 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Thanks GrahamN - you raise another point that I was thinking about: how can anyone really demo an "all mountain" ski on an indoor slope? By definition won't the groomed gentle slope always work in favour of the more piste orientated skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
"All mountain" is difficult, as it's a compromise design, giving up performance in certain areas to get better performance in others. So if you're deciding on the basis of how well they do in that constrained environment you'll get a bias away from the attributes that are better in the wilder environment. I now head more to the "big mountain" end of that division, so less compromises are made in the design intention, but I do still use them a bit on piste so want to get some performance there. I know what size works for me in that environment, so I make the assumption that skis of that size will all work well in their intended environment, and use the snowdome to find out how well they do in their unintended enviroment.
That's the longer answer. The shorter answer to your question is "yes"  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Yep! It can give you an idea of what the ski feels liek in use though.
Some people seem to be confusing powder with big mountain too. Pure pow skis are often relatively soft so they flex well and avoid tip dive. Pure big mountain skis will be really really stiff to cope with crazy speeds gunning a big face - which could be pow, ice, crud or whatever. Powder skiing is just playing in the soft stuff, big mountain is the big gnarly open faces that you see in ski films - the likes of Cham/Alaska etc.
At your size/weight, the only reason to go down to 166 is if you want to do slalom style skiing on piste. 176 will give you a good compromise all round, both on and off piste. Since your talking about an all mountian ski, I assume this is what you want? If you want more offpiste, go longer still.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Don`t want to hijack this thread but it`s a dilemma i`m having......length.
I`m 163cm height , weight 60+kgs bought some vol kl Aura 170 (94mm waist) last year and found them bit of a handful in tight trees having only skied real skinnies up till then.
I`m thinking of putting Fritschi Freerides on them for a bit of very short touring/slack country.
Would I be better off keeping or selling for something shorter for bit of AT.
I`ve got Line 90 165 as inbounds ski.
thankyou all
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
172cm isn't 5ft 6?
168cm is 5ft 6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
susieski, how do you reckon you would be doing kick turns on them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thanks everyone for explaining the difference betweeen All M and Big M - I may not be able to contribute to the thread, , but at least I stand a better chance of understanding!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1556garyt, I'll buy em.. what year/colour are they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Suck it up buttercup! Turnins fer learnin'!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bertie bassett, 2008/9 model - see picture here: http://www.skitest.net/en-ski-neo-602.shtml
Without wishing to do this thread to death, what has hight go to do with ski length anyway? Surely it's all about weight? I can't quite see why a light bean-pole would need a longer ski then a short lard-ar$e?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| gorilla wrote: |
| susieski, how do you reckon you would be doing kick turns on them? |
No bloody idea, never done one. Absolute newbie to touring and clumsy as f*@k at the best of times !
Kick turns, the one aspect I hadn`t considered.
Hmm, me thinks sell them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
1556garyt, Well just from my experience (about 11 weeks) and getting really interested in off piste I tested a lot of skis to replace my very old B2's and ended up going for 177 twins with 98mm underfoot. I'm 5'10 but only 73kg and find that these are good fun in the bumps, great on piste but just encourage me to seek out any fresh snow I can. As said above.. take a few easy hours to adapt your style but a longer ski doesn't half give you the confidence to let your speed increase when blasting down a nice snowfield. Plus the crud doesn't seem to chuck you about as much 
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Tue 17-11-09 0:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
carroz, Still have em though, floppy as they are. I demo'd them from the Rossi test centre in La Grave and then bought a pair in a summer sale later that year on the back of my experience. They were a fantastically forgiving ski to learn on. Bit like the old CBR600 as a first sports bike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
snowandrockhemel, I have some feedback for you - (but not with regard to your staff as I've always found them to be excellent).
Charging £15 to demo a set of skis - what's going on?!
I'm aware that you then give the customer a £15 voucher for use in the store, but this still smacks of unnecessary profiteering.
Perhaps if enough Snowheads and other customers suggest otherwise, you would consider removing this fee?
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
ONe thing to be alert to, as Graham suggests, is that ski shops are used to dealing with customers who oversell their ability. They then apply an offset when making recommendations. A friend of mine is a good skier (technically very good, experienced, comfortable in all conditions). Skis 70/30 off/on piste. He's about 170cm and fairly light.
Despite being a good skier, he is no gear geek - not that interested. So he asked S&R for a recommendation a few years ago and they advised him to buy 158 midfats. Bad advice. But I understand how it happened. IME good skiers are less likely to talk up their ability than average skiers - must make it difficult for shops to offer sensible advice.
Going back to the OP - you'll be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
suzieski,
I'm about 176cm and have toured (multi-day, hut to hut) on Atomic REX 184, 85mm waist. So similar relative length to my height although quite a light ski.
I was a beginner tourer so very much an amateur at uphill kick-turns.
I managed OK uphill but they were definitely more work to get around than a shorter ski (length was nice downhill of course!). Ideally for touring I'd want something a bit shorter.
Without being unchivalrous enough to ask a lady about her weight I can't be sure, but assuming 60+kg means less than 70kg, you probably have more float than you'll ever need with 170 at 94mm, you could probably go shorter without losing anything.
I reckon they are probably a bit longer than ideal but not so long as to be unmanageable, certainly if you are going to be doing more sidecountry than 6 hour ascents
Cheers, J
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
1556garyt,
I reckon the 176 cm Neo is a good bet for your weight/ability/height. I believe it will feel like a 165 cm ski on hard snow. I skied the 2007/2008 Neo *166* cm in Verbier last year, in both soft and hard conditions, and will try to post a full review soon.
The Neo 166 was the most fun ski I've ever used. However, the 166 was too short for me on harder snow because it skied like a 155 cm ski and was surprisingly turny. Tons of fun for quick turns, carved or skidded, but not enough edge length for my top speeds and turn shapes on piste. In boot-deep snow the 166 had enough flotation for my weight but I'd prefer a bit more length.
You are 29 lbs (13 kg) heavier than me, but I am a few inches taller, sometimes ski very aggressively and grew up skiing on the old 'straight' piste skis up to 191 cm. I am strongly considering buying a pair of Neo 176 skis myself, unfortunately without the benefit of testing to see whether I can actually work the flex properly at that length.
Me:
5' 10" bloke
10 st (63.5 kg / 140 lbs)
39 years old.
16 weeks in total, spread over twenty nine years, starting aged 10. I'm a level 7 skier, but probably without the fear part: www.profeet.co.uk/ski_performance.asp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I have a similar situation, I was going to buy some new skis for my trip to Tignes this year - I was back home at the weekend and was talking to my gran who mentioned that my grandad used to ski before his death - she went to the garage and fished out some K2 RS Comp skis, around 190 cm's (skis must be at least 8 years old). The skis are in pristine condition, however I have only a week and a half under my belt, although I would consider that I have advanced quicker than most in that time. I would like to use them on a forthcoming trip to Tignes but I am worried that they are going to be too hard for me to ski on - any advice - should I leave them at home and opt for a more friendly model. For info we are staying in Tignes Les Brevieres so there is a high chance I will be skiiing Silene and La Sache. Any advice would be much appreicated
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
jedster,
Thanks for reply. Yes I have decided to pass them on. Very reluctanty. IdealyI know I need about 160 with 80ish underfoot. Looking at Skuksans & Legends. It`s just a case of the £££ & trying to make do, which is rarely economical in the long run .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Without wishing to do this thread to death, what has hight go to do with ski length anyway? Surely it's all about weight? I can't quite see why a light bean-pole would need a longer ski then a short lard-ar$e?
|
I just noticed your comment 1556garyt. I've skied for several years with good skiers who are around 5' 4" to 5' 8". Some are at least 3 stone heavier than me and that's probably being generous.
The heavier, shorter people tend to ski fast without much effort and their balance doesn't get upset as much as mine when they ski quickly from hard piste onto soft snow. Their increased volume (compared to me) seems to cushion them more against chopped up snow, small bumps and ridges.
At 5' 10" and only 10 st, if I hit choppy snow on piste skis while having an imperfect body position, the sudden deceleration can make my upper body swing forward then back again. Longer skis help prevent this. Perhaps more forgiving skis help prevent it too, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being shorter than you myself I would say that the skis wont be impossible by any means. I ski on skis from 155 to 190 depending on what conditions I have decided to ski tha day.
I have been teaching skiing and have run a ski school in Verbier myself so have had quite a bit of experience with this sort of question.
The bottom line is, If you have the ability and are able to handle a ski in off piste conditions of that length you will have no problem.
Typically for a slalom ski irrespective of height you would expectthe skis to be 150-170, for an all round piste ski 160-175 and generally the longer lengths will be for off-piste use.
If you find the skis a little long. Just focus maybe on improving your off-piste technique and you will soon be enjoying the skisIm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
1556garyt, please come back and let us know how you get on with them if you decide to keep them! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've just spent my first week on my "long" 176cm Scott Neo skis. Most importantly I'm very happy with the skis and so they will not be appearing on ebay anytime soon!
The skis were excellent on piste; they carved nicely, were easy to get onto their edges and were very solid/stable at speed. There wasn't a lot of powder to test them in but they handled the crud nicely and were great when we did find little bits of powder...
As for the length, it really wasn't much of an issue; I did feel once or twice that they seemed long when trying to master some of the higher mogels, but I suspect that is much more to do with my cr4p technique as opposed to the length of my skis...
I can't compare the Neo to many other skis however my mate had a new pair of Volkl AC30's (163cm) which I used for 1 shortish blue run and found them to be slow and dull compared to the Neo. I immediately swapped back at the end of the run!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
1556garyt, Result
Keep having fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Mezza9Matt,
| Quote: |
I've spent several years working in a specialist ski & boot shop (www.freeride.fr)
|
hmm, they seem like a good shop from the look of their website, and have also received a few good reviews on , but your attitude and knowledge raise seriuos question marks over their knowledge (or at least the level of training provided to their employees)
A ski with a 80 m''m waist would be big mountain-freeride for you then, right? Then how do you explain the Rossignol R9X OVERSIZE - a GS ski that's meant for piste only, yet has a 80 m''m waist ?
I would certainly say that i'm an advanced intermediate (and i ski less that the original poster, who skis over 20 days per year), but i ski Atomic Crimsons in a 176 length, and love them. When i skied on Rossi B2's (rentals) in a 170 lenght, they were too short (I felt that i was falling forward when skied off-piste - that was on an UCPA off-piste week).
If you were talking about a woodcore, stiff ski like the HEAD MONSTER 82 (peak 82, this year), then yes, 176-177 would be too long (not unskiable but certainly less agile at slow speeds), but not in such an user-friendly ski as the Scott Neo.
Edited as I didn't see the last update from the OP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phewww
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
