or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › former football player looking for all-around good mountain ski with more focus on powder vs. park
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

former football player looking for all-around good mountain ski with more focus on powder vs. park

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

Hi looking for a low price all mt. ski that handles well in the powder I only ski 10-15 days a year but love every minute, I live In FL. but only ski out west; should I be looking for something between 101-110 wide and between 158 and 160 long?


I am 5-10 225 pounds pretty aggressive skier mostly double blue and single blacks no park at all (bad knees and old age) Want to be able to attack the tress this year so turning quickly for me is important but also do not want to sink in powder. Would 90 under foot be wide enough giving my weight?



post #2 of 12

Welcome to EpicSki!


158/160 are way too short for you. You probably will have to aim on 180cm - 190cm range. You are probably looking for a more off piste ski, I think 90mm underfoot will be a little narrow for you given your idea of powder, tress. You will be better suited with the 100mm range and probably a ski on the stiff side.


Do you have any idea of skis you might be interested or where you are gonna buy them? Usually is more helpful to provide your budget and maybe specific options you have looked at so people can help you. Budget is important because we have a few folks here at EpicSki that work on the ski business so you might get a sweet deal with one of them, so they will be able to get you something that fits you in your price range.

post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the reply, I was going shorter as I thought it makes it easier to make sharp turns? Giving my limited ski time all powder ski would be great but probably more important that the ski is a well rounded ski for the entire mountain as I plan to push my skiing this year.


What are the draw backs to having a underfoot of over 100 on crud or groomers?


A friend suggested I look into last year’s Icelantic model. As for budget would like to keep under $300 if at all possible.

post #4 of 12

Starthaus has these available in 175 and 185. It will feel shorter with the rocker. 



The Dynastar 6th Sense Huge comes into 2012 with an updated graphic but the same stable all mountain platform that many have come to know and love. At 115mm underfoot some may hesitate at calling the Huge an everyday crud-buster, but the subtle rocker in the tip and tail make this ski more maneuverable than the numbers show. Enough rocker to add extra float in powder and keep the ski nimble in firmer conditions, but not so much to cause deflection in heavier crud. If you're looking for a ski to do everything for you, you may want to look at other skis. If you want a ski that feels solid in most conditions, then look no further; the 2012 6th Sense Huge from Dynastar is the winner.



post #5 of 12
Originally Posted by wolfpack View Post

What are the draw backs to having a underfoot of over 100 on crud or groomers?



Well the harder the snow...and wider the skis, the harder they are on the knees (lateral torque created by the width), further you will have less edge hold.  On soft snow, you wont notice the extra torque as bad.  For ideal width, you need to think about the conditions you "DO" ski, not what you "WANT" to ski.  We all want bottomless powder all the time...but very few people actually get that. 


Agree thou, 160 is way too short.  Based on your size and wieght and ability think 170-180cm (likely closer to 170cm).  Go stiff as at 225 you are heavy.  Also as above skis with some form or early tip rise will ski "shorter".

post #6 of 12
With so fews days a season, why not demo and look to buy something you liked toward the end of the season?
post #7 of 12

If you have knee problems you might consider something a little narrower.  The wider the ski the more stress on the knees, especially on firmer snow; and will often be a little slower to turn.  That being said there are some wider skis that will do amazing things.  If you have not skied the newer skis DEMO.  


Narrower is a very realitive term anymore.  Would personally be looking at something 85+ to 105, and 180-185 long. 

post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 

thanks for all the great insight I am always amazed and pleasantly surprise with how helpful the ski community is and everyone’s desire to help people enjoy their time on the mountain. I think I am going to take your advice and go longer and wider. I own a pair of 2010 Solomon X wing 6 so I can always ski those when there is no powder around during the times I ski. Having the extra pair will give me more options if I get the selection correct. The Solomon’s are good but they are short 160 as I was told at the time that was good for my ability level which were mostly blue at that point.

post #9 of 12

While Demoing is good it is not the be all and end all of buying a ski. Threads like this seem to always end up with the regular chorus of demo demo demo. I disagree for the following reasons:


1. Often times demos have a limited selection based on size and model.

2. That selection often doesn't include some of the best skis (ie. DPS, PMGear and other "indie" companies that churn out awesome skis).

3. You only get to spend between 1 run and a couple of days on the skis. Personally, I think some skis take a little longer to really learn how to ski them and push them to their maximum. I've owned some skis that I wasn't a huge fan of the first time I rode them and I later learned to love them. This might be especially true for you if you haven't skied a lot of true powder skis before. Not all of them are easy to ski the first time.

4. Tune and mount point can play a huge part of how the ski feels underfoot. I have my lotus 120s mounted at -1 and I love the mount there. At the center line they are still good but not as great as at -1 for me atleast. Also a bad tune can ruin your entire image of the ski.

5. Conditions may not allow the ski to shine. If you are trying to demo the bushwacker in 2 feet of fresh you probably wont have a lot of fun, just like if you were trying to demo the pontoon during a dry spell. (this seems obvious to most).


The long and short of it is, yes demoing is good. But its not the be all and end all, especially if you are only taking one trip out west. I have demoed skis and hated them before and it almost seems like that whole day of skiing wasnt worth it. You have to be willing to risk that if you decide to demo a ski for a week on your only trip of the year. You also play this chance when you buy a new ski but there is less daily change and that allows you to adapt and really discover the ski.


My recommendation would be to check out blistergearreview.com. They have some awesome reviews of a lot the major and "indie" ski companies skis. Not to mention their reviews are really top notch.


You can look at a ton of different skis to accomplish what you want. Anywhere between a 105-125 waist could work depending on what kind of sacrifices you want to make. I'd look between 180-190 length for your size and weight. 170 will be way to short as a pure powder ski for someone who is 225lbs.


Personally, I think the 184 or 190 Wailer 112 RP, 182 Moment Jag Shark, 183 or 190 Volkl Katana, 186 Blizzard Gunsmoke or 186 PM Gear Lhasa would all work great. If you are interested in a 190 Wailer 112 or a 186 Lhasa I have some I could sell you. Let me know if you have any other questions.

post #10 of 12
Thread Starter 

Thanks I agree with you completely; I feel like the price for renting good demo's for a week is not a great idea as that money could have been used to offset some new skies by some 40-50%. With any luck I will be out west 3-4 times this season so I feel like I will have enough time to really test out the ski.


I am still somewhat confused on why more length is so critical based on my weight? My understanding is length primarily affects speed if you desire to go faster but makes turning more difficult am I wrong in my thinking?


Also as someone stated what you want to ski and what you get based on conditions are somewhat different. As such my goal is to find the ski that is perhaps a 7 out of 10 for powder days and trees and perhaps a 6 out of 10 for groomers. I am interested in the skis you mentioned. Let me know how to contact you.



post #11 of 12

At your size you should definitely get something over 180cm long and at least 98mm wide underfoot.  There are plenty of skis now that are in the 106 - 115 range that handle just fine on groomers but are infinitely better in the fun stuff.

post #12 of 12
I am still somewhat confused on why more length is so critical based on my weight? My understanding is length primarily affects speed if you desire to go faster but makes turning more difficult am I wrong in my thinking?


That is somewhat true that a shorter ski will go slower and turn easier but not exactly. Thats only if you are comparing the same model to its self, ie the 190cm Wailer 112 to the 184cm Wailer 112. But if you are comparing two different skis like the wailer 112 and the lotus 120 (both in 190cm) you will find the wailer much easier to turn because of its sidecut and shorter radius. The lotus has a radius of over 40m which means it likes to go fast and make big turns.


On top of that a short ski is the worst possible thing you could get for powder. A powder ski is dependent on its float. It helps if you think about it like a ship. If the ship has extra ballast it will sink deeper into the water. Your 225lbs is that extra ballast so to keep your self up and surfing on the pow you need the hull of your ship (your skis) to have more surface area. There are two ways you can accomplish that, with a longer ski or a wider ski (or both). If I were you, I wouldn't go wider than 110ish if you want to have good powder performance and bearable groomer performance. I would also look for a ski with some serious rocker (it will ski better in pow and a lot shorter on groomers).


The longer length of the ski allows you to make a fuller turn because you won't turn over the top when you put all of your 225lbs into a hard carve.


That is a vast oversimplification of what makes a ski fit someone but it gives you the general idea. You need a ski that is 110ish in the waist between 185-190cm long with sidecut and rocker that is stiff and hopefully pretty light (a little easier on the knees).


I'll send you a pm with my email and some info on the skis I have that would work. Take a minute to review it and shoot me an email if you'd like me to send you some pics.

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 › former football player looking for all-around good mountain ski with more focus on powder vs. park