or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › 177 or 184? Maybe Some Model Suggestions Too?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

177 or 184? Maybe Some Model Suggestions Too? - Page 2

post #31 of 39
The Armada Invictus 98ti was on my short list as a Midwest ski.
post #32 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedigi View Post

Thanks everybody for the feedback, all these messages contain many valuable information. It is clear that the annex 98 are not appropriate skis for me. I see many comments about going smaller than 80 but I'd rather have something larger. I currently ski with 76mm waist skis and I feel that in snowy days I lose some stability in the afternoon even on trails that have been groomed in the morning because they get full of soft snow. I am considering now these skis:

- K2 AMP Rictor 90
- Nordica NRGy 90
- Dynastar Powertrack 89
- Fischer Ranger 88

Thoughts?

PS do you know if and how I can change the title of the post? It's clear that the discussion now is not only about sizes anymore tongue.gif

 

Hope the new title is ok.

post #33 of 39
Dynastic powertrac 89 prob perfect for you from reviews I've read
post #34 of 39

I have the K2 Rictor 90, it's a great ski and will last you as you progress. Both me and my friend are top experts and are very happy with the ski. Get a 177cm.

post #35 of 39

I think the Nrgy 90 may be a very good choice.  I spent two days on that ski last year and found it to be capable and compliant.  It was very smooth and predictable.  I'm an advanced skier so I opted against purchasing it as it was a bit boring for my taste but I think it would be a great intermediate and intermediate+ ski that is going to both grow with you and not impede your learning curve.

Another ski that would fit the bill as described above is the Salomon Q-85.  Once again, fun and not at all demanding.

Good luck in your ski search!

post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedigi View Post

PS do you know if and how I can change the title of the post? It's clear that the discussion now is not only about sizes anymore tongue.gif

Mod notes:

 

I see Bob already changed the title for you.  For future reference, you can click on the Red Flag to leave a note that all Moderators will see.  Can be used to change thread titles or move a thread to a different forum.

 

For other usage tips:

http://www.epicski.com/t/144003/usage-tips-getting-around-forums-messaging-feedback-subscriptions-etc

 

/end notes

 

Carry on . . .

post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedigi View Post

Thanks everybody for the feedback, all these messages contain many valuable information. It is clear that the annex 98 are not appropriate skis for me. I see many comments about going smaller than 80 but I'd rather have something larger. I currently ski with 76mm waist skis and I feel that in snowy days I lose some stability in the afternoon even on trails that have been groomed in the morning because they get full of soft snow. I am considering now these skis:

- K2 AMP Rictor 90
- Nordica NRGy 90
- Dynastar Powertrack 89
- Fischer Ranger 88

Thoughts?

PS do you know if and how I can change the title of the post? It's clear that the discussion now is not only about sizes anymore tongue.gif


If you get the Amp Rictor, go for 177 (2nd longest length).

post #38 of 39

some good interesting posts in this thread imo.

I find it strange (the whole length thing) as most skis (all mountain) usally stop somewhere in the 180's and that's the higher end skis for advanced skiers where as many (what is to be considered intermediate skis) stop in the 170's.

These standard so called ski size charts just don't jive with a lot of this. I mean anyone of more than intermediate ability and over 6 foot and over 200lbs+ would (by those standard logic) have to be in skis longer than what is even available. So I just don't buy a lot of that chart size stuff. Its really imo a bit misleading to the more honestly ignorant beginners and even somewhat intermediates who are less knowledgeable about it all. and heck, it even is misleading to those who understand it better.

 

The idea from what I been explained year ago was when straight skis became a thing of the past was that the new shaped (or parabolic as we use to call them) were to be much shorter due to the square inches (or square centimeters) of ski surface. So a 200 ski became (just for sake of discussion) 180 or whatever. And at one point the trend (especially in the beginning if i recall) I think seemed at one point to be heading even shorter and shorter.  I remember reading articles yrs ago making reference to it all. And then at some point seemed to slowly head more north again to where we are today. I think the general logic of the surface square inches still applies but its sort of trended back up.

 

On hardpack (especially if icy) and even with some amount of shallower fresh snow with a dominant harpack base in general the longer the ski, the harder it is to handle for the less experienced skier. There are a lot of tall and heavier advanced+ ability skiers out there yet with the usual longest ski lengths being available only in the 180's, (often much below what is suggested via a so called sizing chart) and yet they are still able to get high performance from the ski they demand from it. This in itself suggests to me that one of beginner/lower intermediate ability need not be on the longest skis just because he/she is taller and heavier even if the ski is softer and/or designed with the intermediate in mind. Imo I just think the longest lengths may often (generally speaking) be too much ski to handle for those still requiring a good amount of forgiveness regardless what any chart says.  Imo put a beginner/lower intermediate regardless of skier size on something in the 180's and they will (generally speaking) have a hard time developing even if its a more forgiving ski. Length itself just makes things more difficult. Thats just physics. Or at least it wont be much fun while they try to advance unless they have the fortunate circumstances to get in whole lot of ski days and also know its going to be a struggle for at least a percentage of it all. Imo the idea (especially if ones skiing days is a bit on the limited side) is (while spending valuable resources of time and money) to have fun while also advancing with only "some" reasonable amount of difficulty involved in the process.

 

I don't know anymore what is really right or wrong or correct or not when it comes to length because the suggestions just don't add up imo as explained above and its all only subjective at best anyway. But bottom line is still the same as its always been even in the straight ski days. Longer usually means more difficult to handle and thats just plain physics. Sure, modern tech has created different curves and points of diminishing returns regarding that principle but the basic principle is still the same.  

 

What does all this mean? I'm not sure lol, as I just went with a spur of the moment thoughts sharing post. But when I hear about ski length it brought the thoughts to my head lol.

And when i hear beginner-intermediate talking about the longest skis (in some cases) available within a given model line-up it also brought the thoughts to my mind for all above and just what is possibly right, wrong, or indifferent with the whole process.

 

 But also skis being mentioned of a more advanced level of ski (for what that's worth). Not the highest level of skis but perhaps not really the skis exactly for transitioning to the second step either.  Its like two things that could be making for one possibly getting in over his head a bit at this point. Not even yet to mention the whole width thing further adding to this all. I'm not saying its the case and that's what will happen because again its all subjective anyway. Whatever the decision the Op makes I hope its a good one and all works out very well.

 

And one more quick mention fwiw. K@ tends to run longer than other brands and can be several cm's longer. In know rossi when measured standing up straight from floor to tip measures about a 1 to 2 cm shorter and blizzard about 1 cam shorter but K2 seems to go perhaps 5or so cm longer. Just a though to mention there.

post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedigi View Post
 

I am looking at buying skis for the first time. I found a good deal for a pair of 2015 K2 Annex 98​. I'm an beginner-intermediate skier, still working on my technique, but I would like some good skis that I won't be replacing soon. I'll be mostly skiing in the Northwest, in groomed and ungroomed trails. Not looking to go off-piste. I'm 5'11", 195lbs. What size ski do you suggest: 177 or 184?

 

Thanks!

Beginner-intermediate: need to ski shorter skis that wouyld be recommanded for a good skier: so 177 vs 184...

But it will depend of the ski you choose and how big of a rocker it has... small rocker: 177; big tip and tall rocker: 184

Now the tricky part is that you weight almost 200 pounds... At that weight, you have to be carefull whar ski you choose: it need to be a bit stiffer than what would be recommanded normally to beginner-intermediates... 

 

So I would suggest 178-180 cm skis, with small tip rocker, stiff enough (at least torsionnally) to handle your weight...

Volkl rtm81 in 177

Rossi experience 88 in 178

Elan amphibio 88 in 178

If you want larger: Motive 95 can carve almost like the 86 and is easy to ski in 180

Or maybe

Latigo in 177?

Salomon x-drive 8.3?

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 › 177 or 184? Maybe Some Model Suggestions Too?