 Poster: A snowHead
|
I'm pretty close to ordering a pair of Apache Recons but i'm not sure what length to go for and can't get a test of both lengths. I'm 6'4" and weigh about 14 stone. I like short and medium radius turns and want a ski that's going to be manouverable enough for off piste steep shutes, powder as well as a good carver on the hard pack. I'm confident at speed or in slower short turns on Black runs but wouldn't class myself as an advanced skier (unless there's an abundance of experts out there).
So, question is, 174cm or 181cm? This is a one ski does it all for me so i need something that will handly all that i want to ski. I know the longer would give me a bit more speed, but it would also take a wee bit of turning ability away.
If you were me, what would you choose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
shoogly, given your weight, I'd choose the 174. Most others will say 181. I think the 174 will be easier to handle without sacrificing too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Two words: go long - that's my general philosophy.
However, if you like short to med turns the 174 will be more fun and as WTFH says, you won't lose out on much, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
The shorter they are, the more control you will have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
zammo, why's your general philosophy to "go long"? I skied my mates Atomic somethingorothers when we were away in Italy and he's just told me they're only 171, and i liked the feel of those as well. Hmmm. I'm thinking to go for the shorter length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
shoogly, my husband is 6'5" 105kg and he skis on 189cm. But he likes to go fast... If you want control, go shorter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shoogly, it's because I'm an obstinate sod.
I just prefer the stability of a longer ski and the greater float off-piste, but I agree that it's not necessarily the practical choice.
Many would argue that shorter is better, including some innovative manufacturers such as Icelantic AT (slight plug on behalf of kiwi1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| zammo wrote: |
shoogly, it's because I'm an obstinate sod.
|
And there I was thinking you had longer skis to make up for other deficiencies... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the advice I got when considering the ski, though I'm a stone heavier was 181. will ou get enough float in the short stuff. I would have thought given your height and wight you should be able to manouvre the longer ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Wear The Fox Hat, easy Foxy!
FYI, I am 5'6" (and a bit) and weigh too much (11 stone .... and a bit). I ride a 174cm and a 182cm but both are twins so you can knock a few cm off.
As for my other tackle .....
I have some nice Head boots and some cheap poles!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shoogly, I'm 5'6" - 9 1/2 stone. Just got some Chiefs - 181 cms (2nd hand). Seemed to do everything (in LG) that I wanted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
ski, the chiefs are cool skis, but i won't ski enough powder to justify them over something that can perform on piste as well.
Just saw the Stryker on K2s website. Never heard of them - anyone got any opinions on them compared to the recon?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
shoogly,
| Quote: |
the chiefs are cool skis
|
yep 
If you are looking at Recons - ski them short - the upside of short (hardpack) is probably worth the downside....and if its really realyy fluffy - hire a pair of real fatties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Hmmm, I'm 5'9 and 12st4 and I ski stockli stormriders in 174 (similar dimensions but stiffer than apache recon).
If you want to use them off-piste then I think you might find the extra surface area of the 181s worthwhile at your weight. If you are 80/20 on piste then I'd go 174.
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I'd go 181 for sure at your weight/height on this type of ski. I'm 6'1" and similar weight. Currently on 177 Head Monsters and certainly wouldn't want anything shorter for an all mountain ski.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Another vote for 181.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
181
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I've skied the Recons in the 167(?) and the 174. I found the 167s very easy to turn (understandably) but they didn't really grab me in any way. I certainly wouldn't rush to try a pair again. Tried the 174s and much preferred them - hard to put my finger on exactly why, but they just seemed more powerful somehow and weren't noticeably harder to turn.
I'm around 5'10 and 12st so on that basis I'd probably recommend you go for the 181s.
Btw, also tried the Outlaws last month and liked them a lot - surprisingly good on piste. Or at least I thought they were until I put on a pair of Rossi Zenith Z9s and realised what a piste ski could feel like  . I can't remember the last time I skied a proper piste ski and I was quite surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I'm 5'10 
Quite interesting going back to skinny long ski's again 
