 Poster: A snowHead
|
OK, I hope I'm not starting World War III with this post.
What is the best way to work out the correct ski length ?
Basically, I'm looking to buy the Fischer Fuse 76 which is the newer AMC76 (been recommended and some good reviews). I'm 5'8" and weight about 12 - 12.5st (too much festive food and beer !) I'm a high intermediate/advance skier. Enjoy short turns and not really into going as fast as possible. While on holidays I'll be skiing the piste about 80% of the time. So my options are the 164cm or the 170cm skis. Normally I hire from the ski shops in resorts and end up with a Salomon or Rossignol Bandit 165cm. Since I'm now looking to buy, I really do want to try and get it right.
Can anyone please advise on what would be the ideal size of ski ? 165cm or 170cm for mainly piste skiing.
Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I'm not sure the 5cm will make all that much difference. I would go for 170cm but I'm old-fashioned, having started with 210cm and now worked down to 175cms (at about 5'10").
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Kiltedlad, 170cm in that ski at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I'm 5'4" advanced, aggressive and heavy. I ski 170. B*llocks to anyone trying to put me in a 150 just because I'm a shortarse. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
A plump pixie 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kiltedlad, 170cm at your weight and height, even if you don't partic need speed stability and like short turns. In fact you might even want to consider something else with slightly more of a sidecut if it's mostly piste use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If he enjoys short turns and is not that into going really fast, I'd have thought something shorter than 170 would suit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
If you enjoy short radius turns I think sidecut is more important that 5cm of ski length here or there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
up4it, "Plump Pixie" indeed. Harrumph!  Might I change that to "fast, plump pixie"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
tommy10pages, not in that ski. Shorter lengths in that ski are for the =<10st set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
comprex, ah OK. I thought piste carving skis were generally at around 'nose height' and not dependent so much on weight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tommy10pages, dangerous categorisation, with obvious exceptions in junior-flex skis and race-flex skis such as SL skis, race-flex skis like GS skis, women's skis, less obvious exceptions in Metron-like carvers, and skis over 74mm-waist, designed for a modicum of "float", i.e. any % off-piste, then also excepting twintips and teaching skis like the Wedze and Elan NRT.
So, a rule more honoured in the breach thereof. I prefer to disregard it entirely except for children and teens.
How about this as a sizing method for unisex skis: Look at the model size range. Assume that the size just above the middle of the size range is for 175-180lbs. Pick by weight, modify according to preference.
So. Say one is 150 lbs, looking at Z10 Oversize. It is available in 154, 162, 170, 176. The middle of the range would be around 166, so 170cm is the 175 lber size. Have the 150lb person try the 162cm then move up or down (or to a different model) depending on how they get on.
Last edited by 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  on Mon 5-01-09 15:43; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
comprex, crikey, point taken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Thanks guys.
Been asking skiers in work here and still 50/50 I'm still scratching my head. All for what.....6cm ? I know what I'm like. If I take the 164cm I'd wish I had 170cm and if I take 170cm I'll complain they are too long  Yet no one here is recommending the 164cm.
I think I really need to chat to guy in the shop again but he recommended 164cm for me. But then I bet he doesn't ski as much as you guys do ........... Anyone skied the Fischer AMC or Fischer Fuse 76 that can add further value to this question ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
If you are, as you say, an advanced intermediate, then definitely go for the 170. My first pair of skis were 163. My second pair were 172, and I'm 5'9" (and about 13st). Didn't have any problems with them at all. On something along the lines of an AMC76, then you'll definitely be better off with the 170s. I always used to air on the side of shortness (remembering crossed ski tips when I first started) - then I skied on a longer pair and realised I was just being a bit of a baby. Still not 100% used to my 180 GS skis though...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I was/am in the same boat . My last years skis were AMC 76's in a 158 length. I did have a choice when I bought them and because I have always skied a 160, this seemed to be
the nearest.
I am not that experienced but I have to say I really liked these skis and my confidence levels improved so much that I have now bought a pair of AMC 79 in a 170 length. I must
admit that I was persuaded by the black and gold colour scheme more than anything else, sad I know.
Off to Alpe D'huez this Saturday so will find out if they are as good as the AMC 76.
Ah yes ! I am 5' 7 and weigh about 12 stones "butt nekid"
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
I'm just under 5'10" and 73kg (11.5 stone) I started on a 170 ski but now feel happier on a twin tip 180 or 177. You do get used to a tiny bit of extra length very quickly and it doesn't half help with stability. I'd say that once you are into intermediate territory and seem stuck between two sizes... always go for the longer version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Scarpa, try my method (above).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
comprex, Yup.... looks good. But if you can't really decide between two lengths I'd err on the longer side myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Straight plank 210... More seriously, I still have problems with anything under 180cm. The short 170 (not to speak of anything starting with the sweet 16 figures) are just somehow so flimsy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kiltedlad,
I'm 5'2.5" tall... overweight... and I ski a GS ski @ 176cm as an everyday ski.... My slaloms are 155cm - but that is a full slalom race ski... Even my K2 Lotta Luvs are 160cm and I'm a lot smaller than you... so I'd say you should take the longer length if you are an intermediate to advanced skier...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kiltedlad, please be advised that intermed to adv skier on this forum means anything from 6 weeks on snow to 60 weeks on snow depending on the poster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Scarpa, I have no problem with that.
I was trying to devise a simple method that works to put you in the proper original design range on any ski made in the last 30 years, and also provides a way to simplify choices for over/underweight buyers, e.g. when to move to higher or lower models in the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Kiltedlad, There's so much bollux talked about length and girth . . . particularly by the lads in front of the ladies, who know so much better  that it's flex control and torsional response has more effect on sliding pleasures . . . 
You can ski anywhere on anything IF you have the skills, but riding tools that are purposed for particular conditions flatter poor technique and don't challenge your learning curve.
I'm about 170 tall, heavy, been wandering around the 95Kg mark since I had a year on my ass after a big off (and another after severing an Achilles) but my FAVOURITE skis were a pair of Atomic SX10s in 160 (that I've only just sold) Very fast, very stable and could turn on a sixpence. Not so good in bumps, but that's my lack of skill to adapt to the different conditions. They could be slid off-piste but again it needed me to be able to make consistent 'dolphin' turns, not something you're going to refine on fat powder skis. Last season I hired some 165 SL race skis and for a (very) few moments experience Nirvana . . . the rest of the time was akin to a vasectomy sans anaesthetic 
Rather than just length, look to your overall goals and choose a ski that will challenge you to improve so the BEST thing you can do is hire the skis you're interested in buying and go take some lessons . . . then, at the end of the season when prices are 'right', buy the ones that actually made you ski better.
Or stop faffin' about and get a snowboard for One Tool to Rule the Hill 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Kiltedlad, I've been trying to work out the right size (and ski) for for me.. I like the feel of the Bandit 80 SC..... my firendly shop keeper recommended the 184s to me so I took them out and true on Piste they were great, stable, responsive and fast...... but when the going got tough and I really started to need to think what I was doing I felt they were too long for me..... the next day I took the 165s and less stable as responsive but slower on piste but doing the same tough runs I was more in control and didn't make such a hamfisted job of it....................... so the 3rd day I took the 175s....... stability and speed back on piste and when going got tough better than day one but not as in control as day 2.
Chatting to the shop keeper (and thinking myself that I'd go for the 175s) he maintained the position that I should go for the 185s as they were better than me and I shouldn't compromise the ski length becuase of my lack of skill...... as my skill will improve but the ski will never grow!!!
Now I was fortunate enough to have a local shop prepared to let me have skis to try (even though they weren't hire skis) I also was able to ski twice with the shop keeper who even though he's a bloke (and I'm not gay or nowt) on skis looks pretty amazing and able to use him as a benchmark but I can see his point of view about the 184s. ..... that said I've decided to take the 175s as I think they will be slightly easier for me to use on the really tough stuff and give me confidence knowing that next season I'll probably have another new set and let clients use these..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I admit I don't understand ski length. My first ever pair of skis were the long skinny type (yes, that long ago) and I was told the correct length for my height/weight/ability was 185cm...
Fast forward 15 years or so, my height has stayed the same (5'8") my ability has gone down considerably, my weight up somewhat (oops!) and skis have evolved into little fat things. I did have a pair of Atomic SX9s 174cm until recently but I sold them on fleabay. Found them a bit of a handful, too long, very fast and not suited to fresh snow...
So this year I'm back to hiring. Does 165cm sound about right...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
That ski has a 16 meter radius sidecut. The lower the number, the sharper a ski will carve a turn. Slalom skis are in the area of 12 meters, and there are recreational skis made under 10. Because you say you like short turns, and are not particularly found of speed, if you wanted to learn to carve I would suggest a different ski altogether. One with a smaller radius.
But that may not be the case. You may be in the steering stage, still developing your skills, and not near ready to jump into the world of carving. Remember, carving equals higher speeds. If that's the case then this ski is fine, and I wouldn't worry about going with the 164. You've skied that length before apparently felt comfortable on it. You're not anticipating skiing at speed so you don't need the extra stability a 170 will provide, and the 164 will steer a little quicker for you.
As a reference point, I'm 6 foot and around 200 lbs. I have a 10 year old pair of 167 skis with the same sidecut as the skis you're considering. I use them as my social skis, and early season skis I don't have to worry about if they happen to get stone ground here and there because of thin cover. They are totally spent, like wet noodles, won't hold on ice to save their life, but I take them everywhere on the mountain. Yesterday I was out with them, and skied everywhere, from off piste steeps, in cut up power above my knees,,, to steep moguls,,, to high speed arc to arc carving on groomers,,, to playing around with some steering drills. The point is, for a guy smaller than me a new 164 is plenty enough ski.
When it comes right down to it, it's not the car, it's the driver. If you work on developing your skills, you'll come to the point that you'll be able to make any ski dance to any tune. Little Tiger told you about her 176 GS skis. They have a radius of over 21 meters, yet she can steer them on a dime, and she's just a little thing. Over here male Masters racers, big guys, use 155 slalom skis and just rip on them. It's so much more about the skills you have, so my advice is to go with your gut, just pick a pair, then forget about the choice you made and direct your focus to developing your skills and learning how to operate them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
queen bodecia, I was looking at one of the manufacturers pages [thought it was Rossi, but can'd find it, so might be Dynastar or Salomon, or...ok, I forget] BUT, they have a ski length calculator, which is how I came up with 163cm for me. You put in your weight and height and it tells you the length.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
It's like the old shooting adage... 'Beware the one gun man'
As in... people who are contantly changing their equipment to gain advantage tend to perform poorer than the person operating with something old and worn but which they know inside out.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Sat 10-01-09 21:27; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
MarjMJ, that sounds good. Post a link if you manage to find it again. The good thing about hiring is I can change them if they don't feel right, or even if the conditions change...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
.......I don't understand very well your wait.....but 164.....when you go at 30 km h of speed .....is not stable at all.........so <I suggest 170........and for speed also more.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
If you can't turn your skis go shorter. If they wobble at speed go longer. Anything in the middle... go gut a chicken and study the entrails.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
very interesting,
I have been trying to decide what length and have had some good advice. Trouble is the more I read the more I want to understand. Can any one explain what the sidecut refers to (in dumb blonde terms if poss)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting! I'm 178cm and around 105kg. Latterly my ski length has reduced, but in line with a move to more technical skis. Last week I opted for some Blizzard slalom race skis, listed as a top of the range competition ski (as developed for the Austrian ski racing teams). I opted for 165s (13.5m radius) and, although managed OK, found that in tougher terrain maintaining or managing pressure was quite tiring.
The guy I hired from had suggested 160s (13m radius) and I duly swapped over after the first day. And enjoyed some great skiing.
So, does it follow that, inspite of being fairly heavy, opting for a more technical, rigid ski in a shorter length still enables fast, assured skiing (on piste obviously) and better pressure management to facilitate prolonged carving on varying terrain in varying conditions?
From last week's experience, even travelling at fairly high speed, the skis didn't seem or feel at all unstable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the right ski length? Good question
Same as the left ski length
coat please!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
], and have choosing 163s for the last few trips, so am thinking you'd want longer skis...might be better in the long run.[based on no real technical knowledge at all!].
