or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skiis for Clysdales

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Why is it that all the ski tests and testers are geared toward skinny people? I weigh 215 and from what I see at the lift lines and such I'm not an aberration. Ive bought skiis in the 180 to 185 length and hated them. They wre soft no stability, no snap, etc. Ive looked at the specs of the testers in the magazines, and its the same thing. Skinny people. This year I bought some Atomic Rex skiis at 191. You know what, They're just right but the common recomendation was get a 180. The 180 Big Stix 84 Ive got have a speed limit that makes them not as versatile as I would like. I do get to ski at Mammoth Mtn frequently where it is mostly above the tree line. I also ski at Kirkwood a lot. The Rex worked great there also in the tighter chutes and tree runs. I just wish that there could be some way to get more Clydesdales like me in the ski testing game. I really think we're needed. Sorry, but I just had to vent a little.
post #2 of 12
As a fellow large skier (currently 230 at 5'10", I would like to consider myself a "mini Goldberg" for those of you that follow Wrestling) I find I have luck with race stock gear, the real stuff, especially when I like to keep the length down. This year I am on the 181 Rossi 9x world cup with the adjustable aluminum/composite plate and couldn't be happier. Even with my girth the skis have plenty of stability at silly speeds. They are fine for the amount of crud I see in the NH area, so float isn't an issue, I prefer to plow my way through at spped then try to float on top. I guess my point is, the shorter length can work if the ski has enough girth, ie metal sandwhich, old school vertical sidewalls. I also use store bought race boots (not the real 'plug boot' ones they are starting to make availble to the public now, I mean the more human public versions) and I find the flex about right for a heavy guy.

Since you ski the deep backcountry stuff, you should try and see if you can get your hands on the stuff the sponsored freeriders use, however, this would be probably even more difficult then finding true race stock skis. I bet if you could though, a 180 in any of the pro-freediers skis would be perfect, the rebound and rigidity of the big public available ski, without the extra length.
post #3 of 12
Good question. I wish the ski rags would put out a special category for heavier skiers when they do their reviews. Then again, their reviews aren't much of a critique since they really seem to think ALL skis are great. I've noticed a lack of criticisms in the reviews offered in the magazines. Like they're paid by the manufacturers to say nice things about the product. Same goes for their resort reviews...

Anyway...I'd suggest taking a look at Stockli skis. I'm 6' and 240 and am using a 184cm stormrider XL. I tried the Atomics but I found the stocklis to be more my taste. Much more stable than I expected. Actually, quite stable and very, very fast. I'm having more fun on those than I did on my old 208cm Rossi GS skis.
post #4 of 12
Peter Keelty is a ski reviewer and he weighs 190.

post #5 of 12
At 6'2 and 235 I have to throw out what other people say about skis. I like skis people say are too stiff and too long. My BC set up is a 188 BD Mira. and they are only for soft snow. My farvorite ski is a 193 Head Monster 02 model I believe. My race skis are 196 Rossi 9X pro. Think Long, Think Stiff.
post #6 of 12
Glad to hear some Clydesdale input about the reviews, it's an angle that you don't hear much about. Maybe your experiences can help me figure out my new boot dilemna. I'm 6'4", 230, and have been debating back and forth how stiff my new boots should be. I'm about a 6-7 (out of ten)skier, so my ski ability would put me in a Tecnica DPXR/ Nordica W10/ Solly X Wave 8.0 based on the reviews, but I don't know what effect my height and weight should play into determining boot stiffness. In the shops, I feel like I can comfortably flex the Nordica Beast/ Tecnica Icon Alu, and the fit is the same/ similar to the softer flexing models, but those are "expert" boots, and I am advanced but not an expert. Any thoughts?? I've only skied in one boot for the last 10 years (Tecnica TCR, way to wide after I packed out the liners),so I have no point of reference. Thanks, Doid :
post #7 of 12
I am definitely a Clydesdale and I ski the REX in 191 and a randonee setup. It is a pretty versatile choice.
post #8 of 12
I don't want to sound mean, but IMO you need lessons. I have a buddy who skis well level 8 he dosen't like bumps, used to race. He is 6' 270lbs. Just got his Volkl 724PRO 1200 piston motion in 177cm and say's he having the most fun he's had in years. These skis are so fast, he thought his cloth's were going to come off.

We ski every weekend and have good skills, shorter is better.
post #9 of 12

I wouldn't worry about the designation of "expert" boots. Get a pair of boots that fit well and with a flex that you're comfortable with. I'm certainly no expert skier, but I ski an x-wave 10 because at my size (6'4"/265), I found the lower level boots to be too soft. If anything, I think the higher level boots help/make me ski better.

As to skis, I feel the same way. Get yourself a stiff, upper-level ski and you'll do fine. I agree with Max Capacity, you don't need to go exceedingly long if you choose a stiff ski.
I think that many times average size people have difficulty with upper level skis because they don't have the ability and/or the aggressiveness to flex a demanding ski. The sheer size of a larger skier will aid in flexing a demanding ski. I'm a member of Keelty's site and this advice mirrors what he recommended for me in terms of boots and skis.
post #10 of 12
I am 6'3" and 215 lbs. The ski reviews, particularly those on Peter Keelty's site had scared me away from many skis, thinking they would be too powerful for me. I am an advanced intermediate but do ski aggresively.

The best thing I did was demo the skis along with a good instructors feedback. He let me use his 174 K2 Axis XP's He's about the same weight as me I would guess and a powerful skier.
He also let me use some older K2 race skis in a 165. I had been skiing on X15's in 193.

Those shorter skis really can hold a high speed carve for a bigger guy like me. Inspite of Keelty's site saying the XP's are only for pro level skiers, I really feel stable on them and not overpowered by the girth or the stiffness. I bought a pair last week.

Bottom line is that the demo really sold me on the ski.

post #11 of 12
6'2", 220 lbs here...

Ski Canada Mag has great reviews for big guys as they have a better for light/heavy skier category. Link follows:


I demo alot and have found their rankings, as far as the skis being suitable for heavy skiers, to be quite accurate.
post #12 of 12
I agree with you on the ski testers. However, I'm 6'1" ~225 lbs. I have no problem making high speed GS turns on my seemingly soft 182 cm. Intiutiv 74's.

Demoed some 175 cm 6 Stars last week and they were more than enough ski for me. I've even found some 160ish slaloms that I felt comfortable skiing on at reasonable speed.

However, that's mostly for conditions where I can occasionally make contact with a firm surface. For deep powder, and deep crud, I'd rather be on something in the 184-190 cm. range.

I used to think that a 180 cm. ski was too short for me on groomed runs also, until I learned how to really ski them properly. Carving from the TOP of the turn, etc. makes a big difference in stability with shorter skis.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion