EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Going short or long : height vs weight?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Going short or long : height vs weight?

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 

I started skiing again after 7 years hiatus, an advanced intermediate at 5'2.5" and 172lbs skiing mostly Southern California or Mammoth and skis relatively fast  I used to weigh around 185-190# before using my Dynastar Speed 63 at 170cm.  Now that I am lighter, the Speed 63s is still ok but I need to be aggressive and "kick" the ski to flex it during turns.   So, I may need new skis.  It is also annoyingly stiff with the softer snow up in Mammoth but quite nice in Big Bear.

 

I demoed the Head Titan at 157, felt too short and not stable.  And tried the Atomic Crimson Ti at 162 and liked it.  Unfortunately, I was not able to try other length and only skied them 3 times each using an ill fitting demo boots.  Anyway, I am very interested on the Atomic Crimson Ti at either 164cm or 171cm.   Based on height, I should be skiing the 164cm or even shorter.  But based on weight, I should be skiing the 171cm or above.  Which is the advisable length?  I am thinking that the 164cm is sufficient. I only ski on-piste.  Is the Crimson Ti softer than the Speed 63?  I may need to demo the skis some more.  But looking for others who have experienced on both and about sizing.

 

Thanks.

post #2 of 6

I guess at that height, every half inch counts?

 

I always go by weight, being 240.5  pounds.

post #3 of 6

Weight rules.  At your weight I would not go less than 170 unless it was for a very specific purpose like slalom or tricks.  It you find the ski is too stiff for the skiing your doing these days, then of course you might want to look at new sticks, but keep the length and go softer.  Warning: soft skis tend to fold up when you hit a bump with the outside ski in the middle of a high speed gs turn, so don't go too soft.

post #4 of 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanJoseph View Post
 ... Unfortunately, I was not able to try other length and only skied them 3 times each using an ill fitting demo boots. ....

 

Thanks.


Weight certainly would be the more important factor of the two. and with the variability of skis these days, you can find skis that should work for you in just about any length. Demoing does help getting a good picture.

 

But, gotta ask. You skied them in 'demo' boots, ill-fitting at that?

so there's some question as to whether your boots are OK?

do you have boots?

Get proper fitting, properly suited to your ski level/style, boots first and foremost, always.

worry about skis after you're certain you have boots you can ski well in for the coming days and seasons.

post #5 of 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by moreoutdoor View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanJoseph View Post
 ... Unfortunately, I was not able to try other length and only skied them 3 times each using an ill fitting demo boots. ....

 

Thanks.


Weight certainly would be the more important factor of the two. and with the variability of skis these days, you can find skis that should work for you in just about any length. Demoing does help getting a good picture.

 

But, gotta ask. You skied them in 'demo' boots, ill-fitting at that?

so there's some question as to whether your boots are OK?

do you have boots?

Get proper fitting, properly suited to your ski level/style, boots first and foremost, always.

worry about skis after you're certain you have boots you can ski well in for the coming days and seasons.


QFT

Boots First!

post #6 of 6
Thread Starter 

I do own a good fitting ski boots, for the most part.  I usually have right foot pain on the first 90 minutes but goes away as the day progresses, maybe tense up in the morning.  And I usually ski until the last lift.  But yeah, realized it was a big mistake to demo skis using an ill fitting boots.  It's the main reason why I was not able to fully test the Crimson at 164cm.  The good news is, I seem to have solved my right boot pain on my last day skiing last week, the day after I demoed the skis.  I had to adjust the forward lean setting of my ski boots and no foot pain for the entire day of skiing.

 

Hmm, so go by weight eh?  I was thinking a compromise and settle for something between 163-167.  Does 6cm really makes a big difference, 164 vs 171? Yeah, was thinking about the stiffness of the ski also.  So, I definitely need to try the Crimson Ti at 171cm and see how its stiffness compares to my Speed 63 170cm.   I do plan to keep my Speed 63 170cm when skiing in Southern California, just need to ski more aggressively, and use whatever new ski I get for the softer snow of Mammoth.

 

Kinda hard sizing skis when your not of normal height/weight ratio.  And every chart seems to put more primary focus on height than weight, my perception.  Is it safe to say, you go with the longest ski the charts suggests, based on weight(170+) and based on height(below 160), as a good starting point?

 

Thanks.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Going short or long : height vs weight?