 Poster: A snowHead
|
So, i've been back to skiing after many many years.
I am 178cm tall and my weight is 82kg.
I skied around 7 times and mostly rented 165 cm lower budget skies. On friday and sunday i rented a bit faster, more advanced skis,170cm long.
I noticed i had much more control at higher speeds and that i could ski faster and make bigger turns. My skiing was better. However, my legs started to hurt after 3 hours, which didnt happen before. After 4 hours i had to stop since i couldnt control the skies 100 percent.
So, my question is. Was i more tired because of longer skies or because of better, more advanced skies?
I don't have enough money to keep on renting, so for next year i will have to buy new skis, and i have to buy them now, because they are a lot cheaper at this time of year.
I would say i am an intermediate skier, i probably dont have great tehnique as i am self taught, but i used to ski a lot and i ski quite fast and somehow got a feeling for it.
Should i buy 165 or 170cm? Can 5 cm make that difference in skiing or is it how advanced the skis are?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Almost certainly your legs were tired because of technique issues. The more advanced and longer skis will most likely have been heavier and they probably just sped up the tiredness the technique is causing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
i could ski faster
|
I'm confused. You say you've skied "7 times", but also that you used to ski a lot. Skiing faster is not necessarily a sign of skiing better. Before buying skis perhaps having a private lesson would be worthwhile?
Whether skis are "low budget" or "advanced" is not, as I understand it, a function of length. After all, the world's top slalom skiers have very short skis!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Sounds like a young man who signed up for a BASI 1 course. Was full of all the chat, about how much he skis and how fast he skis. The first time the group was given a chance to free ski a slope, he had to be stopped and lectured about the huge danger he was putting himself and others in. Probably the worst and most dangerous skiing I have seem. Massive speed and absolutely no control or technique. To this day I have no idea what made him think he could ski, let alone well!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Just sounds to me like someone who needs some expert guidance - and he is asking for advice. We have no reason to suppose he is skiing dangerously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| IceBlue wrote: |
| ... Can 5 cm make that difference in skiing or is it how advanced the skis are? |
Length is what they paint on the ski, but it's just one difference between skis of different size. They also tweak lots of other parameters, most significantly the flex and camber profile. That 5cm, even if it's effective edge, isn't a big deal, but taken in the round the reason they build the bigger ski is because it will work better for some people. The only way you'll find out which will work better for you is to ride both. I'm assuming you mean two skis of the same model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In all probability, given the way you describe your skiing, you'd be struggling to tell the difference between two otherwise-identical skis with a 5cm length difference.
A "longer, more advanced ski" does not make you go faster, nor should doing so be in any way an objective. You need to ski in more control with less effort, from what you say, and that's about technique, not (primarily) equipment.
Best advice would be to stick with bog-standard rental skis for the time being and invest your money instead into some decent tuition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
Longer skis = bigger pivot = more workload
Longer skis = faster
Shorter skis = slower
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
What stood out for me in your first post is - "I am self taught". This IMV is the problem, not the length of the skis (which are likely highlighting technique deficiencies).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| IceBlue wrote: |
| So, my question is. Was i more tired because of longer skies or because of better, more advanced skies? |
Bit of both but mostly the latter. The real issue is more likely to be the stiffness rather than the length so they require more effort (or better technique) to control.
You're in a false sense of security though, because at 178cm and 82kg, 165cm beginner's skis are both too short and too soft for you. You may think you're doing well as a self-taught skier but a large part of that will be down to the skis being too forgiving and hiding technique deficiencies.
If you're buying, it should absolutely be the better, longer skis to allow for your future technique progression and then get some lessons on how to use them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@IceBlue, Split the difference and go for 168cm.
If you want to go fast get red ones.
If you want an easy ski they usually come in white.
So the answer is 168cm in white with red stripes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The length isn’t the only story. Some really stiff skis can be ski quite short and remain stable. A long ski that’s too soft isn’t going to be much fun either.
I agree with the above recommendation to get something middle ground in stiffness and the right length.
Then go get a few lessons to get yourself oriented with the right technique. You may already be skiing ok. A few lessons might send you up a couple levels. But if you haven’t got the right technique and don’t want to re-learn all over, you might just have to live with it. At least you’ll know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's likely you don't need to over think this. 170 isn't a particularly long ski for someone of your height and weight and 165 is relatively short but not necessarily that much different. You'll adjust to the ski you use, the more you use it the more comfortable you'll be. If you're only skiing a week or two a year then a good quality ski at 170 (or 165) will provide you with plenty of amusement - quality of the ski is likely more significant than the 5cm to it's overall feel and versatility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@IceBlue,
Coming back to the question you asked, for two lengths of the SAME MODEL ski then no 5cm does not make much difference at all. But different ski models (designs) can have very different character based on, materials, sidecut, rocker etc. I supect the differences in design between the two skis was more important than the difference in length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| IceBlue wrote: |
| I don't have enough money to keep on renting, so for next year i will have to buy new skis, and i have to buy them now, because they are a lot cheaper at this time of year. |
Not what you asked but...
Have you factored into buying the potential cost of transportation and the guaranteed cost of servicing?
Also I get the feeling you are buying based on price and with limited knowledge (and yes SH's can help but there is a limit) and it's all a bit of a punt. So you could end up getting a pair of skis that don't work for you - which cheap or not would be wasted money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
We don't know where the OP is based, so may not have any transport costs, and buying last year's or the previous years model on the interweb might be very cost effective, particularly if you don't have to fly fly.
However, I suspect that we have all been through a phase of overconfidence and as other posters and posts have suggested, even a couple of hours of one to one lessons, might be the best money the poster has spent.
I am pretty much the same height and weight as the OP and ski on 174 length all mountain skis, but I note that when I ski with a group mine are often the longest (they have a but of camber on the front for off the edges forays) and frankly as a beginner I always found 165'ish skis more nimble.
I would suggest that flex of the ski has a huge amount to do with how powerful the ski feels, and too stiff could account for why the op was hurting. As is often mentioned on the forum, try before you buy is a good maxim.
Going for a short radius ski is probably also a good idea.
With no disrespect to the OP, using the skis as brakes for 3 hours could be why they get tired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| IceBlue wrote: |
So, i've been back to skiing after many many years.
So, my question is. Was i more tired because of longer skies or because of better, more advanced skies?
|
you were more tired than you remember being in the past, because you're older and you haven't skied for years so your muscles aren't used to the exercise, plus as "self-taught", your technique is probably awful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| IceBlue wrote: |
i am self taught, but i used to ski a lot and i ski quite fast and somehow got a feeling for it.
|
Slow down, get lessons. Stop worrying about equipment.
| IceBlue wrote: |
i probably dont have great tehnique
|
Probably? I can guarantee it!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
First of all, thanks for lots of responses, although i dont agree with all of them.
Well, to clarify some things:
I skied 7 times this year after 10 year hiatus, i skied at least 100 or more times before.
As for transportation, i live close to the european ski resorts, so there is no "fly cost" for me.
As for speed, yes, i go fast, but... i always make sure to ski as fast as i can SAFELY, meaning i calculate how much space and time I need to stop.
I always slow down when there are groups of children infront or when the slopes are in bad condition. I make sure i dont put either myself or others in dangers.
I am not kamikaze skier on suicide mission, so i regulate my speed to the point i can control it and stop safely. In my 100 plus times of skiing i never injured either myself or someone else, i never had any serious accidents.
With that being said, i do think i can ski comfortably at medium speeds. As i said, my techinique probably isnt the best, but i do believe that if i can handle all red slopes and most of the black slopes while doing at least medium speed and having control over my skies, i could say that i'm intermediate or at least that I do have some knowledge.
Actually, the reason why i opened this thread is precisely because i want to avoid getting myself gear, that is too advanced for me. Including both the ski type and length.
So, after reading all these, i do think it seams that for me, it would be better to aim for 170 cm rather than 165 and to make sure i am not buying equipment too advanced for my skills?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| DrLawn wrote: |
@IceBlue, Split the difference and go for 168cm.
If you want to go fast get red ones.
If you want an easy ski they usually come in white.
So the answer is 168cm in white with red stripes. |
I like the cut of your jib Sir, an answer that made us, a ski family, laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Some say 5cm makes a lot of difference, others say its not the size that counts its what you do with it.
I think the answer to the question about size is it depends.
Mine are 180s but are quite wide at the tip and the bottom, and go in and out like an hourglass in-between. This was common in 2001 carving skis, and makes them quite good off piste as well.
For me I sometimes wish I had a shorter turning radius, which of course you would get with a shorter ski. That is because I find myself more often in narrow areas without room to carve turns.
I guess it depends.... (There are a few photos of my skis in the link in my signature.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@IceBlue, I assume that by 100 times or more you mean 100 days, not 100 weeks. So 100 + 7 this year means around 18 weeks on snow if a normal ski week is 6 days rather than 7.
18 weeks is more than enough to be intermediate/advanced rather than intermediate. If you'd had tuition in those 18 weeks and are keen/fit etc., then for sure you should be closer to advanced than intermediate by now. The self-taught bit will definitely be holding you back.
So yes, you should definitely buy 170cm skis but don't shy away from more advanced skis. Not those labelled "expert" but definitely those targeted more at advanced than intermediate. At your level of experience, you need a ski you can "grow into" with some proper tuition, not one that you leave behind as soon as you get ski fit or work properly on your technique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for all replies.
So today, i got the best skis of season so far.
https://elansports.com/eu/primetime-55-abbkjw23
They only got size 165cm, they felt pretty fast, stable and really easy to turn.
I have the option to buy brand new with 40 percent discount, they only got 172 though.
7 cm isnt small difference, but if i felt confident on 165, i guess i should buy them? I'm 178cm and i skied on 170cm few times this winter and it didnt felt much different.
So, should i go for 172? 40 percent off seems like a great deal and if i felt confident on 165, can 172 really make that much difference?
Ps: I noticed that elan recomends 172 for my size. So i guess it should be ok...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@IceBlue, It's not just your height but also your weight. If you were 60kg then the 165cm, at 82kg definitely the 172cm. They seem to have had good reviews, you like them, so snap them up!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@IceBlue, I’d imagine you’ll be fine. The skis don’t know how tall you are …
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Cool, i really think i'll buy those.
Perhaps i will do one more skiing this winter and try another ones, but those were best so far.
One more thing, i noticed that this model is marketed as a slalom ski meant for carving. Im not sure my skiing style is carving, is that important?
They felt really good when i tried them.
And another thing.
There is a very simmilar model, primetime 55 (main difference 5mm less in waist).
Does that make a lot of difference? They are both on sale this month and perhaps i should go with 55, seems its a tiny bit more advanced. The second one are in category "sports carver". Is slalom ski better for non carving than sports carver? Or is it just marketing and labeling?
https://www.snow-online.com/ski/elan-primetime-55-2023.htmlp
https://www.snow-online.com/ski/elan-primetime-55-plus-2023.htmlp
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
No. You will find the 55 much more demanding. Stick to the 55+.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Only one more question. It seems that 55 plus are much wider than most skis, i also noticed that on chairlifts, most people had less wider skis.
If i understand correctly, this makes ski more stable. It seems weird though that most skis are less wide. What does width impact the most? Beside radious?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
170 cm may be a good size for your weight and height, but if it is too stiff for your ability level it will feel more difficult to use, less forgiving of errors and too stiff on bumps and undulations to be used comfortably all day long. Those 170 cm skis you rented simply don't match well with your skiing style and intended use, which sounds like all-day piste skiing in relative comfort.
I am 178 cm tall, 68 kg, with 36 weeks skiing experience spread over 43 years, advanced (not expert). Due to my lighter than average weight, a relatively stiff advanced-to-expert 165 cm recreational 'race' carving ski with a 13-14 m radius can remain reasonably stable for me at up to 50 mph while on edge. (I never ski at that speed unless I am on an empty piste or well away from other skiers and with a good line of sight.) It is also short enough for me to control my speed well on steeper slopes and enjoy carving at much lower speeds.
You need to find skis with the right flex characteristics, length, width and construction for your height/weight/ability/style/terrain preference. Unfortunately there is no substitute for testing skis yourself, although a resource like https://soothski.com will help you see the difference in stiffness between different models and lengths of skis.
I would suggest 165-170 cm and approximately 13 m radius, with a waist width of about 70 mm for learning how to carve well on firm snow. Learning to carve is well worth the effort. It would be very much a piste-only ski for you though, and you would need to pick one that is aimed at your ability level. If you can get someone to record a short video of you skiing well, you can show it to ski retailers or rental shops and they will find it easier to recommend suitable skis for you.
For deeper snow, even on-piste, you would probably want a ski with a wider waist for extra surface area and floatation (it makes a big difference). They can still be used for carved turns on hard snow but they are not as quick from edge to edge as a narrower waisted ski. You might find that you prefer skis with early-rise rocker tips, rounded tails, or even twin-tip skis. We had about 40 cm of snow overnight on a recent trip and most people on piste skis the next day really struggled to cope, while those on longer, wider, rockered skis enjoyed an epic day in the deeper snow on-piste.
An extra 5 cm length in the same model of ski can make a surprising difference and this is why it is important to test skis yourself. To quote Realskiers.com: "Two lengths of the same model from the same brand will ski more differently than the same length of similar models from different brands, even if one is a foam core and the other wood. Period. End of story."
I'm also going to quote Noodler from around 2009/10, on the old epicski.com forums I think:
"I'll just summarize once again (seems like this has to be posted at least once every season):
1. Choose the appropriate flex in a ski based on your weight and skiing preferences (speed, style, etc.).
2. Choose the appropriate length of a ski based on your height (due to physics - how your CoM is applied to the length of the ski via force/levers) and skiing preferences (terrain choice, etc.)
And yes, there are plenty of long-time trusted posters here that may argue these points, but they'll never convince me otherwise. All you have to do is consider the extremes to see how ludicrous it is to base ski length on weight alone. If you have a 250 lbs. 5' 2" guy you're not going to put him on a 190cm. Likewise, don't put the 135 lbs. 6' 2" guy on a 150cm."
R. Mark Elling, author of 'The All-Mountain Skier', wrote: "Remember, a too-long ski doesn't like to make your short turn and only seems to work well if you ski fast. A too-short ski feels overly pivotal and feels unstable at higher speeds. Find the happy medium."
Good luck with your ski hunt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| IceBlue wrote: |
Thanks. Only one more question. It seems that 55 plus are much wider than most skis, i also noticed that on chairlifts, most people had less wider skis.
If i understand correctly, this makes ski more stable. It seems weird though that most skis are less wide. What does width impact the most? Beside radious? |
Wider skis would usually be more for off-piste...interested where you're skiing if people are all on narrower than 55mm though. Primary reason for a wider ski is stability and ability in softer snow, so off-piste or all-mountain skis are usually wider. The skis I normal take for any condition are 106mm underfoot, the narrow skis I use are 72mm, those are better on hard pistes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Ski length is about the last thing to look at.
I have skied on a 130 on 1 foot, 160 on the other... Noticeable? Barely... but this was a fairly unique model with the same turn radius throughout the lengths.
The difference @IceBlue experiences was the type of ski. Nothing else.
A stiffer ski is more stable, more secure, but harder to ski.
A ski with a longer turn radius is more stable, more secure, but harder to ski.
If I wasn't ridiculously picky about the ski I like (I like them rather uncompromisingly FIS spec, which usually isn't available in rental stock) I'm not sure owning a pair of skis is worth it when flying from UK and having to pay for servicing them (each week... or more)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@SnoodyMcFlude, the skis he is looking at are 69 and 74 underfoot. Not sure what the 55 is referring to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
