or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › What length Stockli Laser AX for a geezer?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What length Stockli Laser AX for a geezer?

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

I skied the 2015 Stockli Laser AX in early season Vermont hard snow conditions in December of 2015. They were 167 cm length. I was amazed at how well they performed and how comfortable and confidence inducing they felt in a scraped off icy stretch. They were not quick turners like the Head Rallys in 163 cm that I eventually bought, but they were solid as a rock. On the advice of my PSIA clinician, I'm now moving to a flat ski [sold the Head Rally skis/bindings] so can have a binding with less delta. If the Stocklis were made in 163 cm length or thereabouts, I'd really be happy - but they're not. I read an article on the website of an Aspen outfit called Bumps for Boomers. They are saying that people in my age cohort should be on skis of 160 cm - AND SHORTER. In my experiments over the years with ski length, I've found shorter skis, in general, to be easier to maneuver but more squirrelly, and longer skis to be more work to maneuver but more stable.

I'll be skiing on the Socklis [which I have yet to acquire] when I'm seventy-five years old, after open heart surgery in August 2014 [mitral valve repair] and recent ablation for A-fib from which I'm still recovering [recent!]. I think that on a great day, with hero conditions and on top of my game, I might be able to fake Level 8. Truth be told, I've been a higher Level 7 and have lost a few steps that I'll regain. I'll be having AAAAAAttack 13 bindings put on them. I've shrunk two inches to a height of 5'8" and weigh 155 lbs. Sometimes five pounds less.

So my question is this: Am I better off on the 159 cm length or the 167 cm length in the 2017 model Stockli Laser AX? This will be my every-day ski, for pleasure and teaching.

I also have Kastle FX94 in 166 cm length, [which I enjoyed very much on groomed and skied-on snow at Alta and Solitude in March 2016] and Volkl 100EIGHT in 173 cm [full rocker, and I haven't skied them yet].

Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
 
 
post #2 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe View Post
 

I skied the 2015 Stockli Laser AX in early season Vermont hard snow conditions in December of 2015. They were 167 cm length. I was amazed at how well they performed and how comfortable and confidence inducing they felt in a scraped off icy stretch. They were not quick turners like the Head Rallys in 163 cm that I eventually bought, but they were solid as a rock. On the advice of my PSIA clinician, I'm now moving to a flat ski [sold the Head Rally skis/bindings] so can have a binding with less delta. If the Stocklis were made in 163 cm length or thereabouts, I'd really be happy - but they're not. I read an article on the website of an Aspen outfit called Bumps for Boomers. They are saying that people in my age cohort should be on skis of 160 cm - AND SHORTER. In my experiments over the years with ski length, I've found shorter skis, in general, to be easier to maneuver but more squirrelly, and longer skis to be more work to maneuver but more stable.

I'll be skiing on the Socklis [which I have yet to acquire] when I'm seventy-five years old, after open heart surgery in August 2014 [mitral valve repair] and recent ablation for A-fib from which I'm still recovering [recent!]. I think that on a great day, with hero conditions and on top of my game, I might be able to fake Level 8. Truth be told, I've been a higher Level 7 and have lost a few steps that I'll regain. I'll be having AAAAAAttack 13 bindings put on them. I've shrunk two inches to a height of 5'8" and weigh 155 lbs. Sometimes five pounds less.

So my question is this: Am I better off on the 159 cm length or the 167 cm length in the 2017 model Stockli Laser AX? This will be my every-day ski, for pleasure and teaching.

I also have Kastle FX94 in 166 cm length, [which I enjoyed very much on groomed and skied-on snow at Alta and Solitude in March 2016] and Volkl 100EIGHT in 173 cm [full rocker, and I haven't skied them yet].

Thank you in advance for your thoughts.
 
 


5' 8 and 155 lbs means you would be better off on the 167 cm, assuming you will be taking it relatively easy and not pushing your luck or skiing mach scnell (the 175 cm actually would be more suitable for that). 

post #3 of 24
Thread Starter 

Actually, Ghost, that 167 can go pretty darned fast!  Or at least what amounts to mach schnell for this geezer. In fact, that's one of the beautiful things about them. You don't NEED to go at the speed of light to appreciate them - moderate speeds are enough. But if you WANT to go fast, they do that very well, and feel solid while doing it. Thanks for your input.  I'd like to have as much inout as I can before I pull the trigger.

post #4 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe View Post
 

Actually, Ghost, that 167 can go pretty darned fast!  Or at least what amounts to mach schnell for this geezer. In fact, that's one of the beautiful things about them. You don't NEED to go at the speed of light to appreciate them - moderate speeds are enough. But if you WANT to go fast, they do that very well, and feel solid while doing it. Thanks for your input.  I'd like to have as much inout as I can before I pull the trigger.


Oh, I'm sure they can go fast, I'm just noting that if you are going fast, then there is no downside to the 175, and it will be even better at doing what needs doing at speed than the 167 as well as a bit safer.  For going slow the extra length and weight does have some cost which you would be paying any time you weren't booking it. So 167 cm is my suggestion over the 175 for you.

 

I say 167 cm over 159 cm for a 16 ish m radius ski at your weight and height; if it were an 11-m radius ski that you would be able to resist skiing beyond its design speed, then 159 would be ok. 167 is the second shortest length in that ski, 159 cm is for the lightest skiers who might choose to ski that ski, not the 158 lb ones.

post #5 of 24
Thread Starter 
Thanks again for the input, Ghost. I'm sure that 167 will handle all the speed this old geezer will be putting into it.
post #6 of 24

75 Oboe, you just made my short list of personal heroes.  Keep it up and enjoy those Stockli's! dave

post #7 of 24
Thread Starter 
Thanks, Dave, but I'd rather not be a hero. I'd rather be 55 again. No joke.
post #8 of 24

Yeah, this hero stuff isn't all it's advertised to be;)

I'm only 65, with no cardiac surgeries (but  lot of GI "issues"), same weight but taller (6'1"), and love the 175.  Sounds like you already found the perfect fit with the 167 - ski it for a while and then if you're still curious demo other sizes.  That's what I did (tried the 183s), but still prefer the 175s.  Sounds like you've got your skis lined up for a great season!

post #9 of 24
Thread Starter 
Sure, now the only piece of equipment in question is this superannuated body. Perhaps a fresh tune could help.
post #10 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe View Post

Thanks, Dave, but I'd rather not be a hero. I'd rather be 55 again. No joke.

 

Know what you mean. I'm just a babe in my 60's. STill rather be 35 and working my a$$ off.

This old age thing is way over rated but much better than the alternative. 

 

The 167 should be a good fit for you. It will promote a bit more finesse and allows for softer skiing.

I like skiing softly. It is way less taxing on the body. It allows for longer and more ski days.  :yahoo:   

post #11 of 24

Hi Oboe - I have quite a few years of age over you as well as weight . I have a new pair of Stockli Laser SC skis in a 177 length , and they are the best ski that I've owned . They are precise , stable and fantastic on firm snow as well as on crud and light powder . Good luck with the AXs !

post #12 of 24
Thread Starter 

Thanks, Old Fool. Please PM me with your years and weight over mine, as well as your skiing experience (I was a late starter).

post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe View Post
 

Thanks, Old Fool. Please PM me with your years and weight over mine, as well as your skiing experience (I was a late starter).


I think you'll enjoy the article about oldfool91.  His username was changed recently to honor his age. :)

 

http://www.epicski.com/a/the-most-experienced-epicskier-bob-mcneill

post #14 of 24
Thread Starter 

Obviously, marznc, having read the article, I can't carry oldfool91's ski poles! I envy his life, not merely his longevity.  Unfortunately for me, I came to skiing much later in life, and at this age, it's not easy to make up for lost time.  If my ticker holds up, I'd like to be skiing for as long as I live.

 

And if you're the ambassador for Massanutten, you yourself must be a dedicated skier! If I make it back to Smugglers' Notch this coming season, and if you visit there, please look me up!

post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe View Post
 

Obviously, marznc, having read the article, I can't carry oldfool91's ski poles! I envy his life, not merely his longevity.  Unfortunately for me, I came to skiing much later in life, and at this age, it's not easy to make up for lost time.  If my ticker holds up, I'd like to be skiing for as long as I live.

 

And if you're the ambassador for Massanutten, you yourself must be a dedicated skier! If I make it back to Smugglers' Notch this coming season, and if you visit there, please look me up!


I just turned 60 this year.  Have the advantage that I learned to ski as a teen for two seasons.  But didn't ski at all for years after that.  Have learned a lot taking lessons at Massanutten and at Alta in recent years after needing some knee rehab.  Ski much better now than I ever expected after starting to ski more regularly because my daughter liked skiing and I retired early.  Given that my parents lived well into their 90s, I plan enjoy skiing for a while yet.

 

My inspiration at Alta was Naomi.  She was a long time guest at Alta Lodge.  I had a chance to ski with her a few times in recent years.  She was over 90 and still skiing every day when she was at Alta.  Took her first ski trip to Europe when she was 92.  She died later that year, but never had to slow down.

post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe View Post
 

I skied the 2015 Stockli Laser AX in early season Vermont hard snow conditions in December of 2015. They were 167 cm length. I was amazed at how well they performed and how comfortable and confidence inducing they felt in a scraped off icy stretch. They were not quick turners like the Head Rallys in 163 cm that I eventually bought, but they were solid as a rock. On the advice of my PSIA clinician, I'm now moving to a flat ski [sold the Head Rally skis/bindings] so can have a binding with less delta. If the Stocklis were made in 163 cm length or thereabouts, I'd really be happy - but they're not. I read an article on the website of an Aspen outfit called Bumps for Boomers. They are saying that people in my age cohort should be on skis of 160 cm - AND SHORTER. In my experiments over the years with ski length, I've found shorter skis, in general, to be easier to maneuver but more squirrelly, and longer skis to be more work to maneuver but more stable.


[snip]

 

You've gotten some good advice.  I know my coach at Massanutten loves his Laser SC.  He's over 70 I think.

 

I was wondering about what you read on Bumps for Boomers.  I found their video exercises a while back and they seem to be pretty knowledgeable.  I think it's important to remember that their advice is for people who are looking to ski moguls on soft snow pretty often.  Being based at Aspen, most of the people they work with are probably not on icy northeast slopes that often.  They also make it very clear that the importance of ski technique trumps the importance of a particular ski length for a given skier.

 

https://www.bumpsforboomers.com/2016/02/choosing-ski-length-final-thoughts-part-4-of-4/

 

"The recommendations presented here are based upon the demographics, preferences, goals and the many years of on-snow experiences since 2002 of the people who ski in the BUMPS FOR BOOMERS mogul and powder ski lesson program. This profile includes skier’s age (Baby Boomer and older skiers), their skiing style (conservative … with a preference for balance and control over fast skiing … and a desire to avoid potential injury at all cost), their terrain preference (desire to ski moguls and powder inside the ski area boundary), their fitness level (not as physically fit as they used to be … and slowing reflexes) and skiing frequency (approximately 15 days per season)."

post #17 of 24
Thread Starter 

The oldest skier in my group at Alta was 92 last season [not Naomi], so it's not just a matter of age. My ticker problems keep getting in the way, damit! This isn't a matter of clogged coronaries - it was a prolapsed mitral valve [following years of arrhythmia managed with medicine. Now, it's atrial fibrillation, and the recent procedure may not have been enough - we're still working on it. I've never had a problem with altitude in Utah - until this last season. Someone who should know told me that my failure to acclimate after a week wasn't normal - I was huffing and puffing, never had that happen before. I'm hoping that the cardiologists can get this straightened out soon.

 

It must have been quite an experience going from Massanutten to Alta!  Of course, going from West Palm Beach to ANY place above sea level is an experience for me.

post #18 of 24
Thread Starter 

I'll look further into the Bumps for Boomers website, but the proclivity to recommend seriously short skis concerned me.

post #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe View Post
 

I'll look further into the Bumps for Boomers website, but the proclivity to recommend seriously short skis concerned me.


The sections about technique and skis are new.  What I found useful was the fitness info.  The self-test screening is pretty useful.  Looks like they re-did their website recently but the videos are the same.

 

https://www.bumpsforboomers.com/basic-ski-fitness/

 

I wasn't doing any specific ski conditioning before I messed up a knee in June 2012 (not skiing).  By the time I finished physical therapy (no surgery), I had started exercising on a regular basis.  Have learned a lot in the last few years.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe View Post
 

The oldest skier in my group at Alta was 92 last season [not Naomi], so it's not just a matter of age. My ticker problems keep getting in the way, damit! This isn't a matter of clogged coronaries - it was a prolapsed mitral valve [following years of arrhythmia managed with medicine. Now, it's atrial fibrillation, and the recent procedure may not have been enough - we're still working on it. I've never had a problem with altitude in Utah - until this last season. Someone who should know told me that my failure to acclimate after a week wasn't normal - I was huffing and puffing, never had that happen before. I'm hoping that the cardiologists can get this straightened out soon.

 

It must have been quite an experience going from Massanutten to Alta!  Of course, going from West Palm Beach to ANY place above sea level is an experience for me.


Actually I had skied at Alta and a few other places out west before I first took my daughter to Massanutten.  What's been interesting to learn is how much I can practice and improve technique at Massanutten in order to have more fun during trips to big mountains.  Wasn't taking lessons before 2012-13.  The bonus is that Massanutten has clinics for folks Over 50 that are quite a bargain.  The instructor is PSIA Level 3 and very experienced.

 

Hope you can get the cardio issues sorted out.  Being restricted to only ski resorts at lower altitudes would be annoying.

post #20 of 24
Thread Starter 

If they have good snow, the resorts in Vermont and Maine are delightful.  I'm just concerned now about the outcome of the cardio stuff. Give me snow and terrain and I don't care if the elevation is low. But I'd rather not be restricted. I may or may not have my druthers - time will tell, and it's be too much time, I'm afraid.  Thanks for the feedback and info.

post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe View Post
 

I read an article on the website of an Aspen outfit called Bumps for Boomers. They are saying that people in my age cohort should be on skis of 160 cm - AND SHORTER. 

Hey Oboe - I'm not miles younger than you, doubt I'm anywhere as good, a few inches taller and a few lbs heavier, and I'd freak out on a 159 all mountain, even a Stockli. More accurately, I owned a 158 Rossi SL9 for a time, great fun at modest speeds on a small mountain, tips kinda too eventful for me at anything above 35 mph. And that was a highly regarded detuned slalom. I've skied a 163 Stockli CX, it was fine at even moderate speeds, and so easy to handle that I was wishing for a 170. 

 

Put another way, get the 167. You don't want to overpressure the tips at speed. And you'll appreciate the stability in variable snow, even at moderate speeds. 

post #22 of 24
Thread Starter 

Beyond, your flattery is appreciated but inaccurate. As a skier, I'm not all that, never was, and now I've lost some of what I had. But I get your drift. The 159 probably would be too short. If there were a length between 159 and 167, I'd like that - but there isn't, so 167 it'll be. Now all I'll need is snow and a ticker that ticks right!

post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe View Post
 

Obviously, marznc, having read the article, I can't carry oldfool91's ski poles! I envy his life, not merely his longevity.  Unfortunately for me, I came to skiing much later in life, and at this age, it's not easy to make up for lost time.  If my ticker holds up, I'd like to be skiing for as long as I live.

 

And if you're the ambassador for Massanutten, you yourself must be a dedicated skier! If I make it back to Smugglers' Notch this coming season, and if you visit there, please look me up!

Quote:
Originally Posted by oboe View Post
 

If they have good snow, the resorts in Vermont and Maine are delightful.  I'm just concerned now about the outcome of the cardio stuff. Give me snow and terrain and I don't care if the elevation is low. But I'd rather not be restricted. I may or may not have my druthers - time will tell, and it's be too much time, I'm afraid.  Thanks for the feedback and info.

 

So how old were you when you started working as an instructor?  My coach keeps trying to get me to join the ski school.  But I'm having too much fun traveling out west to meet up with ski buddies for ski trips.

 

My daughter is in school in New England.  Gives me an excuse to drive up during the winter.  I had a very good time at Pico, Sugarbush, and MRG one trip.  Would like to get back to Wildcat and Sunday River when there is more snow. I met up with friends at SR in early Dec one year.  Needless to say, I didn't bother to make an effort to ski in the northeast last season.  Hoping for a much better season for 2016-17.

post #24 of 24
Thread Starter 

I tried skiing in college [1960, 1961] and we did not play well together. I accidentally had a reason to try again when I was about 50 years old [about 1991] and struggled. Then came the first EpicSki Academy in late January/early February of 2003. My coach referred me to the then-head of the adult program at Smugglers' Notch, and he hired me. My first season as an instructor was the winter of 2003/2004.  Since moving to Florida in May of 2009, I returned to teach for the 2009/2010 season [glorious, my best year] and the next season [got sick, had to go back home]. Then I had a hiatus in all skiing for a few years. This past season marked my return as an instructor. This season I've be teaching at Bolton Valley, where all of this started when I was 50!

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 › What length Stockli Laser AX for a geezer?