or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski size for tall and skinny?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski size for tall and skinny?

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

I am a 16 year old guy who is 5' 11" and 130 pounds (I am trying to gain more muscle). I have been renting skis the past few years because I have been growing a lot, but now I want to purchase a good pair of skis. I have been doing some research online, but it seems that most sizing charts do not have an indicated size for tall and skinny people. I will mostly be skiing groomed/packed snow and some powder of the runs. I do not ski in parks, but I do hit small jumps on the side of runs and I sometimes like to ski backwards. I am thinking that I will get either rocker/camber or rocker/camber/rocker all mountain skis. The only thing I am having trouble with is finding the correct height and width. I have heard anywhere from 165cm to 185cm, but I am still confused. Skis with rocker should be longer than normal correct? Thanks in advance for your suggestions and input.

post #2 of 18

5'11" is tall?  Maybe in some countries.  Welcome to Epicski.

 

Yes on going longer with full rocker skis & twin tips.  Go with ~175 plus or minus a few centimeters, unless you are not done growing.  SHoot for something around 85-95 cm in width at the middle of the ski.  I don't think your height/weight is too far from normal that it should influence your ski choice that dramatically.  As always, if you can demo some models first at a ski hill that would be best.

post #3 of 18
Thread Starter 

Thank you. I will probably go for rocker/camber/rocker at about 175 with a width of about 85. Anyone else? By the way I mostly ski blue/black.

post #4 of 18

Where do you ski mostly? A blue in Pennsylvania isn't equivalent to a blue in Wyoming. 

post #5 of 18

Not saying you should shop for women's skis, but this thread might have good discussion for you.

post #6 of 18
Thread Starter 

I ski in Washington and Oregon. Nothing too crazy, but definitely challenging.Thanks again everyone.

post #7 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDog View Post
 

5'11" is tall?  Maybe in some countries. 

 

Pretty tall for a 16 year old.

post #8 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by GinjaNinja17 View Post
 

I ski in Washington and Oregon. Nothing too crazy, but definitely challenging.Thanks again everyone.

I'd suggest the bushwacker 180, but I've no experience with the PNW snow, so maybe it would be too chattery if conditions are not the best!

post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfa81 View Post
 

I'd suggest the bushwacker 180, but I've no experience with the PNW snow, so maybe it would be too chattery if conditions are not the best!

 

Too light and flexible for wet PNW snow in my opinion. Better off with the Brahma if you want an 88mm option from Blizzard.

post #10 of 18

I would suggest that the OP at 130lbs should be looking for a fairly soft ski. Maybe something with a cap sidewall construction.

post #11 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by kauffee View Post
 

 

Too light and flexible for wet PNW snow in my opinion. Better off with the Brahma if you want an 88mm option from Blizzard.

 

There is more going on here than just the nature of our snowpack.

 

Quote:

 I am a 16 year old guy who is 5' 11" and 130 pounds

 

Quote:
 By the way I mostly ski blue/black

 

Given these facts, I'd lean toward the more compliant, softer side of the spectrum. 

 

In my hypothetical ski shop in the PNW, I'd let him buy the Brahma, but I wouldn't sell it (and if he took it home, I'd expect him to struggle).  I think that the Bushwacker or something like it is closer to the mark.  Or maybe the Sick Day 95, 179.  For the OP, that seems like a much better idea than the Brahma (173 or 180) - wet  snow or otherwise.

post #12 of 18

+1 on the Line Sick Day 95.

post #13 of 18
Thread Starter 

Only thing about the Sick Day 95 is that they aren't twin tips.

post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by GinjaNinja17 View Post
 

Only thing about the Sick Day 95 is that they aren't twin tips.

You could talk to the guys at ON3P and see what they think of you on the Kartel 98, it's not the softest ski out there but more manageable than most ON3P skis. If you want a twin ski to jib around the mountain that's a good bet assuming you are willing to work them out!

post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by GinjaNinja17 View Post
 

I am a 16 year old guy who is 5' 11" and 130 pounds (I am trying to gain more muscle). ...I have been doing some research online, but it seems that most sizing charts do not have an indicated size for tall and skinny people. I will mostly be skiing groomed/packed snow and some powder of the runs. ...The only thing I am having trouble with is finding the correct height and width. I have heard anywhere from 165cm to 185cm, but I am still confused. 

I can relate, was about that size in high school, now 6', 165, still have some of the same issues. IMO, you should choose a ski in the 175-180 range, as SpikeDog suggests, and I like his width ideas too. Where you should be careful is choosing a specific model that is moderately flexy, rather than stiff. Otherwise you won't be able to bend it and will just end up riding its radius, not a good way to improve. These days, brands you might look hard at would include Fischer, some Blizzards such as the Bushwacker, Rossi (the E88 would be an excellent choice), the Head REV series, and Line Supernaturals. I'd avoid the rest of the Heads, all Stockli's, Kastle's except the LX line, and all metal Blizzards until you add another 30 lbs or so. Also, lessons help because you'll learn to maximize the leverage you can exert with less effort. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDog View Post
 

5'11" is tall?  Maybe in some countries.  Welcome to Epicski.

Actually, 5'11 is the 75th percentile of adult male height in the U.S. So it's tall. The average adult male over 20 years of age in the U.S. is 5'9.3" And since he's only 16, he's likely to grow another inch or so before he stops, mainly in the vertebral column. Which would put him at 6' which is the 85th percentile.

 

We all watch too many athletes on TV, who are big to begin with and then routinely exaggerate their height by a couple of inches. Not to mention listen to too many male friends who round up their height, by a touch less than an inch, according to studies. Or we become used to being measured in the doc's office on those rickety scales with the wobbly upright and our shoes on.

 

We also begin to shrink after 50. If you're quoting what you were in college, and that was more than 20 years ago, you're deluding yourself. ;) 


Edited by beyond - 12/12/14 at 9:39am
post #16 of 18

I think you're in good hands...:D

post #17 of 18

5'11 is not tall.

post #18 of 18
I understand why he's saying tall, though. As stated, it's a bit tall for 16 and certainly tall for 130 lbs.
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 size for tall and skinny?