Buying skis for technique progression: Length & model choice

A snowHead

Hi there,

I'm a beginner(-intermediate), it's my second season, I have 25 days under my belt. I enjoy skiing a lot and it's time to stop renting. Already got my own boots.

Stats: 177.5 cm tall (5'10"), ~ 63 kg light (139 lbs).
I comfortably ski all blue pistes in Austria, reds range from easy to challenging (especially when they're icy or full of moguls).

Having ventured off-piste (just next to the pistes, and some connector trails through the woods) and seeing how much fun it is, I was set on getting all-mountain skis.
The decision was further solidified when I experienced my first powder day 3 weeks ago with ~ 15cm of fresh snow on the pistes. It was heaven. That's how I want to ski. Groomers lost some appeal ever since.

Anyway, I walked into two shops to get advice. Two guys independently told me to learn and get down my technique on easy carver skis (68-78mm) before I venture off piste.
That would speed up my progress overall, all-mountain ski (85mm) would make it harder to progress.

So I bit the bullet and am now ready to buy allround carver skis.
A week ago, I trialed two models that fit the bill of what was recommended (full wood core, one single Titanal layer):

Salomon S/MAX 8

Atomic Redster Q7

I liked both skis and wasn't sure which one to get at all. The Q7 feels more stable and grippier, but sometimes I couldn't keep the outer ski straight despite my best efforts to maintain proper technique (i.e. apply all weight outward).
Then the last day, I asked for the S/MAX 8 again, and they accidentially gave me a shorter pair (160cm), which I didn't realize at first. I was positively surprised by how easy I could move the ski around, but also frustrated by how easily I lost grip on icier parts of the runs and skidded much more than I liked.
Finishing the run with the S/MAX 8 160cm I was convinced to buy the Q7, the argument being that the Q7 felt less skidd-y and that it should be easy to learn to turn just as quickly and dynamically on the Q7s when they're just 3cm longer...
But then I realized I just skied a much shorter ski, possibly explaining 1) why I had less edge grip and 2) why it was easy to stay dynamic and turn quickly, and how with the 8cm longer Q7 that feeling is drastically different.

So my question now is... which ski should I get, the Salomon S/MAX 8 or Atomic Redster Q7? Do you have solid arguments against any of the two?
Which length should I go for? 160cm feels snappier and more fun than 168cm, but with my goals in mind, I want and have to learn how to ski longer skis, right?

Any input is appreciated.

Thanks and greetings from Vienna
Eric

A snowHead

Hi - and as I’ve seen people say around here - welcome to Snowheads!

There are hundreds if not thousands of people on this forum much more proficient in skiing than me and/or people that have owned, rented or loaned many, many more skis than me. Having said that, here’s what I think:

That you find a shorter ski easier to turn than a longer one, despite the turn radius in the longer ski being shorter or as short as the shorter ski’s, tells me that you are actively bringing the skis around you (turning your feet like windscreen wipers attached to your ankles). Which of course is easier on a shorter ski. But your edging skills, if you just put a tiny amount of work on it, will progress quickly and then the skis’ length will start to lose significance. On the contrary, all else being equal the longer ski starts to feel more stable. The shops’ people were right though, these skills are easier to acquire on narrower skis. If it’s under 75, 80 or 85 mm I’m not going to draw the line, but the principle stands.

Ask yourself this: do you want to buy a ski for today’s you or the skier you’ll soon become, as you seem to be already mentally “in” in this lovely sport/pastime?

The day you have progressed in your skills - maybe this season, maybe in 1-2 years - to go for the powder-skis you crave for I bet you are going to choose a ski that roughly compares to your own height (175-178 cm depending on the model). I would rather that change wouldn’t be another big jump up in all ski dimensions (width, length, turn radius…). This, too speaks for a longer ski.

Can I tell you if you should choose Salomon or Atomic? No. But I’m saying that 168 will not be too long for you, maybe even just the contrary.

Btw, just to add another suggestion to the mix, those new Rossignol Forzas look like a damn fine ski.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

@lolzor, you're a couple of cm taller than me and about 4 kg lighter. If I follow the manufacturers recommendations then I'd usually end up on a ~155-160 cm long piste ski and generally I don't have a problem either with agility or lack of grip with (piste) skis of that size. So I wouldn't say that the shorter Salomon is fundamentally too short for you. Your problems with grip are most likely due to technique. 168 cm in a full camber piste ski is on the long side for someone your size, especially with limited experience.

Bear in mind that both the skis you mention are full camber, whereas most all mountain skis will have some tip rocker (making it easier to initiate turns on piste and basically allowing you to ski a slightly longer ski which is better in softer or chopped up snow). On piste, you don't need that extra length.

The advice you've been given about staying on narrow skis for now makes sense - based on what you write, you're beginning to develop a sense of where your edges are but still need to work on that. It's much easier to do this on narrow skis than on ~90mm all mountain skis. Also, as you've found out, powder days are not the norm and proper piste skis are more fun when there isn't fresh snow around.

I can't comment specifically on the 2 skis you mention, I've not skiied either of them. Ultimately you'll probably do fine with whichever you pick.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

@lolzor, welcome to sH’s and greetings from Bad Ischl!

I’d be inclined towards either of the two skis you’ve mentioned, perhaps slightly in favour of the Atomics but purely because they are my skis of choice (G9, 177 18m radius), having tested a few models. Given your experience etc, 168cm skis should provide the right platform to enable you to advance your skills/technique.

I think the advice to nail down technique on good piste skis is sound. As you live in Austria, making access to skiing reasonably easy, it may well be that buying a second pair for those off-piste powder days, is the way forward in the future.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Many thanks for the warm welcome & thoughtful replies guys! Smile

The subjective aspect to this topic is astonishing.

@mgrolf, I'm wondering how wide your piste skis are?
I'm thinking of the discussion that (rightfully, imho) makes a case for thinner all-mountain/freeriding skis for lighter skiers, and in theory it should be relevant for carving skis as well, especially for a beginner like me who still has a bit of trouble applying force to the stiff ski's edge. 75mm (the Atomic Q7's width) seems already pretty wide for European piste standards, hence Atomic's "all-mountain" categorization I suppose.

Help!!

Buying skis for technique progression: Length & model choice

snowHeads Forum Index >>> Equipment Reviews/Questions