EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Volkl 6 * length (or 6* vs k2 710)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Volkl 6 * length (or 6* vs k2 710)

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
Hello all. I'm seriously considering a pair of Volkl 6*s and have a question regarding length.

My background is a racer and coach back in the 70s and 80s who somehow lost my way. I've skied between 1 and 5 times a year since (on a pair of 208 k2 710s). Now it seems time to either get with it or forget it.

Talking with old racing buddies who are current and my research on the web, I'm thinking about volkl 6*s. I like skiing fast relative to recreational skiers, but have always liked SL over GS skis for free skiing. I'm also interested in a ski that might work a bit better than my k2's off the groomed.

So the question is: "What Length"? Of course with my background, 175s seem silly short and I can't imagine them being unwieldy, but I have to ask, should I consider shorter? (I also like to bomb a few runs when no one's looking. Is that even possible on these skis?)

Any information would be appreciated. Thanks in advance,

Steve K

PS I'm 6' and 200lbs
post #2 of 17
Welcome to Epic. You are in for a real treat with these new skis, and you are going to be amazed at the length recommendation. I am your height and weight and ski these in a 168. I have skied these in all condiitons from a diamond with skull and crossbone ("your could die") warnings due to hazardous ice conditions (Face at Heavenly early season) to deep powder (see this thread with pics) http://forums.epicski.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7 . I skied for years on 205 GS skis and began to downsize in the early 90s, first to 195 cm Olin Selkirks, then to 186 Dynastar 4X4 PowerCarves and finally this year to the 168 six Star.

Although your technique will need to change to make the most of these skis, you will eventually be able ski faster with sure edge grip and predictable carve at any turn shape, and still will have the ability to take these through moguls or tight turning steeps or trees. As a former racer, you may have an easier time maximizing the performance of these with a wider stance and high edge angles. I have also found they can perform well in a close stanced parallel "scarved" turn. You can "bomb" a run but tracking is better on edge, so a couple very long carved turns will work better than a flat ski.

The question of length is whether at your weight and skill level you can bend this ski into a carve to produce varied predictable turns, or will you overpower this ski. I guarantee that you cannot overpower this ski. The longer ski will however allow you to make larger fore/aft balance errors at the sacrifice of some manuverability. I have seen skiers that share our proportions skiing on the Atomic B5 in a 163 cm size and pull amazing high speed turns on groomed terrain. Length is no longer the measure of your skiing capability, but at 168 this ski will come to about your mouth level and at 175 about the bridge of your nose. I would not suggest anything longer in this genre of ski.
post #3 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thanks a ton! I know the techniques are much different now and can actually imagine my ski coaches hollering as I weight my skiis more evenly and less knee angulation. It might take a bit, but I'm looking forward to it!
post #4 of 17
168 seems to ski the best for the 6*

ski the superspeed in a 175 before you buy.
post #5 of 17
I'd say 6* in 175, same for the Superspeed. I like the Superspeed better myself.
post #6 of 17
I'm 6 foot and 175 lbs and ski the 6* in 175 cm. It is a great ski and very stable.
post #7 of 17
I am 5' 9" and 170 lbs and ski the 6* in a 168cm.
post #8 of 17
Thread Starter 
Thanks for all the Info! Interestingly enough, superspeed was my first choice until a buddy told be they ski a little like a super g ski, which sounds great, but not every day. Any merit to that claim?
post #9 of 17
No. There is no merit to that.
It skis like a GS race ski. In todays age of short, super sidecut skis, some people think that anything over 170 or with a radius over 20 meters feels like a super G.
I like the 6 star in a 175. (5'10" 185) and the superspeed in a 182. Those are just my personal preferences.
post #10 of 17
I'm 2" taller and about 10 pounds heavier. For your reference I used to ski 207-210cm GS boards, and never went below a 203cm SL board.

I ski the 6* in a 175cm and can use it for both GS and SL. Belive it or not I find it to be a "bit much" in the SL gates ... it'll work, just not optimal. Also, I find that it's "not quite enough" in an FIS type GS course.

All that said - It's the perfect club racing and all around ski for me at that size.
post #11 of 17
Steve,

I'm 5' 10", 215. I have a pair of 6* - 168 still in the box at home. (I'm waiting for the base depth to grow a little more). The 6* are notorius for having a small sweet spot. If you're on it, they are heaven. If you're off it, they are crap. This years model only has one layer of metal instead of 2. The sweet spot should be a little bigger. I've skied the old 6 star in 175 and the 5 star in 182, 175 and 168. I would not get the 182 unless I was exclusively doing high speed skiing on big mountains. The 175 is great for all around big mountain riding. I got the 168 because I ski mainly East coast hard pack.
post #12 of 17
If it helps I am 6'3" and 215lbs, I like the 6* in a 175, but I like the superspeed in a 182. The superspeed, skiing more like an all mountain GS ski, likes a little more length, even better if you like to let them run. And the superspeed is not as unfriendly as most of the shop kids say.
post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk
Snip---

Talking with old racing buddies who are current and my research on the web, I'm thinking about volkl 6*s. I like skiing fast relative to recreational skiers, but have always liked SL over GS skis for free skiing. I'm also interested in a ski that might work a bit better than my k2's off the groomed.


PS I'm 6' and 200lbs
Why not ask them there suggestions? You might just find one of them in your size skiing on a 155.

trying to reference to old K2 710's is just silly! I'm 5'5 and 155 standing in my ski boots---skied those 710's at 200 or there abouts--I forget.

My first foray into modern ski's was a Volkl SL Carver in a 177---the LONGEST it came in that year---ego was too big to allow proper sizing.

I've since gotten on Head iM70's in 170 and I like them even tho I know many would say they are still too long for my weight.
post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk
Thanks for all the Info! Interestingly enough, superspeed was my first choice until a buddy told be they ski a little like a super g ski, which sounds great, but not every day. Any merit to that claim?
Not in my mind, I've skiied both, and I felt that the Superspeed was more versatile. I use it as my GS race ski, but I like it in bumps and crud too.
post #15 of 17
i'm 5'9" and on the 6* in a 161cm and love it! I skied 195 to 200 cm straight skis. I say test them in a few different lengths and see what is best for you.
post #16 of 17
Funny when I saw "710" in the title, I thought "NO...he couldn't be talking about the old 710's" LOL. I too used to ski 207-212 GS skis and 203/4 Slalom skis. You weren't a MAN unless you skied that length. . The longest I ski now is a 175 in my 71 Platinums and I am looking to get some FB's in that length too. I would say try both the 168 and 175's.
post #17 of 17
Thread Starter 
The reference to 710 was just to show my age. I'm aware that carvers are a completely different paradigm. But it does bring back some memories: Phil and Steve Mahre, for instance. 223cm rossi rocs? Same era. And yes, I suppose ski length was a function of ego and/or testostorone... LOL
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 › Volkl 6 * length (or 6* vs k2 710)