 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
got a present of a pair of dynastar d-stinct skis 154 lenght with a 13m radius + bindings recently and I have no idea what they are like. I am 5'6 and fluctuate frm 11 to 12 stone weight. I consider myself an average intermediate and have being sking for 11 yrs 1-3 weeks per year, mostly on groomed slopes' can ski well on good conditions but tighten up when the going gets tuff ie moguls, poor visibility, slush or off piste. I have searched this site and many others for decent review of these skis but it is hard to find anything independant i.e. someone who is not trying to sell them to me, I am stuck in the intermediate plateau for the last 5 years and want a ski that can take me forward to advance level and want to have the option to go off piste (just a little). I have the option of changing the skis if I want and in the 1000's of ski's out there I noticed the Head Xenon XI 10.0 (149cm) a bit more expensive but they look good, that is as far as my knowledge goes as I basicly haven't a clue. please help
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
At 11 to 12 stone I would have said that 154 was far too short for you and you would be wanting at least 170 if not more, don't know much about 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?
|
creedgearoid, nice gift, someone must really like you. At 11 to 12 stone a 160 or 166cm is going to give you more options and behave better off piste. Trade up to a 160 for icey conditions and moguls, 166cm if you -really- want to take these skis off-piste instead of hiring for a day.
Forget about the Heads, especially in that size.
BTW, a ski can't take you off the intermediate plateau. You can take yourself off it, with more skiing (and mo' better instruction).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
thanks fot the replies. re ski lenght, the 154 dynastar are just at the bridge of my nose standing on end. from the research i'v done this seems to be about right. most if not all web sites were saying this is the best for mostly on piste skier which is what i am as the only off i do would be a bit through trees r slope side etc. had a pair of hire skis last year which were up to my bald forehead and i found them difficult to handle especially when we got 6in of fresh power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
creedgearoid, pardon the directness of the response, but you're fencing yourself in on the intermediate plateau with this kind of thinking.
I don't know which skis you hired, but at your size and weight you need to develop the skills to work a 160-166cm ski in all these conditions (and even longer, up to something like 180cm in fresh), instead of constantly retreating to a 'safe' size that can be muscled around at your current skill but won't give you performance in imperfect conditions.
(BTW, if you want a ski that reads more on 'advanced' skiing, have a look at the Contact 10 or Contact 4x4 in 165cm)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
A ski won't take you off any plateau, creedgearoid. Top quality tuition is what you need to find - and get the basic technique right. How much tuition (and what kind) have you had up to now?
I don't know much about different skis but it always surprises me that websites (or those pictures in the Snow and Rock catalogue) talk about ski length in relation to height, rather than weight. Why would a skinny tall person need longer skis than a fatter shorter person, I wonder? How does the ski know how tall you are? I'd be interested in comprex's comments on this. I am about your height, but just over 10 stone, and have skis ranging from 156 to 165 cms - but they're all very different, apart from the length. The longest ones, which are also fatter, and quite easy and forgiving kind of skis (Line Celebrity) are the easiest in powder (not that I'm much good at it though, despite the skis!) and OK on piste too unless the snow is very hardpacked. Are you male or female, by the way? That might make a difference to the advice you get.
So, whilst 154cms does seem a bit short to someone of your weight, and with all due respect to comprex, who has much more experience than I, I'd say that getting more demanding skis without improving your technique will just lead to more "muscling around" and tend to make you tired and frustrated.
Lessons, lessons, lessons!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Lessons, lessons, lessons!
|
Try plan next ski trip around a course such as those offered by Warren Smith, Snoworks, Inspired to ski, Easiski Insideoutskiing (tO NAME SOME OF THE POPULAR ONES ON THIS FORUM D'oh caps lock) 
These courses will pick up on fundamental things you might be doing wrong that are holding you back and will help you fix them. Improved technique will give confidence which will have you tackling tougher terrain and feeling you have made progress. These courses are different to normal ski school.
Next tip make sure your boots are good AND WELL FITTED (THIS IS NOT ACCIDENTAL CAPS LOCK  )
I think the recomendations on ski length are good. Get something with a woodcore it will be more lively and last longer. The Contact 10 mentioned above or Salomon X-wing Tornado (Not any of the other X-wings non-woodcore, you might find the Tornado Ti too much of a handful if your not an aggressive skier I hear this years model is gonna be very stiff).
I found the normal Tornado easy to use, feels solid under foot, but lively enough to be rewarding on piste. It has a piste bias but doesn't mind a bit of powder and has a nice floaty feel in fresh powder. Its aimed at upper intermediate to advanced but is by no means a handful. I didnt buy them in the end though even after having a good week on them.
Scott skis are very popular many of the popular models are forgiving and versatile. The Mission, Neo and Aztec pro are probably what you want to look at from their range (becoming slightly more piste oriented in that order) I use the Neo and love em. They are a bit stiffer than the Mission and like to be pushed but they are so much fun from turn to turn when skied fast on piste and are very versatile in a lot of conditions (who said skiing slush is not fun, its just poor mans powder )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pam w wrote: |
| How does the ski know how tall you are? |
By the leverage applied to the ski due to your centre of mass being separated from the point of attachment to the skis (the bindings). Any changes in fore-aft balance, either by the ski speeding up or slowing down, e.g. by hitting a bump, or by the skier specifically moving fore or aft on the ski will have different effects depending on that separation distance. The taller you are the more leverage, and so the longer the ski needs to be to accomodate/achieve a similar degree of tip/tail pressure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
hi. I think Scott Neo`s would be just the the job for what you require. 166 cm is the shortist they make, but they are semi twin tip so they don`t "feel" longer then a pair of skis 10 cm shorter, but they would give you what you wanted for going off piste now and again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN, yes, of course - silly question - the length of the lever makes a difference, but relatively less so than the weight, I'd have thought, especially for a bloke with heavy torso/shoulders. The difference between a man who is quite short and one who is quite tall is 6" - a small percentage. Their weight could vary between 10 and 18 stone without them being ridiculously skinny or lardy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
yes I am male, my weight at the moment is 11stone but occasionally I do tip 12 but more often my weight is between 11 and 11.5. from the replies iv got it seems like if I want to improve i first need decent lessons ,have had lessons in the past but had a bad experience once when a 4xhr private lesson put me way back, so far that I stopped sking on a thursday of a week long trip! i have also had a few good lessons but found they didnt progress me that much. what wories me from replies is almost all saying I have to get longer skis to progress. i have tried longer in the past and was not comfortable on them, felt like a canoe on each foot. why do all the websites incl the head ski site recomend a ski should measure to bridge of nose? remember i am a small guy only 5"6!. thanks for the ski recomendations i willll check them out tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
creedgearoid, a "small" guy you may be, but 149cm in length is for a "small" girl! (5'2" and 8 stone).
There was a thread here over the winter about someone who'd been running around on something daft like 125cm planks - she felt uncomfortable on anything longer. Yes, perhaps it is a little harder to learn on longer skis, but you're not doing yourself any favours on short ones.
I'm 5'4" and ride 172 - there's a weight factor there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pam w wrote: |
| GrahamN, yes, of course - silly question - the length of the lever makes a difference, but relatively less so than the weight, I'd have thought, especially for a bloke with heavy torso/shoulders. The difference between a man who is quite short and one who is quite tall is 6" - a small percentage. Their weight could vary between 10 and 18 stone without them being ridiculously skinny or lardy. |
It might be better or easier to think of it as 3 joined levers instead of just one. Shin, upper leg, upper torso.
The upper torso lever doesn't (or shouldn't) really move, or heave to and fro along the skis very much.
The shin lever is constrained by the boot back and by ankle ROM and boot flex forward.
Given those constraints, the taller skier can put pressure further forward than the shorter one can even consider doing without bending at the hips. No matter the weight, the taller skier will have a greater -range- of applying pressure, and will probably shift that pressure faster along the length of the ski as the turn develops.
| pam w wrote: |
So, whilst 154cms does seem a bit short to someone of your weight, and with all due respect to comprex, who has much more experience than I, I'd say that getting more demanding skis without improving your technique will just lead to more "muscling around" and tend to make you tired and frustrated.
|
I agree with you, but I think of it as getting both. I have seen first hand excellent instruction go to waste because the skier simply -couldn't- put the gist of the lessons into practice. She learned how to do all the ski tipping and proper edge pressure at slow speeds just fine. Except at those speeds the edge angles were exaggerated and tore her ankles up. The moment she tried to tip and pressure at speeds correct for the edge angle and turn shape, and to balance on that edge, the ski would simply let go. How frustrated do you think she was?
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 Wed 22-07-09 14:45; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| creedgearoid wrote: |
| why do all the websites incl the head ski site recomend a ski should measure to bridge of nose? |
It is a relic from old days when the shape of skis and the flex of skis didn't really vary very much from model to model.
It is a moderately useful relic: new holiday skiers aren't scared off by the selection, and it generally gets new holiday skiers on something fairly appropriate if they hire -all mountain piste skis- i.e. piste skis with published radii of 16-20m.
The moment you stop talking about all mountain piste skis with those sort of radii, sizing and selection has to be by ski model and skier physiology. In other words, to determine size one considers, in order, ski model and intended use first, then skier weight then height and so on...
Very, very few websites have ever bothered to explain that. Scares customers off, and they feel vulnerable to sharp salesmen.
As to fancier online ski sizing guides, well, they'll probably get you within a size or two. I'm sure their programmers are very good programmers, but *no* good ski shop clerk would base your model choice and sizing solely on your subjective answers to standardised questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
It is a moderately useful relic: new holiday skiers aren't scared off by the selection, and it generally gets new holiday skiers on something fairly appropriate if they hire -all mountain piste skis- i.e. piste skis with published radii of 16-20m.
|
Also the importance of what ski you are on is overrated if you ski on piste for one week or so a year. Provided it is roughly the right length and not too stiff then other things are going to determine whether you have a good time or not. I used to go away, have a tough time scratching around hungover on hardpack and wonder whether it was the kit.
b]creedgearoid[/b], I'm not an instructor and I defer to those who are but I'm guessing you are leaning back when you ski. Do you get thigh burn at all when skiing?
I would suggest lessons and patience - it comes right for some people very quickly but the rest of us have to work at it. If you have the opportunity I would suggest taking two weeks holiday back to back, which will give you the opportunity to build more on the progress you will make. Best of luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Ski length like board length is a minefield of information and misinformation. Obviously boot fit is no.1 priority. Now I learned and earned my basic skills on skis (after coming over from boarding) on a pair of 160 Atomic SX10s and since I tend to hover between 15 and 18 stone and am just 5'8" (and shrinking) these were all too often said to be too short for me but because they were longitudinally stiff with good torsion control they were a complete hoot to slide at insane speeds and I still regret selling them. Yes I've moved on to longer skis and will be looking at some 190+ puka GS skis for this season but the shorter skis taught me a lot about how changing your COM has an effect on the ski response and turn shape so if the Dynastars are stiff and well damped you should enjoy them.
A couple of reviews back this thought up:
http://www.fall-line.co.uk/ski-review.php?43,a%3A0%3A{},d2177ccf6d7e3c6504edaec3eaeac4cd
http://www.ski-review.com/content/view/205/30/
Relax, enjoy your good fortune and have fun. Go to school and develop your skills to the point where you can exceed the capability of your skis (that'll take more work than you think ) then think about upgrading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
thanks to all for your help. looking at those ski reviews on the previous post from Masque it seems like these skis may suit me after all even though they are a slighly different model
(distinct plus as opposed to distinct which are what i have) presume they are much the same? I understand the longer ski argument but im just afraid i might regret if i switched as i know i can get around on a short ski, not so sure i can on longer and once used i cant change.
have looked at all the recomended skis and i like the reviews of the salomon x-wing tornado recomended by RPF. they seem like a good all round ski which would be v good on piste ie quick turns when needed and fairly ok off, also recomended for variable on piste conditions. would be looking at max 160 lenght though
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
creedgearoid,The d-stinct is not a woodcore ski which the tornado is. It is aimed at lower intermediate where the tornado is aimed a bit higher but is by no means difficult to use. It will be livelier and longer lasting. make sure your boots are right though if they are not it wont matter what ski you are on and this might be the place to invest allowing you to try more skis and compare different lengths widths and stiffness before you buy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
after a lot of 2 an fro with the shop where the skis were bought for me and a bit of online research it looks like I might swap (+100£) the dynastars d-stinct skis for a pair of atomic blackeye skis 164 lenght. before I commit I was wondering what the snowheads reckoned and If anyone has tried them i'd love to know. my profile is above in the original post. will these skis suit me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
