EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski length opinions please!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski length opinions please!

Poll Results: What size ski?

 
  • 0% (0)
    170cm
  • 100% (6)
    176cm
6 Total Votes  
post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

My ski's were stolen Friday, so it's time to buy a new pair prematurely.  Unfortunately, for the second year in a row I've decided on a ski... but am unable to choose a size.  So I'm asking you experts!

 

I'm going with the Avenger 76 Ti from Rossignol, my weight is 189 lbs (up about 5 lbs from usual), height is 6ft 1in, and ability is returning skiier- intermediate to advanced.  I push for speed and as for conditions; I'm in Michigan so it's mostly all groomed frontside.  I'd like to spend more time on some moguls, but my last few attempts haven't been great, at least not as great as when I was 15 (I'm now 33).  If I have to choose between moguls and carving/speed I'll definitely choose the latter.

 

The "ski-sizer" on Rossignol's website puts my suggested ski size for this particular ski at 170cm lenth ski, about 10 lbs away from the 176cm... but it doesn't take into account height, aggressiveness, or ability.  For the last year, and up until they were stolen I was using the 2011 Avenger carbon model 176's.... I liked them, but they were heavy, which is why I've decided on the lighter Titanium model.  I also kind of wondered if the 170's would have given me a bit more maneuverability without sacrificing speed/stability.

 

Okay, with all of that said, please suggest a ski that will help me grow as a skier comfortably!  Thanks in advance for all suggestions, but FYI the ski model is not for debate, I've found a price I just can't pass up!

 

Thanks in advance for indulging my OCD!


Edited by Respen - 1/17/12 at 7:04pm
post #2 of 17

i think if you want something really different you need to switch up models but you said that's not up for debate.

 

I would get the longer ski.  The skier size is unisex, so just being male should push you to the later end. 

Check out some ski drills or lesson.  I think That's going to make more difference for you then the small difference in ski choice.

 

post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the feedback Rayt, I've been leaning towards the 176's myself.  I suppose I'm just being cautious.  Another question I have is... suppose I actually hit my target weight of 165 or so, would the 176's still be the ones you'd suggest?

 

I kind of thought someone would suggest a different ski.  I really liked the avengers I had last year, despite the trouble I had on moguls and the ski's feeling a bit heavy (especially on the lift).  They turned really well, and felt great at speed and in the snow we had on Friday.  So there is that, and these are on sale at like 30% off retail,  plus the selection of demo skis is VERY limited at the ski hill that I go to.  I might demo some new skis on vacation next year, but I'm just ready to put this whole business behind me and see the bright side of having a new pair of skis stolen.

 

post #4 of 17
Thread Starter 

Going to bite the bullet tomorrow.  Consensus still for the 176's even if I plan on loosing about 20lbs?

post #5 of 17

The Avenger 76ti is a very easy skiing/ easy flexing ski.  I wouldn't put an adult man at almost any size on anything shorter than a 176 in that  ski.  I work part time at a shop that moves quite a few Avenger Ti's (more 82's than 76's but we sell a lot of those as well).

 

I'm shocked to hear that Rossi's ski sizer would put a  6'1", 190 lb man on a 170cm ski.  That's a 'big guy' in the general world of skiers (and well above average in the general world of people).

 

 

post #6 of 17

well hopefully that 20lb loss will be from fitness and not by starvation, so you end up with more muscles to work the ski with your legs.

 

If you're stronger, then your increased strength will counter the weight loss.

post #7 of 17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liam View Post

 

I'm shocked to hear that Rossi's ski sizer would put a  6'1", 190 lb man on a 170cm ski.  That's a 'big guy' in the general world of skiers (and well above average in the general world of people).

 

 


While I also think the 176 is the right length for Respen, I've GOT to respond to the above.  Apparently, you don't live in my neighborhood, Liam....or in much of America.  As of June 2010, almost 70% of Americans can be classified as either overweight or obese.
 

http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/hestat/obesity_adult_07_08/obesity_adult_07_08.pdf

 

I'm not guessing that % has gone down appreciably in the 18 months since.

post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 

Thanks, you've helped me feel more secure in my purchase.  Nothing beats avoiding buyer's remorse!

post #9 of 17

I suggest you purchase and use a ski lock......

post #10 of 17

Did your old skis have demo bindings? That would explain the weight. And while we're on that subject, don't buy 16 or 18 DIN bindings unless you need them. You're paying a weight penalty for no reason.

 

Oh, and get the longer skis.

post #11 of 17
Thread Starter 

I'm buying a lock for sure!  They have integrated bindings.

post #12 of 17

6'1" and 180?  And wanting to lose 20 lbs? Man, I'm your height, and at 180 lbs I look like I'm anorexic. 

 

I'm 6'1" and 230 (also looking to lose 20), and I ski at 190 and feel that 175ish skis are very, very limiting in my ability to get in the frontseat on.

 

I would absolutely take a 176, and in your shoes, would be looking more at a 185.

post #13 of 17



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

6'1" and 180?  And wanting to lose 20 lbs? Man, I'm your height, and at 180 lbs I look like I'm anorexic. 

 

I'm 6'1" and 230 (also looking to lose 20), and I ski at 190 and feel that 175ish skis are very, very limiting in my ability to get in the frontseat on.

 

I would absolutely take a 176, and in your shoes, would be looking more at a 185.


Height is just one aspect, it is also the body type aka "build"/frame (ectomorph/mesomorph/endomorph).  I would venture knowing the jacket size measurement would also be an indicator to help establish healthy weight ranges.

 

But still, wanting to lose over 10% of your body weight is definitely a admirable goal.  Good luck to you.

 

post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Respen View Post

Going to bite the bullet tomorrow.  Consensus still for the 176's even if I plan on loosing about 20lbs?


Just to make you feel better I' 5'9" and weighed 153 lbs yesterday.  My daily drivers are 188 cm and 190 cm, the only time they seem long is at slow speeds.

 

My SGs are 208 cm long, and when I got the SGs after demonstrating lengths on either side, I weighed 145 lbs (the 205s weren't stable enough at high speeds, and the 213s were too much work in moguls).   Once you learn what you need to do to make the ski work for you instead of fighting the ski, extra length is only a problem when you don't have enough downforce (weight) to make the edges engage on ice (force being spread out over a longer edges doesn't let it dig in as well).

 

On the other hand, I also like a 165 cm in a sl ski.  Horses for courses.  If you are looking for a SL ski get 170.

 

post #15 of 17
Thread Starter 

Lot of comments on weight.  It's not so much that I desire to loose a lot, or think I'm obese, I've just developed a beer belly.  It's more annoying than anything, especially when strapping in those ski boots!  I'm sure I'll be happy just loosing less than 20, and don't NEED to loose any, but this belly will go and I just get nervous about weighing too little for the skis because I'm kind of in between on sizes.  I'm more likley to end up around 170-175, and in my 20's hovered around 160 without an ounce of effort, I am just used to being thin.  I could  stand to be in better shape too, I usually do a lot of fly fishing and hiking in the summer, this year I was a bit of a slacker and ended up doing more eating and video games with my rec time... for shame.

 

Thanks for the feedback there Ghost, I might just some shorter skies to play around with when my budget permits.

post #16 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Respen View Post
... For the last year, and up until they were stolen I was using the 2011 Avenger carbon model 176's.... I liked them, but they were heavy, which is why I've decided on the lighter Titanium model. 

For the record, carbon is significantly lighter than titanium. Even than aluminum, which is what most "titanium" skis actually are, and which is a lot lighter than titanium. Are you certain the Ti Rossi is lighter?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Respen View Post

Thanks for the feedback Rayt, I've been leaning towards the 176's myself.  I suppose I'm just being cautious.  Another question I have is... suppose I actually hit my target weight of 165 or so, would the 176's still be the ones you'd suggest?


IMO bad idea to buy skis based on a "target weight." If you diet hard enough to get down there, you'll gain it back within a year. Truth; lot of literature on this. OTOH, if you allow your weight to gradually drift down, concentrate on more exercise, you might keep most of it off, but it'll take far longer than you have to buy new sticks. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tch View Post

Quote:


While I also think the 176 is the right length for Respen, I've GOT to respond to the above.  Apparently, you don't live in my neighborhood, Liam....or in much of America.  As of June 2010, almost 70% of Americans can be classified as either overweight or obese.
 

http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/hestat/obesity_adult_07_08/obesity_adult_07_08.pdf

 

I'm not guessing that % has gone down appreciably in the 18 months since.


^^^^ Got this right. OTOH, not sure ski manufacturers have caught up with American stomachs. Partly because far more skis are sold in Japan and Yrp. IMO skis are still designed "as if" the average male weighed 175-180 lbs. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Respen View Post

Thanks for the feedback there Ghost, I might just some shorter skies to play around with when my budget permits.

More to the point, the length is less about weight (that's relevant to bending the cross sectional area of the ski), than about your ability to pressure the tips, which is a function of your height, your style, and your leg muscularity. A 176 is fine, even if you weigh 165. (Which I do, ski that width in mid-170's.) 
 

 

post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 

@beyond I was pretty sure that the TI skies were lighter... felt much lighter than last year's carbons.  But now that you mention it, the bindings weren't fully assembled on the 176's, and I did have some spinach before casually lifting them.  They very well could actually be heavier.  As for me going towards a target weight... what I was trying to say in many less words is that I've been much less active this year than most for a variety of reasons, I'm pretty sure I'll dip back down in weight weather or not I try... but I will be putting effort in as I'm totally over this beer gut.  So I just wanted some opinions regarding weather or not the ski's would work for me at a lower weight.

 

Lots of great feedback from everyone, I love these boards and need to make it a point to post more often when it isn't just crunch time before a buy.  Thanks all!

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 › Ski length opinions please!