or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Any 130 lb Skiers with Experience Using the Soul 7 who Can Advise on Length?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Any 130 lb Skiers with Experience Using the Soul 7 who Can Advise on Length?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 

I've never used fat skis before but am otherwise an expert level skier.  Wondering what size to get and particularly would like to know whether there are any other 130 lb (circa 5'7) skiers out there who've used the Soul 7s in 164 or 172 who can advise on the length issue.  I am planning on buying these skis to use on powder days in Tahoe and on occasional trips to CO.  I spend zero time in the park.

 

My main concern is maneuverability and getting sufficient float (otherwise I figure why am I bothering to get skis to use specifically for powder days).  I've rarely experienced chatter from speed or crud on my regular skis (78 waist, 166 length, camber-style, which I realize is a totally different beast), so I am less concerned about that particular issue.

 

So can any 130+ lb skiers out there tell me if they've had any float issues with the 164 size?   If not, I would think the 164s would be the way to go.  

post #2 of 12
fwiw: I am 135-140 and 5'11" and ski a 177 Nordica patron. It suits me pretty good and is quite fat (115 waist). Plenty of float. I don't have any experience with rossignol, but in all cases recommend doing a demo.

I think the ski is fatter than me. Or less skinny. Or something...
post #3 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfii View Post
 

I've never used fat skis before but am otherwise an expert level skier.  Wondering what size to get and particularly would like to know whether there are any other 130 lb (circa 5'7) skiers out there who've used the Soul 7s in 164 or 172 who can advise on the length issue.  I am planning on buying these skis to use on powder days in Tahoe and on occasional trips to CO.  I spend zero time in the park.

 

My main concern is maneuverability and getting sufficient float (otherwise I figure why am I bothering to get skis to use specifically for powder days).  I've rarely experienced chatter from speed or crud on my regular skis (78 waist, 166 length, camber-style, which I realize is a totally different beast), so I am less concerned about that particular issue.

 

So can any 130+ lb skiers out there tell me if they've had any float issues with the 164 size?   If not, I would think the 164s would be the way to go.  

 

I'm super close to your size. I have not been on the Soul, unfortunately, but I can't see buying a ski like that in a 164 at our size. If you like your full-camber narrow carvers in a 166, I'd think you'd want the Soul in a 172. Bigger waves, bigger boat.

post #4 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post
 

 

I'm super close to your size. I have not been on the Soul, unfortunately, but I can't see buying a ski like that in a 164 at our size. If you like your full-camber narrow carvers in a 166, I'd think you'd want the Soul in a 172. Bigger waves, bigger boat.

I agree 164 is going to be too short, specially because you are looking for a powder day ski! You probably should be fine on either the 172 or even a Super 7 in 180cm as a powder ski!

 

In general in a ski with rocker that's not super stiff you should be fine in anything in the 170-180 range...

post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 

I guess I had been thinking of float as a sort of binary thing where it does or it doesn't.  But it sounds like that is inaccurate and rather longer provides incrementally better float (at least within a reasonable range of length; I imagine at ridiculous extremes it would stop benefiting)? 

post #6 of 12

"Float" is only one aspect of how a wider ski with different design parameters makes certain snow conditions (not just powder) easier and/or more enjoyable, and other snow conditions (not just ice) more difficult and/or less enjoyable. If you are on 166 x 78 carvers now, there are going to be other circumstances besides "powder" where you are going to like a fatter more rockered ski with a different flex pattern.

post #7 of 12

The rossignol chart puts 130lbs right on the border between 164 and 172.  Because 172, is still within your height; and you are an expert and if you don't think your 166 frontside skis are overly long; if I were in your boots I would get the 172.  The rocker and tip will take away length, 6cm in length is just a few inches so don't wrestle too much over that and it will be like your 166 or maybe a tad shorter (in terms of manueverability).  

 

I think you will also find it harder to find a shop that carries the 164 size;

 

I am 5'7 150lbs, and I have rossignol s3 in 168 which has significant twin tip that eats away the length.  

This ski feels the same shortness as my first pair of 157 frontside atomics.   

Rossignol's chart said the weight range for this ski and size is 120-149,  and I definitely feel I could've gone to the 178.  But the 168 is fine too, and i feel extremely manueverable

 

My main point is to put more faith into the weight charts that rossignol puts out, over the length numbers. 


Edited by raytseng - 11/17/13 at 6:36pm
post #8 of 12

The edge on my Soul 7's stops a long way before the end of the tip.  I have 180's and putting them side by side and base to base with my 172 Magnum 8.0 CA's and they seem like they're about the same length unless in deep snow.

 

If the 180's are around 172 than the 172 would be around 164.

post #9 of 12
I am 130 lb/5-6 and ski mainly in Mammoth- 30 years, 15-30 days per season. I was also torn between Soul 7 sizes, but in my case between 172 and 180. I finally settled on 172. Sadly, I have not skied them yet, but my thought process in the size selection went something like this: They are rockered, with lots of sidecut, and some reviewers described them as "turny" so longer would be better. The edges stop well short of the tip (I measured 17mm short on the 172), so again, longer wins. I do like playing in the trees when the powder gets cut up, so here shorter wins. Last season my powder skis were BMX98 in 168, and they gave me plenty of float, so shorter wins again. I think I could have gone with either length, but my point is I never considered the 164.

With your stated purpose for these skis and your skill level, I say rule out the 164. Get the 172 and don't look back!
post #10 of 12
172 for sure. With the rocker and side the Soul 180s ski shorter than my 178 Dynnastar Outlands.smile.gif
post #11 of 12
Thread Starter 

Thanks guys.  You've sold me, I'll go with the 172s (unless anyone thinks I should push up to 180!).  I do like to go through trees sometimes tho

 

appreciate you help on this

post #12 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfii View Post
 

Thanks guys.  You've sold me, I'll go with the 172s (unless anyone thinks I should push up to 180!).  I do like to go through trees sometimes tho

 

appreciate you help on this

 

Just don't go through them sideways and you will be fine. :)

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 › Any 130 lb Skiers with Experience Using the Soul 7 who Can Advise on Length?