Ski Recs

[Kimmyt]

Maybe it would be better to post this later in the season, but I'm getting antsy. The 'are you buying new skis' thread made me think how frustrated I am. For the past two years I've been saying I wanted to buy new skis, that I wanted to demo.

Well, I haven't.

Maybe this year I will.

Anyway, looking for your input on what skis might be good for me to look at demoing, based on my current skills and areas I want to focus on.

Personal stats
Height: 5'3"
Weight: 128
26 yo, aggressive skiier. I like to go fast, I like to make a variety of turn (small and large radius). I go all over the mountain (some places I ski better than others...). Live on the East coast and ski PA/VT for about 10 days a season, with a week or two of West coast skiing thrown in each year. My goal is really to become a better ungroomed/bump skiier in the future.

So, something that can handle the ice and crud but also can be taken into the bumps and ungroomed. I'd sacrifice ice handling for the other two, because I can keep my shorty carving skis for the really icy days out here.

Currently skiing a 149 Volkl Energy 320 Gamma that I feel is much too short (105-63-93). Am thinking I want something wider waisted (70-80?) but don't want something huge because let's face it, I live in PA so owning a pair of powder skis is just silly for the amount I ski.

Any recommendations based on this, or any tips on what type of dimensions in a ski I might look for? I am learning slowly and surely about this stuff, but still feel pretty clueless when it comes to gear specs.

 

[abc]

I'm not exactly a gear expert. I ski whatever I got handed.

Fortunately, I got handed quite a few different ones, so I've finally gained SOME idea of what sort of ski works better in what kind of environment!

I'm a tiny bit taller but weight a bit less. I think your current ski is indeed too short. My current east coast ski is the K2 One Luv at 153cm. I could even go for 160cm but prefer the shorter one because of I love to snake around bumps. The Burning Luv is its stiffer sister, for those who likes to go fast. But since you already have a short carver anyway, you might want to pass on these and look for the slightly fatter ones.

My other ski is the Dynastar Trouble Maker. At 80mm waist, it's more suitable for the softer snows of the Rockies. And can be pressed into service even in fresh powder. I also kept it short (155) for potentially snaking around trees. (though haven't try yet).

Another ski that's quite popular around are the Head Monsters. They come in different width. All of them highly regarded.

I think 75-85 might be the width you should look into. Anything much wider than that would be a bit hard to handle on the groomer. Let's face it, us shorter folks also have shorter legs. Trying to straddle a pair of snowboard is going to be tiring, never mind having to put them on edge!

 

[Pequenita]

I don't think the sidecut of your current ski really matches the style of skiing you'd like to do. The 149 seems like it would be too short given your height and weight, even for a carver; seems like you'd be overpowering the ski frequently. I'd recommend going to a 153 length and a 75 mm waist.

 

[ski now work later]

Try the '07 Volkl Attiva AC3s (76 waist) or the '08 version (Tierra?) -- they're sturdy and fast, and I think a 156 length will be fine for your style. However, they suck in the bumps (too stiff) and I don't like them out West where the snow is soft and plentiful. I think that East and West coast skiing conditions are pretty different.

realskiers.com has great reviews of '07 and '08 skis and is worth the $20 investment if you don't have much opportunity to demo....

 

[Kimmyt]

I just found out that a climbing buddy of mine works in a ski shop. It is a slight haul from where I live but it sounds like they have some interesting demo programs and he did say they carry the whole Head Line, not sure if they are demoing them though.

I am putting the Head iM 82 and the 78 on my list if they have them in my length. They do have the full Luv line so I will probably try the Burnin too. Not sure what else they carry so we'll see.

Thanks for the tips on width, length, etc. I will definitely try something in the mid-150s, do you think going up towards a 160 would be too much to handle? I may also try some non-park-specific twintips if they have anything interesting...

K.

 

[ski diva]

I think the 149's you're skiing on are way too short. 160 may be okay, but I think somewhere in the 150s would be ideal.

Definitely try the Heads. I've always liked 'em. They make a great ski.

 

[RachelV]

I was looking for a ski like this last season and ended up with head monster iM77's (think they've changed to the iM78's this year). 77 (or 78) underfoot, relatively short turn radius, great in trees, wide enough for some powder -- just a really good all around east coast ski that you can take out west and usually be ok. My only complaint is that it's a bit heavy, but the 78's might be better than last year's 77's. Anyways, I'm seconding the recommendation to demo these if you can.

 

[ski diva]

My only complaint is that it's a bit heavy, but the 78's might be better than last year's 77's. Anyways, I'm seconding the recommendation to demo these if you can.

I agree -- Heads are a bit heavy. It's the integrated binding system, I think, that adds a lot of the weight. But maybe that's changed???? Still, a good ski.

 

[Jilly]

If you're thinking Salomon, I'd try the Origin. Its their all mountain ski. I haven't tried it yet but the Fischer Vapour is getting good reviews. I did try the Breeze and loved it. I love my Rossi Z5, but alot of people don't like Rossi.

 

[Kimmyt]

Rachel, the iM 78s (new version of the 77s) look really interesting to me. From the website and reviews it seems they may be a bit updated and are getting rave reviews. The shortest length they come in is a 161, though, I will probably try it and see if I can handle it. If not, maybe I'll check out the wimmins Wild Thang... I think the 82s come in some shorter lengths, but they seem to have a gap around the mid 150s, so I'd either be on a 150 or a 160-something.

K.

 

[Lori_K]

Remember that when you try the different brands, try various lengths of the same model. And to add to the confusion, each manufacturer measures their skis a bit differently.

I think 160 +/- a few cm will probably be about right. Typically the longer boards will be more stable at speed, the shorter boards will turn more quickly.

Going up by 10cm from your current skis may sound like a huge step, but if you do the math, it's only about a 4" difference.

 

[Little Lightning]

To add to the confusion there is something called "ramp angle". I'm not an expert on this but my thought is that it is the relationship between the height of the heel and the toe, ie. high heels. Boots, skis and bindings have ramp angle. Plus, boot fitters think all women need heel lifts. So you can end up with ski equipment that is pitching you to far forward.

Racers know about this but most average skiers don't unless they've had a boot fitter that takes the whole system in consideration.

Last week I had a Bio Stance fitting. By the time I was finished I had a very good sense of what being balanced on my skis means.

My post, https://www.theskidiva.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1802

Before you demo skis work with your own equipment. Become familiar with it. Are you experienceing some of the things I described in my post? When you demo skis compare how your feet feel on the demo skis. Better, worse? If you're neutral in your boots and you feel like you're on high heels on the demos and your boots grow when you're on your skis the ramp angle of the binding or ski is off.

For me Marker bindings are close to what I need. Salomon bindings are to high for me. What does this mean for my skiing? I have the Salomon bindings on my Fat Luvs. Then I put heel lifts in my boots. The result was that I couldn't find a neutral position when skiing powder. The deeper the powder the harder it was for me. I could have said it was the skis but the heel lifts and bindings were pitching me to far forward and throwing me off. Even my ski instructor noticed the change from skis to skis.

Another thing to think about. Railed bindings can't be shimmed but flat bindings can be shimmed. That's why Outdoor Divas is buying more flat skis (without bindings) so the customer can chose a binding that fits their needs.

I also agree that 149's are to short for you. I had those skis in a 149 and didn't feel comfortable at speed with them. I'm 5'1" and 105 and ski 153's. I have a friend who is the same height, heavy, I won't guess her weight and also skis a 153.

Some shops know about ramp angle. A shop in Copper mentioned it to me when I asked about skis my friend was demoing. Also, knowing how you feel on different bindings will help you judge the skis. It might not be the design of the ski you are experienceing but that the particular binding doesn't work for you.

Kathi

 

[RachelV]

The shortest length they come in is a 161, though, I will probably try it and see if I can handle it.

Huh, bummer. The shortest length they mention on head's website is actually 165. I have a whole spreadsheet at home with all the skis I considered (I'm a dork) -- if I remember I'll dump the list in here when I get home.

 

[pinto]

I recently bought a pair of 06 iM 77s from Level Nine Sports for $269. I don't know if you're looking for a deal, but I was pretty excited ... They have 156s in stock right now for $219!

I haven't skied this particular model, but I have been on some other Heads that I really liked, and at that price, well ... why not. And really, they are for my son, who is about to outgrow his junior skis. At least that's what I told DH.

But ... I am really interested in the 78s; I just don't want to pay full price yet. I'll wait on those. The 77s are to replace my Volkl Supersports, which have been outgrown as the kiddos have been improving. They were great groomer skis that I could turn at slow speeds (for teaching and skiing with little ones), and that handle faster speeds pretty well, but I definitely wanted something burlier.

In any case, if you are interested in Head skis, Level Nine has some great prices. 08 Wild Thangs with bindings for $599, too.

 

[VTchristine]

Sorry for the double-posting, I'm still trying to figure out all of these threads!

I'm in the same situation of trying to find a good ski. I posted on the mogul vs. carving thread about my Volkls on bumps, which don't really work.

I'm still trying to learn about all this new gear, I bought the Volkls based on very little previous research.

Are the Head skis flexible enough for the bumps?

What is a sidecut? I guess I can figure out that the waist means under your foot, right?

Has anyone tried Atomics?

 

[Jilly]

VTchristine:
"Side-cut describes the shape of the ski viewed from above. Modern skis have much more side-but than earlier models and their bow-tie shape helps to turn them. Generally speaking, the more ponounced the side-cut, the easier the ski will turn.
A common way of measuring sideuct is to imagine the ski on a flat surface and then, scribing along the edge of the ski, extending the line to form a circle. A small circle would describe a ski with more side-cut than a ski forming a large circle. Typical recreational skis of the 1960's, had side-cuts describing the circles of 40 meters or greater. Modern recreational skis are often less than half that." (CSIA manual 2006)
Hope that helps!!

 

[VTchristine]

Yeah, I looked it up in Wiki and I'm still confused. It's a lotta math and physics, okay, I get that! Layman's terms, please!

My skis are too long, they are 163, so I think I need to buy something like 156. I'm 5'5" and weigh 140.

On my Volkl Carvers, it says 163 "807381" - is that the sidecut?

So what is an "average" sidecut, say, for a pair of 156cm skis? I need something strong but flexible.

 

[Jilly]

Geez, I wish I could spell. cut not but. Anyways. Side cut is the numbers you see on your skis. So 80 is the measurement at the widest part of the tip. 73 at the waist and 81 at the widest part of the tail. There might be another number which is the turning radius. The smaller the circle, the tighter the turning radius. But the numbers alone won't tell you that.
So for example. My Rossi Z5's 154 cm. 126/74/105 with a turning radius of 11.9m. The tip is 46mm wider than yours. The waist is almost the same and the tail wider too. The advantage to the wider tip and tail is float in crud. These things a one-ski quiver. And do they turn quick.

I'm attending PK sessions this week with Salomon and Rossi. There should be an Atomic one in a few weeks. My local store doesn't have his Atomic order in yet. (And the warehouse is 5 min away, go figure!!) After that I will might be able to answer any Atomic questions.

 

[Pequenita]

Hey VTchristine. What helps me understand the concept of sidecut is starting with the shape of a snowboard. Snowboard technology is what gave ski manufacturers the idea to make shaped skis in the first place. So, a snowboard isn't a rectangle, with straight edges all around. Rather, it's a little wider at the front and back, and skinnier in the middle (uh, an exaggerated sidecut would be Marilyn Monroe and the hourglass figure). This is what makes it easier to turn, and this curvature is what I call the sidecut, although I think many use the word "sidecut" to mean several different things. Some people say sidecut to mean the turn radius of the ski. Let's see if the following explanation helps:

The numbers that you wrote up there -- 80-73-81 -- are likly the width of your ski at three different locations: the tip (front); waist (middle); and tails (back). The measurement is in millimeters, and if these really are the numbers that I think they are, then your ski is pretty straight. It also means that your skis make huge arcs when turning. Why: The larger the difference between the tips or tail width and the waist means that imaginary circle that is created by the side of your ski is smaller. The smaller the circle, the smaller your arc, the more frequent your ski wants to turn. I'm sure someone can explain the physics of all this, but this is the best I can do on a Sunday afternoon on an empty stomach.

Anyway, curvature of the ski is not necessarily dependent on length of the ski. That is, I don't think there is an average sidecut for a particular length. A 156 can have significant curvature; it can also be nearly straight. However, a particular model of ski will have the same widths at tip/waist/tail, so the longer skis in that model will necessarily be "straighter" and have what I call less sidecut (or a larger turn radius); conversely, the shorter skis in most models are going to have more sidecut and smaller arcs than their longer counterparts.

Divas - feel free to correct me if I've messed up....


Here's a link to the bike/ski shop in my old stomping grounds that may be helpful.

 

[abc]

VTchristin, at your height and weight, you're borderline for the 163 length. I'm only going by "average" here. If you like going down straightline fast, that's probably actually the right length. But if you like to make lots of short turns or bumps, that's a tad on the too long side. But flex makes as much difference as length too.

I don't think "average" sidecut makes much sense. After all, the side cut are used to measure how curvy (or straight) the ski is, so "average" curve is as useful to saying your hip/waist/should width. It helps absolutely nothing to find the right dress with the "average" of those. Nor do picking the right ski.

What people do talk a lot is "waist width" or "width under foot". That describes how easy to tip the ski on its side and to tip it side to side quickly. The fatter the ski, the slower to tip from side to side. It's primary used by skiers west of the Rockies where there's abundent of soft snow and fresh powder. The wider skis "float" much better.

For northeast skiers, we need to balance the ice holding power of the ski for our "regular" slope vs. the float when we take our skis west. For many, the compromise turn out to be unsatisfatory so some of us end up have two (or more) skis.

Just because the tip/waist/tail number is the same doesn't mean two skis will carve the same radius. That's why when you check the manufacturer's website or brochure, they also list the "turning radius" of their ski. And you will further find the turning radius of the same model ski are often different at different length, too. Still, as a rough rule, the bigger the difference between those 3 numbers, the curvier the ski and the more it's aim at turns...

If it sounds confusing, it is. That's why this important to DEMO!!!