 Poster: A snowHead
|
OK so as I am notoriously bad to buy for at Christmas, my extended family appear to be buying me vouchers for Snow and Rock this year. I'm willing to make up the difference to put them towards a decent pair of skis as i've always wanted my own.
The question is, which of the current range would you reccomend?
My details:
5'9''
Intermediate (comfortable on reds and the odd black)
Ski mainly on the piste, but am trying more and more to venture off the sides, and hope to develop this.
I tend to ski as aggressively as i can (though to observers i'm sure this is markedly less quick that it seems in my head)
Have been considering the following:
Nordica Fire Arrow 74
Rossignol Z72 Carbon
Am also struggling with which length, as I normally ski around a 165
Any suggestions?
Many thannks in advance,
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
thepowmeister, good user name but it means you'll want a fat pow ski or a user name change to theallmountainmeister
Seriously though.....get to SnR Hemel and demo some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Its a fair cop - the username 'sticktothepistebecauseiamabigscaredypants-meister'
just didn't seem to have the same ring to it 
Am going to demo as many as possible but more wondered whether I am going for too skinny a ski?
I can't really evaluate how good a ski is in powder at any of the domes - so i'll have to take a gamble on that side of things.
Does anyone have a weight/height/length chart info for the Nordica Fire Arrows? There is chuff all on either S&R or Nordica's own site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
If you're starting to venture off to the sides (which is technically just as off piste as anywhere else off piste) then something a bit wider will help with the stability, especially when things get a bit choppy. I would have said that you'd want something longer than a 165. Certainly mid 170s would be fine. What do you weigh?
maybe try the watea 84 as well as S&R stock that ski (last years fall line ski of the year).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I wouldn't be afraid to stay thin (skis-wise). You'll probably have, in my opinion, far more fun on a ski you can fully utilise and that gets you to the advanced level faster. To me that's a powerful, quite thin (relative to today's ski trend) carver, with some metal in it. It'll give you confidence and allow you to really excel on piste, and hard-pack or ice (that you may currently find very difficult/scary!) will be less of a worry. The Rossignol range you mentioned are their "power" models, and I think (from their marketing only, I should add) they will be perfect for you. I think going wider or more "all mountain" at this stage may seem cooler, or even more fun, but for me personally, my smile is biggest when I know I'm skiing well, and really cranked over on wide, fast, non-slipped carving turns on piste... If you prefer the off-piste stuff / perhaps have some mates who do it and can help develop you there, or if technique/piste stuff doesn't appeal, I'd look for some maybe 98 width semi-carve, semi-pistey ones like RTM 84 by Volkl or Experience 88/98 by Rossignol (sorry I forget all the other brands/models I've looked at, sporadically; I don't mean to plug any brands more than others!!) since you can get better OP results from them I would say than a "really" thin ski (which is lol because everything these days is wider, and that's fine).
HTH,
Jam
Edit; caveats ; I'm not yet good enough (I think) to be confident zinging through trees or going off-piste into the true gnar. I'll be aiming to get a ski that can take me there, however. Currently I've most enjoyed skiing on carvers, but I haven't been near any powder, and I want to go there in the future so a (pure) carver isn't on my shopping list
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Fri 16-12-11 18:11; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
Am going to demo as many as possible but more wondered whether I am going for too skinny a ski?
|
The skis you linked to are piste skis. From the sounds of what you do and are looking for, I reckon 80-85mm width would be about right - still fairly piste biased. 165 is a bit short too, although it depends on your weight as well as height - FWIW I'm 5 foot 9 and about 75kg, and my everyday ski is 176, but tbh would rather it was about 180/183.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wouldn't hesitate to buy a ski that is 80 mm at the waist. It won't feel any more cumbersome on piste than a 72-74 mm ski, and it will give you a bit of flotation in crud and deeper snow.
Something among the lines of Atomic Nomad Blackeye ti, or the Rossi open 83 are going to feel right at home on the piste while giving a bit more versatility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow thanks for the feedback. I have been looking at the blackeyes and the open 83, so will add them to the list to test. Jammi.. I do have my own boots yes, I got some Salomon mission rs8s last year that fit (for once) really well.
Shoogly/clarky I weigh around 12st (not sure what that is in New money..
Also if it is relevant I am 34 and have (fairly) original undamaged legs. I wouldn't call myself particularly athletic, but am working on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
165 cm is probably a bit short, I'm 5'8½" and 9½ st and I'm mostly skiing 170 cm. Although my very first skis were (still are ) 164 cm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
It seems like I am going to need at least 172 length. I am concerned aout manouverabilty though, having only ski'd shorter modern skis (apart from some eighty mile long ones when I was in my teens).
Will there be much difference in turn intitiation going up from 165 to mid 170s?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I bought my first skis I went up from 155 cm rentals to 164 cm (+ totally different ski quality). For the first three days I was thinking "What have I done?", after that it was ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Good point!
