or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski Length [for Whistler, 2016 LINE Blend]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Length [for Whistler, 2016 LINE Blend]

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 

Hello,

 

I am planning to spend a season in Whistler, BC next year and need new skis. I would like to buy them around this time, due to sales, etc. However the ski that I would be most interested in getting would be the 2016 LINE Blend.

 

My dilemma is that the retailer (its in Canada) where I would like to buy the skis only offers the 171 cm length (I am 180 cm tall, weigh around 66 kg and am a Type II skier and would most likely ski groomers with the occasional pow or park run), and having read a few articles and posts about how to choose the right length, I do not know whether purchasing the ski in this particular length would be the right option for me.

 

P.S. I would be happy if you could also recommend other all-purpose skis.

 

Thank you in advance.

post #2 of 20

Trying to pin down what you're after...

 

- all-mountain twin

- ~100 mm underfoot

- not too heavy

 

I don't know your weight, but for an average build 1.80 m tall guy a 171 twintip ski seems very short to me. I understand that you are looking at deals. Maybe you should try and find a 2015 Atomic Vantage Alibi in 180. Same concept as the Blend (what I read in reviews, neven skied the Blend). They don't make them anymore (the 2016 Vantage line by Atomic is very different from the earlier models). So if you can find one, I don't think it's going to be expensive.

post #3 of 20
Thread Starter 

I weigh about 66 kg.

post #4 of 20
185 Nordica Soul rider mounted +2 from 'classic'. You're very light for your height. Atomic Vantage 95 would be a good ski for you as well, and possibly a K2 Shredittor (95?). You should be able to find the latter on sale.
post #5 of 20
Thread Starter 

After some more digging I was able to find a good deal on the 178cm version of the blend. Could you recommend this to me or should I go for a longer ski.

 

(other models I found are: 2016 Nordica Soul Rider 177cm, the 2016 Salomon Q-98 180cm; I was unable to find the 2015 Atomic Vantage)

 

Again thanks for the replies.

post #6 of 20
The Soul Rider, IMHO, is the best of the bunch for an all mountain twin tip. If you go with the 177, mount it at the 'classic' line.
post #7 of 20

+1 for the Soul Rider if you can't find the Vantage Alibi.

post #8 of 20
Thread Starter 

I think I will get the Soul Rider then.

 

Thank you all for your help.

post #9 of 20
I don't know why a twin tip ski that is only 9 cm shorter then the skier is considered short here. (and this is a skier of very low weight) I am close to 2 m high so by this logic I should be looking into a 2 m long twin?( if this ever exist) . IMO the OP 's original choice made perfect sence for what he needed.
post #10 of 20

Beacuse it's a twin-tipped and rockerded ski, the effective length of which will be about 140, at most. Sure, a good skier can get down on them, but I think there are better options/lengths available. You don't buy a ~100 mm wide twin for just slalomming on hard pack or just hit the park all the time (better skis for that too, I gather). So if you want an all-mountain twin for use in all sorts of snow, including some powder, I do think a 171 twin is too short. If it only had some tip rocker, I also would have thought it quite short, by the way. If it had been a full camber medium radius front side carver, that length would have been great.

post #11 of 20

If you're going to be spending a whole season at Whistler, I also assume you will probably improve a lot over the course of the season, and as a type 2 skier currently, you will probably develop a 'taste' for certain skis over others. Have you tried the Line Blend before? It seems like a good all mountain ski, but if you're going to be spending most of your time on groomers, 100 underfoot might be too much, or difficult for skill progression. Do you plan on doing lessons? What kinds of terrain do you want to move into? If I was in your position, and as you will be skiing groomers mostly at the beginning, I would get a relatively cheap pair of all mountain twin tips to start - whatever is a good price, 80-90mm underfoot - and then demo a bunch of skis over the course of the first month that you are there... I found that, when I started to ski, it was really hard for me to know what I liked, or what kind of skiing I was going to be doing. I ski in BC and Alberta and my daily driver here is still an 88 underfoot all mountain. Over the past year, I got to demo some skis and settled on one to suit my improved skiing, but it is very different from what I thought I would like. So, generally I would say, since you'll be there a season - demo demo demo! And make sure you spend good money on boots first!

post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheizz View Post
 

Beacuse it's a twin-tipped and rockerded ski, the effective length of which will be about 140, at most. Sure, a good skier can get down on them, but I think there are better options/lengths available. You don't buy a ~100 mm wide twin for just slalomming on hard pack or just hit the park all the time (better skis for that too, I gather). So if you want an all-mountain twin for use in all sorts of snow, including some powder, I do think a 171 twin is too short. If it only had some tip rocker, I also would have thought it quite short, by the way. If it had been a full camber medium radius front side carver, that length would have been great.


Yes I know, but what about me then? Should I be looking into twin-tipped ski that is 2 m long ? Such a ski does not exist. 185 cm is generally the max available length, which is around 10 - 15 cm shorter then the skier (me) plus I'm almost twice as heavy as the OP.   

post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogatyr View Post


Yes I know, but what about me then? Should I be looking into twin-tipped ski that is 2 m long ? Such a ski does not exist. 185 cm is generally the max available length, which is around 10 - 15 cm shorter then the skier (me) plus I'm almost twice as heavy as the OP.   

I'd suggest a ski like the Blizzard gun smoke for a wide twin out west for a guy your size. Let's face it, park skiers by and large aren't big guys. As such, park ski design doesn't do a lot for 200# folks. But really, you're going to ski park? smile.gif and I honestly can't imagine you'll be happy with the soft/squishy release of a twin compared to what you profess to enjoy.
post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogatyr View Post
 


Yes I know, but what about me then? Should I be looking into twin-tipped ski that is 2 m long ? Such a ski does not exist. 185 cm is generally the max available length, which is around 10 - 15 cm shorter then the skier (me) plus I'm almost twice as heavy as the OP.   

 

So it's more about your specific problem than about the comment I made?

post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheizz View Post
 

 

So it's more about your specific problem than about the comment I made?


I wouldn't call it a problem at all . The OP  at his weight would be perfectly ok with a ski only 9 cm shorter then him (his original choice) .

post #16 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogatyr View Post
 


I wouldn't call it a problem at all . The OP  at his weight would be perfectly ok with a ski only 9 cm shorter then him (his original choice) .


These things aren't carving skis, Bogz. They're pretty soft and have less in the way of contact surface. 

post #17 of 20
Thread Starter 

How would the width impact the feel of the ski?

post #18 of 20

Edge to edge quickness. 

post #19 of 20

171's you'll be feeling like your going over the handlebars on . go for the 178's - i saw alot of this ski up at Alta last winter , Line skis are solid, good choice

post #20 of 20

Line Blend, yes 178 for you

Volkl Kink 179 (more all mountain then park, but could serve both, I am guessing it is similar to last years Volks Bridge)

with 180 height I would look into the ski at my height or close... 

(P.S. for all mountain only/some powder, no park, I could even recommend to try 184)

(for groomers only, stay under 90, like 80-84 would be great hard snow ski)

(P.P.S. as a level 2 ski, you probably would progress fast, so maybe used/demo ski for next season?)

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 Length [for Whistler, 2016 LINE Blend]