New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Advice needed on 6*

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Hey, I am a strong eastern skier, 6', 200lbs, looking to replace my Volkl P50s.
I ski all terrain and I usually ski fast. I have demoed a pair of 168 6* and was pretty impressed with their alacrity. Should I try the 175 length?

Has anyone skied the 6* in the trees? What do you think?
Thanks, Joe :
post #2 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleph
Hey, I am a strong eastern skier, 6', 200lbs, looking to replace my Volkl P50s.
I ski all terrain and I usually ski fast. I have demoed a pair of 168 6* and was pretty impressed with their alacrity. Should I try the 175 length?

Has anyone skied the 6* in the trees? What do you think?
Thanks, Joe :
Joe- Welcome to the forum! I am a similar size to you, 6'1" hair under 200, and ski the 6* in a 175. I am also an east coast skier, former racer, etc. I am pleased I went with the 175 and have no complaints. However, I never skied the 168. My brother is the same size as me and I got him the 6* in 168. He hasn't gotten to ski them yet, so I have no feedback, but I thought they would be better for him in the 168 because he likes to make shorter turns and I felt they would be somewhat less demanding in that length. Essentially, my opinion is that either length is good for someone of our size. If you want to make more short turns go with the 168 and if you want more speed for with the 175. That said, I can make all the short turns I want with the 175, they are just stiff and require some effort.
post #3 of 20
We are the same size and I have skied the 6* all season, starting October 23 to present on a 168 cm ski. I have skied all conditions: powder, groomers, moguls, trees, steeps and even out of bounds backcountry. I have logged about 800,000 vertical on these and easily clocked over 50 MPH on these skis and never lost edge hold or felt unstable. They turned tight in trees, and I won't claim float in powder, but have skied these deeper than anyone on this board has conceded is possible (see Powder Day at Sierra thread).

If you choose to go with a 168, I don't think you will be unhappy. I do know that a number of people have found longer versions of this ski more unforgiving and harder to bend.
post #4 of 20
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the input.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
We are the same size and I have skied the 6* all season, starting October 23 to present on a 168 cm ski. I have skied all conditions: powder, groomers, moguls, trees, steeps and even out of bounds backcountry. I have logged about 800,000 vertical on these and easily clocked over 50 MPH on these skis and never lost edge hold or felt unstable. They turned tight in trees, and I won't claim float in powder, but have skied these deeper than anyone on this board has conceded is possible (see Powder Day at Sierra thread).

If you choose to go with a 168, I don't think you will be unhappy. I do know that a number of people have found longer versions of this ski more unforgiving and harder to bend.
Cirque, I appreciate the terrain comments. I really like to go everywhere on my skis. My local mountian, Bromley, recently had knee-deep powder in the woods and my old P50s had a blast! I really want to take the 6* through some more all-mountain stuff. Thanks also for the sizing advice. Ski hard, Joe
post #5 of 20
Thread Starter 

thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kestner9
Joe- Welcome to the forum! I am a similar size to you, 6'1" hair under 200, and ski the 6* in a 175. I am also an east coast skier, former racer, etc. I am pleased I went with the 175 and have no complaints. However, I never skied the 168. My brother is the same size as me and I got him the 6* in 168. He hasn't gotten to ski them yet, so I have no feedback, but I thought they would be better for him in the 168 because he likes to make shorter turns and I felt they would be somewhat less demanding in that length. Essentially, my opinion is that either length is good for someone of our size. If you want to make more short turns go with the 168 and if you want more speed for with the 175. That said, I can make all the short turns I want with the 175, they are just stiff and require some effort.
I am going to take the 168s out one more time and really try to hit all the terrain available at Stratton tomorrow. Do you ski the trees on your 175s?

Thanks, Joe
post #6 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleph
I am going to take the 168s out one more time and really try to hit all the terrain available at Stratton tomorrow. Do you ski the trees on your 175s?

Thanks, Joe
I think you will be able to ski all terrain on either length. What p50's are you on by the way? SC or GS? Either way the 6* is going to be more versitile than what you are on.

I actually grew up about 40 minutes from Bromley but I am in law school in PA so I haven't gotten to ski any trees, etc since I got the 6*. Again, either length will work in the trees. I would go anywhere on my 175s.

Cirque is right about the 175 being demanding. I think it is as stiff or stiffer than my Fischer WC GS skis or any other race ski I have been on. I like the 175, but if you have tried the 168 and have had success why not stick with that length? Either way you will enjoy them!
post #7 of 20
Thread Starter 

and bindings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kestner9
I think you will be able to ski all terrain on either length. What p50's are you on by the way? SC or GS? Either way the 6* is going to be more versitile than what you are on.

I actually grew up about 40 minutes from Bromley but I am in law school in PA so I haven't gotten to ski any trees, etc since I got the 6*. Again, either length will work in the trees. I would go anywhere on my 175s.

Cirque is right about the 175 being demanding. I think it is as stiff or stiffer than my Fischer WC GS skis or any other race ski I have been on. I like the 175, but if you have tried the 168 and have had success why not stick with that length? Either way you will enjoy them!
Well, it is snowing here in Arlington now, so tomorrow should be a pretty good day to take the 6* into all-terrain mode. What about the Marker At-Motion bindings? I don't know much about them. Also, are the 6* very difficult to keep tuned?

BTW, I usually ski the P50 GS (got them on sale at Mt. Snow when I taught there).
post #8 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleph
Well, it is snowing here in Arlington now, so tomorrow should be a pretty good day to take the 6* into all-terrain mode. What about the Marker At-Motion bindings? I don't know much about them. Also, are the 6* very difficult to keep tuned?

BTW, I usually ski the P50 GS (got them on sale at Mt. Snow when I taught there).
Knowing that you already own the P50 GS I think there are two schools of thought.

1. Get the shorter 168 because you already own GS skis. The 6* in a 168 will be the "slalom" ski in your quiver.

2. Get the 175 if you enjoy skiing a GS ski, as it will feel much more like a GS ski.

Assuming you will keep the p50s, the first school of thought makes the most sense.

I can't offer any thoughts on the new marker bindings because mine have last years 1400 pistons. As far as keeping them tuned, I am not sure what you mean...No different than any other ski I have ever owned...
post #9 of 20
I don't know what the question is concerning the AT binding. It works well with reliable release and good elasticity, IF the forward pressure is set correctly. The binding simply slides on the rails and is secured with a single pin at the heel. The cammed pin has a slotted head and must be in the vertical position to lock. You can easily mount yourself, but have a professional release check; DIN is standard.

I tune 2 degrees side and 1 degree base, no detune. It will hold a tune unless damaged, just run a fine diamond stone occasionally. Keep in mind I ski west. Increased side bevel and decreased base bevel will make the ski track much more in hard conditions, but you might have problems releasing the edge. Factory tune is great, don't change a thing on a new ski. Wax and go.
post #10 of 20
If you realy are a strong skier, all ego's aside, you NEED to be a strong skier to ski the 175cm, if you want to have a mor fun time on the hill, buy the 168cm.
post #11 of 20
I have the '04-'05 6 star in a 175cm length. I LOVE THIS SKI! The reason I decided on the 175cm insted of the 168cm is because of my weight (6' 270lbs). The binding system that marker and volkl have come up with is outstanding! The marker motion AT with PCOS binding takes all of the bad vibrations out of the ski. I can't sday anything bad about this ski.
post #12 of 20
Thread Starter 
Well, I put the 168's through their paces at Stratton on Monday. Bumps on World Cup and Spruce, flat-out speed runs down Standard and North American, tight powder glades in Diamond in the Rough and the Ravine, some jups over the lip of Upper Downeaster and into the woods at Why Not?

I am impressed by both ski and bindings. And the 6* are damn fast! The short turning radius was great in the narrow cuts between trees, while the tight hold of the skis made the big GS turns a joy.

No chatter at speed and the AT bindings worked well and did not release me without a lot of force (when I took a dive into World Cup).

Yes, I think I will buy these skis.

BTW, lots of cutting new trails through the powder woods at Bromley yesterday.

See you out there this afternoon!
post #13 of 20
I am also making the big jump to the 6*'s. My God, these skis are awesome.
I am 5'9" 162lbs advanced, going to go with the 161cm 6*.
BTW, I love that sand paper/shark skin finish on the top sheets.
post #14 of 20
Aleph, good review. I sometimes come off here as a short ski advocate, and really thats not true. I have traditionally skied much longer boards. With the 6* the shorter ski simply imposed no compromise in what I wanted to do. Going with the advise to ski the shortest ski that feels stable at the fastest speed you want, this ski has no real speed limits at a short length, and can easily open up to high speed GS turns without feeling twitchy. In fact, I can drive it harder than my pair of 186 cm Dynastar 4X4. The shorter length remains the better option here for trees, tight narrow steeps and bumps; i.e. the conditions where you typically don't open it up to big sweeping carves, but need a responsive ski.

Anyway, I am more of a short ski advocate than I was before buying these, and can even understand the skiers on the Metron B5 in very short lengths. At the same time, we have to remember that there are relatively few skis out there that ski this long, in such a short length. The advise to go short on 6* or B5 does not carry over to most other skis.
post #15 of 20
Thread Starter 

6* Live Up to Rep

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
Aleph, good review. I sometimes come off here as a short ski advocate, and really thats not true. I have traditionally skied much longer boards. With the 6* the shorter ski simply imposed no compromise in what I wanted to do. Going with the advise to ski the shortest ski that feels stable at the fastest speed you want, this ski has no real speed limits at a short length, and can easily open up to high speed GS turns without feeling twitchy. In fact, I can drive it harder than my pair of 186 cm Dynastar 4X4. The shorter length remains the better option here for trees, tight narrow steeps and bumps; i.e. the conditions where you typically don't open it up to big sweeping carves, but need a responsive ski.

Anyway, I am more of a short ski advocate than I was before buying these, and can even understand the skiers on the Metron B5 in very short lengths. At the same time, we have to remember that there are relatively few skis out there that ski this long, in such a short length. The advise to go short on 6* or B5 does not carry over to most other skis.

Cirque, you are absolutely correct. The "shorter-the-better" argument doesn't pan out with most other skis I've demoed. The 6* are built right!

But I continue to test them on weird terrain. For example, I spent Easter weekend hiking Mt. Washington in N.H. and skiing Tuckerman's Ravine. My one complaint about the Volkls? They are heavy to have to carry straight up the bowl at Tuck's! But the skis performed extraordinarily well in the upper snowfields below the summit and rocked my world on the headwall! Actaully, the skis were better than I was. I tried to slalom a narrow chute between rocks, lost a ski and tumbled, then slid down the center of the bowl. The ski patrol thought I had broken my collar bones. But no. I was so angry at losing my brand new ski that I kicked my toes into the bowl and ascended again. A fine young lady was able to grab my wedged ski from the chute and get it to me about halfway up the wall. So I climbed the rest of the way, remounted and managed a much more graceful descent.

The weather was absolutely perfect both Saturday and Sunday, the food at Pinkham Lodge was great and thanks to all the wonderful skiers out there! One of the best times I've had all year.

Jay Peak next week! Joe
post #16 of 20
Thread Starter 

Buy them!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nix
I am also making the big jump to the 6*'s. My God, these skis are awesome.
I am 5'9" 162lbs advanced, going to go with the 161cm 6*.
BTW, I love that sand paper/shark skin finish on the top sheets.
Nix, I spent the money (got a great deal) and am overjoyed with my 6*'s. I think I am faster on these than my P50 183 GS skis. And yes, the black and yellow and the shark skin texture make the skis even sexier!

They performed exceptionally at Tuckerman's Easter weekend and I wouldn't hesitate to bring thim backcountry.
Ski with joy, Joe
post #17 of 20
I am the same size as most of you (6'2" 195) and I demoed the 175 this year -- absolutely awesome. I plan to buy either the 6 Star or All Star next season, but was debating b/w 175 and 182. Any thoughts on going to 182? Pure overkill?
post #18 of 20
Heels! Don't go any longer than 175cm! i'm 6-1 275 and it is definately enough for me! i'm a very strong skier (physically) but i also have the five star! the 5* ski i could go longer but for my everyday teaching ski it is soft and reliable at 175cm. what i'm trying to say is PURE OVERKILL!
post #19 of 20
Heels: Must agree with Reaper -- 182 is not for mortals. I'm 6-1, 190 and have not out-skied the 175's I'm on. Believe it when people say "go short." Sometimes wish I'd gone 168, but only when I'm feeling slalom-ish.
post #20 of 20
Borgie Is That You? I Thought Lube Cheese Skied Those 175's Like They Were Noodles! He Is Obviously Not A Mortal! He Could Go 182cm! Ps Pass The Cookies
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion