or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Best skis for little people.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best skis for little people.

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

Philplug in a recent great  review of the Rossignol S-3 described it as a good ski for those of us who fit the definition of little people. I certainly take no offense, I have been small all my life and I own the 2009 S-3.  But, it got me to thinking what would be the best or great skis for level 7 and up small skiers.  Since I am 66 years old and more careful these days, I would be in the little people, old farts category. I know this opens up all mountain, frontside, big mountain, powder considerations; so lets stick with all mountain.

Thanks, Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #2 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill78c View Post

Philplug in a recent great  review of the Rossignol S-3 described it as a good ski for those of us who fit the definition of little people. I certainly take no offense, I have been small all my life and I own the 2009 S-3.  But, it got me to thinking what would be the best or great skis for level 7 and up small skiers.  Since I am 66 years old and more careful these days, I would be in the little people, old farts category. I know this opens up all mountain, frontside, big mountain, powder considerations; so lets stick with all mountain.

Thanks, Bill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Something to complement your S3 or something to replace it?

 

There are some manufacturers (ie Nordica and Rossi come to mind) who will make two identically shaped skis in two different constructions, one lighter and more forgiving and one stiffer and more demanding, you would be a great candidate for the former. Another ski that excels for a lighter skier is the Kastle LX series, particularly the LX82. If you want a narrow (70ish underfoot) carver, the upcoming Blizzard Ultrasonic is another fantastic option and at $799 w/ binding, it is a ski that skis well past it's price point. 

post #3 of 12

But of course, the best skis for little people are...little skis. Bill, I am 5'7+155 I had to go there.I am surprised the bigger guys,even Philpug did not opt to go there. Excuse the sarcasm, for I am coming off a devastating OT loss by my Bruins. Seriously though, and to add to Philpug's wonderful advice, to add to your S3's the Blizzard Magnum 7.6 is a great choice as a frontside and even more carver. A nice and light very responsive yet forgiving fun ski to ski.  If you were looking to replace the S3, IMO the upcoming Blizzard Bushwacker would be a great choice as an all mountain go anywhere ski(great reviews on here as well)  The reason I am opting for these choices is the lack of metal in the topsheets, which make them foregiving and easier for us "vertically challenged " skiers to bend.  Especially in rutted terrain,bumps, and tighter trees.You may lose a little bit of stability at top end speeds, but for what you are describing lighter and livelier will get you through almost everything with no worries. Just my .02 and hope this helps a bit.    Dave

post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the advice. I plan to demo the Bushwacker, and some Kastle skis next winter.  In addition to the S-3 (2009), I have the Nordica HR Fuel CA, both purchased from Start Haus.  A trip to Tahoe is in my plans.

post #5 of 12

I like the Shogun. It is very lively, quick, responsive, active, and still strong, edgy, and somewhat damp. The 166ish length has great range. 

post #6 of 12

I'm semi-light (163 these days), but 6', so not sure if I'm big or small. Anyway, don't agree that best skis are also little. If that means short. (Or even light, but that's a different thread.) But some personal favs are many Blizzards, which manage to be muscular but light and easy to maneuver - Supersonic, 8.1, 8.7, Bushwacker all come to mind here - and DPS's like the Wailer 105 or 112RP, if you want something wider. Although most Dynastars are substantial, the Contact Cruiser is nice for lighter folks, and the PM Bros 179 is an excellent lightweight 98 mm ski suitable for almost anything. I'm not a fan of Fischers' feel, very lively with a bunch of snowfeel, but a lot of good skiers really swear by them, and they're definitely suitable for smaller skiers. The Motive 84 and the Watea 98 seem to get the most love these days. Cannot speak to Sollies but the Shogun seems tailored to smaller people. Not so likely with some others like the Enduro or the Sentinel. A few Rossi's like the Avenger 82 and the S3/S7 seem great for lighter skiers, while others are definitely for big guys. YMMV. I think the real issue is what kind of feel you want - lively or damp - and what mission - soft snow or groomers or bumps...

post #7 of 12

A light skier with skills and strength may not find a ski sized conventionally to perform well. Whereas an average size person sizing a ski conventionally may have a ski that is competent in a range of conditions, a light or short skier may end up with a 156cm ski, and have issues with the skis stability at speed, edge hold on ice, power to drive through crud, or platform for landing jumps. It may conform to certain formulas of calculating length, but is still a small ski out on the mountain facing difficult conditions and terrain. My skis are mostly 176cm, which is 18cm over my head (5'2"), but I enjoy that length because of all the things it does well, while at that length is still maneuverable in confined terrain situations. I prefer skis with straighter sidecut for the control they offer in releasing the tails and smearing the edges. This is basically a no-set-formula for ski length concept.

post #8 of 12

I think there are great skis that act well "proportionate" when skied in their shorter lengths. Ski lines are designed with a "sweet spot" and the further you get way from that sweetspot the more different they react. Take the Blizzard Magnum 8.1 as an example, the 158 and 165 use the same slider plate and have the same IQ-max rails as their bigger brothers, in doing so. it makes those shorter length skis react in proportionate to their longer counterpoints. Also, a 158cm ski @81mm underfoot is wider for it's intended skier than the same ski for the 178cm skier. The Magnum 7.6 is a great ski in the 156, 163 lengths for that reason. This is just a ski to ski comparison, it still comes down to the skier's needs, again, there are less bad skis than there are wrong skis. It is a matter of finding the right ski.

post #9 of 12

One way to find a ski that is designed for light weight skiers is to seek out skis that have a woman's version such as the Salomon Lord/Lady or Rossignol 90Sw/90Sm. Skis like these are usually identical except for the girly top sheet on the woman's version and thus these skis are designed for lightweight skiers be they men or women. Often skis that are woman only, with no men's version, are made for light weight intermediates.

 

Also, while not an iron clad rule, light weight skiers should avoid skis with metal top layers.

post #10 of 12

Beyond, the little skis thing was just a joke,  I mentioned, I am only 5'7 +155 lbs. I was waiting for one of the bigger guys to say it but I couldn't help myself.  I also shared some other info with himFWIW.

post #11 of 12

^^^^ Assumed it was, actually, but interesting issue to me. Phil's point was spot on IMO; we seldom think about width/length or the impact of a constant size plate/binding when we talk about longer or shorter. Sierra Jim, I think, said a good ways back that the length of a ski made more of a difference than the brand. The more I chew on that one, the more sense it makes. 

post #12 of 12
Thread Starter 

Thanks! for the ski suggestions and other information on things to consider.  As Beyond mentioned it is a lot to chew on.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › Best skis for little people.