or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski Recommendations? [intermediate, tall, first purchase after renting]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Recommendations? [intermediate, tall, first purchase after renting]

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 

Hello!

 

Description of myself:

-6'0", 170-180lbs

-Started skiing the second half of last season, and picked it up pretty quickly. Based on charts of skiing ability, I'm somewhere between 5 and 6, depending on the chart.

-Will be skiing almost exclusively at Bogus Basin in Boise, ID.

-Based on asking online, and talking to locals, it sounds like I should look at around 95mm waist width for the best versatility (95-100mm is what I'm hearing).

-Skis used: Only the Rossignol Flash IRS rentals (172cm length, 72cm waist width).

-Looking for a good all-rounder ski to grow into, and will offer a wide range of versatility (not looking to buy two sets of skis for this season). Would like to be able to explore the entire mountain as I work up my ability (I plan on hitting it even harder this year).

-Hoping not to spend more than $300 on skis + bindings, since I don't have an opportunity to try-before-I-buy currently (though obviously lower is better).

 

I've looked around, and it looks like the Salomon Q98 can be picked up for around my price range (demo skis on eBay), but from what I've read they aren't the greatest when moving quick down groomed runs.

 

 

Any other recommendations?

 

Thanks!
ElectroPulse

 

P.S. (Obligatory comment: Yes, boots matter more. When the local ski shops open in September, I'll go to the best one (Greenwood's Ski Haus) and ignore prices, and just go with what fits best).

post #2 of 18
Thread Starter 

Hmm... Can't seem to find an edit button. Strange.

 

Ran across the K2 Annex 98. Looks like it has some good reviews. Also in my price range.

 

Also, what length would you recommend? Based on charts I've seen, it looks like the range for my height/weight combination is 170-190.

post #3 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectroPulse View Post
 

Hmm... Can't seem to find an edit button. Strange.

 

Ran across the K2 Annex 98. Looks like it has some good reviews. Also in my price range.

 

Also, what length would you recommend? Based on charts I've seen, it looks like the range for my height/weight combination is 170-190.

Hmm, never can remember what the minimum number of posts is before a user can edit their own posts.  Maybe it's 10.  In any case, keep posting and you'll soon have enough to get a Pencil icon for editing.

post #4 of 18

I'm on the same boat, ElectroPulse. I actually skied 2 seasons. Perhaps 20 times a season at most. First season it was the greens, and second season we (my kids and I) have been taking the blue runs (mostly Mt Rose where we have season passes, and Deer Valley, our preferred spot, but a once a year thing). 

 

Long story short, I am thinking the K2's Annex 98 might be a good first buy (already got fitted boots for the second season). They are praised as being good on the chop, which is the only thing that kills me (chopped up snow first, and slush in second place, are my real issues). I am 6'1 and 190lb, grew up playing sports and keep exercising as an adult, mostly weightlifting. It seems to me that the rentals i had (175 cm, 72mm waist) where way too narrow, so I would do well on groomed runs, but that was about it. The chop would throw me around. 

 

My main caveat is that I still need to improve my carving significantly (I am far from the beautiful carved turns you'll see an expert take). I wonder if 98mm will be a bit too wide to learn proper carving. The Evo-outlet seems to have these at a great price, but only the 184cm. hat would be about 10cm longer than I skied last season, but of course, this one has the rocker, which shortens the ski. I found another candidate the other day, I'll post here if I find it again. I think it was a Head, all mountain

 

Thank you all who have built and contributed to this great forum. 

 

Cheers,

Mendieta 

post #5 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by mendieta View Post
 

I'm on the same boat, ElectroPulse. I actually skied 2 seasons. Perhaps 20 times a season at most. First season it was the greens, and second season we (my kids and I) have been taking the blue runs (mostly Mt Rose where we have season passes, and Deer Valley, our preferred spot, but a once a year thing). 

 

Long story short, I am thinking the K2's Annex 98 might be a good first buy (already got fitted boots for the second season). They are praised as being good on the chop, which is the only thing that kills me (chopped up snow first, and slush in second place, are my real issues). I am 6'1 and 190lb, grew up playing sports and keep exercising as an adult, mostly weightlifting. It seems to me that the rentals i had (175 cm, 72mm waist) where way too narrow, so I would do well on groomed runs, but that was about it. The chop would throw me around. 

 

My main caveat is that I still need to improve my carving significantly (I am far from the beautiful carved turns you'll see an expert take). I wonder if 98mm will be a bit too wide to learn proper carving. The Evo-outlet seems to have these at a great price, but only the 184cm. hat would be about 10cm longer than I skied last season, but of course, this one has the rocker, which shortens the ski. I found another candidate the other day, I'll post here if I find it again. I think it was a Head, all mountain

 

Thank you all who have built and contributed to this great forum. 

 

Cheers,

Mendieta 


Welcome to EpicSki!  Although you and the OP (Opening Poster) aren't quite in the Clydesdale range, you might learn something from Clyde threads.  I added a tag link under Topics Discussed (right hand column in Desktop).  In general, a Clyde is >6'2" and/or >250 pounds.

post #6 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by marznc View Post


Welcome to EpicSki!  Although you and the OP (Opening Poster) aren't quite in the Clydesdale range, you might learn something from Clyde threads.  I added a tag link under Topics Discussed (right hand column in Desktop).  In general, a Clyde is >6'2" and/or >250 pounds.

I think 250 lb is too high and 6'2" is too low. Back when I ran in races with weight categories, a Clydesdale was typically over 200 lb. Height was rarely mentioned but I would say 6'4" would be a better cutoff. I never ran in the big races that had additional weight categories lower than 200 and over 220 or 225. There doesn't appear to be consensus for this but even more so for skiing. Perhaps a more experienced "ski fitter" could comment where they think these cutoffs should be, where height and weight really begin to limit your potential options for selecting higher performance skis.

For reference, I'm 6'6" and 225 lb.
post #7 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by XLTL View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marznc View Post


Welcome to EpicSki!  Although you and the OP (Opening Poster) aren't quite in the Clydesdale range, you might learn something from Clyde threads.  I added a tag link under Topics Discussed (right hand column in Desktop).  In general, a Clyde is >6'2" and/or >250 pounds.

I think 250 lb is too high and 6'2" is too low. Back when I ran in races with weight categories, a Clydesdale was typically over 200 lb. Height was rarely mentioned but I would say 6'4" would be a better cutoff. I never ran in the big races that had additional weight categories lower than 200 and over 220 or 225. There doesn't appear to be consensus for this but even more so for skiing. Perhaps a more experienced "ski fitter" could comment where they think these cutoffs should be, where height and weight really begin to limit your potential options for selecting higher performance skis.

For reference, I'm 6'6" and 225 lb.


Sorry, I couldn't remember earlier discussions of the definition of a Clyde.  What I notice is that for some activities (horseback riding, zip lines), the max is 250 lbs so that's what sticks in my mind.  Plus a good friend who I ski with is definitely a Clyde and he is 6'2", 280 lbs.  He was very happy when he discovered ON3P skis since he lives in the PacNW.

 

My sense is that most beginners/intermediates who are 6 foot and above, and renting skis usually end up on skis that are too short.  Even more so than the average renter.

post #8 of 18
No problem! Yes, 280 lb is a solid Clyde. Football player? I was on the basketball side of large. Some ski manufacturers do seem to consider the needs of the larger skier with some stiff, but accessible skis. When I started skiing, I was fortunate and unfortunate that they provided me rentals in the 177-180 cm range. Fortunate that when I started progressing to parallel skiing and hockey stops, they could hold on hardpack and were somewhat stable, but unfortunate because they were probably harder to learn to turn than a shorter ski.

For the OP, the Fischer Motive and Ranger series come to mind as well as the Rossignol Experience line. I've demoed these in east coat widths (80-88) and enjoyed them. If I was out west for a trip, I'd likely start there for re-demoing in the +90 widths, also Volkl Mantra but wonder if that would be very accessible for a new skier.
post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by XLTL View Post

For the OP, the Fischer Motive and Ranger series come to mind as well as the Rossignol Experience line. I've demoed these in east coat widths (80-88) and enjoyed them. If I was out west for a trip, I'd likely start there for re-demoing in the +90 widths, also Volkl Mantra but wonder if that would be very accessible for a new skier.

 

Thanks much, both XLTL and marznc for all the insight. I did look into the Fischer Motive, they seem like a pretty good alternative to the K2's Annex 98. BTW, these K2's have received good criticism two year ago: http://www.onthesnow.com/gear/a/1399/2014-all-mountain-ski-buyers--guide/k2/annex-98

 

I'll be looking some more before deciding on a purchase. On the snow rated the k2 Pinnacle a bit higher 2 years later (but the price right now is much steeper):

http://www.onthesnow.com/news/p/2415/a/612834/k2-pinnacle-95--editors--choice--men-s-all-mountain-back

 

In my case, I am somewhere between intermediate and advanced-intermediate. I need a pair of skis for the next 2-3 of seasons, and then (hopefully) grow into expert skis.

 

BTW, In terms of height/weight: it seems to me that a taller person, with a higher center of gravity, needs more length for stability, and a heavier person (regardless of height) needs a wider ski for flotation, all things equal. It is the surface area of the ski that will determine the pressure. But you are much more likely to have a ski 40% wider, than a ski 40% longer :)

post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by mendieta View Post

 

In my case, I am somewhere between intermediate and advanced-intermediate. I need a pair of skis for the next 2-3 of seasons, and then (hopefully) grow into expert skis.

 

BTW, In terms of height/weight: it seems to me that a taller person, with a higher center of gravity, needs more length for stability, and a heavier person (regardless of height) needs a wider ski for flotation, all things equal. It is the surface area of the ski that will determine the pressure. But you are much more likely to have a ski 40% wider, than a ski 40% longer :)

 

 I would suggest both asking parties in this thread check out evo.com. They usually have some pretty good deals on stuff, and their used stuff is always in really good shape. They're a highly trusted entity when it comes to used skis. 

 

As far as "level" of ski, you will find that there is less of a hard distinction between "advanced" skis and "expert" skis. This is a case were what you do on the skis is way more important than the supposed "level" of the ski on your feet. If you buy a pair of skis you like and that work for you, keep them. Don't think you have to change your skis because you think you need 'expert' skis. Its similar to the golfer who keeps buying new, expensive golf clubs because he thinks it's going to make him a better golfer. If his swing is crap, the most expensive driver in the world isn't going to get him on the green in one. Same deal with a ski. Tons of salespeople encourage you to "buy a turn" with the latest and greatest ski technology. It doesn't work. Ski what you got til what you got doesn't work for you anymore. 

 

Your summary of the correlation of height and weight to length and width is a generally good one. Taller the person, taller the ski. Fatter the person, fatter the ski (excuse me while I go dust off my 118 waisted boards... that I ski in the East :dunno). However, it's not absolute. Without getting too much into the weeds here, the length of a ski is also largely determined by what its purpose is. A shorter ski turns tighter, a longer ski runs faster. A longer ski also floats better compared to an equally wide shorter ski. A rockered ski needs to be longer than one that's not rockered, because rocker makes the ski act shorter than it is. So there are definite variables that go into ski length. Same with width. It's very much about purpose. Fatter boards float, skinnier boards bite. There's a time and a place for each. You might see a 6'2" 210lbs guy on a 161 with 66 underfoot... if he's running slalom gates on an icy course. Then you might turn around and see a 5'3" 115lb woman on a 172 with 100 underfoot.. if she's skiing a foot of fluff. 

post #11 of 18
For a good deal on a Ranger 104 or a Motive 95, check out Mogsie's ads in the classifieds of this forum.
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pacobillie View Post

For a good deal on a Ranger 104 or a Motive 95, check out Mogsie's ads in the classifieds of this forum.

Thanks, Pacobillie! I'll be browsing the classifieds for sure. I appreciate the pointer, I hadn't noticed the classifieds - cheers!

post #13 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post
 

 

 I would suggest both asking parties in this thread check out evo.com. They usually have some pretty good deals on stuff, and their used stuff is always in really good shape. They're a highly trusted entity when it comes to used skis. 

 

As far as "level" of ski, you will find that there is less of a hard distinction between "advanced" skis and "expert" skis. This is a case were what you do on the skis is way more important than the supposed "level" of the ski on your feet. If you buy a pair of skis you like and that work for you, keep them. Don't think you have to change your skis because you think you need 'expert' skis. Its similar to the golfer who keeps buying new, expensive golf clubs because he thinks it's going to make him a better golfer. If his swing is crap, the most expensive driver in the world isn't going to get him on the green in one. Same deal with a ski. Tons of salespeople encourage you to "buy a turn" with the latest and greatest ski technology. It doesn't work. Ski what you got til what you got doesn't work for you anymore. 

 

Your summary of the correlation of height and weight to length and width is a generally good one. Taller the person, taller the ski. Fatter the person, fatter the ski (excuse me while I go dust off my 118 waisted boards... that I ski in the East :dunno). However, it's not absolute. Without getting too much into the weeds here, the length of a ski is also largely determined by what its purpose is. A shorter ski turns tighter, a longer ski runs faster. A longer ski also floats better compared to an equally wide shorter ski. A rockered ski needs to be longer than one that's not rockered, because rocker makes the ski act shorter than it is. So there are definite variables that go into ski length. Same with width. It's very much about purpose. Fatter boards float, skinnier boards bite. There's a time and a place for each. You might see a 6'2" 210lbs guy on a 161 with 66 underfoot... if he's running slalom gates on an icy course. Then you might turn around and see a 5'3" 115lb woman on a 172 with 100 underfoot.. if she's skiing a foot of fluff. 

 

Great post, freeski919

 

So, yes, I've been using evo to browse basically by price range, and then looking for reviews. I am almost sold on the k2 Annex 98, except that I found a very through, expert review that doesn't rate them very high for crud busting. And frankly, my biggest issue is crud and slush (I mostly ski Mt Rose which I love, but runs that are supposed to be "groomed", are sometimes more like "natural" :)). Here is the review:

 

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2014-2015-k2-annex-98/2

 

Great info about intermediate vs advanced. I guess it's to some extent a matter of stiffness?. A stiffer ski is probably harder to master, but will cut through crud and irregular terrain much better (I regularly see experts cut through stuff that throws me around ;) ). As for the rest, I totally agree (though I know a lot less). That's what I meant that 'all things equal, the simple rule of thumb applies". I said that because, well, I'm a physicist, so some of this stuff is second nature to me :D, and there seems to be some confusion around the very basics in some older posts.

 

Thank you for sharing your experience. Looking forward to keeping learning and enjoying this beautiful sport ...

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

 

Great post, freeski919

 

So, yes, I've been using evo to browse basically by price range, and then looking for reviews. I am almost sold on the k2 Annex 98, except that I found a very through, expert review that doesn't rate them very high for crud busting. And frankly, my biggest issue is crud and slush (I mostly ski Mt Rose which I love, but runs that are supposed to be "groomed", are sometimes more like "natural" :)). Here is the review:

 

http://blistergearreview.com/gear-reviews/2014-2015-k2-annex-98/2

 

Great info about intermediate vs advanced. I guess it's to some extent a matter of stiffness?. A stiffer ski is probably harder to master, but will cut through crud and irregular terrain much better (I regularly see experts cut through stuff that throws me around ;) ). As for the rest, I totally agree (though I know a lot less). That's what I meant that 'all things equal, the simple rule of thumb applies". I said that because, well, I'm a physicist, so some of this stuff is second nature to me :D, and there seems to be some confusion around the very basics in some older posts.

 

Thank you for sharing your experience. Looking forward to keeping learning and enjoying this beautiful sport ...

 

The stiffness of the ski does have to do with how you will ski crud and chop. However, both can be used, depending on how you want to ski it. If you take a stiff heavy ski, and a light, damp ski of the same dimensions otherwise, they're both going to be able to handle the crud in different way. A heavy, stiff ski will let you blow through crud easier. A lighter damper ski will generally absorb more of the energy from the chop, and allow you to ski over it more. So it's a matter of what works best for you and your technique. If you're a power skier, you probably want a ski that will power through. If you're a finesse skier, you want to dance on top. 

post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post
 

 

The stiffness of the ski does have to do with how you will ski crud and chop. However, both can be used, depending on how you want to ski it. If you take a stiff heavy ski, and a light, damp ski of the same dimensions otherwise, they're both going to be able to handle the crud in different way. A heavy, stiff ski will let you blow through crud easier. A lighter damper ski will generally absorb more of the energy from the chop, and allow you to ski over it more. So it's a matter of what works best for you and your technique. If you're a power skier, you probably want a ski that will power through. If you're a finesse skier, you want to dance on top. 

 

Brilliant. How about slush? T seems like a wider, surfier ski would be best (that was my intuition as well):

 

http://www.epicski.com/t/93310/whats-the-best-type-of-ski-for-spring-slush-conditions

 

So, all things said, it seems like an all-mountain ski in the 90-100 with good carving capabilities would be the thing for me. I am more of a charger than a finesse skier (considering my modest level anyways). But I do like a 'playful' ski and the ability to pivot as/if needed. I've been doing a lot of reading. The newest mantras seem to be highly controversial. And I'm not convinced of a full rocker for a do-it-all ski (pure powder would be a different story). I am leaning between the Annex 98 184cm and the Fischer Motive 95 & 180cm at the moment. But still looking. I will try to come up with a short list and perhaps start a new thread to see if I finalize things

 

I love how they present the reviews here:

http://www.outdoorgearlab.com/Skis-Reviews/ratings?sort_field=score

 

You can prioritize what aspect you care more, etc. Anyways, this is way too much fun. And it's only a few months till snow here in Northern California. Life is good!

post #16 of 18

Just in case it helps others: see this thread for a similar discussion.

post #17 of 18
A stiffer ski won't drive though crud unless you know how to drive it. And a medium ski can be driven through crud if you know how. a stiffer ski can often misbehave when skied at slow speeed when you don't have good edge control. It is a bad idea to get a ski with an obvious agenda (e.g. a charger, or finesse oriented) if you are still learning. You need to Learn how to skid and be soft and how to ride them arc to arc in crud too. Or not... motive 95 should be in your wheel house for a 90ish ski.
Edited by tromano - 8/15/16 at 8:37pm
post #18 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

A stiffer ski won't drive though crud unless you know how to drive it. And a medium ski can be driven through crud if you know how. a stiffer ski can often misbehave when skied at slow speeed when you don't have good edge control. It is a bad idea to get a ski with an obvious agenda (e.g. a charger, or finesse oriented) if you are still learning. You need to Learn how to skid and be soft and how to ride them arc to arc in crud too. 

Great points, it nicely summarizes a lot of the consensus on the thread I mentioned above. 

 

Incidentally, and to your last point, a little too often I hearpeople being dismissive about skidding/pivoting (heck, i heard an instructor be anal about it). True: it is easier to do, but you must know it soon enough that you'll survive getting in steep terrain accidentally. And, to be sure, experts use it more or left depending on the terrain, but it's one of the tools in the toolbox. 

 

Btw, i managed to get some decent railed parallels on crud a few times, and it feels so heavenly. Still lots to learn.

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 Recommendations? [intermediate, tall, first purchase after renting]