or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 7 feet tall. Looking for some twin tips, Need help!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

7 feet tall. Looking for some twin tips, Need help!!

post #1 of 103
Thread Starter 

Hey guys,


I am 7 feet tall, 210 lbs, size 16 shoe. I have been skiing for several years now with some Rossignol 178 regular skis. I am looking for some all mountain twin tips around $400 ... I need the skis and the bindings, I have the boots. I was also wondering if I could get away with 165s or 168s... I wish I could get a smaller ski in order for it to be more manageable. 


I'm looking for something that I can do the terrain park with and do downhill with. 


I look forward to hearing from you guys,

Thanks, Dan



P.S. - I was looking into the atomic panic twins as well as the head mojo one twins

post #2 of 103

Seriously, you are 6'12" tall? Wow. I don't think smaller is the way to go and I don't think they will be more manageable, IMHO, you will have less control. I applaud that you are looking for a ski that you can take into the park, 7'ers tend not to have the coordination for park tricks, kudos. I would say a Line Prophet, Volkl Bridge, Line Mastermind or like ski in a 185ish would be as small as I could suggest. I also think a lesson could be the best investment for you, this could help get your big frame under control. 

post #3 of 103
Thread Starter 

Haha yes, 7 feet = 6 foot 12 inches tall. So why do you think I would have less control on a smaller ski? I am not exactly sure how that works. And I go off jumps with my current skis, but they weigh a ton. I have been 7 feet tall for about 5 years, so I am used to my frame! I have surprisingly good coordination for my  height.


185s? Damn... 

post #4 of 103

I believe that FujativeOCR is also a big'n that hangs out in trick ditch on double endersbiggrin.gif   I would reach out to him and ask what size he favors.

post #5 of 103

I'm "only" 6'5" but yes I R teh trickster.  I generally just go for the longest version of whichever twin tip I have an interest in.  Normally they top out in the mid 180's.  The Kneissl's I bought last year, while stiff and wonderful, were too short at 183cm.  I skied K2's for several years prior and they only went up to a 179.  It's manageable, but not ideal for all mountain skiing when you go outside of the park.  The shorter the ski the more difficult it is to handle in other snow conditions like powder.  Not to mention it's less leverage when you land less than perfect in the park.  If you have a longer tip or tail you can use that to pull yourself back up if you land off axis.  (and at our height, that leverage is very useful).


I can agree with Philpug when he suggested the Volkl Bridge...except that I believe it is now a rockered ski.  ( not sure if this is marketing or if they actually changed it).  I demoed it in a 186 cm 2 seasons ago when it had no rocker and it was most excellent.  If they truly did change the profile by adding rocker...that will effectively make it ski shorter...defeating our purpose here.  I'd also suggest a Dynastar 6th Sense Distorter.  It's 87mm underfoot as opposed to the Volkls 94, and comes I think in a 186 also.  As far as I know it isn't rockered either.


To reiterate.  I definately wouldn't go shorter...unless your ability is lacking and you really intend to always stay on groomed runs.

post #6 of 103

you guys really think this is legit....


I would love to see pictures of you skiing.

post #7 of 103

Retired hoopster?

post #8 of 103
Originally Posted by prickly View Post

Retired hoopster?

says he has been 7' for 5 years and is pretty well coordinated...I know the guys at the NBA level are amazingly coordinated, but hard to believe he hasn't played at some level.


I didn't notice if anyone mentioned it, but twin tips ski shorter (for everyone, not just 7 footers).  You might be able to pick a lighter model ski and binding, but I don't think I would go shorter in a TT than your current 178s.


post #9 of 103
Thread Starter 

Dan skiing 1.jpg



I don't know if it's possible to see my size in that pic, but I have no idea why I would be lying. I am "legit" bushwacker.

And ok, that makes sense that the TT's are usually longer. And yes, I used to play basketball but I tore my ACL, and sprained my MCL and PCL. 


Could you explain what the added rocker is? Also, I have heard that getting bindings that are flat are better because it is easier to ski switch?














post #10 of 103
Thread Starter 

Wow thats horrible. Just posted a whole reply with a picture and it deleted all of it

post #11 of 103
Thread Starter 

That makes sense that with the TT's you need a little longer due to the backs being off the ground i guess? And could you explain the rocker?


Also, I have heard that  flat bindings are generally wanted due to the ability to ski switch much easier? 


I just don't know how difficult it will be to toss around 180's 

post #12 of 103
Thread Starter 

Dan skiing 1.jpg

post #13 of 103

saeven...just disregard Bushwacker.  He's kind of the forum troll that likes to get people worked up.  He's also able to explain through Physics how Jesus can walk on water, amongst other things.


Anyway Rocker...is essentially a longer bend at the tip and/or tail of the ski.  So if on a typical ski the forward 3" of ski are bent up, on a rocker it could be 2...3...or 4 times that amount.  Same with the tail.  It's mainly useful in powder, adding flotation.  So if you can see where having a normal twin tip with a turned up tail would make the ski ski shorter, then adding rocker would compound that problem.  The stink of it is, Rocker is the coolest marketing buzzword these days and ski companies are adding it to every single ski in the lineup (k2), so they can sell more.


Most park rats do prefer flat bindings on park skis.  This is mostly because lifters and other plate like devices are designed to raise you off the ski, so you can tip it on edge more and carve harder.  This also makes it easier to accidentally hook an edge after you just landed your first Ripple Chip 180 Dump-shoot Joe Cool under the chairlift and everybody saw it, causing a catastrophic yard sale.


I've never personally noticed that much of a difference between having a lifter or not on park skis, as far as landing jumps is concerned.  But I do prefer skiing around switch WITH the lifter.  The general consensus though is no lifter on park skis, so I must be the anomaly there.

post #14 of 103

Lifters are designed for narrower wasted skis that people carve deeply on (or race) so deep on edge that the boot hits the snow and causes you to wash out.  The lift gives you a bit more angle to work with before your boot hits on a high bank turn.  I actually left the small lifters on the Salomon 900s I mounted on my PEs.  I did so simply because I was nonono2.giftoo lazy and impatient to grind down the screws when I mounted them.  roflmao.gif


They don't make that much difference to me off average table top jumps or skiing occasional bumps, but at a competitive level I'd definitely drop the bindings back down flat to the ski.

post #15 of 103

The Bridge has rocker that Volkl calls the ELP (extended low profile), but it's very slight.  I bought the 186 last year and had a lot of fun on it; I ski everywhere but park...I can't imagine it would hold you back there either. 


I'm 6"4'.



post #16 of 103
Thread Starter 

So since I plan on doing terrain park as well as a lot of downhill skiing, I am better off getting TTs that don't have a huge rocker. I am thinking I will get all mountain TTs that have a small lift with the bindings, in order to be good for both terrain and carving, as well as a rocker of maybe double the normal??


And I guess because of the size difference, I will stay around the 178 range. 


When you are purchasing bindings/skis, I feel like they don't normally tell you how big the rocker is, or how big the lift is... Maybe I just overlooked that. Are there certain numbers that correlate with these?

post #17 of 103

Oh another side note...I do prefer sliding rails without a lifter. 

post #18 of 103

Big boots might be a valid argument for having a little lift if you are looking for an all mountain and park ski.  It would depend a lot on how wide the ski is underfoot whether or not some lift would be preferred. I'd think over 90mm is probably safe with none, but a +90 is less than ideal for carving cord.

post #19 of 103

Ok so after 7 1/2 years...I've finally uploaded this video of myself to Youtube.  I made this in December/January 2004/2005 so it's all old footage.  No doubles here.


For the threads sake, I'm 6'5". 


The 2003 shots (sometimes noted on the screen thanks to video camera settings), are on 185 cm Kneissl Supaflys with Look Px12 Lifter bindings. 


The Mt. Hood stuff was on Rossignol Scratch 181 (or 176?) with demo bindings. (broke my Public Enemy's the day before)


The Vail, Keystone, Breckenridge stuff is all K2 Public Enemy 179 with Tyrolia Mojo 15...no lifter.


Silver Mountain is a mix of the Kneissl and K2.


Schweitzer stuff was on 180 Armada AR5 with Demo bindings.


post #20 of 103

People would pay to see a ski-off between saeven and Utah Powder Pig (6'8"/340#s: http://www.epicski.com/t/89882/powder-ski-for-big-man ), could throw in the Fujative for those who like to root for a little fellasmile.gif


BTW, some nice stuff in the old videos Fujativeicon14.gif

post #21 of 103

Whoa, Fujative, nice video.  You young-uns can biff hard and get up smilin'.

post #22 of 103

never seen a 7 foot tall guy skiing with 178's, looking for 168's or 165's. thats a new one

post #23 of 103

Something like this should balance things out for you, just don't go backward.



post #24 of 103

I skied as short as a 161 before.  Nordica Z-TT (not as in Z Camaro T-Top /Old School Freeze Magazine).  It was Nordicas first twin tip, maybe around 2001.  I was using a demo set of them while all my Rossignol Pow'Airs were being sent back to New Hampshire (or was it Vermont?) for Warranty.


That was the first time I was able to do a 1080 was on those 161's. :)

post #25 of 103
Originally Posted by FujativeOCR View Post

I skied as short as a 161 before.  Nordica Z-TT (not as in Z Camaro T-Top /Old School Freeze Magazine).  It was Nordicas first twin tip, maybe around 2001.  I was using a demo set of them while all my Rossignol Pow'Airs were being sent back to New Hampshire (or was it Vermont?) for Warranty.


That was the first time I was able to do a 1080 was on those 161's. :)

wow. im 5'10 and ski a 181 in the park.


post #26 of 103

A flat binding would help your knees get under the chairlift bar.  I'm only 6'5" and any lifter plate at all will keep my feet off the footrest.  How do you decide what DIN setting for the binding?  You're so off the chart it would be hard even to extrapolate a number.


A size 16 boot with 168's would look like snowblades, eh? 


I gotta think that going longer would give you better control.  Your center of gravity is so much higher, you need the fore/aft control.  Best to get into the 190 range (as mentioned, a twin tip will ski shorter).  I don't have any particular ski to recommend; just good luck and stay with it. 

post #27 of 103

That's a very good point about knees fitting under the chairlift bar.  However I'm always an advocate of leaving the bar up for just this reason.  While everyone else gets to put their feet up on the bar, mine are left to dangle, now at an awkward angle under the foot rest, which really hurts the back of ones legs.

post #28 of 103
Thread Starter 

Haha yeah I never put the bar down. Until about a year ago, I didn't even know that the bar was supposed to be a foot rest since my feet were so much lower than it! And from the looks of it, I should be getting 180's (at least) in order to have better control. 


I think I may just stick it out with my 178's for one more season and see what I want to do for the next 5ish years, terrain park or downhill

post #29 of 103
Originally Posted by saeven View Post

Dan skiing 1.jpg

Dude, your like Darth Vader on skisjk.gif


The Force is strong in that one


post #30 of 103
Thread Starter 

You don't give a shit what you look like when its -20 with the wind chill.

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 › 7 feet tall. Looking for some twin tips, Need help!!