EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Need HELP with new skis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Need HELP with new skis

post #1 of 9
Thread Starter 

My first post...how cute.


About me:

25, 150lbs, 5'7", advanced-expert.  CSIA Level 3 certified instructor, Ex-high school racer...never really had the funding for great gear...at all.


I like to carve, ski at a modest speed, and stick almost entirely to groomers.  I want a ski that won't kill me on bumps -- I will never venture onto them unless it's the only route down.  I also tend to stay out of the trees since in Southern Ontario, the term "Glades" at the local hills is a mockery of the beauty skiing through trees can be.  *sigh* I miss you, Mad River Glen, VT.


My current set up is the 2002 Solomon Crossmax 7X Pilot...I think the dimensions are a measly 109-68-98...something awful like that.  Suffice it to say, now almost a decade later, I have $700ish to spare on a pair of skis.  Thanks to my career, I can get out a weekend or two a year, but I figure it's time to upgrade my equipment so I can at least enjoy those few cherished days I get out on the slopes.  No doubt whatever skis I buy will last me another decade at least.


I've done a ton of research (thank you so much to epicski and all you wonderful members with your amazing posts) and have concluded that the 2010-11 Blizzard G-Force Supersonic IQ are likely my best bet.  ANYONE HERE FEEL FREE TO REFUTE THAT IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE.  I know they MSRP'd at $1200, I can get them in my price range at a local shop brand new (never used) with the IQ-TP 14 bindings.


Being a lightweight shorty, would 160cm be sufficient, or should I really be going for the 167s?  I've never been on anything longer than 160s.  Yes, I understand the longer length would give me better edge hold and more stability at speeds, but I'm not sure if I'd actually notice the difference based on the skiing I like to do.


Looking forward to all your wisdom,



post #2 of 9
Thread Starter 

...I should also add that I like the Supersonics because they're said to be "light" for their category...I hate lugging around my 30lb Solomons.  That Pilot System just made the weight ridiculous.

post #3 of 9

Welcome to Epic!  


I'd demo if I was in your situation and only buy when I was sure that I knew the right ski in the right length.  Demoing at the mountain you ski might be a bit more costly, but will let you swap out skis during the day and save you from having to carry the skis from your house to car to slopes.  



post #4 of 9
Thread Starter 

Thank you for the welcome!


Most resorts around where I live don't have demo centers (sad, I know), but I just looked at apparently Blue Mountain opened one up...however, they are sell-outs that carry only Rossi, Solomon, Elan, and Head.  Sponsorship at its best.


Since I only get out twice a year, I also rarely get the chance to demo.  I know the risks, but anything's better than those Solomon's I'm riding on now.  Also, pretty much every review of the Supersonics say I can't go wrong, but everyone seems to go longer these days.  I was under the impression that the shaped skis made more sense to go shorter...no?

post #5 of 9

ok pls get back to me on eric_toure2010@yahoo.com

post #6 of 9

 Yes, the most shaped, SL skis, tend to be the shortest while GS, SGS, DH each get longer with less shape.  All my skis are shorter than what I skied 20 years ago, but my powder skis are longer than my piste skis. 


Out of the brands you mentioned that you can demo, the Elan Amphibio WF 12 (Insomnia for the ladies) and 14 has gotten some good reviews as has the Rossi Radical 9, and several of the Heads in the category you are looking at.


If you do go with the G Force, which has also gotten some nice review, I would think the 160 would be preferable over the 167 given your size, op and that you have never been on anything longer than 160

post #7 of 9

Given your stats and skiing style, I think you'd probably be fine with either. Clearly the 160 cm Salomon's that you're on now are long enough for the skiing you like to do, and I would be surprised if the Blizzard were any less stable for you. That said, you'd likely also be fine on the 167 cm. I'm 5' 7". 150 lbs, ex USSA racer, and still aggressive. I never felt like I gained anything when skiing a ski longer than 170 cm when skiing in the Midwest USA (Boyne Mtn, Sugarloaf (MI), Crystal Mtn, Indianhead, Marquette, etc).


I hope you enjoy em, whatever you end up with!



post #8 of 9
Thread Starter 

Thank you both for your input!  You'd be amazed how much of my time has been taken up pondering about something as simple as ski length.


I guess I just had trouble grasping the idea of skiing on something 3cm shorter than I am and still being able to manage it at low speeds.


I picked up the 2010-2011 Blizzard Supersonics 160cm for $649 completely new, I'll let you know how they go once Ontario gets some snow!

post #9 of 9
Originally Posted by encoded View Post

 Sugarloaf (MI),




Way off topic, but sadly, long gone... but there is a 'friends of Sugarloaf' Facebook page!  Who knows... maybe someone somewhere with some pocket change will bring it back to well deserved life.




Back to your regular program!

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 › Need HELP with new skis