I'm looking at getting a pair of 2023 Blizzard Bonafide 97s. I'm not sure what length to purchase. My first impulse is to go with the 189cm, but I wonder if I might profit by the shorter 183cm.
I'm 195cm in height and weigh roughly 127kg. I'm "IntermAdvanced" and plan to use these skis mostly on-piste with the hope of enjoying real, but stable speed.
My current skis are 2019 Volkl Mantra M5 @ 191cm and have had no problems with the length. Granted, the Bonafide and Mantra are different, but that's my current point of reference.
Your thoughts?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
You are tall. If the bonafide is right ski for your ability then go for 189cm. On other hand if you feel need for something shorter / more nimble then look at different ski (rustler 9 or 10?) with shorter flex and rocker (shorter effective edge)
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?
@Haggis_Trap, skis don't know how tall you are ...
@monkbeer, Mrs U and I had been on 177 (2010?) Mantras. We're both about 60kgs. I preferred the 173 Bonas. I'd tried the 180s but they didn't add anything, Mrs U preferred the 2016 Mantras, which I found a bit twitchy.
According to the bro in law next seasons Rustler 10s are outstanding ...
If you are an Advanced Intermediate, spending your time mostly On Piste.....I would be looking at something narrower and more Piste Orientated.
If this is something you would consider, then suggestions can be made as to whether you should be looking at a narrow AM or a dedicated Piste ski.
What type of ski, will depend on how much versatility you are looking for and what Turn Radius you prefer.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
under a new name wrote:
@Haggis_Trap, skis don't know how tall you are ...
Indeed : Ramon Zenhäusern (6ft8) skis world cup slalomn on a 165cm
Blizzard bonafide is a burly ski for variable conditions.
If you are thinking about sizing down then it *might* not be right ski...
Something with more rocker will "ski / feel shorter" and be more easier to turn etc.
This would be the 3rd pair skis in my quiver, so they wouldn't be my main skis. I recently picked up a pair of nordica enforcer 104 free and volkl mantra m6, both 191cm, which cover my main needs. I'm exploring my options. I have an extra pair of bindings, so am looking at skis > 80mm and <= 100mm in width.
It was my understanding my extra weight would reduce effect reduce the effect of the stiffness and make them workable with my ski level. I am not an expert. I love groomed black pistes!
I have considered narrower skis like the Rustler 9.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@monkbeer, they won't add anything.
@Old Fartbag, makes good point, if I were you I'd be thinking Brahma, Kendo, Rustler 9.
But you seem to have a quiver of all the same. Why bother?
After all it is free
After all it is free
Of the skis you listed above, I don't think you have anything more Piste Orientated - as in 72 - 86.
IMO A 3 ski quiver to give versatility should look something like:
Piste ski (68 - 80)
Freeride (93 - 100)
Powder (110 - 130)
All your skis seem to be quite close in width (Mantra 96; Enforcer 104, Bonafide 97). Why are you looking at the Bonafide, when you already have the Mantra?
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.
@Old Fartbag, exactly that.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
A 3 ski quiver allows you to have "The right tool for the job" - Provided you ski everywhere on the Mountain.
Somebody who stays mostly On Piste, but wants some versatility and wants a Quiver, just needs
Piste (68 - 73)
Freeride (93 - 100)
You don't want a Powder Ski, if you don't ski bottomless powder in those few Powder Days.
If you want just one ski for Piste and occasionally between the Pistes - that is where AM skis (86 - 93) skis come in.
If the goal is to keep improving On Piste - then having a Piste Ski is imv the best way to go.
Always get the Ski that is designed specifically for where you actually spend most of your time, not where you'd like to be skiing (but seldom do).
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads on Sun 11-06-23 11:38; edited 4 times in total
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
probably nose/eye height
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.
Sure. They cover largely the same area. The differences are relatively subtle. I prefer a wider ski for everyday use. I don’t ski powder often enough to buy a 110+ ski. A true front-side ski usually comes with a binding. I have an extra pair of bindings on hand.
There are great deals online now. And it is fun to dive into the large selection of skis and to consider which ski might make for a perfect day on the mountain.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
@Bob, crap heuristic for lazy shopkeepers.
@monkbeer, you don't need more skis. end of story. you might want lessons?
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Get something mid 80s. That will pull duty as a Cali piste ski, remembering there are days that those pistes don't necessarily get groomed.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Haggis_Trap wrote:
under a new name wrote:
@Haggis_Trap, skis don't know how tall you are ...
Indeed : Ramon Zenhäusern (6ft8) skis world cup slalom on a 165cm
Well that's the longest allowed by FIS, so...
I do think that height is slightly relevant, for short people at least, in that shorter legs make it more difficult to manage a very long ski. The opposite is not true, so I agree that there's no reason to suggest that taller people _should_ have longer skis, just that they can if they want to. Back in the day it was always felt that longer was better (more edge, more control) so the rules of thumb like height+30cm were all based on the maximum length that was felt to be suitable.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
monkbeer wrote:
Sure. They cover largely the same area. The differences are relatively subtle. I prefer a wider ski for everyday use. I don’t ski powder often enough to buy a 110+ ski. A true front-side ski usually comes with a binding. I have an extra pair of bindings on hand.
There are great deals online now. And it is fun to dive into the large selection of skis and to consider which ski might make for a perfect day on the mountain.
Your money and your preference. I was just giving a different perspective.
The Rossignol Experience 82Ti and 86Ti are both great on Piste for AM Skis and can be bought "Flat".
As for the question you asked - for Piste use, I'd go 183 for more manoeuvrability. For more versatility and a little extra stability at speed, go 189.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@monkbeer, I am 180cm and less than 90kg, and I find the Bonafide in 183cm fantastic for me, so if you can ski a big powerful ski definitely get the 189. If you can't don't get Bonafides.
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?
Chaletbeauroc wrote:
Haggis_Trap wrote:
under a new name wrote:
@Haggis_Trap, skis don't know how tall you are ...
Indeed : Ramon Zenhäusern (6ft8) skis world cup slalom on a 165cm
Well that's the longest allowed by FIS, so...
It is the shortest allowed by FIS. You could ski a World Cup SL on old 205cm slalom skis if you wanted, you would be a long way off the pace though.
I do think that height is slightly relevant, for short people at least, in that shorter legs make it more difficult to manage a very long ski. The opposite is not true, so I agree that there's no reason to suggest that taller people _should_ have longer skis, just that they can if they want to
For a rockered off piste ski to be used in variable snow I would suggest the length adds to the stability. Going down a length will significantly change characteristic of the ski.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Quote:
I do think that height is slightly relevant, for short people at least, in that shorter legs make it more difficult to manage a very long ski.
I'm 168cms or so and I think the longest ski I've wrangled was 218cms? (and I spent considerable time on 203s) So no, I don't subscribe to this at all ...
Sure. They cover largely the same area. The differences are relatively subtle. I prefer a wider ski for everyday use. I don’t ski powder often enough to buy a 110+ ski. A true front-side ski usually comes with a binding. I have an extra pair of bindings on hand.
There are great deals online now. And it is fun to dive into the large selection of skis and to consider which ski might make for a perfect day on the mountain.
If you’re in California surely you get some decent snow conditions? Bernie Rosow posts some cracking footage from Mammoth on BC Noctas at 122mm underfoot.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
@rjs, D'oh! Of course it is, I knew that.
(Note to self: engage brain before posting.)
After all it is free
After all it is free
@BobinCH, that is a fine looking video. California received record amounts of snow throughout the state. Mammoth is still open and the lifts will be running until July 31st. This is what it was like most of the Winter: http://youtube.com/v/QzrNMCkKJtc
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
