EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Can you help me decide on which size to go with?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can you help me decide on which size to go with?

Poll Results: Which size Ski?

 
  • 58% (7)
    161cm
  • 41% (5)
    166cm
12 Total Votes  
post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 

 

Hi everybody...

I’ve been really debating over which size ski to get. I’ve looked all over, and even asked a friend, but I still can’t decide.

A little about my skiing abilities/desires: I’m a born again skier. I’ve never NOT known how to ski as far as my memory is concerned.  I did some racing on my high school team and would consider myself advanced on most terrain. At about 17, I started snowboarding and never looked back. Fast forward 15 years later, and I’m looking to get some ski’s again. I can ski pretty much anything with confidence, with the exception of moguls. But I have no interest in moguls, so that’s a non-issue (though maybe telling about my abilities?). I’m looking to get into park/pipe skiing a bit. Something I have some experience with on a snowboard, but zero on ski’s. So basically I’m looking to be in the park 50% of the time, and all-mountain the other 50%. So I have decided to go with a park focused ski that I won’t mind using on the rest of the mountain. After really looking around, I’ve chosen the Armada ARW. They come in 161 and 166. I feel like I COULD ride either one and be happy. But I really want the best fit possible.

I’m female, 5’6" and 115 lbs. I will pretty much only be skiing out west. Primarily Whistler, with some Sierra’s. I’ve only been skiing once in the last 15 years… but I think it will all come back to me pretty quickly. I demoed some all mountain ski’s (the Armada ARVW) in a 165 (the only size they make) and they were okay. I realize this is a much different ski than the one I’m looking to get. But it’s my only comparison. I did feel little off on it. I don’t know if it was due to the conditions being icy or what, but I did find initiating the turns to not be as easy as I’d like. I also took a single run on my friends park ski’s that were 158cm. They were much easier to turn. Perhaps too easy! So I want a ski that I feel like I have full control over, which makes me lean toward the 161. At the same time, I’m concerned that at high speeds I’m going to find the 161 won’t hold a line like the 166 would.

Here are the specs:

166cm
117-84-107
18.5m

161cm
116-83-106
17.5m

Suggestions on which size would be great!

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 29
Thread Starter 

Just the one vote?  No suggestions otherwise?

post #3 of 29

Hi Bathedinshadow. 

Welcome to EpicSki!

 

 

Normally I'd say go with the 166, especially  with a twin tip, but at your light weight, a 161 may be the better choice.  Really......like you posted, you could go either way. 

 

You are pretty light.  

 

post #4 of 29
Thread Starter 

Thanks for you reply.  You don't really look all that big yourself.  I'm oddly strong for my size if you think that makes a difference.

post #5 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by bathedinshadow View Post

Thanks for you reply.  You don't really look all that big yourself.  I'm oddly strong for my size if you think that makes a difference.



To give you a comparison, I'm 5'6" 135 lbs. 

I generally ski my all mountain skis in 166cm. The skis in the photo in my avatar are these. 2012 Blizzard Black Pearl Ski

 

 

 

post #6 of 29

161; 115 lbs is not very much weight.

post #7 of 29
Not a big difference between 161 and 166. Either can work for you. If you're rusty and will do more pipe/park stuff, then I'd lean toward the 161s.
post #8 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post



To give you a comparison, I'm 5'6" 135 lbs. 

I generally ski my all mountain skis in 166cm. The skis in the photo in my avatar are these. 2012 Blizzard Black Pearl Ski

 

 

 


Well you don't look much bigger than me really.  Of course I never ski in shorts, so who knows what I'd look like sporting that outfit!  So I check out those skis... their dimensions are pretty similar.  A little wider, but similar ratio.  However they are a rocker... so easier to turn?  I was just wondering how you'd feel about taking these skis into the park or maybe even really tight trees?    Would you personally want a shorter ski for this type of riding?  I'm guessing these are your all mountain skis?

 

 

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

161; 115 lbs is not very much weight.


I'm sure I'm at least 15 lbs heavier with all my gear on! :)

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteStar77 View Post

Not a big difference between 161 and 166. Either can work for you. If you're rusty and will do more pipe/park stuff, then I'd lean toward the 161s.


 

I have been leaning this way.  But every time I start feeling confident in going that route... I back out.  haha.  I'm sure I'd be happy either way, but I just like to make decisions as difficult as possible.  And apparently drag everybody into it with me.  I wish I could demo them first, but unfortunately that isn't an option.

post #9 of 29

At the ski demo shop where i work most of our customers don't ski enough to own their own skis, they chose "type 2" for a lighter binding release setting, and we size them chin to nose height for ski length. The "type 3" skier gets a ski that is approximately equal to their height.

 

I would recommend the OP get the longer ski. A year or two from now she will be a stronger skier than she is now and imo will be fully acclimatized to the longer length and not wishing for something shorter.

post #10 of 29

With all you have said here I really think the 161.  There will be so little difference in the 2" difference between the 161 an 166 I'm surprised the ski is only a 5 cm difference.  You found your demo a little off to initiate, and your friends 158 really easy to turn (fun). You can get a second ski later if you want and find you are staying with skiing and skiing all the time.  When a skier gives their weight it is their not in gear weight that is given, we all weigh more in gear and 115 is the weight of a typical junior skier and very light compared to most adult skiers on the hill.  I think you will find a shorter skier easier to bend and turn and it will still give you, at your weight, the stability you'll need.  If you begin to ski differently and more all mountain something that will hold a line in a race, GS style down the mountain, or other situations, you will likely want a different ski then a park ski at that time and look into something suited to that style.  I use three skis atm, one for teaching ( a 163 cheater GS), an park powder twin tip in a 173 for float in powder (I weigh 140's and need more float then you at 115, I'm 5'5"), and a 158 slalom race ski that if my favorite fun zippy ski and i love it for eastern bumps but that many turns down 3000 vertical in the west can be a bit more then needed.

post #11 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lady_Salina View Post

With all you have said here I really think the 161.  There will be so little difference in the 2" difference between the 161 an 166 I'm surprised the ski is only a 5 cm difference.  You found your demo a little off to initiate, and your friends 158 really easy to turn (fun). You can get a second ski later if you want and find you are staying with skiing and skiing all the time.  When a skier gives their weight it is their not in gear weight that is given, we all weigh more in gear and 115 is the weight of a typical junior skier and very light compared to most adult skiers on the hill.  I think you will find a shorter skier easier to bend and turn and it will still give you, at your weight, the stability you'll need.  If you begin to ski differently and more all mountain something that will hold a line in a race, GS style down the mountain, or other situations, you will likely want a different ski then a park ski at that time and look into something suited to that style.  I use three skis atm, one for teaching ( a 163 cheater GS), an park powder twin tip in a 173 for float in powder (I weigh 140's and need more float then you at 115, I'm 5'5"), and a 158 slalom race ski that if my favorite fun zippy ski and i love it for eastern bumps but that many turns down 3000 vertical in the west can be a bit more then needed.


I can't help but laugh (not at you)... because people seem to be just as split on the size as I am!  Something I guess I should have mentioned in my original post is that back when I was skiing, I was on a 175.  Now keep in mind, that was a completely different kind of ski... not much shape 15 years ago.  I feel so old.  I was kind of shocked at how quickly it came back to me.  Instant really.  And I was suddenly aware of why my high school coach made us do 5 minute wall sits every day.  

 

I was just joking about weighing more with gear on as well.  It was just a response to the poster saying 115 wasn't "much weight."  And yes, 115 is my out of shower, on the scale, in the morning weight.  As light as I get.

 

And yes, the 158 were fun, but at high speeds... I don't know.  The one run I took on them was toward the end of the day at the bottom of whistler though, so it was a tad slushy and it's not steep at all.

 

Thanks so much for all the responses everybody!

 

post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by bathedinshadow View Post


Well you don't look much bigger than me really.  Of course I never ski in shorts, so who knows what I'd look like sporting that outfit!  So I check out those skis... their dimensions are pretty similar.  A little wider, but similar ratio.  However they are a rocker... so easier to turn?  I was just wondering how you'd feel about taking these skis into the park or maybe even really tight trees?    Would you personally want a shorter ski for this type of riding?  I'm guessing these are your all mountain skis?

 

 

 


 

 


 

 


If you're looking for a great all mountain ski, the Black Pearl would be great, but its not suited for the park if that's where you're spending most of your time.  Mostly because it has a flat tail, slightly rocketed, but still not a twin tip. 

 

 

post #13 of 29
Thread Starter 

Oh yeah... I know it's a different kind of ski.  I am wanting a park focused ski with the ability to go all mountain with it.  Rather than the other way around.  Which I know means I will be sacrificing having an ideal ski for all mountain.  I'm pretty set on the Armadas.  I've heard great things about the black pearls though.  I think part of what pulled me away from skiing when it did, was the fact that snowboards were more about the park and jumping and whatnot.  15 years ago, skiers weren't really into that style of riding.  Can you imagine taking those skis into the park?  So my thinking is in order to get myself to want to put on skis instead of a board, I'm going to have to attempt the park.  Nothing crazy though.

 

I was just curious, given our similar height (though I'm slightly lighter), if you think you'd be happy carving down a hill on a 161.  Or opposite... would you be happy in the park on a 166? 

 

I'm sure I'd just adapt to whichever I end up getting.  Just trying to make life difficult.

post #14 of 29

For hard charging the mountain, I think you'd like the 166 better, but for the park I think you'll like the 161 better. 

 

The thing I try to do when advising someone on a pair of skis is target the purpose that they'll use it for 60% or more of the time.  

THEN, if you like getting back into skiing, get a second pair for cruising the mountain....if its necessary, which it may not be. 

 

post #15 of 29

It has been 15 years prior to getting on a pair of skis this season.  Take a lesson.  Technique has changed radically since you skied all those years ago.  Something may click that you might be able to work the longer ski.

 

But I am with Trekchick.  At your weight, the 161 should be the right size for you especially for the park.

 

Dennis

post #16 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny1969 View Post

It has been 15 years prior to getting on a pair of skis this season.  Take a lesson.  Technique has changed radically since you skied all those years ago.  Something may click that you might be able to work the longer ski.

 

But I am with Trekchick.  At your weight, the 161 should be the right size for you especially for the park.

 

Dennis


I'm not saying I couldn't "work the longer ski."  In fact, I said I'd adapt to whatever.  I don't think it's a matter of lessons.  I was skiing down the hill pretty much just like I did 15 years ago... different ski and all.  Sure, I probably couldn't fly down the hill at top speed on one ski (our coach made us practice on one ski) like I use to, but hopefully it wouldn't come to that anyway. haha.

 

I just want to make the ideal choice is all.  But thanks for your suggestions.

 

post #17 of 29

bathedinshadow, to reiterate what Denny said, I'm sure you don't  NEED a lesson, but you'd be amazed at how much more you get out of the skis if you take a lesson.  You may really enjoy a park lesson!

 

 

 

post #18 of 29
Thread Starter 

Well then I suppose we should all take a lesson?  haha.  I'm not sure how a lesson is going to help me decide which size ski to go with.  Trying them out would help me decide, that that's not an option though.

 

 

post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by bathedinshadow View Post

Well then I suppose we should all take a lesson?  haha.  I'm not sure how a lesson is going to help me decide which size ski to go with.  Trying them out would help me decide, that that's not an option though.

 

 


biggrin.gif

I take at least one lesson or clinic every season for the past 5 years.  I'm amazed at how much of the mountain its opened up for me.   The more I know the more I wanna know......ya know wink.gif

 

Really, with your description of what you want out of a ski, I'm still leaning toward the 161 for you, with your 60%+  desire being in the park.  

 

 

post #20 of 29
Thread Starter 

I'm pretty confident on most of the mountain.  Except for moguls and the park.  But I have no desire to be efficient with moguls.  I know some people love them, but they just make me think of the 80's.  I like more freedom in my riding.  I would consider taking a park lesson, but I'd feel so out of place as I'm sure most people taking park lessons are half my age.  15 year old boys. haha.

 

Well thanks a bunch for your suggestions!

post #21 of 29

166 for more all mountain, 161 if you're going to do more park.

post #22 of 29

Perhaps think of it this way:  If not you (115lbs), then who is the 161cm ARW targeted for? 

The wood core skis (sans metal laminate) also tend to have a more favorable flex pattern for lighter skiers.     

post #23 of 29
Thread Starter 

Well while I'm not "tall" I am taller than average.  Since 5'4" is average for women.  So perhaps somebody who is 5'4".  But yes, clearly I could ski on the 161 if that was my choice.  I could just as easily go the other route at a 166.  But I'm definitely leaning toward the smaller ski. :)

post #24 of 29

I ski both the park and all mountain. I am female 5'5" and weigh about 110. I am on Salomon 2012's in a 171 mounted on the progressive line. They are rockered and are great in the park and all over the mountain. Demo them if you can. I have other skis for powder days and for changing conditions.

 

I also had the Armada AR7's in both a 161 and a 166. Those also skied great in the park and carved well all over the mountain. The women's version is the ARW. I really think you should stick with at least a 166 because eventually as you progress you will find the 161's too short for all mountain. The AR7's are best mounted one back from the center line for both park and all mountain. I would also consider the Armada Halo's. The ARV's are OK, but they do not do anything outstanding in the park or all mountain.

post #25 of 29

161...

no longer....you really need to get two pairs at some point because they are going to perform differently for the two styles you mentioned...good luck...

post #26 of 29
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphatuff View Post

I ski both the park and all mountain. I am female 5'5" and weigh about 110. I am on Salomon 2012's in a 171 mounted on the progressive line. They are rockered and are great in the park and all over the mountain. Demo them if you can. I have other skis for powder days and for changing conditions.

 

I also had the Armada AR7's in both a 161 and a 166. Those also skied great in the park and carved well all over the mountain. The women's version is the ARW. I really think you should stick with at least a 166 because eventually as you progress you will find the 161's too short for all mountain. The AR7's are best mounted one back from the center line for both park and all mountain. I would also consider the Armada Halo's. The ARV's are OK, but they do not do anything outstanding in the park or all mountain.



Yeah, I have no interest in the ARV's.  I only mentioned them because I happened to demo them.

 

I'm set on the ARW's as mentioned already.  I'm could probably add 3 months deciding if I keep considering every ski somebody suggests.  While it's nice to know what other people are riding, it becomes just too much to look at and factor in.  I've chosen the ARW because it's a park focused ski that I've heard does well on the rest of the mountain.

 

I was really hoping by asking, that everybody's suggestions would make it pretty clear cut.  But it seems everybody thinks something different.  Reinforcing my uncertainty.  

 

I guess something else to factor into length.  When it comes to the park, I'm more interested in jumping than I am rails and the like.  

post #27 of 29
Thread Starter 

Well I made my decision and went with the 161's.  Thanks for all the suggestions.  They are ready to be picked up today, but unfortunately I won't be in town until Friday! :( 

 

Very excited.


Thanks!

post #28 of 29

That is awesome!! The ARW is one of the best park skis and great for jumping. Have fun!

post #29 of 29
Thread Starter 

I will!  Very excited.  I just need to get some bindings on these things!  And maybe even get some new boots just to complete the package!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion

Gear mentioned in this thread:

EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Can you help me decide on which size to go with?