 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
So now I have selected the ski (Nomad Blackeye) the same old question rears it's ugly head....what length? I am 180cm (5'11" in old terms) and 90 kg. My previous ski is a Metron M:11 in 170. I would like a slightly softer ski for the bumps and perhaps in the trees, and for some reason I fancy going slightly shorter. Does anyone have a view on whether the 164 Blackeye is too short? Thanks, Nigel
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Red Leon, nigels, To add to your confusion Try this guide Step 3 deals in length scroll down
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Ooooo, I'm going to go against the grain here, but I say go for the 177. I really believe that most skiers sell themselves short on their skis.
The M11 is a ski that does a lot of the work for you with its natural carve tendency, but the Nomad Blackeye will be something you really want to drive. Go for the 177!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Are you going to be taking them off piste at all? I'd say go longer than 170 for your height and weight if you going to be off piste with them.............
I'm 5ft 10, 84kg, I went from a 171 1080 to a 178cm Scott Mission and they're fine at lenght, decent float even in crud/breakable crust.
cheers,
greg
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Tue 2-10-07 17:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SnowHot, After many years of the longer the better skier you must be we went into ooh their Carvers or parabolics and so must be shorter than your long ski's and now confusion reign's all around us 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
It all depends on what you want to achieve with the ski's, as a basic principle the shorter the ski the easier it is to turn, however skiing off piste, powder, jumps, moguls can be very difficult with a shorter ski. Its a balance between getting a ski that turns and performs well over the whole mountain. Slalom ski's tend to only be made in shorter lengths i.e. 165cm something like the Nomad or your size and build needs to be 170cm and above I would honestly say that 164 is too short. There is also a train of thought that skiing on too short a ski develops bad technique, posture and balance, you tend to ride the ski rather than have to work it with say a 174cm. Hope this gives you some food for thought!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Metrons are 158cm, and my new Crimsons are 169cm. As others have said, the nature of the ski - and therefore its likely usage - suggest a longer size is appropriate for it compared to a Metron. I'm a little lighter and shorter than you (5'9", 75kg) so my gut says the 171 or even the 178 would be best for you - though that's only my opinion! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
moguls can be very difficult with a shorter ski
|
I don't agree with that at all. Quite the opposite, generally shorter skis are easier in moguls. Less chance of a mistake leaving your tips lifted up on the peaks, leaving you with zero contact underfoot. And skiing shorter helps your balance - try a day on snowblades and you'll soon see whether your fore-aft balance is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
| SnowHot, After many years of the longer the better skier you must be we went into ooh their Carvers or parabolics and so must be shorter than your long ski's and now confusion reign's all around us |
Trust me this is an area that I ponder much.
My current quiver has skis in a range from 160 - 171 in length.
The shorter for trees and bumps, the longer for off piste and super cruising.
I definitely think that the shorter skis have a benefit, but the variety of skis and ski terrain possibilities makes for a question about how short is too short.
Remember this ski is 79 in the waist. If it were in the lower 70's I'd say go shorter. But its not really a carver, but more of a crud buster and off piste basher. 17 M Turn radius, and 20% lighter than the old Atomic shapes.
If I(56 kg) can rip on a 171 ski that is 94 in the waist, than someone the size of the OP can surely handle a 177 in that ski!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
more advice required here......
I currently ski the metron B5 152cm, I'm 5'5" 67Kg and considering the nomad crimson so I can try to get off piste a bit, I'd thought the 162cm would be ok or should I go for the 169cm?
I'd find any observations and reasons helpful, thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
AlpineWalker, I would definitely recommend the 169. Especially if you're going off piste. Spyderjon may have a better idea, but I believe they run a tad short with a bit of a twin feel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Well thanks for the input. It always amazes me how different the opinions are when the discussion about length comes up. It seems size does matter after all! Seriously though I was very interested with the comment re the bumps with one person saying go longer and a few lines down another saying go shorter. I would rate myself probably an 8 on the link from boredsurfin, but must confess that bumps is where I need to improve most. Very happy on pretty much anything groomed, and spending more and more time off piste, in the trees in Whistler and in the deeper stuff in St A. Must admit though that I haven't got to the point where I have bought the beeper, shovel etc but that is another discussion. However I would aspire to being 50% on and 50% off-piste, in reality though it is probably much more like 70:30. Anyway thank you all for the input. I think at this point I am going to go for the 171's. Regards
Nigel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
nigels, what length you need depends very much on what you want to do. I'm a cm taller than you and about the same weight, sometimes a few kgs heavier, and I mainly ski off-piste, but also do a bit of racing. For exclusively on-piste you can really go as short as you want: I've skied 160cm quite happily on piste, and ski 155cm on plastic. But take those lengths on anything uneven, or up the speed to say something like GS, and it gets a bit precarious. Off piste I ski 184cm (and have now discovered how much easier life is at 90+mm rather than 78mm), and I wouldn't dream of going less than 180cm/76mm - at our weight it just makes life too difficult. I have skied 170cm - I once took a 170 (Atomic R9) into soft spring off-piste snow and it was almost unskiable - and 177cm/78mm skis were OK until I hit some slightly wet powder, where there wasn't enough flotation to keep up out of the rough base layer. If you want to do anything more than just survive in the off-piste go for at least the 177. I'm no mogul expert so can't really advise on what ski to go for there, but I would guess than an intermediate length would be best (low 170s). I think you really have to think hard about where you want to ski, and work out where the compromises have to be made if you want to do it all with a single ski. 170ish will be just fine on piste, and hard off-piste, but hopeless for getting to grips with anything loose off-piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
nigels, if you are an 8 on that scale, I think you will regret not buying 175+mm skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| nigels wrote: |
Well thanks for the input. It always amazes me how different the opinions are when the discussion about length comes up. It seems size does matter after all! Seriously though I was very interested with the comment re the bumps with one person saying go longer and a few lines down another saying go shorter. I would rate myself probably an 8 on the link from boredsurfin, but must confess that bumps is where I need to improve most. Very happy on pretty much anything groomed, and spending more and more time off piste, in the trees in Whistler and in the deeper stuff in St A. Must admit though that I haven't got to the point where I have bought the beeper, shovel etc but that is another discussion. However I would aspire to being 50% on and 50% off-piste, in reality though it is probably much more like 70:30. Anyway thank you all for the input. I think at this point I am going to go for the 171's. Regards
Nigel. |
Keep in mind that when I say that I use my shorter skis in the bumps. My short skis are considered average, or mid length for someone my size.
I tend to ski on skis that are about 5-10 cm longer than recommended.
I love it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| nigels wrote: |
| So now I have selected the ski (Nomad Blackeye) the same old question rears it's ugly head....what length? I am 180cm (5'11" in old terms) and 90 kg. My previous ski is a Metron M:11 in 170. I would like a slightly softer ski for the bumps and perhaps in the trees, and for some reason I fancy going slightly shorter. Does anyone have a view on whether the 164 Blackeye is too short? Thanks, Nigel |
Definately the 178cm. It won't support your weight in anything more than boot depth in a 164 or 171.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| AlpineWalker wrote: |
more advice required here......
I currently ski the metron B5 152cm, I'm 5'5" 67Kg and considering the nomad crimson so I can try to get off piste a bit, I'd thought the 162cm would be ok or should I go for the 169cm?
I'd find any observations and reasons helpful, thanks in advance |
I skied the M:B5 in 162 & my Crimson's are 176. I'm 5'9"/95kg. I couldn't get the Crimson in 183 when I got mine but I got plenty of float in knee deep on my 176's & they're very manoevrable. I haven't skied them at warp factor yet however, at my weight, they'd probably get a bit flappy when flat out.
The Metron is supposed to be skied really short & stiff whereas the Crimson has a lot more progressive flex with a softish tip but still v.good torsional stiffness. If you like speed I'd definately go with the 169 as it will be as controllable as the 162 but with a lot more top end stability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
But I rather think it's the flatter them and they'll buy more routine 
