 Poster: A snowHead
|
OK. Now I have the bindings sorted and am now leaning towards getting a set of Line Prophet 100 skis to strap them to.
Not sure what size to go for though - 165 or 172. I'm 5'8"/172cm, 62 kg and planning to use them all over the mountain - everything from powder to moguls and crud to corduroy... Does the semi-twin shape make the Prophets feel shorter...? I usually ski 165-ish on my RX8s etc and I do love to go fast on piste but I'm relatively inexperienced in powder.
I need to make a very quick decision before heading for Tignes so any advice from someone who knows the Prophets would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
shoogly, thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Based on my experience of the 90
172 will help out in powder.
Twin tip affects the perceived length but the fact that they are fairly newschool/center mounted has more bearing. There's going to be less ski in front of you than you might expect, so go long.
100mm wide, longish tails and a bit of metal in them does not make them the best bump ski you'll ever try. Knocking 7cm off the length won't help significantly here. But they go fairly quick, the extra length keeps them stable and crudbusting is more fun on bigger skis, so going short will be more of a hinderance than a help.
Anyway it's not like there's loads of tight trees at Tignes.
I'm 185/95kg ski 186s and for what they are and how fat I am, occasionally wish they had another few cm in the tip sometimes. I say go 172. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Cunners, thanks. Do you think the 90 makes a better all-round ski...? Are they a bit softer too? Better in bumps but worse on piste...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
179 - go big or go home.
Seriously, it sounds like the 172 would be fine for what you're after. As Cunners says, going shorter won't give you much more than a twitchier ski at speed, and you probably don't really need to step up to 179 given that you've got plenty of float with a 100mm waist.
I ski the 90s, but havent' tried the 100s. I wouldn't have thought it made a huge difference (think I've read that somewhere on here too). The 90s ought to be quicker edge to edge, so a bit better on piste (?) and probably in moguls. The 100s will be better in powder. Either ski would be fine...if you enjoy charging around on the piste then I'd be tempted to go with the 90s - they work pretty well in all conditions in my experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stick with the 100s over the 90s. If you can ski well on piste you'll be able to get the 100 to work no problem. In bumps I find even on the 90s it's a slow it down and get your technique right job. They're not noodles you can slam though on and hope. (Yes, I'm a crap mogul skier...)
I ummhed and ahhed a few years ago and went 90, and should have gone 100 with hindsight, but it leaves a nice Gotama/Blog/n+1 sized gap in the line up next time I get somewhere with serious snowfall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I'm exactly the same height/weight as you, and I have the 90 in 172 and have found this to be fine, definitely wouldn't want any shorter. I expect 179 would be a bit much though - certainly for me it would be anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm exactly the same height/weight as you, and I have the 90 in 172 and have found this to be fine, definitely wouldn't want any shorter. I expect 179 would be a bit much though - certainly for me it would be anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I'm exactly the same height/weight as you, and I have the 90 in 172 and have found this to be fine, definitely wouldn't want any shorter. I expect 179 would be a bit much though - certainly for me it would be anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
bfry, but are you as good looking...?
Thanks for the input. Looks like the vote is unanimous! 172s it is. Which means I have to buy the ones with the new graphics. Shame.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dinomartino, same height as you- but heavier! I have the 90s in a 172 - previously used salamon foils at 166. Very much stiffer and a few days getting used to them (as well as binding issues- not on straight and toe height not right- as well as being freaked out ).
What are you skiing currently? and how do you fin them? The 90s are a fairly stiff ski really and you might find a big change if you currently use skis like; B2s, 1080s etc.
I'd really suggest a test first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
ed123, I have RX8s (very stiff) & Pilgrims (fairly floppy) but have mostly been using Dynastar Contact 10s (72mm underfoot and not quite as stiff as the RX8s) in all conditions. I love the control the RX8s give me on piste when I'm skiing well but must admit that a little forgiveness is sometimes welcome... No time for a test - I'm going to push the boat out and now that the Palmers are becoming too expensive to take a chance on I'm thinking that one seldom hears a bad word about the Prophets and worst case they'll be easy enough to sell if we don't get on...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
dinomartino, to start with I found the Prophets quite hard off piste (unlike foils/1080s- which are a doddle off piste) they punished everything that my old skis forgave. But after about 3 days or so much better/faster/more precise but heavy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
