or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Yes or No on Old Skis that are hardly used? [2009 Nordica for northeast intermediate over 50]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yes or No on Old Skis that are hardly used? [2009 Nordica for northeast intermediate over 50]

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

I am an intermediate skier just north of 50 years old ... I picked up this skiing thing about 5 years and am very hooked, go figure. I ski exclusively in the Northeast - NY mostly, some Vt., so I see a lot of ice.  I'd like to venture into bumps this season (if we ever get snow).

 

I'm 6'1", 190lbs pretty darn athletic... i spent one of my ski seasons on the bench with an ACL from basketball I play a lot. I would take my kids skiing and sit at the bottom of the hill just happy to be near skiing!  I digress.

 

Anyway, so, I bought some Rossi Sin 7's because they presented themselves at an amazing price...but, am thinking I really need something thinner to carve since the Sins are 94 at the waist.

 

I came across some Nordica Jet Fuels from 2009 with less than 20-25 ski days on them....very cheap.

 

thoughts?  still too wide at 84? 

 

Moderator note: added to thread title

post #2 of 13

That ski is a ripping carver.  At 190 pounds, you would have no problem bending it as your abilities increase.  An 84 waist is maybe kind of wide for a dedicated east coast hard pack ski.  I'll let the actual Easterners chime in on that one.

 

 Hard to give you a firm opinion without knowing what "very cheap" means!

post #3 of 13

I'll second HR.  As for width...it's a little wide for my tastes.  But if the price is right, the width compromise could be very do-able.  One of the ripping-est skis around is the FireArrow 84, which is descended (if my genealogy is right) from the Jet Fuels, so skis that wide can carve.  And, you will get some more versatility at that width.


What is the price?

post #4 of 13

If the price is right, I would be willing to take a chance on the Jet Fuels. At 84mm waist, that is about my waist limit  to ski on eastern hard snow conditions. The edges should be sharpened, at a minimum, and you might consider a full tune.I presume the Jet Fuels come with bindings, they may be a system binding meaning they are an integral part of the ski, You do need to have a shop adjust them for your boots and binding settings. 

Given the age and the cost to set them up for you, I would not offer much more than $100 as a starting point. 

post #5 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Living Proof View Post
 

 

Given the age and the cost to set them up for you, I would not offer much more than $100 as a starting point. 

 

^this.

That ski was a seriously good ski for its day; the system bindings were...meh.

Totally usable EC ride.

What length?

post #6 of 13
Thread Starter 
The skis are 177s. I can get them for $125, shipped. I've eyed some Volkl RTM 7.8s that are newer, for $200. Obviously, they'll give me the thinner vibe.

Btw, I'm good on boots. I had some custom work done at Heino's in NJ, fantastic shop.

Super info and input, that's why I love this forum and the people on it!

THANKS!
post #7 of 13

Personally, I would spend more $$$ for a newer, better ski. Many of us post on another forum, and, here's one example of a ski that would be fine for you that needs nothing other than a simple demo binding adjustment. The seller is very well known here and on the other forum, I know him and would buy from him without hesitation. The cost difference is about $150, much of your savings should be spent on a tune.

 

http://pugski.com/forum/threads/fs-nordica-firearrow-80-with-bindings-280.569/#post-9325

post #8 of 13
Echo LP's suggestion with the Fire Arrows. Newer , better suited for what you want(hard snow carver) the increase in cost maybe gets halfed because the Fire Arrows have been recently tuned.

The other nice thing about a great deal on a great slightly used ski is when you ding it up you won't feel so bad! The way this season is looking in the east , I would expect you will be skiing some days on less than wonderful cover.
post #9 of 13
Thread Starter 


thank you for the link .... good find. I'll have to consider the funds carefully. Very tempting!

 

thanks again all for the advice.  I think I am going to pass on the 84's for now.

 

Very appreciative for those sharing the wisdom!

 

:)

post #10 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluid164 View Post
 

I came across some Nordica Jet Fuels from 2009 with less than 20-25 ski days on them....very cheap. 20+ days is not all that pristine, and they're 6 years old. Unless they're well under $100 with bindings, which were clunky anyway, not a great deal.  

 

thoughts?  still too wide at 84? Yes. You'd be happier with something in the 70's for firm days, and FWIW, narrower skis are easier on the knees when you go on edge. 

 

Moderator note: added to thread title

post #11 of 13
Thread Starter 


Is a 172 length short for me for this FA?  I'm 6'1ish, 190lbs.

post #12 of 13

Not if you're doing icy bumps.

post #13 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluid164 View Post
 


Is a 172 length short for me for this FA?  I'm 6'1ish, 190lbs.

Perfect for an intermediate of your size, on that ski.

 

Awesome ski!  I love the FA80 Pro so much, I've hoarded them, and will be skiing a brand new pair of 180s this year (expert at 6'2" and 195 pounds)

 

Not that we're trying to spend your money............

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 › Yes or No on Old Skis that are hardly used? [2009 Nordica for northeast intermediate over 50]