Skis and the heavier lady

[Bumblebee]

hello ladies, I'm 5'4" and around 170lbs.

After asking for advice on epic and reading every review out there I've come up with a short list of 5 skis including Volkl AC40, Volkl Tigershark, Rossignol Bandit, Nordica Hotrod(?) and another whose name escapes me right now.

The reason I've shortlisted those 5 is that they seem more appropriate for a heavier skiier. As you can see there are no ladies skis on that list... and I'm wondering if maybe I'm missing out on something here.

The reason I'm reluctant to go for a ladies ski is because I'm scared they're designed for a lighter, less aggressive lady.

So, any thoughts? Any muscled up babes out there thrashing the mountain with a ladies ski? Did you have to go up in length?

 

[bklyn]

The reason I'm reluctant to go for a ladies ski is because I'm scared they're designed for a lighter, less aggressive lady.

That's been my experience. Lighter weight women have been the focus (I can't really say more or less aggressive because I overpower them immediately with weight).

AC40: 118_76_104
Tshark: 124-79-108
Bandit b78: 116-78-105
HotRod Top Fuel: 123-78-108

Soley based on the dimensions of your choices (I guessed on the last two because there are many bandits and hot rods in the respective lines) The tigershark and top fuel have more sidecut than your other choices.

Where do you ski and what do you like to ski?
Are you predominantly a carver or a straightliner?
Did you begin skiing on straight skis or with more modern equipment?
Is there a possibility of demoing any of your choices before you buy?

 

[Jilly]

Bumblebee, you've got 5 lbs on me, and I'm an inch taller. You can ski women's skis, I do it for my friend's shop. But not all are created equal. I found the Rossi women's stuff just plain wimpy. Nordica, Salomon, Fischer and Elan were some that I was able to try last year for 2008. But we need some more info on your skiing habits to really help you. So post away!

 

[Bumblebee]

OK, I'm an "all mountain" skiier - I'll give anything a whirl... carving, bumps, glades, powder - I do it all. *BUT* I don't want to give in to multiple pairs (purely financial right now and I don't ski that many weeks a year). Planning to go to Jackson Hole this year, but normally it's Alberta/Interior BC so weather prevailing, the white fluffy stuff.

I started skiing on modern carving skis, never tried the long planks. ;)

I'm looking to demo but no luck so far and I just don't think it's going to happen.

 

[altagirl]

Bumblebee, you've got 5 lbs on me, and I'm an inch taller. You can ski women's skis, I do it for my friend's shop. But not all are created equal. I found the Rossi women's stuff just plain wimpy. Nordica, Salomon, Fischer and Elan were some that I was able to try last year for 2008. But we need some more info on your skiing habits to really help you. So post away!

Ditto - I'm taller, but in that weight range. And I agree that Rossi women's skis are the noodliest things I've ever tried. I own some Phat Luvs though and I think Volkl Auras would be even better, though I can never find a long enough length to try them.

Personally, I'd recommend going with a wider ski for where you're skiing. I did a lot of demoing last year to pick a new all-purpose ski for use on everything except ice days and powder days (when I have other skis to use) and I loved the 178 Volkl Mantra and the 175 Head I.M88. I decided to go with the I.M88 because it was a little more in the center of the gap in my quiver. And if I had to pick one ski to use all the time - it would be one of those two skis (the Aura would probably work just as well).

I wouldn't go up in length unless it's for a powder-specific ski. I have 183 Gotamas and 185 Praxis, but those are just for powder days. And then all the way down to 160 SX-9s that I only use 2 or 3 days a year when nothing off-piste is worth skiing.

 

[abc]

I wouldn't go up in length unless it's for a powder-specific ski.

Why not?

My understanding is with the modern (shaped) skis, length = skier weight. The key is to size your ski by weight, not by height. Say, the manufacturer assumes a women of 5'8 weighing on average 150-180, then that's probably the length you should be getting instead of skis for 5'4 tall lady! (if I size my skis by height, I'd end up with skis too long due to my way below average weight)

Although just like I'm too light for the shortest of most men's ski, at 170# you might not find too many lady's ski long enough for your weight...

 

[altagirl]

Why not?

My understanding is with the modern (shaped) skis, length = skier weight. The key is to size your ski by weight, not by height. Say, the manufacturer assumes a women of 5'8 weighing on average 150-180, then that's probably the length you should be getting instead of skis for 5'4 tall lady! (if I size my skis by height, I'd end up with skis too long due to my way below average weight)

Although just like I'm too light for the shortest of most men's ski, at 170# you might not find too many lady's ski long enough for your weight...

Well, first - I meant that I wouldn't necessarily go up in length from the length she's comfortable on, not from whatever the height chart may say. I guess I'm assuming she's already got an idea of what sort of length she feels comfortable on.

Because while weight is certainly a factor, I still think that height is a factor too. No matter how heavy or muscular you are, if you have short legs it's just going to be unwieldy and difficult to manage if you're on skis that are extra long. Maybe it wouldn't matter if you were just skiing big turns on groomers, but if you're trying to ski trees or hiking or God forbid, do a kick turn - the length of your legs compared to your skis does make a difference. I think that for many people, as your weight goes up, you prefer a stiffer ski, not necessarily a longer ski (though you might like a somewhat longer ski). Now that's where it gets weird though, because at that point you have to account for your skiing style on the finesse/power spectrum. I know some big guys - like 230+lbs who like skis like Pocket Rockets, which are very soft, and by all logic they should easily overpower, but they do great with them.

And then, I think you also have to determine the use for the skis in question too. I think in a person's quiver, there are places for various lengths of skis. I have everything from a 160 to a 185, and my choice for an "everyday" ski is around a 175-178. My powder skis are the longest for flotation. So what I meant by that comment was just that for a one ski quiver, I'd stick with the length you know you're comfortable on, and only go longer if they were for powder skis or some such thing.

Of course, the easiest way to solve it is for her to demo. I agree that most women's skis are probably not what she is looking for (I know they aren't for me), but I think something reasonably stiff like the Volkl Aura would likely work for her. Of course, there are plenty of unisex skis that would be excellent options as well.

(And I also think it works in reverse - if you had an extremely tall, but lightweight person, I think if you go too short, you're going to create fore/aft balance issues. Instead, I'd recommend something at least close to a "normal" length for their height, but a softer flexing ski that they will be able to flex with their weight. If you went too short to compensate for the weight, you'd be effectively putting them on ski-blades. Which might be a nice training tool, but wouldn't be what they want for normal skiing. Just my 2 cents.)

 

[volklgirl]

Why not?

My understanding is with the modern (shaped) skis, length = skier weight.

WOW!! Oh h*ll no! There's no way I'd recommend anything that long for the majority of skiers out there, especially women. That would put me on 190-200cm skis, and I'm only 5'4. No way, even at my weight that my short legs have the leverage to bend a modern ski that long.

The key is to size your ski by weight, not by height.

Weight is more important than height, but both have to be considered as does the width, construction, stiffness, and flex pattern of the ski, and the skiers preferred conditions and speed.

Bumblebee-
And yes, there are some incredibly capable women's skis out there these days. Last year's Nordica Olympia Speed blew me away and I'm a heavy weight, hard charging racer (190+ lbs). The Volkl Attiva AC2 was a solid performer for me even in a length as short as 162cm. Your best bet is to demo as much as possible, both men's and women's. This will help you to narrow down both the type, model, and size of ski that works best FOR YOU.

 

[abc]

Altagirl, I totally agree with you, in theory.

But in pratice, I find relatively little difference when cruising around the groomer. I can go above the length of what my weight would indicate and go with just by height, I still wouldn't be able to tell the difference until I hit the bumps. So, even though I'm way lighter than "average", I can ski a longer ski on the groomer just fine. I would just ski faster to "create" enough force to load up the ski to making it turn properly. Manuverbility really isn't that much of a issue on the longer ski. Nor is for-after balance on shorter ones. Perhaps the fact I had skied years on straight skis have something to do with it.

But in the bumps, I would have a hard time to bend the ski so I would be force to zipper line it and use the speed to flex the ski. That's NOT how I like to ski bumps, though.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, weight matters more than height. But speed trumps both. And style too, have an impact on length and stiffness as well. What's REALLY hard is to find that ONE ski that would work in all conditions at all speed. The right flex and length for bumps simply isn't going to work in straightlining icy groomers!

That goes beyond unisex vs. women ski.

All of these, I wouldn't have thought about, let alone being able to discover for myself, had I not gone out demo-ing no less than 5 different skis of different model and length.

 

[abc]

VolklGirl, I didn't mean it to be just changing the # in weight into cm in ski length. I weight only 120# but skis don't come in 120cm short!

All I was trying to say was the "size the ski to the chin" method is less accurate than sizing by weight. Even for a starting point.

And we all agree that style, speed and condition all have in input to what's best.

 

[volklgirl]

Cool. I was a little worried .

Admittedly, I've upsized much of my quiver from 155-168 up to 155-180 over the last year, but I think the majority of non-racing and non-powderhound/big mountain skiers are best served by skis at the shorter end of their individual "appropriate length range" because they tend to be almost as stable but more maneuverable, thus more versatile. In general, an average skier will just be struggling to carve on a ski that's too long where a shorter ski would help them carve (given both skis are of an "appropriate width, sidecut, and stiffness" and firm snow).

 

[Bumblebee]

Thank you for all your advice ladies, it seems there really is no hard and fast solution but I'm flattered to get such great advice from some ladies who understand the problems of being heavier - although personally it's not really held my skiing back much - can we all say "gravity"?

I think I'm still biased towards the men's skis as I haven't been able to track down much in the way of Nordica over here and I think I'd like to demo a ladies ski first just to be sure. I will however on your advice head in the direction of the fatter skis though, I would HOPE that at my ability I could carve just about any ski... proof in the pudding of course!

Yes, I'm heavy but I'm very muscular, particularly my legs so I was aiming at a 162cm or so ski, I'm currently on 157cm and it's just too short for me. Any thoughts on that?

 

[SnowHot]

Yes, I'm heavy but I'm very muscular, particularly my legs so I was aiming at a 162cm or so ski, I'm currently on 157cm and it's just too short for me. Any thoughts on that?

I think you're selling yourself short with a 162.
It can be a matter of personal preference, but I'd go for something closer to 170ish.

 

[SnowHot]

Also, if you check out my Review on the Elan Wave spice, you'll see that there are some guys who skied on it the day I did the review report card. Even the burly guys loved this ski but wish it had been a tad longer for them. The 162 is great for me tho.
https://www.theskidiva.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17047#post17047

 

[altagirl]

VolklGirl, I didn't mean it to be just changing the # in weight into cm in ski length. I weight only 120# but skis don't come in 120cm short!

All I was trying to say was the "size the ski to the chin" method is less accurate than sizing by weight. Even for a starting point.

And we all agree that style, speed and condition all have in input to what's best.

I guess where I'm coming from is...

well two things. I go longer than to the chin - I think that's the rule for beginner or carving skis, but generally not the case for off piste skis, where I'd say about the same height you are. This is where the "what are you planning to ski" comes in.

And second, if I was looking at a ski that seemed like I would overpower it at what I feel is an "appropriate" length, I'd choose a different ski (something stiffer or softer) rather than a longer or shorter version of the same ski.


Actually, from Volkl's website:

How do I choose the proper ski size?
We recommend sizing skis with the "use your head" method. The key to this rule is simplicity. For type 1 (novice) skier, size the skis with the tip approximately chin height. For type 2 (intermediate), use approximately nose height. Type 3 (expert) skiers will be sized correctly when the ski tip is at forehead height. There are only a few exceptions to be aware of, such as expert skiers looking for a slalom race skis race fit or powder specific skis. Slalom skis should be sized shorter than these guidelines and powder skis sometimes longer. For best sizing, its best to ask authorized Volkl dealer.

 

[Gloria]

womens vs mens

One really basic thing to remember is alot of womens skis are the same ski as the mens with a different, less stiff top sheet, and different mounting. As Altagirl said, some really good heavier men she knows ski on really soft skis. I have always prefered a stiffer ski despite the fact that for most of my life I was very petite and didn't weigh much at all. The odd thing is, is now that I am older and packing an additional 10#s ( which is ALOT when you are only 5' tall )
I have purchased my first womens specific ski, because my as of last season arthritic knee needs some compensation if I will continue to ski. ( I will also try to lose a little weight too ) But I guess my point is that there are alot of factors that "weigh" into ski stiffness besides skier size. I went less stiff because I now weigh more. Technique and preference probably play into the equation just as much if not more. So I will leave it at that for one of our instructors or other qualified Divas to delve into.

 

[Jilly]

I think you might like the Salomon Origin. This is the top of the line women's all terrain ski. Now it doesn't like icy hardpak, but was good to great everywhere else. The Rush is the carving version, but I found that this new version (2008) had a speed limit from last years. I did try a 2008 Rossi Bandit - 74. It also didn't like the hardpak and I found it was good on grip. But it loved the soft stuff. Oh I tried 160cm FYI. I tried last years Nordica Victory. The 2008 hasn't changed much according to the rep. It was true groomed carver. You might not like it for all around skiing. I haven't tried any of the Volkl's or Atomic as they didn't show up at the national ski shop demo day that I attended last Feb.

 

[abc]

Yes, I'm heavy but I'm very muscular, particularly my legs so I was aiming at a 162cm or so ski, I'm currently on 157cm and it's just too short for me. Any thoughts on that?

Do you ski fast?

I found speed plays a bigger factor than static weight. I can "throw my weight around" a lot more than just you standing there, even though you have quite a few pounds over me!

Still, if the 157 "feels" short, go longer. Just keep in mind what VolklGirl said, don't go longer hoping it will be stiffer. Pick a stiffer ski to instead. Only if you need more stability, float or edge length that you'll gain anything by going longer.

 

[joycemocha]

When I was using rental skis Timberline had me in the same ski size as my husband, who outweighs me by 50#. Salomon X-wing 400s, I think they were, 155s.

I'm skiing a Salomon Siam 5 now in 154. Works well for me. But I'm still doing blues and greens, stuff like the Magic Mile at Timberline.

 

[pinto]

...(And I also think it works in reverse - if you had an extremely tall, but lightweight person, I think if you go too short, you're going to create fore/aft balance issues. Instead, I'd recommend something at least close to a "normal" length for their height, but a softer flexing ski that they will be able to flex with their weight. If you went too short to compensate for the weight, you'd be effectively putting them on ski-blades. Which might be a nice training tool, but wouldn't be what they want for normal skiing. Just my 2 cents.)

I'll echo this, because this has been my issue. I'm not extremely tall or lightweight, but at 5'9" 135 (give or take), it's always suggested that, due to weight, I ski 160-ish skis. When I went to Switzerland, the rental shop gave me 156s. Talk about snowblades.

So, yes, I've developed some pretty good fore-aft balance, ha ha, but I'm definitely trending longer. My 161 Volkls were just fine when my kids were younger, and we were spending most of the time making small turns on the groomed, but lo and behold: they grow up and start ripping, and I don't have to do that anymore!

I'm not sure about the softer flex ... I've been on Volkls of one sort or another forever, and I hated the Rossis I tried last year, but I'm sure there is something in the middle that I'll enjoy.