or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skis for a heavy guy

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 

I have been thinking about taking the PSIA crossover course, and doing some relatively easy cross country skiing, especially since my girlfriend has not had as much success at alpine as she has had at cross country.  The problem is that I am heavy, around 270 pounds, and that none of the cross country skis seem to be made for someone my weight.  I would prefer waxless skis, if they are available.  Any thoughts?  Any thoughts on boots? -I would prefer to avoid telemark boots for the time being, because I cannot find any tele boots that come close to fitting my calves.  Any thoughts on bindings?  I do not want to have a binding that I would break if I put any rotary force into it.

post #2 of 14

Boots and bindings are relatively easy to spec if you don't want a duckbill boot - go with an over-theankle NNN-BC boot like Alpina Alaska, Alpina 2250, Rossi X10, Fischer BCX 6, Crispi Svartisen BC.    Mind you, I think /some/ duckbill boots like Scarpa T4s just might have cuffs short enough that they will accomodate your cows.

 

Skis are going to be a beeyotch, especially skis good for soft snow as opposed to crispy-frozen touring tracks.    Waxless is going to make it worse, since with waxless you won't be able to reduce the size of the kickzone to get more glide.    Oh, well, the upside to slogging  is you'll be able to climb pretty much any slope. 

 

Call Pacos, Ors, or SkinnySkis and talk to them, see what they say.    Also, talk to Chip at Whitegrass, he might have something old and immensely long in his stash.

 

In your shoes, I would also get a spare/second set of NNN-BC bindings and then keep an eye on Ebay, grabbing any 215-220cm-ish cheapo set that comes along, especially if they have metal edges.   Mount  'em, wax 'em, try 'em, if they glide keep 'em.   If not, strip the bindings off and snipe the next set.

post #3 of 14
Thread Starter 

I went to a shop specializing in Nordic skis, in Rutland, VT.  They were steering me toward the Scarpa T4.  I am guessing that by duckbill,boot you mean 75 mm boot.  I am a little naive here.  Does 75 mm give you better rotary control?  If so, what are hte advantages of NNN and NNN BC?

post #4 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOG View Post

I went to a shop specializing in Nordic skis, in Rutland, VT.  They were steering me toward the Scarpa T4.  I am guessing that by duckbill,boot you mean 75 mm boot.  I am a little naive here.  Does 75 mm give you better rotary control? 

 

The T4s fit?   Excellent.   Yes.   And better tipping control.    

 

Did they recommend any skis?  


Quote:
Originally Posted by FOG View Post

 If so, what are hte advantages of NNN and NNN BC?

 

 

Freer pivot, longer stride, foot stays in one 'shape' during the stride instead of having to flex at the ball of the foot. 

post #5 of 14
Thread Starter 

Thanks, cantunamunch.

post #6 of 14

Hey FOG, lookee here:

 

http://www.karhuski.fi/index.php?productid=118&lang=1

 

If I'm reading that right, that ski is available in 250cm.     Available in waxless.    Ok, so it's a soft snow flex, but it's a start. 

 

EDIT:  Don't be scared by the Finnish - lookee here:

 

http://skitrax.com/52904/

 

Karhu is BACK in the US!  


Edited by cantunamunch - 2/4/13 at 9:31am
post #7 of 14

NNN-BC has a longer and thicker toe bar than regular NNN boots.  The binding is bit beefier as well.  Unless you are going to use a boot like the Scarpas then I would recommend an NNN-BC boot that has additional bracing like the boots mentioned by cantunamunch.

 

Think of things this way...if you are 270lbs and can not find a ski with enough camber to give you good glide then you will be working harder...this will cause you to burn more calories which will help you shed some pounds...which will eventually get you to the point where you are not as heavy and you will get more glide from the camber of the ski.

 

-Zohan

post #8 of 14

Why don't you just drop the weight?
 

post #9 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by awegrzyn View Post

Why don't you just drop the weight?
 

You might infer by the fact that he's interested in taking up xc skiing that he's trying to do just that... 


Edited by anrothar - 3/6/13 at 11:40am
post #10 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by anrothar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by awegrzyn View Post

Why don't you just drop the weight?
 

You might infer by the fact that he's interested in taking up xc skiing that he's trying to do just that... 

 

Um.   While definitely not presuming to speak for the OP, I personally find these replies to be both offensive and dickish.   What anyone weighs, how they feel about that, what if anything they do or don't plan to do about it, or what they can or can't do at their current weight is none of your business and not an acceptable topic of conversation unless they introduce it.

post #11 of 14

Definitely not my intention, but I spent a minute rereading my reply a few times and I can now see where it might look like I was agreeing with and backing up awegrzyn. I was definitely not, and was trying to more subtly tell awegrzyn that there was no need to bring up the suggestion he/she did. I meant no offense to the op.

post #12 of 14

Just had to find myself some sasquatch size skis after I broke my Karhu XCD's in half. I am 6'5 and about 245lbs and had a very hard time finding skis that could handle my weight. After a lot of research I discovered pretty much no one makes a xc ski rated for over 220lbs. So I bought the biggest pair of xc skis I could find. I got a pair of Madshus Annums (wax-less with scales) about 2 months ago and these skis are huge and have been a great improvement over the Karhus. They float in the deep, turn with ease and are fast. Much faster than my old Karhus, but that’s probably because I exceeded their maximum weight limit. I can mash wherever I want in these and they are a blast downhill. These are not track skis, which is fine for me, I choose my own path.

 

 

I don't think they make XC skis bigger than these and if you weigh over 220, you'll have much more fun on some big boy skis vs some popsicle sticks.

 

Hope you find what your looking for.

 

post #13 of 14
Quote:

Um.   While definitely not presuming to speak for the OP, I personally find these replies to be both offensive and dickish.

 

After reading all the replies to the original post I decided to give you the only logical answer to your question.  My post was not to offend you or be dickish.  There is nothing wrong with being 270 as long as you're doing something about it, and it looks you are.  The problem is at that weight if you start training you will either hurt, or kill yourself.   Your knees will not be able to go for long carrying your weight while cross country skiing, and you may have a heart attack, unless you were a tall bodybuilder from the 90's and most of the weight is muscle. 

 

I myself came down from 218 to 165 in about few months as well.   Losing weight is easy, but losing weight without hurting yourself, or without any excersise at first is not.  I would suggest you try to come down to about 220 before you start doing any kind of running.  You'll get to 220 using a religious low carb diet along with vegetables and nuts.  Throw away everything you eat and start your day with organic cereal with lifepak nano vitamins.  After that eat as many low carb diet vegetables with nuts through out the day.  No meat.  Drink water.  

 

When you're at 220 start walking and running.  For the next winter all your problem including ski selection will go away and your life will turn 180.  Trust me.  Make that your K2.  You'll thank me next winter. 

post #14 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by awegrzyn View Post

Quote:

Um.   While definitely not presuming to speak for the OP, I personally find these replies to be both offensive and dickish.

 

After reading all the replies to the original post I decided to give you the only logical answer to your question.  My post was not to offend you or be dickish.  There is nothing wrong with being 270 as long as you're doing something about it, and it looks you are.  The problem is at that weight if you start training you will either hurt, or kill yourself.   Your knees will not be able to go for long carrying your weight while cross country skiing, and you may have a heart attack, unless you were a tall bodybuilder from the 90's and most of the weight is muscle. 

 

I myself came down from 218 to 165 in about few months as well.   Losing weight is easy, but losing weight without hurting yourself, or without any excersise at first is not.  I would suggest you try to come down to about 220 before you start doing any kind of running.  You'll get to 220 using a religious low carb diet along with vegetables and nuts.  Throw away everything you eat and start your day with organic cereal with lifepak nano vitamins.  After that eat as many low carb diet vegetables with nuts through out the day.  No meat.  Drink water.  

 

When you're at 220 start walking and running.  For the next winter all your problem including ski selection will go away and your life will turn 180.  Trust me.  Make that your K2.  You'll thank me next winter. 


Not sure who you're replying to here.    The quote above, I wrote.  But I'm not the OP, and didn't ask a question anywhere.    And while I applaud your apparent success at getting your weight down and getting in shape (not the same thing, always), it's still presumptuous to assume that someone else has the same goals.  Or needs to:  different frames carry weight in very different ways, with very different effects on activity.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home