti. There is also an 82Ti....and a more forgiving Basalt version of both widths.
Blizzard Brahma is a strong performing ski and comes in an 82 and an 88.
If you can try the options, I suspect you will have a fairly strong preference over length and ski characteristics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
@chaletgirl, You have to be the judge of what you prefer - and ideally, if you find a ski you like - try different lengths and see what works. If the ski is more playful, you can often get away with something longer - and vica versa.
As for width, it sounds like you are looking for an AM ski with a strong Piste bias.....maybe something like the Rossignol Experience 86Ti. There is also an 82Ti....and a more forgiving Basalt version of both widths.
Blizzard Brahma is a strong performing ski and comes in an 82 and an 88.
If you can try the options, I suspect you will have a fairly strong preference over length and ski characteristics. |
Thank you. I'll have to go chat up my ski shop friend and see what skis he has that I can try (in March - not risking skiing in Feb again!! LOL)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@chaletgirl, Let us know how it goes. Your ski shop friend should be able to advise.
Ps. The Lady's version of the Brahma is called the Black Pearl ie. Without the Titanal, so more forgiving.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
@chaletgirl, Let us know how it goes. Your ski shop friend should be able to advise.
Ps. The Lady's version of the Brahma is called the Black Pearl ie. Without the Titanal, so more forgiving. |
I do definitely think I need to try the male/female varieties one after the other!!
I've always had interesting conversation when being told that I should ride a 'lady's' or 'girl's' bike because I am one - especially when I had litre bikes that I took on track!! Whilst I get that in motorbikes women are 'supposed' to ride smaller bikes, I haven't worked out how the demarkation works for skis!!!
Why would a 'lady' specifically need a different ski? Because they are lighter? (I'm not!!). Or don't ski as hard? (I know a lot of girls that ski as hard as guys - without injury I suspect I'm one of them - on piste!).
Not being upset about this, I'm genuinely interested. I used to struggle to ride a 'girls' bike cos they are very light and generally too small - and aren't specifically designed for ladies/girls!! They are just perceived to be more 'suitable! Although I did have a 390 once that was the BEST fun, but it was also quite tall, so the 'fit' was ok!!
Whereas skis are specifically designed for men or women and I don't know what the differences are!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bindings geometry is different to suit difference in hip/pelvis geometry between woman and men I always understood
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@chaletgirl, The differences with skis designed for Women can be:
- Lighter
- Less stiff
- Tighter turning radius
- Shorter lengths
- Binding moved further forward (as @sev112 suggests), to allow for the Female physiology
This does not mean you will not enjoy the Men's version....or that what you are testing has all of the above differences.
Through research, or asking your friend at the ski shop (or people here), or contacting the manufacturer directly.....you should be able to find out the differences for a given ski.
It is only by skiing them, that you will know what works. I think that as this thread has progressed, it is becoming ever more vital that you don't buy without trying.
In the case of Rossignol, the Experience range has a "W" denoting the Women's version. Without a bit of digging, I don't know how it differs from the Men's version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Re lumpy end of day snow you broadly have 2 options
i Power through it like it ain't there. For which a stiff GSy type ski would work.
Or
ii Dance around it kinda surfing off some bits and generally skiing it more like moguls. For which a softer perhaps more rockered ski may be better.
To be honest you can usually do pretty well by calling @ spyderjon and talking through your skiing with him. His rainman like memory banks and lots of satisfied female customers will probably help you narrow down a few models quickly.
Though of course if you live in/ near resort? your local shop guy may be able to do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
I really need to buy some 'piste' skis - currently skiing on K2 Talkback 88's at 167cm, but with touring bindings and Scott touring boots. I also have Alpine boots and feel that I really should get some piste skis for the boots and use them more!
|
I'd buy some very (sub 80mm waist) piste skis, and enjoy the Talkbacks when it's fluffy. I'm 168 tall and a few kilos less ... my current (tele) piste setup are 155 SLs... so I would think shorter (160/165) would be where you should look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| chaletgirl wrote: |
| I doubt I would want to go 'much' longer than what I have. I probably could, but that's partly the question, should I!! |
Don't see any justification for it myself.
| chaletgirl wrote: |
| The reason to ask about width is that some friends have told me that wider skis deal with the lumpy, end of day piles of snow much better than narrow. |
Not sure what you mean by this. If temps are lowish the pistes will remain largely flat with no piles of snow. I am guessing you might be talking about higher temps and some slush piles building up. In which case yes skis with a bit of width and stiffness will bash or float through it a bit better maybe. Seems a bit of a non issue to me though. You want piste skis so buy piste skis.
| chaletgirl wrote: |
| I don't really know what is classed as a narrow ski vs a wide one. I would think that 100mm is wide, but, I'm not sure it is to some people. But then I thought 88 was reasonably wide!!?? |
Broadly speaking 88 is at the lower end of all mountain skis (a compromise between piste and powder). The skis I have are all mountain skis but came in waist widths of 87, 97 and 107 - so if you were a bit more piste orientated you'd go 87 and if more off piste orientated 107. I have 97. I demo'd the 87. liked the ski but was happy to go a bit wider because I will try to ski off piste as much as conditions allow but because I am two week a year punter have to accept a fair amount of piste skiing (which I also enjoy). At 65 to 80 you are looking at pure piste skis.
| chaletgirl wrote: |
| I don't go off piste (yet) and won't this season as have to wait for the metal to be out of my leg first. But any help finding a ski that deals well with on piste, flat and fast, and also the lumpy end of day piles of snow. |
So you want something in that lower range. You don't need 85+ for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Regarding womens skis - my missus buys mens skis.
I've seen a few debates about womens skis and seems debatable to me that something specific is needed. Yes, women tend to be a bit lighter but so what, I know a few lighter framed men and heavier framed women.
Shorter lengths - well women are generally a bit shorter. Again, so what, doesn't affect the characteristics of the ski.
Binding position thing kinda made sense but again that is a different matter to the ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@OP
One thing that adds to the confusion, is what the definition of an AM ski is - and how it is being used by the person talking about it - and indeed, how it is being marketed.
In the UK, it is usually split into 2 categories:
All Mountain - imv This goes from around 82 - 95
Freeride - imv This goes from around 98 - 120
In America, it is known as AM Frontside and AM Backside.
Volkl is currently marketing skis, with widths in the low to mid 70s, as AM. While excellent skis, these are not (imv) AM skis.
I agree with @Layne, when he says you don't need "85+" for Piste skiing....although, personal preference has a huge influence, which is why I think you need to try for yourself.
I also think it is important to try different lengths, rather than deciding in advance what works for you, with a particular ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I agree it's confusing.
For example this ski is categorised as Freeride but then the description says "Efficient on any terrain, it offers great skiability, with amazing snow feel both on groomed snow and powder." which to me sounds like a classic all mountain ski.
But this shouldn't be an issue for the OP who wants a pure piste ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Sorry, work's been manic, so I've not had the chance to look in (well, brief looks, but no replies!!)
So, when I say piste skis, I do mean mainly for piste, but as I live here, I would have a little play by the piste once I've learnt how!!
Lumpy stuff on the piste - not sure where you ski Layne, but where I am, often when the snow is fresh and lovely and soft on the piste, then the piste gets all lumpy by the end of the day. Not slushy (currently don't risk skiing in slush!) but just powder from the top of the piste piled up due to being 'pushed around' by skiers!! So, not moguls, just piles of snow from being pushed around through the day!
One thing I really really find confusing is the women/men's ski conversation. I've not found anyone out here that suggests 'women's' skis are a need. And a couple say it's just a change of the top layer/colour! 
For me as a biker, I've had sooooooo many guys tell me I should 'get myself a nice ladies/girls bike'  - usually a little 500 or 600 max !!! As I have spent my biking time riding litre bikes, it's a little weird/offensive to be told to get a nice little girl's bike! So, my immediate response to "look at womens' skis because they are more suitable" is to go find some mens' skis!! Totally irrational, I realise that!!
I understand the possible need to move the bindings, but don't see how that means a 'ladies' ski is necessary. However, I am not discounting it.
BUT - I really don't 'ski like a girl' (to copy the biker guys that got peeved cos I don't ride a bike like a girl either!! ). But, I'll go find a ski tech friend to talk to after February and see what they say (my friend that I plan to talk to has sorted boots and was great with advice when I bought the K2 Talkbacks)
I do really appreciate all the comments and advice, will come back to this before I go talk to the ski tech
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@chaletgirl, it is not a requirement to buy women’s skis. Some skis only come in unisex anyway, and as long as the range covers enough sizes, that’s fine. Sometimes women’s skis are softer and lighter – this may or may not suit you. If you are short and light, you may find that you need the women’s version in order to get a ski that’s short enough to be comfortable, as the men’s versions often start higher up the scale. If this does not describe you, don’t worry about it and buy whichever skis work for you. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
) - I ski pretty hard and fast, have only just found a way to deal with and even enjoy lumpy 'end of day' pistes. Happy to read to learn about different skis, but length and also widths of skis confuse me. I've always avoided wider skis because I have dodgy knees and had been told that I should avoid 'fat' skis to help the knees. But other people say fatter skis are better at the lumpy end of day-ness!!
